On MSNBC Feingold said censure is appropriate, impeachment is radical.

I thought that censure was a device to use IF impeachment case was too weak. There are many in Congress right now gathering what they need for impeachment.

I was all for censure yesterday - now, I am not so sure since it's being brought forth as an alternative to "radical" (Feingold's word) impeachment.

Shouldn't we let congress gather steam, and evidence, for impeachment first? Then, if they can't make a strong enough case, THEN settle for censure.

Saying what Bush has done deserves censure actually pre-judges the case congress is making for impeachment, doesn't it?


From Conyers:

Is There a Case for Impeachment?

I appeared last week at a Harper’s Magazine forum which addressed the conduct of the Bush Administration and whether it has committed crimes that rise to the level of impeachment. A crowd of 1,500 enthusiastically heard from several experts and me as we discussed the tyranny of a President acting to commit a fraud against the United States.
Action Center

Become a Citizen Cosponsor of House Resolution 635

Donate - Get a signed copy of the Constitution in Crisis by Chicago Academy Publishers with a foreward by Joe Wilson

Watch the Harper's Forum online

Send a Letter to the Editor Supporting House Resolution 635

Forward this to a Friend

I need your help to build the case for an impeachment investigation.

I have conducted an exhaustive study on this subject and believe that we must begin the process to investigate this administration for possible impeachable offenses. As former congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman noted at the forum, a groundswell of public support is necessary for impeachment proceedings to succeed. There was overwhelming public support for pursuing a case against Richard Nixon, while these same conditions did not exist when the Republicans tried to impeach President Clinton. Public opinion is on our side and now is the time to make a difference.

Become a Citizen Cosponsor
I have introduced House Resolution 635 to create a special committee to investigate whether the president's misconduct rises to the level of impeachment. 29 Members of Congress have already joined me as cosponsors. Lend your support. Help build momentum to enact this legislation by joining the more than 42,000 concerned Americans who have already signed on as Citizen Cosponsors at: http://johnconyers.com/citizencosponsors, or encourage your friends to sign up.

Watch the Harper’s forum
You can watch “Is There a Case for Impeachment?” online here:
www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&Result
Count=10&BasicQueryText=impeachment&image1.x=0&image1.y=0&image1=Submit

Read the Report
Read the Constitution in Crisis, A 182-page report with over 1,000 footnotes covering the entire spectrum of deception, manipulation, torture, retribution and cover-ups by the Bush Administration. It can be found online here: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5769 .

Write a Letter to the Editor
Visit this link to write a letter to the editor in support of House Resolution 635.
http://johnconyers.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=
{E5BA9DF0-57B0-49D1-B27B-03A00710DE8E}

Thank you for working to help build a better democracy.

Sincerely,

John Conyers Jr.

.

that is all.

a blowjob . . . rtfm (:evilgrin::sarcasm:)

During this administration I have went from being described as a "Moderate" or a "centrist" to a "leftist" to a "liberal" to a "Looney leftist" and now I find I am a "radical" all of which were described by members of my own party. Wow!

movement going.

imo, pre-judges the impeachment case, so he's STARTING with censure which has the effect of cutting impeachment off at the knees.

too radical would mean tearing the Constitution into shreds, not punishing those that tore it up. And as for his comments on Sunday about "what's good for the country" - is a dictatorship good for the country? Are people breaking the laws and getting away with it with congressional approval good for the country? I want to see all the repubs in jail for treason and war crimes.

Dems making a play for impeachment before the 2006 election is a winning issue. Impeachment is not going to happen with a Repub Congress, it just is not. I know this is an unprincipled idea according to some. I guess I can give up my principles for the good of the many (that is so a real impeachment can happen if Dems take Congress).

articles of impeachment, and it isn't within Feingold's power to do much else about this procedurally as long as the investigation is shut down, censure at least provides another way to keep Bush's crime in the public eye (for those who are paying attention). I also don't think he was saying that censure was a alternative to be used *instead* of impeachment.

censure is appropriate alternative to the radical approach of impeachment?

When the MSNBC transcript is up, you can read it for yourself. IMO, he pre-judged and pre-empted any impeachment effort.

what I got from him yesterday was that he saw this as a 2 step process and did not rule out impeachment. I don't doubt your words, maybe he just doesn't want what he is doing associated with impeachment right now:shrug:

It's confusing when not every word is consistent, but like you I have been a Kerry supporter and if I give Kerry some breathing room, which I do, I'm giving it to Feingold too.

an alternative to impeachment, it struck me as a move that hurts the impeachment procedure.

Censure is procedure that comes when impeachment case cannot be made.

be made in the current Congress? It's a lost cause unless we get a Democratic majority.

and they should have the opportunity to make their case when the time comes.

Had Feingold just been for censure without adding that impeachment is too radical a remedy, then I'd still be gung ho on the censure wagon. Now, I see it as undercutting impeachment, even though I'm certain that was not Feingold's intent when he said it.

