Censure for Bush & Cheney?

On Meet the Press Sunday, Senator Russ Feingold announced that he will be introducing two censure resolutions in the next few days, aimed at holding President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and other administration officials responsible for the damage done to our country--weakening our security by misleading us into the disastrous war in Iraq and shredding our Constitution.

When Meet the Press host Tim Russert asked, "Isn't this futile?" (sounding every bit like the arbiter of inside-the-beltway realism that he is), Feingold spoke eloquently of the need to set the historical record straight. What message does it send, he asked, if elected representatives do not hold accountable a President and Vice-President who have used mistruths, spin, manipulated intelligence reports and fear to drag this country into a war that is the most colossal foreign policy mistake in our history? What message does it send if we do not hold them accountable for weakening our security through relentless assaults on the rule of law on which our country was founded?

History must therefore record, Feingold argued, that when faced with an administration which doesn't recognize or respect the separation of powers, which perpetually acts as if the executive branch is above the laws of our nation, the people and their elected officials stood up and demanded accountability.

While Feingold believes that Bush and Cheney have committed what our Founding Fathers would have thought of as "high crimes and misdemeanors," at this time he does not believe it is in the nation's best interest to put important issues confronting our country on the back burner to go through months of a divisive impeachment process. That is a view shared my many progressives.

At the same time, however, a growing majority of the country disagrees--in fact, a majority believe Cheney should be impeached. And many progressives as well as conservatives --including Bruce Fein, former Reagan Justice Department official--make a coherent and impassioned case for the value of pursuing the impeachment process. The case for impeachment was given the airtime it richly deserves in an extraordinary July 13 Bill Moyer's Journal, program featuring The Nation's John Nichols in conversation with Fein.

Feingold needs citizens' help to develop and push these resolutions forward. E-mail your representatives, bombard them with your appeals and demands that they stop this White House from shredding the Constitution and, as Feingold puts it, "thumbing their noses at the American people."

We deserve better.

Comments (48)

1. KVH: .....stop this White House from shredding the Constitution......We deserve better.

   Visions of Sunday cartoon!!!! At least this WH has NOT flushed the Constitution down some toilet at Gitmo, which, for sure, would be impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors"!

   "We deserve better" (than worthless topics like HRC's `cleavage', Bush-mongering of "Drop Dead, Children", hypocritical indignation of Meet the Press inviting Pro-Bush/War guests.......)!

   Posted by Happy at 07/22/2007 @ 4:42pm

2. shit on... but not shredded.

   The constitution will only be shredded if in January of 2009, the chimp won't leave.

   although I have to admit, a video of the chimp flopping down on the floor of the oval office and holding his breath until he turned blue followed by more footage of him kicking and screaming and crying for momma as he is carried out of the white house by the secret service and dropped on the front lawn, might just be worth the price of some light tattering around the edges of our national charter

   Posted by Will C. at 07/22/2007 @ 4:52pm

3. The sooner the process gets started, the better.

   P.S. Happy and Zero your posts are incoherent. Impeachment-lite? Flushing Consitution down Gitmo toilets? Perhaps a few more clues gents so the people that actually read your posts don't have to puzzle together what you might be saying.

   Posted by srjenkins at 07/22/2007 @ 4:56pm

4. A first step to see if-- the '30' senate repubs against hsuB/cHeney failed and incompetent policies, will actually follow their own convictions and stop enabling hsuB/cHeney. If they budge, it's on.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2007 @ 5:05pm

5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNrS_0b1s44

   Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2007 @ 6:38pm

6. The House of Reps of the United States clearly have all the evidence they need to PROVE that Bush and Cheeney have used the Executive Branch "powers" as provided for in the Consitiution far in excess of legal parameters. Impeachment is called for. The Congress of the United States needs to get on with their responsibilities.

   Posted by billybenz at 07/22/2007 @ 6:59pm

7. Impeachment is the Constitutional remedy for abuse of power. Takeing it "off the table" is to remove that remedy from "We the People".

