Emily ... "Shouldn't they be proud?"

Of what pray tell? "Standing up to Bush" is no substitute for a principled policy, or is it?

Feingold ... clearly principle. This is not the first time he has stood alone. Not that I agree with his resolution here; I would sooner see the courts smack this assertion of power down decisively.

I'm afraid this topic will bring out the worst among us, a Bush bashing lefty debate over to censure or to impeach. Think I'll wait for the new NSS :o)

Dear Emily,
Why are you blocking me? what did I do?

A few questions for you:

Who did send the antrax letters to the US Senators?

Why did the buildings surrounding the WTC collapse on 911?

Thank you for your understanding.

Yours truly,
Confused Che

You were not blocked, Che. I told you days ago to stop using the comments to post news and opinion stories (and long ones at that) having nothing to do with the subject at hand. Comments are for ORIGINAL THOUGHTS and your own analysis, not simply regurgitating other people's words.

Don't remember my message to you? Here's a reminder:
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2006/03/is_it_civil_war.html#comments

In spite of my request (and several requests from other Debaters), you persisted. I tried to be nice and simply edit the posts down to just the headlineand link. Still, you were undeterred. Therefore I finally did what I said I would do and immediately deleted the two articles you posted to this blog last night. It's not worth trying to sneak them in overnight. I don't sleep.

*On-topic* comments that are *in*your*own*words* are still welcome. Cut-and-paste articles are not.

Thank you for doing that to Che Emily. He drives everyone nuts. No reads his garbage anyway so get a thought on the topic or take a hike Che. I know you won't but hey, worth a try.

Everything about Democrats drives me crazy. The lack of unity. The lack of message. The lack of leadership. This should be a grand time for Dems with all the GOP messes. Obviously the Dems think the GOP just shooting themselves in the foot over and over again is enough. Dangerous game though. It may well be enough for 2006. Something much bigger has to happen before 2008. They better not mess this up. At least Feingold is TRYING to do something, anything...

For anyone who's been paying attention, this is entirely consistent with Feingold from start to finish.

And he's right.

And George Clooney is right.

The Dems were thrown into disarray by Rove and Luntz, melted into a bunch of spineless wimps, and never recovered. The only strategy I can foresee for them is to let Hillary be the whipping boy and absorb the destruction, so a relatively unscathed late night dark horse like Bill Clinton can emerge in the race after New Hampshire in 2008 having escaped the politics of personal destruction.

But the people in whom I am by far the most disappointed are the moderate Repubs, the Hagels and Snowe and Chaffees and Collins and Specters etc who caved on the domestic spying and abuse of intelligence. Unlike the Dems they had shown some spine and now they're gone too. This is even more of a disappointment than the dissolution of the Dems, who didn't have the power to make things happen anyway.

Is there anyone remaining who will speak for the center?

Our leaders take an oath to God to protect and defend the US Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic! They don't take an oath to Protect Israel, Iraq, George WMD Bush, The GOP, or the DNC! Fluff up your feather pillows and keep that tar on the back burner! If we are going to end Tyranny in our world we should start with the Republcans AND Democrats in the US Government, US Terrorist Forces, & the US Corporate Media!

BTW: It's been 1,641 days since George WMD Bush said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!' I think he's dead, and I don't think he was behind war games on 9/11, the USAF standdown, the US Military Anthrax Attack (google Dr. Phillip Zack)! The territorial pissings in Iraq are raging, the US is preparing military aggression against Iran, Iran is going to dump its petrodollars 3/20, Bush needs an attack!
Cui Bono! How does Pre emptive martial law square with Freedom, Dissent, & Democracy?

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/
"...we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Bolton compares Iran WMD threat to Sept. 11 attacks?
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_14150.shtml
"Just like Sept. 11, only with nuclear weapons this time, that's the threat. I think that is the threat?"

John Bolton is right when he compares 911 to what "may" happen if Iran is not dealt with. This is simply and only because the same people will be behind the orchestration of mass terror, and most Americans probably now know, as I do, that the evidence of 911 points in other directions than Arabs or anything remotely connected to Iran.

In a way, the people are terrorizing the power elite, while at the same time the power elite is waging terror on the world's people to keep them "in line". There is a two-way war of terror being waged constantly, whether we want to admit it or not.

The democrats aren't rallying around Feingold because they know its going to kill them in '06 and potentially '08. They are already viewed as (rightly or no) as being soft on national security. Jumping on Feingold's bandwagon will further undermine any credibility they've been trying to build up viv-a-vis national security (Dubai ports deal, Iran, etc.)because whatever the legal nuances of NSA wiretapping, it will simply boil down to "Look, the Democrats want to censure the president over intercepting terrorist communications"

They can't be THAT stupid. Keep this up, and I'm afraid the Dems are going to become the Whigs of the 21st century.

Democrats need to, get a backbone and stop fearing the Republicans. If demos don't stop Bush we arfe all doomed for many years. Feingold needs to be backed by all the demos not just one. Demos need to stop talking a good game and start doing a good game.

The interesting thing is that the GOP seems to think that Feingold's parlamentary procedure is going to whip up their 'base' and get it energized. It'll be interesting to see if the polls back that up. I know that R's rely on blind, unthinking allegiance among their members but Bush isn't exactly Mr. Wonderful these days. Once Fox News- and Limbaugh-fatigue set in amongst those being stirred-up by that component of the media, will they really think that censure is such a bad idea? This is an interesting test of just how low Bush's approval numbers have sunk. The recalcitrant 36% or so will continue to shout and scream and gloat prematurely (in blogs like this one). What about everybody else?

Look. I am no political expert but, if the polls are to be believed, The American people are already censuring Bush.

Whenever something like this comes up, the republicans somehow manage to turn the media's focus on the democrats. When are the national media ever going to catch on that they are being manipulated by Bush and his anus adoring supporters--all 34% of them?

The people are sending both Bush and the media a message--that they have had it up to their necks with all of the bulls#*t! And the turning of the screws on the democrats just when they have Bush on the ropes is Exhibit A of just how easily manipulated into making democrats the issue--even though they do not have control of a single branch of government--this pathetically incompetent media is.

The more incompetent Bush gets, he is matched by the incompetence of the media.

Emily, a word of wisdom for the media. Everytime the republicans express a sentiment--ie, that they are literally ecstatic about Feingold's threat of a censure of George W. Bush--does not mean they have to dutifully play up the very spin they want played up--that the democrats are cowardly and craven.

When the media focuses on the democrats hiding from the Bush censure proposal, they fall right smack dab into the hands of the administration and of the republicans who want to deflect attention away from the unprecedented incompetence of this administration.

The censure isn't about the cowardice of the democrats. It isn't about Feingold's Presidential aspirations. It isn't about the 2006 Congressional elections. It is about how this incompetent, corrupt President with the aid and assistance of the republican party has turned the world into a bloodbath of terror and death and the American preeminence in finance and economics into a serfdom to the multinational corporations.

The Democrats are in a predicament. If they start talking censure and impeachment, they'll lose big come November because face it, moderate and conservative voters, however (rightly) disallusioned with Bush's policies on spending, immigration, the conduct of the war, etc., are not going to support impeaching a president during a time of war. If they back off, they'll probably risk losing their far-left, money-generating base (which Feingold, as a potential candidate in '08, has been courting) which will probably just say "screw em" and keep themselves and their money at home come election day.

I really don't see this ending well for the democrats.

When I read comments about the Democrats being soft on security issues, I am amazed that so many people see the Iraq war as the "war on terror". That geographic area is not the only front of this conflict and can change at their choosing. Bush's fight them there not here slogan is just as ludicrous.

Feingold is a good man but a little hasty with this censure thing. The reps are in control so nothing will happen. What he needs to do is dig a lot deeper to see if this crowd doesn't use the same cover to wiretap their domestic political opponents as well. Given their record (Valerie Plame!) this is a distinct possibility. If that's the case, forget about censure and start impeachment instead.

D.: we're all waiting for the polls (coming soon, no doubt) to see how it ends for everybody. If you've got some form of omnipotence please post your NCAA brackets so we can all get rich.