As it stands now, there is no way any GOP senator would be any more willing to censure than most GOP congressmen would be to impeach. However there are a handful of GOP congressmen who are more likely to impeach than there are senators to censure.

This Week and he didn't present it that way. I will admit that I thought Steph's questions (This Week) about "Why AREN'T you considering impeachment since Bush broke the law" without a smack-down answer from Feingold made me wonder if he's playing it to the middle.

Feingold's move keeps the wiretapping story in the public debate, and it is effectively fighting the notion that what Bush did was okay. It is harder for GOP news anchors to laugh off a censure move than an impeachment move. And Feingold can't even impeach, since he is a Senator.

People need to think of the larger picture here. We can't impeach anyway until we get a Dem controlled House. So we might as well take the steps that we can when we can.

doesn't he?

:shrug:

.

Impeach Bush, Indict him, Imprison him, then demand the death penalty for crimes against humanity, for both him and his administration.

That's radical.

In the eyes of the world, but their opinion doesn't count does it? I am no advocate of the death penalty, even in cases as terrible as this, so I would permit their exile to a suitable locale, perhaps Massirah, which is geographically appropriate to their ambitions. Or Nelsons Island, which is very possibly the most desolate place on Earth.

How many more criminal acts need the Bush regime be involved in before the supine Congress act.

Spent some time with his DC office this AM and they aren't able to provide a time. I sure don't want to have to watch these pukes until Russ speaks. :puke:

Right up there with conspiracy theory!

Impeachment is NOT radical. What the President DID was radical! Lying to start a war - THAT is radical. Illegally spying on American citizens. THAT is radical. Lying to Congress about the Medicare numbers to get the bill passed - THAT is radical. Changing the content of scientific reports from their ORIGINAL MEANING - THAT is radical. Thieving the treasury - RADICAL. Hiring completely unqualified hack cronies to run vital government departments - RADICAL. Closed door meetings with energy companies - RADICAL.

This President is a criminal. He is a MASS MURDERER. On HIS orders, tens upon tens of thousands of people died IN A NEEDLESS LIE OF A WAR.

What is wrong with these people?

Truth as radical. Lies as status quo. PUKE.

Russ.

While impeachment might be justified, we also have to think about the consequences of such an action. It'd be horribly divisive & wouldn't pass. Feingold could also be labeled a radical for trying. I think censure is, at this point, the appropriate action. Impeachment can wait until after 2006. :)

OBVIOUSLY impeachment is a radical move no matter who is in office and this action only helps make the impeachment case stronger.

peace

now....

If the house and the Senate switch then you can seriously speak of impeachment, and as is... I believe we have a bunch of cowards in the democratic party leadership.

I really hope he clarifies his goals here and demonstrates that this isn't the case.

If they aren't aiming for impeachment, then they don't deserve to be in the Senate. Because they clearly don't represent the American people.

I haven't seen any polling on impeachment and would be surprised that so many are supporting it. Is this your opinion or do you have a link to info that supports your statement?

that Bush lied to go to war?

I'm pretty sure that poll was put up many times here at DU.

the war when they can't even get Roberts to follow up on this after another, what, 1.5 years of stonewalling? I don't understand how the House Dems are going to be able to act on this, to get the evidence they need when they are out of power.

their efforts to reach the goal of impeachment.

Censure hasn't a chance of passing, either, AND it undercuts the efforts congress is making to impeach when you label the effort itself as radical.

out for an impeachment if you are not going to have full access to evidence and you can't possibly hope for a win. I think it's too important to lose this.

Impeachment is radical. It is destabilizing whether we think it is the right thing to do or not. We are living in a country in a FEAR mode and change is something that many people are frightened of.

Being in power would give us a fighting chance.

.

In my opinion the numbers are probably even higher, but here are some links:

Impeachment is another issue that shows the disconnect between elected representatives and the people. According to a January 2006 poll by Zogby, by a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President BUSH if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval. Democrats supported impeachment for this reason by 66%, 59% of Independents and 23% of Republicans. In an earlier poll, by a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want Congress to impeach President BUSH if he lied about IRAQ WAR, according to a November 2005 poll by Zogby polling. According to the poll, 76% of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 50% of Independents and 29% of Republicans. An earlier poll conducted by Ipsos in October 2005 found that by a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching PRESIDENT BUSH if he lied about the WAR IN IRAQ. According to the Ipsos poll, 72% of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 56% of Independents and 20% of Republicans.

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10686
(note: I am sorry that the only link I can find to this most recent Zogby poll is al jazeera, it certainly says something about the state of our media)

Here are links to polls from last fall:

The poll found that 53% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

42% disagreed, and 5% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/4421

and censure would be offered as an alternative to impeachment and removal.