   I'd like to know what deal was struck by Ms. Pelosi et al to take impeachment of the table. Was there a deal that if Dems won back Congress on '06 Bush would fire Dumbsfeld in return for removing impeachment as an option?

   Bush need to be impeached, removed, not necessarily, just impeached.

   "All in all, the framers would probably agree that it's better to impeach too often than too seldom. If presidents can't be virtuous, they should at least be nervous." - Joseph Sobran

   Posted by COProgressive at 07/22/2007 @ 7:30pm

8. "While Feingold believes that Bush and Cheney have committed what our Founding Fathers would have thought of as "high crimes and misdemeanors," at this time he does not believe it is in the nation's best interest to put important issues confronting our country on the back burner to go through months of a divisive impeachment process. That is a view shared my many progressives."

   No, no, no. Only evil right-wingers don't want impeachment....ask ...well, you know.

   Posted by Mask at 07/22/2007 @ 7:53pm

9. No, no, no. Only evil right-wingers don't want impeachment....ask ...well, you know.

   Posted by MASK 07/22/2007 @ 7:53pm

   really sweet cakes? Yet the hamsters were the last to impeach

   Posted by Will C. at 07/22/2007 @ 7:57pm

10. I'd settle for either censure or impeachment, but I think removal from office is both unrealistic and dangerous. It could and would be seen as a coup and certainly would hurt any Democrat in 2008. Censure seems most appropriate.

    Posted by WillJeff at 07/22/2007 @ 8:12pm

11. Republicans have proven that while they can get themselves elected, they can't govern. History proves the point, recent history especially.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/22/2007 @ 8:20pm

    amen brother

    Posted by Will C. at 07/22/2007 @ 8:21pm

12. Everyone needs to get over this impeachment crap---the republicans were wrong for impeaching Clinton and the democrats will be wrong if they try to impeach Bush. We need to stop this silly gotcha politics when we lose a Presidential election. As soon as one side loses they go to work trying to find something to trump up into impeachment charges. We need to allow the winners to govern. Too many people out there are like spoiled little kids who lose a game and then throw a temper tantrum===and say "I'll get you for this". The way it is going the next President, who ever it is, will have their opponents asking for impeachment charges to be brought about two weeks into their Presidency. It is time for everyone to put the country first and their political agendas second. Neither conservatives or liberals have all the answers and as soon as the self righteous on both sides get over themselves maybe "We the People" can get something done.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 07/22/2007 @ 8:45pm

13. it's amazing how the hamsters are suddenly all live and let live now that their sorry asses are two steps away from the dust bin of history

    Posted by Will C. at 07/22/2007 @ 9:26pm

14. it's amazing how the hamsters are suddenly all live and let live now that their sorry asses are two steps away from the dust bin of history

    Posted by Will C. at 07/22/2007 @ 9:26pm

15. Condi Rice the woman who never got elected to anything and who, before Dubya appointed her Secy of State, never led anything bigger than a group of 10 people, was the conservative press' favorite to compete with Hillary in '08. Laughable? Read this.

    ----------

    WANING INFLUENCE Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice finds that her star is fading Joel Brinkley

    Sunday, July 22, 2007

    I remember the heady days for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. About 2 1/2 years ago, when she was new in office, I accompanied her on her first trip around the world, with stops in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, South Korea, Japan and China. Crowds gathered to see her limousine drive past; people whistled, waved and cheered. Interviewers routinely asked her whether she was planning to run for president. One TV reporter in India told her she was "arguably the most powerful woman in the world." She chuckled but did not exactly agree -- or disagree.

    Posted by Helen DAO at 07/22/2007 @ 10:20pm

16. No, no, no. Only evil right-wingers don't want impeachment....ask ...well, you know.

    Posted by MASK 07/22/2007 @ 7:53pm

    Maskerina, it's a first step:

    STEPHANOPOULOS: So if you're so convinced that the President has broken the law, why not file an article of impeachment?