As far as "are not going to support impeaching a president during a time of war" this is an RNC talking point plain and simple. This is hardly WWII and Bush is hardly a hands-on kind of guy. Darth Cheney and Rummy are already in charge of the Iraq War; impeachment would make zero difference.

And don't give me that "empowering the terrorists" bilge; "can't have an election; the transition might empower the terrorists!!" We had a stellar example of that on 9/11 and the primary empowerer of the terrorists on that occasion is still in residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Bringing up a censure motion is not illegal or treasonous, spying on Americans without a warrant is.

... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...

This is a nation of laws, not men. The Republic is dead. Too much Fear!
Have you ever seen a terrorist? How many of these terrorists have they caught snooping around? Or is it too keep neighbors from talking to neighnors about the difference between a war of pre emption and a illegal war of conquest.

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...

A corrupt Corporate Media that will not investigate a corrupt Congress what will not investigate a corrupt President calls for A New Government, A Revolution America!

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
http://www.usmilitaryhistory.com/declrind.htm
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient suffrance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

"...Moderate and conservative voters, however (rightly) disallusioned with Bush's policies on spending, immigration, the conduct of the war, etc., are not going to support impeaching a president during a time of war..."

Why not, he lied about WMDS to start a war!
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lies.mp3
Why not, he was warned about 9/11/01 on 8/6/02 and didn't do a god damed thing! The territorial pissings in Afghanistan and Iraq were planned long before the wargames on Operation 911. Real Conservatives who believe in limited government should resign for the GOP. Honestlywhy are any of you debaters still either a Republican or Democrat?

Emily titled:
"Censure: Dodging Dems and a Giddy GOP"

Kudos for your insight, Emily.

Or are posters just following your lead? :o) Naaahhh, it's insight!!

Dear Emily,

I wish you the best with your blog.

Yours truly,
Che

Mr. bunnypants-

Real conservatives are hopping mad with Bush for a variety of reasons, mainly his spending like a drunken sailor 9or Democrat, if you prefer), but aren't going to jump ship because the alternative isn't a whole lot better (and in some ways, worse).

Now, if the Democrats actually came up with a platform that made some sense, you would see a jump to the other side (or at least a casual indifference to the elections in '06 & '08). But since Feingold has basically shown that the stategy of the Dems for the next two years is going to be "censure and impeachment", conservatives aren't going to go anywhere. Sure, call it an RNC talking point, but the call for censure will probably work to the republicans advantage come election time. And since you've only had three senators so far get on board with the idea, I suspect the remainder of the Dems are thinking of the same thing.

Whether the idea has merit or not, it all boils down to political survival.

D. Emily censured Che for lack of indpendent thought. You're next on the list. I never heard anyone swallow a talking point and spit it back on command as well as you.

Sadly, Feingold has not spoken for the Democratic Party since he showed the only real courage in this town and voted against the (un)Patriot(ic) Act. Too bad. It appears men (and women) of principle in both partiets have deserted us in our hour of need.

Pity you feel that way but censure away! Just pointing out how Feingold's resolution (or association with it) can be used against the Democrats in the next election. If thats considered regurgitating an RNC talking point, ok then. Whatever. Would be nice if the RNC sent me a check or two though...hate working for free.

from patriot 1957: "But the people in whom I am by far the most disappointed are the moderate Repubs, the Hagels and Snowe and Chaffees and Collins and Specters etc who caved on the domestic spying and abuse of intelligence."

If you look at Specter's voting record, he is no moderate. And don't forget that he talks out of both sides of his mouth on most issues. For example: verbalizing that he is for choice, then voting for the confirmation of two judges who are likely pro-life; stating Bush most likely broke the law with the NSA wiretapping, then helping to pass a change to the law so Bush can tap anyone without a warrant.

He is no moderate and no friend of democracy.

I'm confused why the political waves are making news. A United States Senator called for a censure of the President for breaking a law that the President did *in fact* break. And they report on the political fallout as opposed to the actual censor and the law that was *in fact* broken?

Maybe the Media should be reporting how completely ineffectual and irrelevant they've become.

Why do we even need politcal parties?
Neo Cons are NOT very Conservative! DLC Democrats are NOT very Liberal, sold out!
I'm pro life AND pro choice. I'm pro freedom! I'm pro gun! Why can't the gay people get married and be miserable like the rest of us! I hate liars, politicos, pundits, child molestors, drug dealers. I think we need to do something about Border Security, Port Security, etc. I would defend my home or family, but I am against Imperial Adventures for the Corporate Military Complex. I think the best way to stop the terrorist killers is to stop messing around with other nations and their leaders, to bring all the troops home from around the earth, and to start producing and manufacturing new and innovative pursuits of happiness and life!

Democrats have gotten into the habit of verbally saying things that they lack the courage to put to a vote, or are still savvy enough to know that the vote would stay with them for all time and perhaps wreck future political ambitions.

Dems loved the "Vet War Genius" John Murtha's ideas right up to the point where they were called on to vote in affirmation of Genius John and magically rejected his proposals along with Republicans, 403-3.

Would any Dem introduce a Bill praising Cindy Sheehan's ideas, to back up their public lauding of Holy Mother Cindy?? Nope.

Or ask Dems to vote on a resolution saying Bush was another Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot? Well, it's one thing to for a Senator to bloviate on a Cable news show or in the Senate well, it's another to ever ask them to be accountable for their words.

Feingold got caught. Trapped by his rhetoric and a "sincere promise" he made various Lefties in the Base to do more than just speechify about censure. The rest of his band of liberals fled like rats at the horror - as D. put it - of:

"whatever the legal nuances of NSA wiretapping, it will simply boil down to "Look, the Democrats want to censure the president over intercepting terrorist communications" They can't be THAT stupid."

Indeed not! Smarmy Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel believe in nothing other than aggrandizing their own power, and both seek to avoid votes confiming their Bush-bashing on "enemy rights" and other issues with the voters. Liberal Democrats regularly seek to bypass democratic institutions and use the courts and their legal "PACs" like the liberal Jewish ACLU to get their way.

The Democrats remember how their Gulf War votes became a stigma showing they were soft on defense. How they squawked on the Patriot Act but eventually fell in line rather than have another 9/11 traced right back to them "killing the Patriot Act".

And the idea of legal nuance blocking America from intercepting enemy communications in war time and "censuring the President" sounds great to the media and a bunch of liberal politicians who are loi-yahs 1st and Americans 2nd - Feingold played the maverick and sabotaged Schumer and Emanuel who would have preferred to slime and smear Bush with "the possibility of censure" but smart enough to know they could never put it to a vote, cripple counterterror intel. If they did, had the votes, then if the Islamoids struck hard - Rahm and Chuckles know the media laser would spotlight them with American blood dripping from their hands because they let their feelings for Bush-bashing, enraging then succoring the Lefty Base, and love of enemy rights get the best of them.

Chris Ford-

Warrants, which used to be the process by which we separated entities like "terrorists" from "not-terrorists", are nothing more than "legal nuance"?

I disagree.

that people use to manipulate perception.

Sort of like "Star Bellied Sneetches" in the Doctor Suess legende.

You know how children who are lying tend to get louder when caught in a lie?

What about viewing the current offensive in Iraq as _that_ ?

What about viewing the trial of the "known CIA/terrorist" on trial as having been thrown out as purposeful?

What about censuring the display of Saddam Hussein "on trial" as "not viewable" as being suspicious?

What about why isn't the trial being televised live?

Are we chinese? where people are presumed guilty and they have to provide defense to prove otherwise...and pay for it, if they don't have money, they're automatically guilty?

pandering to patriotism as a way of milking the american public...

how about reestablishing morality as a fact and begin with telling the truth.

.

there is no war in Iraq. we're simply beating a non-cooperative, primitive group of tribesmen into submission.

if there is a terrorist threat, now, it's because we've created it.

and they'd better actually start guarding the borders.

.

