Senator Fiengold has not and is not planning to investigate George Bush

but he has summoned the poltical "courage" to investigate President Obama

Feingold Plans Hearing On Obama's Detention Policy

Sen. Russ Feingold plans a hearing in June about President Obama's plan to seek "prolonged detention" without trial for some of the Guantanamo detainees.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/feingold_plans_hearing_on_obamas_detention_policy.php

Way to show boat Russel. Nice to see you put your political interests ahead of our nation's interests. If you had concerns you could have simply met with the President, but then where is the publicity in that. Better to take Obama administration people away from their tasks of cleaning up the Bush mess and have them attend your side show.

Feingold exercised oversight during Bush's presidency and he's going to do it during Obama's.

Other chairs will exercise oversight over Obama as well: Waxman, Conyers, Leahy, etc.

:shrug:

oh yeah he was ahrdly in the senate..he was too busy running for pres!..How many times did he vote "present?"

Did Obama support Kucinich from the senate side..did he ever say he supported what Kucinich was doing in the congress with regard to impaching Bush..no he did not..

so come on..tell us..what did Obama do when he was in the Senate to impeach or censure Bush/Cheney????????? Sounds to me like you are taking up where the republicans left off..in smearing Feingold!!

wtf did Obama ever do?? oh yeah he did a speech that wasn;t recorded and he recreated in a sound studio..and oh yeah he said Bush did nothing impeachable!!


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/13/opinion/lynch/main1397694.shtml

Will Russ Feingold Stand Alone Again?
Lynch: Senator Takes Heat For Resolution To Censure Bush

March 13, 2006 | by Bootie Cosgrove-Mather


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Russ Feingold is used to being alone. He is the one in the 99 to 1 vote in the Senate against the Patriot Act in 2001 and the lone Democrat to vote against dismissing impeachment charges against President Clinton in 1999.

On Monday Feingold introduced a resolution to censure President Bush for his “actions in authorizing the illegal wiretapping program and then misleading the country about the existence and legality of the program.” He says the resolution is “an appropriate and responsible step for Congress to take in response to the president’s undermining of the separation of powers and ignoring the rule of law.”

There was an immediate outcry from Republicans. The Republican National Committee called it “Feingold’s Folly” and accused the Democrats of “playing politics with the most important issue facing the American people” and sending “the wrong message to our enemies ....”

On Monday Vice President Cheney encouraged boos for Feingold at a fundraiser in Feingold’s home state of Wisconsin and dared other Democrats to support the resolution.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

sounds like to me the OP has those republican talking points down pat!!..or the boo's Cheney worked so hard to get for Feingold!!

sorry but it is not working ..I have been reading your smear tactics on Feingold, and i would say you have gotten rather pathetic!...too many here have the utmost respect and well earned respect for Senator Feingold!..me included!

Seems to me that Obama himself is arguing that we look forward... and that it is the Congress' job to exercise oversight of the Executive.

Sounds to me like you're arguing for a double standard for Feingold (if he didn't manage to arrange investigations on Bush's "questionable" activities, then he has no right to the benefit of the doubt on holding hearings on Obama's activities), and for Obama (he doesn't need to hold investigations on Bush's "questionable" activities in order to be accorded the benefit of the doubt that he is indeed changing Bush's policies).

Seems to me that, if you are going to use Feingold's failure to investigate Bush administration actions in the past to discredit the motives behind anything that Feingold does in the future... then you would be forced to use Obama's failure to investigate Bush administration actions in the past to also discredit the motives behind anything Obama does in the future. Assuming you wished to maintain a position of intellectual honesty and integrity.

Why do you hate Obama?

Feingold did in fact exercise oversight during Bush's presidency.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8427830&mesg_id=8428368

In defending Obama, is it really wise for us to casually smear a good dem like Feingold?

is severely-under-investigated (war crimes, corruption, etc.) and dems are investigated for EVERYTHING (eg blue dresses). I'd like to see some balance in that. It wasn't about Feingold specifically.

legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred. Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution."

Did Senator Feingold not listen to the President's speech?

Feingold is trying to determine whether it's legal before he signs off on it.

Perhaps you just think we ought embrace George W. Bush's legacy and trash our Bill of Rights and Constitution in order to fight those terrists, subversives, radicals and comminists.

perhaps you should take the time and listen or read his speech.

I don't think you can either.

either our Bill of Rights or our Constitution. In fact he suggested the polar opposite of that.

Take your blinders off and defend our nation and Constitution.

Trashing the Bill of Rights and Constitution is my description of what is happening and I take full credit for what in the minds of many is an understatement of what is happening.