No Senator is supposed to judge impeachment one way or another before the case is made.

anyone got a transcript?

peace

And since when did censure become a first step in the impeachment procedure?

i think it is a good idea, considering who controls the senate, and will only serve to reinforce the case for impeachment in the publics mind.

the more of these headlines the better!

all this over analyzing of ever step only serves to undermine ANY action being taken or even considered.

i say the more the better.

peace

labeling impeachment as the radical move while offering your move as the "instead" solution.

i think you may have misinterpreted his remarks since i heard him clearly say this was a first step on another show.

think how many times delay was censured before being indicted.

peace

the efforts to impeach though by making it the alternatve to impeachment. And whether he intended to do that or not, that's the way it came off on MSNBC.

the M$M will twist as usual but let's not help them in their mission.

peace

alternative.

I am FOR Feingold's censure - I am NOT for censure as an alternative to impeachment as he presented it this morning on MSNBC.

He needs to clarify on that, if he misspoke.

this is a FIRST STEP.

peace

"Congress may consider a range of other actions, including investigations, an independent counsel, or even impeachment. But at a minimum, and as a first step, Congress should censure a president who has so plainly broken the law. "

source...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/13/114144/941

this is important and he needs our support!

peace

Impeachment will not pass thru this Congress. With a censure there is a chance of success. Hold Bush accountable until we can get the dirtbags out of Congress

And why should censure be the ALTERNATIVE to building an impeachment case?

The Citizen Cosponsor link you provided isn't working...I checked it out and believe the link is this:

http://johnconyers.com/index.asp?Type=SUPERFORMS&SEC=%7B29336D51-F9AE-474D-8C08-8D69902D5149%7D

Anyhow, I disagree with Feingold on this one. I appreciate his efforts here, but censoring is a slap on the wrist. They DO have enough evidence to impeach. Let's get on with it and get this foul, law-breaking admin OUTTA HERE!!

when they discipline one of their own. Russ should know this. Interesting points blm.

It is a tank rolling right over Bush at a time when he is barely hanging on to the cliff with his fingernails. It has by proxy, devastating consequences for the puke Congress because they will have to go on record as either being complicit or agreeing that Bush broke the laws.

This gives Conyers more ammuntion to use on his resolution 635, which is gaining momentum slowly but surely. Conyers wants to make the case iron tight that will prove conclusively through witnesses that the war was contrived and that the NSA is a cover for illegal domestic spying. The censure proposal by one of the 100 most influential voices in the world as a member of the Senate forces a "do or die" choice to those puke enablers in the House of Preventatives the same way it will in the Senate.

Feingold is taking a brilliant approach to ramping up the case for investigation, which will then lead to the elections victory, which will then lead to impeachment.

He's just doing it in a way that Frist is going ballistic over but there is nothing he can do about it. The black curtain has been pulled away. This puts them all in a box.

as too radical when he was on MSNBC this morning.

"Because the Republican Senate will not allow for impeachment over (choose an issue), we must at the very least censure the President and his administration."

Make sure that it is clear that if not for the Republican majority, he would be impeached, and that they are covering for criminal activity.

It ain't much, but it's what we got.

was a radical measure.

The following is what is radical:

• The Patriot Act;
• Warrantless Wiretaps;
• The Unified Executive Theory;
• Creating and maintaining a network of offshore torture chambers;
• Willful lying to garner support for a war that actually had no justification;
• Outing a covert agent for partisan political purposes

We could go on and on.

as censure preferred over impeachment.

If by some miracle there are enough defect votes on the judiciary committee to get the resolution through, the vote would be delayed almost indefinitely by the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee has almost three times as many Republicans as Democrats on it and they are picked by the leadership as party faithful.

Once we take back congress, and particularly once Conyers gets subpoena power, then we can talk about impeachment.

It is easier to accomplish as a minority party than an impeachment.

It does not preclude a later impeachment.

It is a great way to weaken the president politically even more (as if he could be even weaker) during a mid-term election in which you are trying to become the majority party.

It could serve as a means to politically manipulate an actual investigation into the wiretapping program.

It keeps the issue of wiretapping in the public eye instead of being swept under the rug like the other Bush scandals.

Don't think of this as either/or. It's not a matter of censure or impeachment. Think of it as censure then impeachment.

I think it doesn't hurt to say the "I" word, but the main focus right now must be on winning a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress.

I really don't think Feingold is against impeachment. It's more that he thinks it is unattainable right now.

This is why I would support Gore for president. He's a plodder. Someone your typical American can get behind. I say that because I think Feingold is awesome. Too awesome for your average Joe. But if I were to take a blind and uneducated guess, I would say Feingold knows this, and is disancing himself from looking radical.

'06 or bust.

...are just fucking around with us? :shrug:

I've been getting that feeling more and more lately. These people are always, ALWAYS, saying one thing doing another, rewarding crimes, punishing good deeds, rewarding good deeds, punishing crimes, good cop, bad cop, etc...

I'm not being cynical, I'm genuinely confused by their self-contradicting, illogical behavior.