The democrats are just as guilty of pandering to lobbyists as the presidente'

what they aren't doing is trying to take over the government as a way of ensuring that "they get theirs."

what you have with the bushe regime is a very heavy handed

"we've always done what we wanted to and you know that and I know that, why hide it"

in this case "what they wanted to," is steal from the company....or the United States of America.

since you're the owners, you need to do something more than censure them.

you need to arrest them and file charges of theft.

pretty simple.

do you actually have an opinon?

what is it?

is the president guilty as charged, or is it that he's just misunderstood?

care to combat wombat?

there's an occupation.

the occupation has taken place on the premise that:

we were attacked by Iraq

that Iraq had WMD's

from this: "war powers" were granted.

IF there was fraud involved in our attack upon Iraq, then the president has committed "war crimes."

and should be arrested, and charged and tried.

what he has done since "war powers" were granted under false premises should be removed....the unpatriotic "patriot act" rescinded.

doncha think?

and dialog:

If you can't enter a dialogue, who knows
maybe between us we can create a new insight.....pissing contests
there's plenty of those. You win.

The power of accurate observation is called dialogue

wave~particle

who chooses

which is the truth

it's easy to choose sides, choose none and be right

For me to enter into a true master-student dialogue I must
have someone on the other side to observe me as I become
the student and who does not seek to crush me. In the crucible of
awareness that two minds untrammeled by the need to win are born
things that neither is capable of alone. As I enter into the master role
I need one who can listen without ego to share my truth with and
see "how might this be so" or how this might be adjusted to be a
shared truth instead of a personal one. It even takes some work to
get to the point of dialogue. The best conversation that I ever had
took two hours to get started as we aligned our semantics and I
had known them for two years. To be really good you have to allow
a photon to be the thing that embodies both wave and particle,
which is what it truely is, and that takes delicacy, adroitness and
power directed towards solving the issue not beating up the partner.

That's what I like to do, if you don't want to play fine, your choice.

Man, that's gotta be some pretty good weed you got there.

Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold's resolution to censure President George W. Bush is not, to my way of thinking, fringe or extreme. After all, he's not suggesting impeachment. Censure is a more moderate alternative -- well chosen here, considering that impeaching Bush would make Vice President Richard B. Cheney PRESIDENT.

Bush isn't really TRYING to wreck this country -- but, to quote Napoleon, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence."

Feingold hasn't attracted much overt support, even from Democrats. But I think his resolution should be a no-brainer -- and I'm not even totally a liberal. Bush's record of bungling and untruthfulness speaks for itself. And we're in for three more years of the same, or worse -- unless Bush shapes up. Perhaps censure would get his attention.

there are universal truths that exist within the fabric of
reality...ameliorating each other...with peanut butter and apricot
jam...snickering with baffled expressions

a spring when compressed or a pendumluum when moved off center moves back
and forth in a cyclic behaviour to try and _reach center_ again

or balance again

you can drawa chart plotting distance moved off center versus time plotting
the oscillations back and forth

the oscillations trace a sine wave of diminishing signal strenth until there
is a flat line, at the same point as the start

this is normal system oscillation...you could apply it to any change in a
system _in general_

that has a tendancy to reach a stable point or region

predator prey balance

right wing left wing

fashion

an argument/awar/feelings associated with

there is a line which can be drawn through the chart of the oscillations
that the pushed off center penduluum or spring will make which is a smooth
line, a curve

note: geometry is an ideal that doesn't exist within this reality in
perfection...it is a concept which exists within the body of reality...what
I'm talking about is the same, the concept is pervasive and does not exist
in perfection or as a seperate thing/it'sembedded....there is no such thing
as a straight line or a point except in the abstract and in approximation,
and within context of whatelse is affecting reality in physical space..

on debate:
that's one reason why debate is in a sense a load of crap as a final
arbiter, absolutes do not exist only conceptsin context...debabate could be
part of the process, but at some point it has to cease and a common or
shared insight traversed...debate is useless at doing more than arriving in
the vicinity of what will be walked together...

a damped reaction will smooth out the sine wave to a smooth curve and the
penduluum/spring will return to balance...non oscillating very quickly

damping ina physical case would be a shock absorber, or in the case of a
pendulum possibly immersion in a a denser gas

damping in a social situation would consist of training in "allowing"
"listening" "non reactive" behaviours...buddhist sitting....blue/red energy
training sadness/anger....having practiced being aware during the process of
aging/wisdom...exposure to a wide range of situations and
behaviours...ambassadorial training...reading on behaviours...thinking about
cognition
and so on

what is true on a physical level is to some degree true on a
spiritual/emotional/nonphysical level in most cases....this is to some
degree the basis for divination

on explaining:

to explain it most perfectly to you I would have to know you better and find
a way to demonstrate it within the context of your experience

for you to understand it most easily would require that you hold the state
of _maybe/nonconclusion_ as a way of being

justacomment.

You know how children who are lying tend to get louder when caught in a lie?

What about viewing the current offensive in Iraq as _that_ ?

"Chris Ford - "Warrants, which used to be the process by which we separated entities like "terrorists" from "not-terrorists", are nothing more than "legal nuance"?I disagree. Posted by: Will"

We made a huge mistake when we began thinking of enemy combatants as "criminals" best dealt with by civilian criminal law and thought the barrier of All-Wise lawyers issuing warrants was the way to go.

Other than the "criminal conspiracy" that Atta and gang were engaged in, which they would argue was nothing criminal but following Allah's Will, nothing they did until they slit the 1st stewardesses throat was illegal or could justify a warrant. And the only way to get a warrant on the conspiracy would have been to listen in. Martial arts classes? The numerous scouting forays they made in testing airport security and in-flight response? Flying school lessons? Buying boxcutters? Nothing illegal to justify breaching enemy combatants "privacy rights" if one clings to the insane nuance that enemy soldiers are "covered" by civilian due process.

Which was why the Moussaoui case was so pathetic. A nation that scooped up Jap, Nazi, and Red spies was reduced to impotence because they couldn't get a Lawyer to write a warrant to examine this guy everyone was sure was an enemy terrorist.

Signals intercept has gone on since time immemorial. Greek spies climbed hillsides to get Spartan heliograph messages. Persians fighting Egyptians would use carrier pigeons and try to get the other sides intel by baiting the birds. During the Revolutionary War, Ben Franklin of the famous "liberty v. security" cliche` ignorant Lefties and Libertarians love to quote....formed the Committee on Secret Correspondence, which was dedicated to getting spies to penetrate other American's homes to eavesdrop, and intercept and open, then reseal and send on - enemy and Loyalist letters. Ben never searched for a All-Wise Lawyer to sprinkle legal metaphorical holy water over the secret correspondence and thus bless it as "sanctified" by warrant.

As soon as we had the telegraph, telephone, underseas cables, and wireless - Americans were intercepting signals without warrant. Same with today's satellite, microwave, laser, IR, RFID.

It was only a pack of liberal Senators overreacting to FBI overreach into going after political vs. real enemies - set up the notion that civilian criminal law and "convictions & jail" were adequate to deal with small radical groups (proto-terrorists), spies, and Cold War intel in peacetime. In wartime, their strategy of "take a week and compile a 30-page affidavit for any person or terrorist you dare invade the sacred privacy of, only on full probable cause" - all that fell into WTC and Pentagon pieces.

The sweet thing is that those determined to prefer enemy slaughter over the huge platter of enemy rights and liberties they believe enemy Islamoids are entitled to don't really have to be reasoned with. It is preferential to let them make America blind again if you don't mind Islamoid unlawful combatants killing more Americans and delivering another reality check since 9/11 wasn't enough for enemy rights lovers....

And part of the sting is removed because the targets are mostly inside "Blue Cities" that put the enemy rights advocates into Congress in the first place. And further removed by noting the "legal nuance before security against Islamoid" crowd is led by Jewish Democrats, plus the Jewish Arlen Spector...and we know the Islamoids take a special interest in striking any are that holds the promise of hefty Jew-killing...from Islamoid Internet blogs...prime targets are "Zionist-dominated" Las Vegas, Hollywood, Washington DC, and NYC media centers. And heavily Jewish population centers like "Jew York", Miami, Palm Beach, San Francisco, Madison, WI, Northern NJ. One thing the Islamoid blogs mention is either disappointment they failed to bag lots of Jews on 9/11, or pointing out that the paucity of Jewish bodies was proof that 9/11 was really a Zionist Plot.