    FEINGOLD: Well, you know, that's an option we could look at, if somebody thought that was a really good idea. There are other options out there. In fact, this conduct is right in the strike zone -- even though the Founding Fathers didn't have strike zones, they didn't have baseball -- but it is right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors. We have to consider, is it best for the country to start impeachment proceedings? Is it best for the country to consider removing the President? We're not mandated to impeach a president who has broken the law, but I think we are required to do our job, to live up to our oath of office, and say, wait a minute, there has to be -- at least as a first step -- some accountability. Proper accountability is a censuring of the President, to say, "Mr. President, acknowledge you broke the law, return to the law, return to our system of government." That's what I think we should do.

    Filed under: Intelligence Posted by Nico March 12, 2006 10:33 am Permalink

    http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/12/feingold-censure/

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/22/2007 @ 10:48pm

17. Posted by WILL C. 07/22/2007 @ 7:57pm |

    WILL, do I need to go back and post YOUR view on impeachment?

    Seems I remember it was in the "negative" column.

    Posted by Mask at 07/22/2007 @ 10:57pm

18. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/22/2007 @ 10:48pm

    Once again, HSUB's Impeachment Translator carefully ignores some parts and creatively expounds on others...such as---

    FEINGOLD: Well, you know, that's an option we could look at, if somebody thought that was a really good idea.

    Posted by Mask at 07/22/2007 @ 10:59pm

19. ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Posted by john maasch at 07/22/2007 @ 11:14pm

20. P.S. Happy and Zero your posts are incoherent....

    Posted by SRJENKINS 07/22/2007 @ 4:56pm

    Hey, I am entitled to post incoherent BS here! TN's writers do it!

    Posted by Happy at 07/22/2007 @ 11:40pm

21. WILL, do I need to go back and post YOUR view on impeachment?

    Seems I remember it was in the "negative" column.

    Posted by MASK 07/22/2007 @ 10:57pm

    oh no sweet thang. Please don't post my views on impeachment.

    what ever you do don't post my views

    Bwah Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

    Posted by Will C. at 07/22/2007 @ 11:42pm

22. Posted by MASK 07/22/2007 @ 10:59pm

    Well, what can I say, unlike Maskerina, I post the truth without leaving out both sides of what a politician says. Maskerina tends to only cite supporting quotes to not impeaching her masked true love.

    And nothing Maskerina says disputes that Feingold states that censure is clearly 'a first step'.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2007 @ 12:42am

23. WALLACE: Senator, in a hearing this week, you said that the president's wiretap program is, and I quote, "one of the greatest attempts to dismantle our system of government in history." And you called John Dean as a witness, who said that this is worse than Watergate. Senator, do you really believe there is any comparison?

    FEINGOLD: Actually, I do think this is worse. Not in terms of personal misconduct. Our greatest priority in this country is fighting the terrorist elements that attacked us on 9/11. But when the president breaks the law and doesn't admit that he's broken the law, and then advances theories about being able to override the law on torture, and having a preemptive doctrine of war, what he's trying to do is change the nature of our government. He's trying to turn our presidency into an imperial presidency. So this is one of the greatest challenges in our history, to Congress to stand up and make sure we still have the rule of law and checks and balances. That's actually why it's more significant than the very serious events that occurred at Watergate.

    WALLACE: But wait, wait, wait. That's not -- but Senator, I mean the fact is, President Bush briefed the congressional leaders, both House and Senate, Republican and Democrat, also the leaders of the Intelligence Committee, Republican and Democrat, both House and Senate, more than a dozen times before and during this NSA wiretap program. Isn't that a big difference?

    FEINGOLD: Chris, Chris, where I come from here in Wisconsin, if you break the law and you go tell people you're breaking the law, that doesn't make it OK. If you're breaking the law, you're breaking the law. In this case, the president does not have a legal leg to stand on.

    And we have this problem of one-party rule in our system of government right now, where the Republicans in the House and the Senate are not standing up like some Republicans did during Watergate and saying, look, we need to stand together and say that the president needs to return to the law. We all support wiretapping terrorists. But the what the president is doing here is a frightful assault on our system of government, and he has to be called on it.