Did you think term "trashing" was a bit extreme and inaccurate?

What if I wrote: "President Obama is engaged in a major campaign to restore all of the civil liberties and human rights which were undermined by George W. Bush"

Would that statement have your glowing endorsement even if it's a complete misrepresentation and distortion of reality .... in other words, a lie?

I suggest you look at things with a more open mind.

I won't give an inch to anyone who is attacking our civil liberties and human rights under the guise of fighting terrorism, communism, radicalism, fascism or any other ism.

Isn't that what we're supposed to do?

(not the head of a committee or subcomittee in position to do so).

Remember be was the ONLY senator not to vote for the Patriot Act. . He has been denouncing these policies and called for censure on Bush.

This is ridiculous, and I can only thank Feingold for doing his job.

outspoken. I watched several of those meetings. And the Repugs were in charge and Specter generally caved after he said he would hold hearings. It went on and on for several years. Yet this OP (and in other posts also). continues to run Russ under the bus.

Leahy became chair in 2007 and currently holds the position.

but then, every leader has his or her sycophants. Just the nature of the game.

then again Robert Kennedy did say there are 20% of Americans that are against everything.


There you go depakid you got the golden rule. You were treated as you treat others.

In perfect knee jerk fashion!

he held that position since January 2007. Please get your facts straight.

You get your facts straight. Leahy is chair and has been since 2007.

as he did under George Bush. So we are back to agreeing with my assessment of Senator F. and his motives.

He gave an opening statement, but later when Graham was bloviating ad nauseum, Feingold had bailed from the hearing. Why didn't he stick around to question the witnesses?

The OP is a bit harsh, but I cannot tell a lie that I don't see where this is going.

Feingold meeting with the President in private as you suggest, might or might not have allayed his concerns, but it would have done squat for mine. Plus, what accountability is there for promises made in private?

Why are people afraid of transparency? Isn't this what we were promised?

all of sudden has a backbone now that Bush isn't President. Also another hypocrite who bitches about Gitmo, yet voted against funding the closure of it

how the Senate works.

And Feingold did not vote for the funding because there was no indication what would be done. And apparently, he was not wrong to refuse signing a blank check.

Nonsense. And what about since 06? Where were the hearings then. And the purpose for the funds were to close the facility. He didn't need a plan for it. You want it closed. Vote to fund it. Like I said. He's just another Hypocritical Democrats. And yet another who has found his backbone after being in a fetal position the last 6 yrs.

Obama put himself out there to close Gitmo, and those pricks voted with the Republicans. Even going as far as spewing their talking points

as the OP correctly stated Fiengold grew his spine once Obama left office

Our Vice-President, for example, voted for it.

Who showed spine?

I welcome his change of heart.

that when it comes to detention and policies that are in clear violation of the law, Feingold jumps on this hearing. Why not push for an investigation of Bush's illegal activities. A hearing into Obama's policy is not going to get to the truth. In fact, with everyone trying to correlate Obama's policies to Bush's, it's likely that if Feingold comes away validating Obama's policy (which deals with POW's), he'll give the impression that Bush's policy was justified.

Arrrrgggh!

to be apart of this debate

it's show boating

Investigation is very much part of what the Senate does. However, Feingold is not investigating Obama. He is having a hearing about a policy proposal that Feingold thinks is unconstitutional. I don't see any harm in a hearing, but I also don't think Feingold is a Progressive God for doing this. Thing is, Feingold is a true maverick, who mostly does not bring many other Senators along with him. That's good as far as it goes, but little gets done by his singing to the choir (i.e. us).

And morally we need to prosecute them and stop Obama from continuing their policies. Fiengold is just showboating.

answer me that

mean that it is okay to not have oversight now. I am for Congress doing their oversight job at all times and letting the chips fall where they may.

in our name, it was foolish of me to question his commitment to the law or his motives.:eyes:

Obama about the detainees. Uncomfortable and difficult questions will be brought up. That is what you are afraid of.

that is what motivates you.

I love the guess the other's motives game.

FYI, I voted for Obama and I still support him. Sorry I am questioning him but that is what I do. I don't follow blindly. And no I don't jump on any Obama basing vehicle that comes along. That's just in your head.

ever hear of the golden rule?

what does that say of your own skills?

your own fears?

His only co-sponsors were Boxer, Harkin and Kerry. The DEMOCRATS did NOT want an investigation of Bush for fear it could cost the 2008 election - a position that Obama and others all agreed to.

Here, he wants to investigate a PROGRAM, not Obama.

Nobody in the caucus had been informed. You are correct that a handful co-sponsored. But I simply did not see Feingold really trying to round up support.