Their insane logic, but Russ Feingold thinks it's his duty to fight to the death to defend the right of any Islamoid to privately think and act on that logic without the US having a right to intercept enemy communications in wartime...I think Russ won't like it much if the Islamoids do to "Bluer than Blue" Madison what the hurricane did to Democrat bastion New Orleans. Or if more conservative Jews rise and run against a guy so sympathetic to the "sacred rights and civil liberties" of a foreign enemy that proudly declares that Jew-killing is "Job #1!"

Another big Islamoid attack and Feingold and Co, plus a hefty passel of non-Jewish liberals like Kennedy, Conyers, Murray will be crucified as defenders of Islamoid unlawful combatants..

All right! Back in business, Che has been sent on his way, and still no sign of Errinf. I think I'll have a beer.

Johnnyg you make me laugh!

You know how children who are lying tend to get louder when caught in a lie?

What about viewing the current offensive in Iraq as _that_ ?

against the law.

that should be prosecuted by arresting the perpatrators...

pretty much anybody working for or with bush...

the offensive is nothing more than a "call to false patriotism,"

much as the so called patriot act is a recision of the Bill of Rights.

merit reading.

spin,

is the act of trying to make a silk purse out of your current administrations actions.

and it is the simple act of not allowing yourselves to be herded by delusions of anything laudible about perpatrating fraud...or larceny, or conspiracy under any aiegis....

that means cover.

cia/noriega/geoh.w.bush

cia/saddam/geow.bush

ciao.

Posted by: patriot 1957
"Is there anyone remaining who will speak for the center?"

Just using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" is not always very informative. A "moderate liberal" and "moderate conservative" candidate could be almost identical where as another two could be opposites. It would be most refreshing to see the main stream media once again use the term "moderate". Is that possible in the 2006 and 2008 elections? If I'm not mistaken it was Karl Rove that wanted the main stream media to use only "liberal" and "conservative" and cease using moderate. Main Stream Media please don't fall for that manipulation, start using "moderate", give the voters a third choice regardless of party.

Posted by: D.

"The democrats aren't rallying around Feingold because they know its going to kill them in '06 and potentially '08." Jumping on Feingold's bandwagon will further undermine any credibility they've been trying to build up viv-a-vis national security (Dubai ports deal, Iran, etc.)because whatever the legal nuances of NSA wiretapping, it will simply boil down to "Look, the Democrats want to censure the president over intercepting terrorist communications"

"They can't be THAT stupid. Keep this up, and I'm afraid the Dems are going to become the Whigs of the 21st century."

There are strong indications that the NSA wiretapping went much further than what was leaked and Gonzalez never denied any questions pertaining to the full extent of the wiretapping. If leaks or evidence surface in the next year proving additional abuses of power via NSA, Feingold will look like a hero and his critics will be eating crow. Use caution "D", not to long ago Bush denied any wiretapping, your putting your trust in a man that already lied to you once on this issue.

as in the Movie "O Brother"

where the KKK guy, was saying that he was for the little man...

and Pappy O'Daniel was for the foggy bottom boys

hitching your star to a winner to perpatrate fraud or to redirect the attention of the learning public is the way of the masters of the shell game...

right wing

left wing

how about the truth?

how about pointing at that?

I didn't know that they'd linked the Iraqi occupation to terrorists.

I though there were no WMD or Iraqi connection...or are you just making that up?

.

terrorists?

Posted by: Jaxas

"Look. I am no political expert but, if the polls are to be believed, The American people are already censuring Bush.
Whenever something like this comes up, the republicans somehow manage to turn the media's focus on the democrats. When are the national media ever going to catch on that they are being manipulated by Bush and his anus adoring supporters--all 34% of them?
The people are sending both Bush and the media a message--that they have had it up to their necks with all of the bulls#*t! And the turning of the screws on the democrats just when they have Bush on the ropes is Exhibit A of just how easily manipulated into making democrats the issue--even though they do not have control of a single branch of government--this pathetically incompetent media is.
The more incompetent Bush gets, he is matched by the incompetence of the media."

I couldn't agree more. During this Blogs excursion in to MLB, I visited other national politically oriented Blogs. There was little or no attention to moderates, the term has all but disappeared in the MSM. I saw, live on C-SPAN, Feingold deliver his censure speech, as well as Frist playing "chicken little". NBC news barely mentioned it. Despite the GOP giddiness, it has had no effect on the polls and will be forgotten. Bush is judged by his invasion/occupation of Iraq, as Bush goes down, so does the GOP.

Posted by: D.

"The Democrats are in a predicament. If they start talking censure and impeachment, they'll lose big come November because face it, moderate and conservative voters, however (rightly) disallusioned with Bush's policies on spending, immigration, the conduct of the war, etc., are not going to support impeaching a president during a time of war. If they back off, they'll probably risk losing their far-left, money-generating base (which Feingold, as a potential candidate in '08, has been courting) which will probably just say "screw em" and keep themselves and their money at home come election day.
I really don't see this ending well for the democrats."

D, the laugh is on you. Before you could even type your comment most of voters who even paid any attention to the Feingold Censure had forgotten about it. It will be kicked around in blogs like this for a while, but on television it's old news and already forgotten. The high tide of the GOP has come and gone, I wouldn't want to be a republican right now. Your wrong about Nov., I'll put money on that! And BTW, the Feingold Censure was a patriot act, just as when Edward R. Morrow spoke out against Joe McCarthy.

Feingold is distinguishing himself from the other democrats who, he will remind all democrats in 2007, stood idly by while Bush trampled on our constitutional rights. And by then the courts will have ruled the spying as unconstitutional. He will be the only dem who will be able to say he did his duty as a senator and will look very presidential, while Hillary and others will have to say that while Russ was trying to defending our rights, they were being cautious. Its a bit of a gamble but if the courts rule it unconstitutional its a slam dunk for Russ! Clever!

And a question for the Post. I remember one of your reporters during an online Politics Discussion saying that there were no Post polls asking about impeachment since its not an issue in Congress, and if it were an issue a poll would be conducted. Well, since censure is now an issue in Congress is the Post planning a poll to ask Americans whether they agree/disagree with censure? I think the results will be mostly in favor and might move some of those cautious democrats to support Russ.

One thing about Morrow I don't understand with you liberals. He was a chain smoker. You guys would run him out of the room if he showed up. Smoke'em if you got 'em.

Posted by: Chris Ford (bad ford)

"The Democrats remember how their Gulf War votes became a stigma showing they were soft on defense. How they squawked on the Patriot Act but eventually fell in line rather than have another 9/11 traced right back to them "killing the Patriot Act."

Chris, you are wrong in your assessment of the Democrats being soft on defense, it's the republicans that are soft on defense. The act of bush invading Iraq and its subsequent occupation have weakened our national security on terrorism. Significant forces were removed from Afghanistan at a critical time in the hunt for OBL and may have aided him in his escape. Most of the active terrorists were boxed-in in Afghanistan and the Pakistani border area. No terrorists were in Iraq, Sadam did not allow them in his country for fear of his own assignation. The Bush invasion of Iraq opened up a Pandora's Box of terrorism.

"And the idea of legal nuance blocking America from intercepting enemy communications in war time and "censuring the President" sounds great to the media and a bunch of liberal politicians who are loi-yahs 1st and Americans 2nd - Feingold played the maverick and sabotaged Schumer and Emanuel who would have preferred to slime and smear Bush with "the possibility of censure" but smart enough to know they could never put it to a vote, cripple counterterror intel. If they did, had the votes, then if the Islamoids struck hard - Rahm and Chuckles know the media laser would spotlight them with American blood dripping from their hands because they let their feelings for Bush-bashing, enraging then succoring the Lefty Base, and love of enemy rights get the best of them."

Chris you sound like babbling Joe McCarthy.

Posted by: smokey

"One thing about Morrow I don't understand with you liberals. He was a chain smoker. You guys would run him out of the room if he showed up. Smoke'em if you got 'em."

I'm a moderate; tell it like it is, Democrat. Smokey, calling me liberal puts you out on the Nazi fringe. Edward Morrow was a great man, smoker or not.