    I could have proposed something more severe. A censure resolution is, in my view, a modest way to acknowledge the illegality and cause the president to return to the law.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2007 @ 12:50am

24. WALLACE: But none of them have talked about censure. So if you change the law, why not just change the law? Why do you have to call for censuring a president during the middle of wartime?

    FEINGOLD: Well, how -- are we going to have a system, Chris, where whenever the president wants to make up his own law, he goes ahead and does it, and we say, gee, Mr. President, you broke the law, that's too bad. Let's make a law to make what you're doing legal. What kind of a government is that? What kind of a system is that? And what kind of a message to our kids? If you don't like the law, just make up whatever you want to do and keep going. Frankly, it's outrageous. And if there isn't some accountability, apart from the need to possibly look at legislation, if there isn't some statement that the president can't just make up his own laws, what have we come to? Who are we? It's an outrage, and every member of Congress and every American should say to the president, Mr. President, we respect your commitment in the fight against terrorism, but you've got to return to the law. You've got to return to the way we do things in this system.

    WALLACE: ... Kennedy, Durbin, Feinstein, Biden, all of them.

    (CROSSTALK)

    FEINGOLD: Well, Chris, you know very well that people often don't show up for hearings even during the week, and a lot of them took off because the votes were over. Senator Specter knew exactly what he was doing when he scheduled on a Friday.

    But here's the main point. Chris, you know very well that I was the only senator to vote, the only Democratic senator to vote to hear the evidence in the Clinton impeachment trial. That I was the only -- the first Democratic senator to call for a special counsel when it came to campaign finance violations of President Clinton.

    I am one of the least partisan members of the United States Senate by all accounts. I call them as I see them. And if this were a Democratic president, I think you know and everybody else knows I'd be doing the very same thing. This has nothing to do with political ambition. Believe it or not, it's because I believe in my heart that this is a threat to our system of government, and I will say that on a Bible.

    WALLACE: And now that you've had your hearing, are you going to give up this idea of censure, or are you going to push for a vote?

    FEINGOLD: Well, of course I want a vote. The president has broken the law. The president has misled the American people in advance, and has thumbed his nose at the law afterward. I'm not talking about impeachment, although this may be an impeachable offense.

    I'm talking about some accountability. We should have accountability, and if we don't get it right away in this Republican Congress, maybe we can pass a censure resolution in a Democratic Congress, which would be a little more balanced and be better for our country.

    We have a terrible problem that we have a Republican president and two houses of Congress run by the Republicans, who are intimidated by this White House, even to the point of not standing up for the right of Congress...

    WALLACE: But Senator, and we're running out of time...

    (CROSSTALK)

    WALLACE: ... you make that sound like it's a coup. I mean, that's the result of the election. Elections have implications.

    FEINGOLD: Well, there's nothing wrong with it from the point of view it was inappropriate. It's just that maybe the country wants to turn this here to a little more balanced government, where you have at least one house of Congress saying, Mr. President, you can't just make up the law.

    You can't just create whatever laws you want. We have to go through the system of government we've always had. You know, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were not repealed on 9/11, and we all are unified in fighting the terrorists. But we're not going to give the terrorists the victory of destroying our own system of government in order to satisfy a White House that has very grandiose views of the extent of their powers.

    Monday, April 03, 2006

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190226,00.html

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2007 @ 01:04am

25. Yep, hsuB/cHeney have brought the USA a long way to not being trusted.

    CBS News/New York Times Poll. July 9-17, 2007. N=1,554 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    "How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Washington to do what is right: just about always, most of the time, or only some of the time?"

    Just About Always--Most of The Time__Only Some Of the Time__Never__Unsure

    7/9-17/07 ____2 __________22 ______________71 ____________5______0

    10/25-28/01 _10 __________45 ______________42 ____________2______2

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2007 @ 01:21am

26. Censure is a waste of time - it will have about as much effect on these clowns as a fart down wind. Shrub will attach a signing statement that says, in effect, 'I'm not naughty, neener, neener, bo, bo.'