Color me skeptical on this "dissent" from Feingold. Also, can someone please explain to me what we are supposed to do with these al Qaeda terrorists, who are a member of al Qaeda, but had not participated YET in a plot? I think it is a cluster****.

suddenly finds the political courage to investigate the man that is trying to bring the executive branch back in line with our Constitution and national values. More like I question the efficacy of hearings, at this early date and during a time of national crisis.

If he became chair and the Speaker had impeachment off the table, what more could he do?

We don't know and few are asking, what really motivated the Dems to be hamstrung? Something beyond mere political cover and allegiance to donors? Something more anthraxy perhaps?

It seems Feingold has a record of trying to do the right thing. It doesn't seem he should stop b/c an Obama Admin -- which promised transparency -- is in the WH now.

then again if he did them in the beginning of 2007 (when he had the ability to do so) there was far more political risk involved (even if it meant he could have made a difference).

The Dems have controlled the Senate since the 2006 election. The only thing that has changed is who is the President.

and that we still don't know what the Speaker's/Dem's real motivations were.

I'll betcha whatever tactics held them under the gun have changed with this administration, eh?

even if it didn't lead to impeachment.

What do you think this is? He voted against the Patriot Act. At the time, you were probably among those who thought it was a bad idea.

Feingold is one of those who is asking for a commission investigating torture issues, for example. I guess you are against it, as it would go against Obama,

So, what is it that you want Bush investigated against?

when it would have stopped the torture.

I feel totally at ease and have confidence in Obama, so I do not feel the need to trash a good Democrat to defend another.

just look at reality as it is. Don't distort it.

Not good for your BP.

I have this bad habit of thinking for myself.

:thumbsup: which fits in to the return to the rule of law.

foolish or false notions.

Damn he had me fooled!

a bit intellectually dishonest don't you think???


PS- Ironic that you bring up Krugman. How's his predictions, of a financial meltdown if Obama's plans are enacted, going?

and those other clowns. I have seen nothing besides some short term theatre and blips to make me feel better about most of this administration's economic policies.

who exactly are the clowns again?

Please, name some.

:eyes:

you forget all of Krugman's predictions of disaster if Obama got his way.

Given ALL of Krugman's "predictions of disaster", you should be able to name one that convincingly did not come to pass.

in this article

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/opinion/09krugman.html

Interesting double standard.

and now he has already been shown to be wrong. That's what happens when people put personal agendas ahead of the truth or the facts, they are end up looking like fools.

:eyes:

reason or fact

Once again: name one single prediction of Krugman's that has been disproven. Just. One.

On second thought, don't bother. If you actually had an answer you'd have given it by now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/opinion/09krugman.html

maybe the eye rolling was your best trick

I've already read that column, as I read all of Krugman's columns. If there was a faulty prediction in there, you would have pointed it out.

As it is, you're just hoping to keep sidestepping the question until we forget you made a knee-jerk assertion completely unsupported by evidence.

The events since that article have clearly shown Krugman wrong. So either Krugman is clueless about Economics, which I highly doubt, or he had an agenda of undermining the public's confidence in the eonomcy and the President. You can deny it all you want, but the facts will remain

"The events since that article have clearly shown Krugman wrong"

This is what's known as an "opinion". An opinion, I might add, that you have been unable to support with even the slightest piece of original thought.


Look, this really shouldn't be that hard. List a prediction, then show how it has been "proven wrong". Q.E.D.

Or, conversely, just admit you were blowing smoke at yet another person who disagreed with your President Binky.

Weird, huh?

... when taking a look at the ihateobama crowd on this thread who're rushing to defend Feingold for not investigating torture by BushCo.

LITERALLY

nothing.


Now, I am not surprised that some here are offended that Feingold does his job now that Obama is president, but saying he did not do it before is largely idiotic and makes me wonder where they were in the last 8 years. Feingold DID his job. Others did not.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/10/27/feingold/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/18/bush.nsa/

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/67969/feingold_moves_to_censure_bush

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june09/bush_03-04.html (Call for investigation of Bush in 2009)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/03/hearing_vowed_on_bushs_powers/

Edited: this is only a small list, just to refresh our memories. Because a hearing or a call did not succeed does not mean he did not do anything.

:toast:

counting on people not really reading? You counted on them just being impressed by the number of links.

- Disappointed but still defiant, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc. -- the Senate's lone dissenter against the sweeping antiterrorism legislation signed into law by President Bush Friday -- expressed his regrets on Friday about everything, from the name to the debate to the content of the bill.