Murrow was a chain smoker who, like my dad and many of his generation, were duped by the tobacco industry into purchasing their products and became addicted. Murrow died of lung cancer at the age of 57 in 1965. Another great American murdered by the lying criminal tobacco industry. And they are still around today pushing their poison for profit, legally. I really wonder how any tobacco grower, harvester, worker or seller can sleep at night.

Do you think Morrow was duped? Or he was some ill-informed dimwit? Everyone who smoked, even before the Surgeon Generals report, knew it was bad for them. Some simply do not care and are willing to trade 10-20 years for that simple pleasure in life. I bet he loved every smoke he had. You see, some people don't give a crap how you personally view their personal preferences and habits. To me, this should be liberalistic view.

Call for Censure Is Rallying Cry to Bush's Base

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: March 16, 2006

"WASHINGTON, March 15 -- Republicans, worried that their conservative base lacks motivation to turn out for the fall elections, have found a new rallying cry in the dreams of liberals about censuring or impeaching President Bush."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/politics/16impeach.html?th&emc=th
Some ralling cry, the next day bush and the GOP drop in the polls. Bill Clinton used to say "It's the economy stupid", for bush and the GOP "It's the Iraq War stupid". Until Bush and the GOP can turn the Iraq War around, they are in deeeeeeeeeeep trouble.

Posted by: smokey
"To me, this should be liberalistic view."

I have no idea what point your trying to make? Are you trying to say your a smoker and if so who cares? What does it have to do with liberals, moderates, and conservatives....or Dodging Dems and a Giddy GOP?

Jaxas and Jamal,
Puhhhleeeese....quit blaming the media!!!!!

I just watched Feingold do his news conference. Pretty well reasoned, well focused, measured, he speaks pretty clear English. This is the single fellow who voted against the original Patriot act on civil libertarian grounds, who managed to hold up the extension in December.

I also caught Pelosi doing her usual carp over the day's air assault going on in Samara. Her conclusion, proves that Bush lied about "major combat is over" three years ago. WOW, that's really insightful. Tell me dear, how do YOU propose that we get out of this mess NOW? Pelosi - "That is the President's job, he got us into it". Right, that informs the hell out of my vote.

Then lets not forget about Jim Murtha last fall.

In both cases I see two particular Democrats who see themselves speaking to serious issues, frankly and clearly, from their view of what is best for the nation. In both cases it put them in direct opposition to the administration and to then prevailing public opinion. In both cases their party colleagues couldn't run to the other side of the room fast enough.

If I could, I would vote for Murtha. If I could, I would vote for Feingold (and I may have that particular choice in 2008, which is a long way away). But I won't have those choices this fall. Nope, my choice will be among the jackass's I see running like hell to the other side of the room.

You all blame the media for this? Karl Rove? Give us a break!!!!

Emily to Che:
===========================================
"You were not blocked, Che. I told you days ago to stop using the comments to post news and opinion stories (and long ones at that) having nothing to do with the subject at hand. Comments are for ORIGINAL THOUGHTS and your own analysis, not simply regurgitating other people's words."
===========================================

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! :D

That said, even though I'm an independent that's right of center, I'd prefer Liberals with some backbone and with some princples calling the shots, than just rubberstamping, hooting, monkeys.

I'd welcome them calling a spade a spade, and challenging this train wreck of one way thought. A Republic needs debate, it needs to learn from it's mistakes, and build a better State. Can't do that if loyality to a party is more important than what's best for the country overall.

More debate, more moderation and let's break this straight ticket mindset. This country can't live in the 18th/19th/20th century, it has to move on, grow, and be one of the few societies that does last for 1000 years!

SandyK

labels are something for people that can't speak for themselves to hide behind.

they're also labels for people that have an agenda that they want to foist on you that they don't want you to examine...

I mean come on "Patriot Act?"

that's like calling the Satan "the Pope"

well mabybe not a good analogy, but hey, you get the drift right?

and anything that bush touches called patriotic?

well this is the guy that brought you hatemongering as a publicity tool, why it even gave him the presidency....

and those democrats?

well, what's the difference democrats and republicans they're still your leaders and what are your leadrers good for?

leading you, on.

your leaders?

will sell anything that isn't nailed down...

without giving the citizens of the United States honest and fair representation...if they can't steal the towels, they don't want to check in....they're part of the visit right, they're paid for....corruption is just part of the congressional life...

comeon...give me a break...

a high school student could tell you what happens if you don't work with the ecology of a system.....everything breaks...

that's what is happening to us as a group, the citizens of the united states of america.

there is such a thing as a human ecology, one that keeps all things working towards a sustainable future....

look at the bushe trying to appear "in touch" with the future by "supporting alternative fuels"

too little, not at all...photo op.

you want the effin thing to work, raise gas prices to $3.50 a gallon and bank the excess to pay for infrastructure changes giving freight companies some time and some leeway to get better rates....legislate change that we as a nation can adapt to....THAT IS A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE, not some orchestrated Oz show called find the terrorists but don't look at what I'm doing...

trains, making city life pleasurable, workers that telecommute, blah blah blah, it could happen....they effin telecommute from friggin India every day....they trust them, why not you? ask Capitol ONE....formerly of Fredericksburg VA, now from Bangalore India....3,000 jobs.

but you make changes to make sure that the future is a good one....not just for you and your oil invested family...

why should g. w. bush worry about rising oil prices?

he's in the business, why would he interrupt that business to help out his country, that would get in the way of his, his families, and his family friends profits.

Cayambe wrote:
===========================================
"I also caught Pelosi doing her usual carp over the day's air assault going on in Samara. Her conclusion, proves that Bush lied about "major combat is over" three years ago. WOW, that's really insightful. Tell me dear, how do YOU propose that we get out of this mess NOW? Pelosi - "That is the President's job, he got us into it". Right, that informs the hell out of my vote."
===========================================

That's why the Democratic party has lost touch with reality. Folks, all stripes, are looking for solutions. The "blame game" only goes to elect more fringe types, which rankles the moderate majority, who'd rather vote for some Republican that's not ready to trash this country overnight (well, at least not burn down Washington in an anarchy binge).

Recently Democrats have touched on Traditional conservative themes, and they're learning how popular they are on both sides of the aisle (and rankle the Republican ranks in response). I told those DU types back in 2003 that's the way to get the POSITIVE attention of non Neo-Con Republicans, and finally they're milking it for it's worth.

Now they just need to hammer home about the deficit, and they can watch the Republican party bleed. There's 3 wings on the Right sick and tired of the Neo-Cons, and if the Dems can play their political cards right, they can gain their vote in Novemeber.

But the "blame game" won't work. Solutions will (or play on idealogies that are shared by both sides of the aisle).

SandyK

Moderates? (who's no moderate) wrote:
===========================================
look at the bushe trying to appear "in touch" with the future by "supporting alternative fuels"

too little, not at all...photo op."
===========================================

Actually, it maybe hard to believe an ex-oilman would be all for alternative fuel, but he is -- because there's trillions of dollars in the deal. A capitalists' godsend is on the horizon, especially if they can corner the market early.

Trick is to go solar and wind power, things they can't sell you like a gallon of gas -- and they must buy back if you have a surplus. :)

So partisan sobbing isn't going to help here. Oilmen are all dizzy over the alternative fuel deals. More capital, and capital that's not shared.

SandyK

Only recently (in the WSJ as I best recall), an opinion piece complained how typical it was of liberals that they felt they should escape accountability because of good intentions.

That seems to be a characterization that exactly fits the Presidential stance on the administration's extensive covert domestic surveillance.

smokey wrote:
"Do you think Morrow was duped? Or he was some ill-informed dimwit? Everyone who smoked, even before the Surgeon Generals report, knew it was bad for them. Some simply do not care and are willing to trade 10-20 years for that simple pleasure in life. I bet he loved every smoke he had. You see, some people don't give a crap how you personally view their personal preferences and habits. To me, this should be liberalistic view."

He was duped AND ill-informed by Marlboro Man ads aimed at children and other tobacco industry marketing to get children smoking/addicted. What you do not seem to understand is that nicotine is addictive, as addictive as heroin. Its not a habit. Its not even pleasurable. I tried it due to the heavy marketing on TV. It coughed for 10 minutes. Another drag and I almost threw up. I thought, what a stupid thing to do and never did it again.