    Impeachment and trial, and if borne out by the evidence against them, conviction and removal, is the proscribed remedy. It will happen when enough 'Pubecrawlers realize that the only way they are getting their seats back is to do so.

    In summary, censure is too good for these scum.

    Posted by skeletonman at 07/23/2007 @ 07:06am

27. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072207A.shtml

    Still think that this douchebag isn't trying to abrogate too much power unto himself?

    Impeach now. For ourselves, for our posterity.

    Posted by skeletonman at 07/23/2007 @ 07:14am

28. They won't be getting away with rigging elections anymore. The solution is to be rid of the entirerepublican party and let a third party emerge.

    Both parties have been guilty of rigging elections. The problem Frank is that both democrats and republicans think that the other is the devil incarnate---it's just not true. If we could rid ourselves of these sterotypes and people would stop playing upon them maybe we could get some things done.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 07/23/2007 @ 08:02am

29. Notice nobody brought up the probable REASON that Feingold is making this move.

    After his letter to Daily Kos poo-poo'ing impeachment, poor ol' Russ was probably swamped with e-mails threatening an orchidectomy (look it up, if you don't know) and he knew that he better come up with SOMETHING quick or he'd be in trouble.

    So..."censure" pops back up. He gets to say to his liberal base "See, I'm doing something".

    Politically, it's not a "first step" but a "stop-gap". Something the Democrats can GIVE their base, less than impeachment, and then still keep it off the table.

    Posted by Mask at 07/23/2007 @ 09:14am

30. BTW, it's not going to happen anyway...

    WASHINGTON (AP) -

    "....Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Feingold's proposals showed the nation's frustration. But Reid said he would not go along with them and said the Senate needs to focus on finishing spending bills on defense and homeland security.

    "We have a lot of work to do," Reid said. "The president already has the mark of the American people - he's the worst president we ever had. I don't think we need a censure resolution in the Senate to prove that."

    Posted by Mask at 07/23/2007 @ 09:33am

31. No "revolution" was involved in removing the barriers that let the non-landed, non-male, and non-white from voting. Just legislation.

    Posted by MASK 07/23/2007 @ 09:07am

    It's a first step whether you can percieve of it yet or not, remember you're the one that has trouble with evolution and intrepreting the constitution per you thought cHeney even had a point of being a legislator. As you point out about Russ Feingold pushing the censure 'again' as he clearly notes is a first step, per push back of millions of his constituency, but you can't or won't note that of Reid's? Imagine that, doesn't quite fit in with your flawed logic now does it. It's a first step and when the second step occurs I'm sure you'll still be arguing that the first really wasn't about building a coalition to impeach. That's what happens when one can't 'face' the facts or at most cherry picks them.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2007 @ 10:28am

32. OOOpps, wrong cut-paste:

    Notice nobody brought up the probable REASON that Feingold is making this move.

    Posted by MASK 07/23/2007 @ 09:33am

    Politically, it's not a "first step" but a "stop-gap". Something the Democrats can GIVE their base, less than impeachment, and then still keep it off the table.

    Posted by MASK 07/23/2007 @ 09:14am

    It's a first step whether you can percieve of it yet or not, remember you're the one that has trouble with evolution and intrepreting the constitution per you thought cHeney even had a point of being a legislator. As you point out about Russ Feingold pushing the censure 'again' as he clearly notes is a first step, per push back of millions of his constituency, but you can't or won't note that of Reid's? Imagine that, doesn't quite fit in with your flawed logic now does it. It's a first step and when the second step occurs I'm sure you'll still be arguing that the first really wasn't about building a coalition to impeach. That's what happens when one can't 'face' the facts or at most cherry picks them.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/23/2007 @ 10:28am | ignore this person

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2007 @ 10:32am

33. Hey, I am entitled to post incoherent BS here!

    Posted by HAPPY 07/22/2007 @ 11:40pm

    And we are entitled to point out your bullshit. And, hey, admitting that your posts are incoherent is the first step towards recovery. Congrats!