"I would have loved to have voted for it," says the two-term liberal Democrat. "But my view of my job is to do what I think is right, not to be cowed by the name of the bill."

KWAME HOLMAN: Democrat Russ Feingold stressed the commission would be bipartisan.

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD, D-Wisc.: There should not be a focus on retribution or payback, and such an effort should not be used for partisan purposes.

And a few of the hearings Feingold held in 2007-2008

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3550

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3420

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3305

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=2679

Not counting hearings that Leahy held in full committee.

So other than planning to investigate President Obama, what has he done on the matter?

means you're a 'fake liberal'.

Why is it so hard for some people to just concede a fucking point already?

and UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

Or don't you care--it doesn't matter as long as it's Obama doing it?

One would think you would welcome the scrutiny into questionable and constitutionally borderline policies after 8 years of seeing the Constitution get trashed--but no, you're all twisted because feingold single-handedly did not investigate, impeach, indict, and imprison the entire Bush administration, because what kind of support would he have had?

When a republican inevitably becomes president again and Congress is again controlled by right-wingers, you can thank Obama if you end up in some gulag with no charges against you, no sentence, and no hope, for an antiwar demo you were in, perhaps, or a phone call that was wiretapped in which you expressed your disdain for the president.

I do remember that Feingold did stand out over the Bush years as one who did try to oppose him and investigate, who did not vote in lockstep. But I don't really care--Obama has been making "promises" that didn't pan out, and getting all cozy-like with corporate interests, and he persists in covering up for Bush's crimes and treason and seems fond of waging illegal war and so on, and now proposing illegal powers of detention that out-bush Bush, so I say, investigate the hell out of it, as Congress is SUPPOSED to do. If the plan is okay, what are you so worried about?

:eyes:

it deserves a response from you, imo.

Senators now? You're aiming high.

:thumbsup:

and make fun of fat people. I guess you do more than just that.

:thumbsup:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

However I am pretty sure true liberals don't verbally abuse homeless people, make fun of people that are over weight or abuse people about their medical problems. With that being your background, I will take your unsubstantiated opinion with a rather large grain of salt. True liberals are motivated by compassion above all else.

process.

So I will take this as a compliment. Thank you

THis is the quote I am refering to (so there is no doubt)

Edited on Sat May-23-09 06:44 PM by snowdays
"I think it is evident that Pres. Obama has no intention of giving up any executive powers that Bush grabbed and Obama inherited. No one!"

critique him as needed. And I am glad Russ will do some oversite hearings.

You are into strawmanese by attacking me. You know little of me yet you feel free to attack. Shameful. As is your attack on Russ Feingold.

...................
......I have seen what you "think" of President Obama
Posted by NJmaverick


So I will take this as a compliment. Thank you.........

How do your reconcile those seemingly contradictory ideas? On the one hand you say he is wonderful and on the other you claim he is power hungry.

Edit to add: are your attacks shameful or are just other people's "attacks" shameful?

you dispute this?

I think Obama will make a real effort to restore the constitutional restraints to the executive office. Beyond his strong understanding and backgroun, as a Constitutional professor, the president has been accutely aware of the damage Bush's unrestrained power grab caused our nation.

has handed him.

the WH is involved in or has responded to. You will become educated (maybe).

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So Congress conducting oversight of the executive branch is putting the nations interest last? Isn't that what congress is supposed to do? Maybe we should amend to constitution to say that only a "R" can conduct oversight of a "D" and only a "D" can conduct oversight of an "R".

I'm just curious do you really think that a private meeting with the president to resolve Sen Feingolds concerns is conducive with open government?


-nnnm

a senator can't just go knock on the President's door and have a chat. Invitations to meetings with the prez are at a premium and so far it seems (for understandable reasons) that the face time has been going mostly to centrists and blue dogs who might block his agenda.

What he can do is write letters, and I'm sure he has written several so far, as he did with Bush, the much-ridiculed "strongly-worded letters."

But he can also hold hearings, which he did with Bush and will do with Obama in the future. And so will Conyers and Leahy and Waxman, as they also did with Bush.

8 miserable years of Bush/Cheney.

he loves the flame and attention.

Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent's.

Examples:

* "You can't believe Jack when he says God exists because he doesn't even have a job."
* "Candidate Jane Jones's proposal X is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."

Your opening post is a textbook case of the fallacy. It doesn't matter if people disagree with your characterization of Feingold's political history, because it is completely irrelevant. You're trying to change the subject from the legality of Obama's detention program.

I knwo a lot of DU see this guy as a saint or something but in my opinion he has been nothing but a lot of barking for a long time now with virtualy no bite and oft times his barking is sadly misplaced.