I watched my dad try to quit after the Surgeon General made his report. He went into shakes, got nervous, couldn't sleep, concentrate or even read the paper. He couldn't function until he took a drag, then it all went away and was "normal". He always told me he wished he could quit. But he couldn't. The tobacco industry, like today's underground drug industry, had him where they wanted him, an addicted customer.

By your analogy, illegal drugs should be legal. Let people get high on cocaine or heroin and ignore its addictive effects. Same for heroin. Have you ever seen anyone addicted nicotine or heroin go through a withdrawl? Until you do you have no idea what you are talking about.

Posted by: Cayambe

"Puhhhleeeese....quit blaming the media!!!!!"

Cayambe, you don't make since. You credit Feinglod with his independence, but it's not just him, those who did not back his censure only demonstrated their independence. Most democrats demonstrate independent thought, I like that, but when it comes to unity, they never have the unity of Republicans. Unity wins elections, but blind unity as the republicans have now, makes for poor legislation and poor leadership. If republicans had less unity and more independence, we might not be in Iraq or have a deficit spending.

As far as the media goes, it was deplorable how Bill Frist reacted to the Feingold censure, playing the terrorist card (potential attacks on Nashville and Madison) and it's not even directly mentioned in Emily topic. Have you seen Frist's website, what a joke! He bused his supporters from Nashville to Memphis and paid their $150 registration fee, so they could vote for him in the straw poll. Talk about buying votes.

"You all blame the media for this? Karl Rove? Give us a break!!!!"

To a certain extent, yes I do, open your eyes! Feingold's censure is not the issue, the issue is illegal wiretapping without a warrant. And remember Rove is in charge of winning the November elections for the GOP. His strategy is the GOP is strong on defense for the country.

"He was duped AND ill-informed by Marlboro Man ads"

Actually, Marlboro started as a women's cigarette back when Morrow was in his prime. Later, it was transformed into its pesent cowboy image.

"By your analogy, illegal drugs should be legal. Let people get high on cocaine or heroin and ignore its addictive effects. Same for heroin. Have you ever seen anyone addicted nicotine or heroin go through a withdrawl? Until you do you have no idea what you are talking about."

Cigarettes are not illegal drugs, and they do not intoxicate or depress. Yes, I did know a few junkies many years ago. Cigarettes helped them with the Jone's. All of them are dead, but I am still here.

I write for a living. I love to smoke while I write. I have no plans to ever quit smoking until either it or something else kills me. What peeves me are attitudes of people like yourself who stigmatize those unlike themselves.

Posted by: SandyK

"Actually, it maybe hard to believe an ex-oilman would be all for alternative fuel, but he is -- because there's trillions of dollars in the deal. A capitalists' godsend is on the horizon, especially if they can corner the market early."

That might be part of it, but most of Bush's feeble push for alternative fuels is due to his failed Iraq War to obtain cheap oil. If he was a serious as you think then why did he not support CAFÉ? Thus far Carter was the only president to make a serious attempt to wean us off of oil and most of his efforts were undone by the Reagan administration. As for the potential oil reserves in the Alaska Wilderness areas, the oil would only last the country for 11 to 17 months.

"Trick is to go solar and wind power, things they can't sell you like a gallon of gas -- and they must buy back if you have a surplus. :)"

Solar and wind are not adequate for transportation purposes, where about half of our oil is consumed. For generating electricity, coal, hydro, and nuclear are the primary economical means for a large population of about 300 million people.

"So partisan sobbing isn't going to help here. Oilmen are all dizzy over the alternative fuel deals. More capital, and capital that's not shared."

I agree, look for a move by the major oil companies into alternative fuels as the world oil reserves begin to diminish.

I am proud to be called a left-liberal and I don't care who says it. The whole problem with the Democrats is that they have lost their identity. If they are so eager to simply win elections, let them become Republicans, given that there is a perception that one must be a Republican to win. The Democrats are so embroiled in strategy that they have totally forgotten that people vote because they believe in things--at least anybody with any brains does that!

I am sick of the Democrats. They are spineless wimps that don't stand for anything. When a liberal like Chuck Schumer supports a person like Bob Casey, we know the party is in trouble.

I wrote a letter the editor to the Washington Post on the Democrats, but it didn't get published.

My attitude is that a censure is a tiny tap on the wrist. An impeachment is not much more. I say we depose Bush and all of his cronies.

You GO Russ and you've got my vote if you run.

Posted by: smokey

"I write for a living. I love to smoke while I write. I have no plans to ever quit smoking until either it or something else kills me. What peeves me are attitudes of people like yourself who stigmatize those unlike themselves."

A little off topic. I support your right to smoke as long as I don't have to pay for it or inhale it. Due to its adverse affect on health it runs up health insurance costs for nonsmokers. Or if a parent or parents pass away leaving children, then SS payments will be made by the government to minor children, again costing nonsmokers. It's difficult not to inhale second hand smoke in public places (indoors). My father was heavy "Lucky Strike" smoker from WWII and it put him in early grave leaving behind four small children. He and my mother taught us within our family not to smoke and none of us ever did, despite at the time, the heavy ad campaigns encouraging smoking. As for optional public places (indoors), if they want your business, they can allow smoking and they won't have mine or vise versa. Fewer and fewer Americans smoke, expect less places to smoke in public (indoors).

Posted by: Billie

"I wrote a letter the editor to the Washington Post on the Democrats, but it didn't get published."

Is there any reason you can't post your letter here for comment? I would like to read it.

>>Liberal Democrats regularly seek to bypass democratic institutions and use the courts and their legal "PACs" like the liberal Jewish ACLU to get their way.

The US courts are not institutions of democracy? They are not the third branch of the US govt as specified by the Constitution? Could it be the Founding Fathers were undemocratic and unwise by specifying that judges be appointed by the president and CONFIRMED by the Senate for life to avoid just the kind of demagoguery and political intimidation of the like of Chris Ford?

And who abused the court system by passing law in the middle of the night to move the Terry Schiavo case from state courts to the federal courts hoping the conservative federal supreme court would inject religion into our legal system?

Who seeked to move the 2000 contest to the federal court knowing their republican appointed judges would award the election to a guy who clearly lost the popular vote?

Who abused the judicial system by court shopping in the Padilla case where even the most conservative appeal court in the land said was an attempt to mislead it?

Who fight tooth and nail to put ultra right wingers on the Supreme Court for the sole purpose of outlawing abortion?

Neocons ARE undemocratic! And in all likelihood traitors to the nation.

Hmmm...so if a self-professed left liberal like Billie is sick and disgusted with the modern Democratic party, I wonder how many more are and, more importantly, how many aren't going to bother to show up in November.

Jamal, I believe I'll take you up on that bet.

My point is simple. A healthy democratic political system needs a healthy opposition party. Feingold, even if I don't agree with him, at least has principles and is willing to stand by them. The remainder of his party appears to be AWOL. Sorry, but until your platform evolves into something other than playing the "blame game" or just simply being in opposition to whatever the administration does, offering no concise, clear plan of your own, you are not going to win elections, period.

Chris Ford thank you for responding:

"Other than the "criminal conspiracy" that Atta and gang were engaged in, which they would argue was nothing criminal but following Allah's Will, nothing they did until they slit the 1st stewardesses throat was illegal or could justify a warrant."

Criminal conspiracy is a crime and who cares what Atta and gang claim anyways?

I would strongly disagree with the "nothing htey did until" part, but that's an unfortunate reality. Nothing an angry husband does is a crime up until the moment he kills his wife, but that doesn't give the state a reason to arrest him prior. We don't depend on "evidence" and "warrants" because they are the most effective means of preventing harm, we depend on them because they are the most fair. It is not "Atta's rights" that I am concerned with. I am concerned about mine.

"And the only way to get a warrant on the conspiracy would have been to listen in. Martial arts classes? The numerous scouting forays they made in testing airport security and in-flight response? Flying school lessons? Buying boxcutters? Nothing illegal to justify breaching enemy combatants "privacy rights" if one clings to the insane nuance that enemy soldiers are "covered" by civilian due process."