    Posted by BlueSpark at 07/23/2007 @ 10:45am

34. Bush/Cheney should be censured, then impeached, then tried for crimes against humanity. If found guilty, we should strip them of their U.S. citizenship.

    Posted by BlueSpark at 07/23/2007 @ 10:49am

35. CounterPunch July 16, 2007 By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran. Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of "executive orders" that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, "terrorist" events in the near future. Many attentive people believe that the reason the Bush administration will not bow to expert advice and public opinion and begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq is that the administration intends to rescue its unpopular position with false flag operations that can be used to expand the war to Iran. Too much is going wrong for the Bush administration: the failure of its Middle East wars, Republican senators jumping ship, Turkish troops massed on northern Iraq's border poised for an invasion to deal with Kurds, and a majority of Americans favoring the impeachment of Cheney and a near-majority favoring Bush's impeachment. The Bush administration desperately needs dramatic events to scare the American people and the Congress back in line with the militarist-police state that Bush and Cheney have fostered. William Norman Grigg recently wrote that the GOP is "praying for a terrorist strike" to save the party from electoral wipeout in 2008. Chertoff, Cheney, the neocon nazis, and Mossad would have no qualms about saving the bacon for the Republicans, who have enabled Bush to start two unjustified wars, with Iran waiting in the wings to be attacked in a third war. The Bush administration has tried unsuccessfully to resurrect the terrorist fear factor by infiltrating some blowhard groups and encouraging them to talk about staging "terrorist" events. The talk, encouraged by federal agents, resulted in "terrorist" arrests hyped by the media, but even the captive media was unable to scare people with such transparent sting operations. If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance. A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by the captive media as a vindication of the neoconsevatives' Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel's complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel. Think about it. If another 9/11-type "security failure" were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago Tribune that Americans have become complacent about terrorist threats and that he has "a gut feeling" that America will soon be hit hard? Why would Republican warmonger Rick Santorum say on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that "between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public's (sic) going to have a very different view of this war." Throughout its existence the US government has staged incidents that the government then used in behalf of purposes that it could not otherwise have pursued. According to a number of writers, false flag operations have been routinely used by the Israeli state. During the Czarist era in Russia, the secret police would set off bombs in order to arrest those the secret police regarded as troublesome. Hitler was a dramatic orchestrator of false flag operations. False flag operations are a commonplace tool of governments. Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda? Only a diehard minority believes in the honesty and integrity of the Bush-Cheney administration and in the truthfulness of the corporate media. Hitler, who never achieved majority support in a German election, used the Reichstag fire to fan hysteria and push through the Enabling Act, which made him dictator. Determined tyrants never require majority support in order to overthrow constitutional orders. The American constitutional system is near to being overthrown. Are coming "terrorist" events of which Chertoff warns and Santorum promises the means for overthrowing our constitutional democracy? Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

    Posted by jlsolley at 07/23/2007 @ 11:29am

36. STOP!

    C'mon....have you seen the Republican caucus in the Senate? They are ROCK solid. There is notachanceinhell that there are going to be 15-20 REPUBLICAN Senators that will vote to convict on articles of impeachment.

    But what should be done....TODAY....is that the Sargeant at Arms should be dispatched to arrest Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten on Inherrent Contempt charges. That is the CONGRESSIONAL tool that is SUPPOSED to be used to compel recalcitrant witnesses to testify to congress.

    The fact that the Democrat Party has not utilized this tool is FURTHER (as if anybody needed further) EVIDENCE that the Democratic Party is only interested in the status quo and looking good rather than actually doing good.

    Frankly Harry Reid is simply too old for this shit.

    Posted by freedomplease at 07/23/2007 @ 11:39am

37. If the evidence presented from impeachment in the House is solid (which most agree it would be), it would be political suicide for Senate Republicans to vote against conviction.