If the United States government listened in on everyone who purchased boxcutters, martial arts classes, and took flying school lessons, then yes, it would be a most aggregious violation of citizen's rights. These things, individually, are not criminal, but they are the kinds of things presented to a judge that can suggest criminality. Warrants don't have the strict burden of proving that someone is guilty, they just have to prove that someone is a suspect.

"Which was why the Moussaoui case was so pathetic. A nation that scooped up Jap, Nazi, and Red spies was reduced to impotence because they couldn't get a Lawyer to write a warrant to examine this guy everyone was sure was an enemy terrorist."

How was it that everyone became so "sure" he was a terrorist? Were they born with that knowledge?

The way that we distinguish murder suspects from totally innocent people is through a warrant. This process protects totally innocent people from violations of their rights.

I have to assume that if everyone just "knows" Guy X is a terrorist, then they will be able to produce sufficient evidence of Guy X's terrorist conspiracy to get a warrant. This need not be unreasonably strict. It might even mean spying on people who it turns out later were totally innocent. But better to have a process that associates the subject of the spying with the act we suspect them of then to just abandon the entire process all together and let a small band of NSA agents determine, for all we know arbitrarily, who constitutes a "terrorist" and who constitutes a "totally innocent person". This is not because I am in love with terrorists, it is because I do not assume that NSA Agents are benevolent and would *only* spy on terrorists.

"As soon as we had the telegraph, telephone, underseas cables, and wireless - Americans were intercepting signals without warrant. Same with today's satellite, microwave, laser, IR, RFID."

You don't see a substantive difference between me listening when phone lines get crossed and the Government seeking out my "signals" without explanation?

"It was only a pack of liberal Senators overreacting to FBI overreach into going after political vs. real enemies - set up the notion that civilian criminal law and "convictions & jail" were adequate to deal with small radical groups (proto-terrorists), spies, and Cold War intel in peacetime. In wartime, their strategy of "take a week and compile a 30-page affidavit for any person or terrorist you dare invade the sacred privacy of, only on full probable cause" - all that fell into WTC and Pentagon pieces."

And your response is also an overreaction: that because the "take a week and compile..." process is unreasonably burdensome we should abandon warrants all together? This is not either-or, we don't have to live in constant fear from *either* an overreaching FBI *or* a perpetual terrorist threat.

Civil liberties and national security are not mutually exclusive.

Cayambe, you may wheeze, snort, exort, admonish, astonish,, wheedle, needle, bark, fart and hock all you want. But, when the chips are really down, when the republicans have their backs to wall, when it appears that all is lost for them, you can rely on the media to rush in to the rescue.

In 2000, when Al Gore surged past Bush in the polls shortly before the election, the right wing went berserk. Rush Limbaugh literally shot his wad in digging up innocuous inconsistencies in Gore's past speeches, went on national television on Chris Matthews (who melted like a high school cheerleader asked to the dance by the head jock on the team) and proceeded to slander Al Gore as a "serial exaggerator".

For weeks on end the national media picked up on the "serial exaggerator" theme just as they picked up on the questionable origin of the Kerry medals put out by the heavily RNC funded Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. Whatever the right wing slime merchants like Limbaugh are peddling, the national media eagerly laps it up.

Count on it. When we get down to any election, whatever slanderous, filthy, slimy, phlegm-laden bucket of snot Limbaugh and his ilk throw at democratrs is going to be dutifully legitimaized by the national media. It happens every time the republicans look like they are going to lose.

So go ahead. Delude yourself that events on the ground and the polls are going to determine the outcome of the next election. Trust me. When the first poltical cannonballs blast across the television screens heralding the beginning of the political campaign, the reall sound of bombs going off in Iraq and Afghanistan will be forgotten. The issues will be blown asunder by the snotwallowing that the right wing will engage in and the media will obligingly report.

>>Sorry, but until your platform evolves into something other than playing the "blame game" or just simply being in opposition to whatever the administration does, offering no concise, clear plan of your own, you are not going to win elections, period.

Yeah like anyone in this country has a good plan for Iraq? To stay much longer is unfeasible. To leave too soon means unmitigated disaster. Let the idiots who started this war stew in their own juice. Now they even agree to talk to IRAN about Iraq while saying with the other side of their mouth that IRAN is the devil incarnate! Talk about desperation. No wonder the Iranian nutcases are so cocky. They know they hold the winning card and the other side are pure incompetent swaggering fools. NEOCONS are TRAITORS!

One other little thing cayambe--and Emily--these elections are no longer about the American people. They are not about questions of war, health care, privacy, the economy or the Constitution. They are all about and designed for the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys and Chris Matthews. They are more about them winning, about them salvadging their worthless reputations.

Believe me, these people are motivated not by any sense of duty or national obligation. They are on the playgoruond and they have chosen up sides and they simply want to win at any cost. It is all about getting "them" and strutting about like a cock when the battle is over.

Posted by: D.

"My point is simple. A healthy democratic political system needs a healthy opposition party."

Your only half right, each party needs some opposition from within. Only then can true representation for the citizens of a democratic county take place. It's not just the Democrats who have failed the country. It's the Republican Party bent on winning elections at any cost, that shut down internal debate and choice within its own party. This has resulted in the greatest "Rubber Stamp" do nothing congress in history dominated by a majority of republicans that choose party over country. Most of the blame, and yes you need blame to correct the problem, belongs to the spineless republican neocon's in congress who have no courage to oppose the administration.

It is dismaying that the Democratic Party has failed to support Feingold's censure proposal in larger numbers. Further illustration that the Democratic Party has sadly become a feckless self-gelding machine of ineptitude. Those that survived 1994, triangulated with Bill Clinton in the nineties, and currently take the path of least resistance under Bush combine timidity and hubris. What's left of the minority is safely entrenched and they don't want to rock the boat. Pathetic.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

No internal opposition, really? The grumblings over immigration policy, the almost universal party opposition to the Dubai Ports deal and the harriet Myers nomination? The growing unease with spending, etc.? On some things they will agree with the adminsitration because, well, they're republicans. Unless of course you are identifying the courage to oppose the admistration as opposing everything the administration proposes, which is unrealistic.

The much bally-hooed conservative "crackup" is nothing more than healthy ideological discourse. Conservatives vs Republicans, fiscal vs social conservatives, Neo-Cons vs Paleo-Cons, libertarians vs everyone else. The democrats I think are more in danger of conforming to an ideological rigidity.

D.-

"The growing unease with spending, etc.?"

Evidenced by what, exactly?

smokey wrote:
"I write for a living. I love to smoke while I write. I have no plans to ever quit smoking until either it or something else kills me. What peeves me are attitudes of people like yourself who stigmatize those unlike themselves."

Two things:
1) Try to stop. Just tell yourself you won't smoke for two weeks. You will begin withdrawl in 2-3 days and then realize you "like" to smoke because you "have" to smoke. Once you realize you have no control AND the stuff can kill, you may begin to understand why I think it should be an illegal drug.
2) I'm not sure who you are saying I'm stagmatizing. Not smokers. I feel sorry for them. They are addicts who smoke to get normal because the addictive effects of nicotine make life without nicotine abnormal. If its smokers who know they are addicted and enjoy it, well, that's fine as long as they keep the smoke away from me and others and don't push others to smoke. I would add that a smoker who actively supports an industry that addicts children through their products and ads in order to make millions off of their addiction later, well, yea, they should be stigmatized. I don't believe Murrow, like my dad and millions of others, knew when they first got addicted that it was addictive, unlike the tobacco companies who knew all too well.

If you listen or read bonafide fiscal conservatives, and even those of us who don't particularly identify ourselves as green eye shade types, you'll find alot of unease with Bush's fiscal irresponsibility.

The "Pork Busters" movement for one (blogosphere initiated) is a recent manifestation. Sen. Tom Coburn has also been pretty vocal.

D.-

What makes you think there is some great divide in the actual Republican electorate over spending? Is it the recent increase in the national debt ceiling? Or perhaps the rampant spending increases in *all* categories that they have either endorsed or tacitly allowed as the majority party in their tenure as the leading party?

Your evidence is that Tom Coburn is "vocal" (meaning what exactly? That he's talking about the problem?) about busting pork? No mention that pork spending has doubled under Republican rule? So they are "talking" about a problem they created and this is evidence of a serious disagreement in the party?

None of these "bonafide fiscal conservatives" managed to get themselves elected and the people they likely voted for apparently couldn't give a hoot what gets talked about on their radio shows or columns either. But hey, you are starting to get "uneasy".

On behalf of the rest of America that is terrified of the future deficit, please hurry the hell up and make yourselves relevant. Tell your party to something about spending. Now.

that's your job suckee...

continue.

Oh by the way:

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

More Americans support a vote to censure than oppose. Interestingly, 43% of voters favor impeachment and more Independent voters favor impeachment than are opposed.

Why are our elected officials so completely out of touch with the electorate?

I'm with Jaxas. I think that media frenzy is driving political stereotypes with a whip.

I have a feeling if we keep scratching away at this it will keep smelling worse. We've begun to get a glimpse of how the Repubs have used their power to seduce the media, dangling access and the brushing up with reflected glory as a carrot. Libby in bed (at least figuratively) with Judy Miller, the way the phone calls went out to Russert et al when they wanted to leak on Plame.

Is it just seduction? Have the media gotten afraid for their jobs given the growth of hate radio? Is it an entire moral slide in journalism?

If Bush's slide continues we may eventually start to see some of the sordid details come out. But just look at the success that they've already had sliming Dems over Feingold and you'll see the right wing spin machine is still in charge of the media. How many other Presidents could get caught in this many bold faced "untruths" and still have approval ratings over 20%?

I heard Senator Feingold speak on C-SPAN back in December when he was answering questions from callers. He sounded very intelligent, and one thing I respect about him is he backs up everything he says with reasons. You don't hear the usual rhetoric or slogans that you hear from everyone else. Murtha is another one that backs up everything he says with good common sense reasons.

Another thing, if you look at this:
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

Then, honestly, do you really think that most of the people in office that are over 60 really care? They aren't going to be around to deal with this financial mess!

Everyone I talk with here at work totally are in sync with Feingold and Murtha and they have a lot of deep respect for them. They are more in tune to the pulse of America than all the other senators who are only cowering to their base.

Bush was illegally spying on americans even BEFORE 911 happened. Just watch for more and more of this to come out in the weeks ahead.

Holy moly Will. I went to that site you provided and I am shocked at two things.

1) Do the Democrats really think they can win with Hillary? If I were a Democrat, I would be pissed that she is the front-runner. She cannot win. Believe me. Imposssible.

2) I think Americans have become too fond of the idea of impeaching the president. I felt the same way when Clinton had his troubles.

johnny-

I'm not a Hillary supporter or a registered Democrat, so I won't presume to speak for the Democrats. But this overblown Republican tendency to congratulate oneself on the decisions of the opposing party could become tired by 2008. As with the Feingold thing, they were thrilled that the Democrats handed them a Tough-On-Security issue to debate, only to find that the polls suggest the country backs Feingold more than it backs Frist on the deal.

If I were you, I wouldn't presume to know anything about how electable Hillary is in 2008. As they say, careful what you wish for.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC

"2) I think Americans have become too fond of the idea of impeaching the president. I felt the same way when Clinton had his troubles."

Holy moly Johnny. You wanted to impeach a president that created a surplus, because of extracurricular activity? Can't believe you fell for that spin. There are numerous legitimate reasons to impeach Bush and where are your feelings now?

Agan, the attempt by the lefties to make the Clinton impeachment about sex when it was about perjury. He lied under oath.

js wrote:
"He [Feingold] sounded very intelligent, and one thing I respect about him is he backs up everything he says with reasons. You don't hear the usual rhetoric or slogans that you hear from everyone else. Murtha is another one that backs up everything he says with good common sense reasons."

js, the public does not want reasons. Remember how people, including the media, made jokes when Kerry explained why things needed to be changed or why direction needed adjusting. After a sentence or two people's eyes start to glaze over. Bush won by making statements without backing them up with anything except more statements, such as:
Freedom is on the march
because
People want freedom
and
We're gonna win in Iraq because people want to be free.
etc, etc, etc.
When Kerry explained HOW to win and WHY we needed to change strategies, people fell asleep, then voted for Bush. America is filled with morons who can't think past a 6th grade level nor want to. Bush courts them and today, with everything that has gone wrong, he has a 30+% approval rating. Those are the morons. His lies got the other 20+% before the election but those people have since wised up.

You can bet that the republicans will be back in '08 with the same moronic slogans aimed at the morons and Feingold will be sitting there explaining his views to only the 70% of America that can think for themselves. I remember a time when stupidity and simple mindedness was considered bad and you stayed educated by reading the paper. Now you can just watch Fox News, think you're being informed, but remain a moron.

Jamal, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe Johnnyg meant that he felt Americans were too quick to want impeachment even when it was Clinton underscrutiny. Might be wrong though.

Johnnyg:
"Holy moly Will. I went to that site you provided and I am shocked at two things.

1) Do the Democrats really think they can win with Hillary? If I were a Democrat, I would be pissed that she is the front-runner. She cannot win. Believe me. Imposssible."

I agree with you completely. I think Hillary and Kerry are just two more in a growing list of stupid actions the democratic party is taking. America is not ready for a female president. Especially one as mocked as Hillary is. If the repubs were picking Rice as their forerunner, I'd say she had a chance. Otherwise? No.

"Holy moly Johnny. You wanted to impeach a president that created a surplus, because of extracurricular activity? Can't believe you fell for that spin. There are numerous legitimate reasons to impeach Bush and where are your feelings now?"

no, no, no Jamal. Either you misunderstood my statements or they were not clear. I felt that at the time Clinton was having his troubles, many people were quick to bring this up. His lying under oath was bad, but I felt it was not an important enough issue to impeach the guy. I feel the same way now.

When my 70 year old mother comes over to visit for a few days (she lives out of town), she generally watches fox news.

After reading a lot of online newspapers, etc, I'm flabbergasted that fox even passes for 'news', and I'm hard pressed to think of anyone, with any kind of education, would feel differently.

Nothing is 'neutral' on fox. I'm left with a feeling that I'm being duped and getting more of a 'campaign' type of news, than with actually getting the news. It's very slanted and very biased.

I'm also noticing that a lot of CNN and MSNBC is becoming the same way.

Why can't we just get neutral news without all the slanted opinion and commentary?

Places like this (blogging and debating) should be the only place to hear others opinions.

I'm deeply disappointed to see it on so-called news channels. It makes me wonder how many stations are bought and paid for by higher ups who have an agenda to sell.

JS,
I hear ya. I was at the gym about a week ago when someone turned on Fox News. I hadn't watched it in about 3 years. I was absolutely stunned and laughing at it by the end of the show.

News is almost always slanted to some degree, unfortunately, though a few sources do attempt to negate that. Though sometimes, the subconcious use of certain words still implies slant.
While most people will assert that it is a liberal media, it is just as conservative as it is liberal. Often, the only cited 'evidence' about the media being liberal are the political leanings of journalists and newscasts, without looking at who pays the money. In the modern world, The Murdochs of the industrys take a large part in what they will or will not allow broadcast as the message of their corporations. And as corporations, they always have a certain direction they want the country to lean, thus the slant.

Posted by: Sully

"When Kerry explained HOW to win and WHY we needed to change strategies, people fell asleep, then voted for Bush. America is filled with morons who can't think past a 6th grade level nor want to."

I think you on to something, see the link:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_voter_iq.htm

Wow! I just checked out that website that another debater mentioned about IQ and Voter Preference. It's quite interesting.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_voter_iq.htm

It makes since when you hear our own president make comments such as:

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"-Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."--Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000

"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."--Reuters, May 5, 2000

"I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well."--Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2001

"Then I went for a run with the other dog and just walked. And I started thinking about a lot of things. I was able to--I can't remember what it was. Oh, the inaugural speech, started thinking through that."--Pre-inaugural interview with U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 22, 2001 issue

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."-Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000

"I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer qu