    Posted by jlsolley at 07/23/2007 @ 11:52am

38. JLS,

    From polls, one would think it would be more politically suicidal to vote for indefinite war....doesn't seem to bother the Repubican Senators that keep doing it!

    Posted by freedomplease at 07/23/2007 @ 11:57am

39. They have the advantage of uncertainty of outcome on their side when it comes to that vote. Evidence of crimes laid before the American public would be more cut and dried.

    Posted by jlsolley at 07/23/2007 @ 12:03pm

40. JLS,

    Disagree. There is no specific standard for what is deemed a "high crime or misdemeanor". Therefore, Republican Senators can and will do what Democrat Senators did when Clinto perjured himself.....they will admit he broke the law / was being unethical or whatever, but will remain united against impechment based on their understanding of what is a high crime / misdemeanor.

    And how would that be suicide? You wouldn't vote for the R bastard either way. The voter with the exact opposite viewpoint from you will only be pissed at his R Senator if he hands Democrats a political victory.

    But the reality of this BS impeachment noise is that the Democrats SHOULD be pursuing their CONSTITUTIONAL Congressional remedies to uphold their right to question hostile witnesses ala Miers / Bolten. The fact that the Dems shy away from this tells you how much the Dems care about the Rule of Law.

    Posted by freedomplease at 07/23/2007 @ 12:14pm

41. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6377

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2007 @ 12:19pm

42. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/23/2007 @ 10:32am

    Harry Reid, not Russ Feingold, is the Majority Leader in the Senate.....what did HE say?

    Posted by Mask at 07/23/2007 @ 12:24pm

43. Much more evidence will be brought to light in an impeachment trial. The case WILL be overwhelming for conviction. I daresay Republicans would have voted for conviction of Nixon if the trial had been allowed to run its course. I don't believe that any person that truly loves this country, regardless of political affiliation, will want to allow criminals and tyrants to continue to rule this country when confronted with the evidence of their misdeeds. Called me an idealist. Impeachment IS the Constitutional remedy for our current situation. Arresting witnesses for following the tyrant's orders is tinkering around the edges and solves nothing.

    Posted by jlsolley at 07/23/2007 @ 12:38pm

44. Some of these posts are too much. Too much like professional wrestling, that is. Some of the ne-con apologists' and Mask(erina)'s entries do remind me of Gene Okerlund and the WWF/WWE.

    "You're going DOWN, hsuB! You may be BIG but you ain't BAD!!"

    "Clinton's an idiot, and so are you Will! The Maasch and Pontificus are gonna drop the People's elbow on ya!!"

    "Barry25 comes off the top rope with a high risk maneuver referencing the words 'libs suck'! Luvvy and the capacity crowd in Sioux Falls can't BELIEVE IT!"

    On the actual topic, I hope that Conyers is going to follow through on what he said. Now is not the time for him to hesitate if he's brought enough representatives on board. The latest administration claim of executive privilege and the USA's ability to act on a contempt citation.... That assertion was breathtaking.

    Posted by Rapaport at 07/23/2007 @ 2:11pm

45. WE MUST IMPEACH NOW! The Bush administration has been carefully and quietly placing executive orders and presidential directives in position. These are documents not reviewed or approved by Congress. News of these are not picked up by the regular media. The latest are the May 19th Presidential Directive: NSPD51, giving the president the right to declare a national emergency and seize property, etc. which is going hand in glove with the July 17th Executive Order at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html which suspends fifth amendment rights.

    Americans are in imminent danger of waking up to a coup the next time there is a natural disaster or a terrorist farts. These documents will choke the federal legal system. The judges Bush has appointed have sworn an oath to the president, as was testified to by Monica Goodling, witness in the ongoing Judicial Senate hearings. These judges will be the ones who decide whether the directives and executive orders are legal or not.

    Executive privilege is being exercised indiscriminately to keep information secret regarding criminal and illegal acts against the US Constitition and the American people. With so many people demanding impeachment and accountability, the administration realizes the end is near unless there's a declaration of emergency powers which will nullify Congress and subject Americans all to lose legal rights under the Constitution.

    York Pennsylvania Grassroots has a tool! So easy, even a caveman can do it!

    YORK GRASSROOTS PELOSI POSTCARD CAMPAIGN at http://www.yorkgrassroots.org

    "Let the people create a noise that reverberates so loudly that Congress will be deafened to anything else!"

    YorkGrassroots is offering free downloads of IMPEACH NOW! postcards addressed to the House Speaker demanding initiation of impeachment proceedings NOW. Several organizations --including one of the largest impeachment web sites on the internet-- are sending readers to YorkGrassroots to download postcards.

    Life is Networking! Our local York, PA goal is 10,000 cards minimum going to Nancy Pelosi before Congress reconvenes after summer break. Another "surge" of postcards afterwards if she hasn't acted. We are striving to take this postcard campaign nationally. Feel free to put the .pdf download on your own web site.

    People can download and print cards front and back on 8.5 x 11 cardstock available at any office/paper supply store. Color or Black and White printer. Four cards are on a sheet. Space is available to add your own words. Sign and mail. (or make a master copy and xerox the rest).

    It's that easy.

    Posted by ljr at 07/23/2007 @ 4:13pm

46. You are crazy. Only one President has been censured in 200 plus years and that accomplished absolutely nothing. That guy is on the $20 bill. There was a time when I thought voting out the Republicans would resolve most of our important problems. I no longer think so. I don't believe that we can get our troops out of Iraq and stop killing people without diplomatic efforts that Bush, Cheney and Rice will never make. Do we keep on killing, spending billions, going over the cliff, do we wait until polls tell us that impeachment is guaranteed to be successful?

    Bush has repeatedly defied Congress. He has issued hundreds of signing statements, claiming that he decides which laws apply to him. He will keep any member of the executive branch from testifying before Congress and the People- that's the mean of his offer for secret testimony, without oath or transcript. He and toady Gonzales have a systematic policy of voter suppression, deciding who gets to vote. They have corroded the federal justice system. Congress has ignored Mr. Bush's transgressions. They came slowly; Congress acted like the frog in slowly boiling water. Censure is frankly ridiculous. "Words will never hurt me".

    I prefer the Democratic party. I know that power corrupts. It can corrupt Clinton, Edwards or Obama. Our country won't allow real punishment of the rich, not OJ, not Cheney, not Dubya. That's not the meaning of impeachment. Impeachment can restore the balance of power between the President and Congress. Those members of Congress who voted for the war in 2002 should be censured- we've spent 750 billion, greatly increased the number of jihadis and will be no more successful with our occupation than the Russians were in Afghanistan. Who's going to pay the trillion dollar cost of Iraq reconstruction?

    Posted by anciano at 07/23/2007 @ 8:34pm

47. Censure is a slap on the wrist, as was appropriate for the monkeyshines of Bill Clinton with Monica. But, not for these criminals and traitors, Bush and Cheney. No, no, no, no.... The House has the obligation to impeach. The Senate should let them get on with the job. The rest of us should challenge Pelosi to put impeachment on the table. This is the great issue of our lives and it affects everything domestic and international, by draining our resources and destroying our domestic safety net and our global standing. Bush/Cheney won in 2004 by dirty tricks, voter caging, and widespread voting machine programming errors. What is next? Already my phone, my email, my bank account, and my opinion writing are being spied upon. Now if I am deemed a threat to the Bushco War I will be stripped of my assets and hauled off to jail. Will there be a declaration of martial law? Will these nutso neocons nuke Iran just because they can? Will their be a World War III because the Dubya believes in the Rapture? Please, say it isn't so. Please, speak out for impeachment, for Cindy, for common sense and decency and goodness.

    Posted by Nancye Beld at 07/24/2007 @ 12:15am

48. Not only lacking a brain, doesn't have a clue.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/24/2007 @ 01:46am

    that would be a wonderful title to your memoirs luvvy

    Posted by Will C. at 07/26/2007 @ 12:14am