Why bother censuring Bush if we can wait a few months & impeach him?

[mtnsnake]

Don't get me wrong. I am not trying to pile onto Feingold for his censure move. I'm just wondering about the timing of it, since it would most likely end up being a purely symbolic move anyway, considering Republican senators hold the majority. It's highly doubtful that a single one of them would vote to affirm the measure.

With the elections only months away and looking better and better for Democrats all the time, I would rather wait until after we re-take the House in November and then go for broke. Impeach the bastard and send him to trial!

Why settle for chicken when you can have lobster?

[wake.up.america]

1. Man, I hope you are sooooo right. This clown should not get away with

with all the pain he has caused.

[redphish]

2. Everything we can do to keep building pressure is useful.

[uppityperson]

3. I'd like both.

[pat_k]

11. And Sen. Feingold made it crystal clear that Impeachment remains . . .

. . .very much on the table -- that censure is the MINIMUM action.

http://thedeanpeople.com/best-of-feingold.html

. . .Congress will need to consider a range of possible actions, including investigations, independent commissions, legislation, or even impeachment. But, at a minimum, Congress should censure a president who has so plainly broken the law. . . . Mr. President, we are faced with an executive branch that places itself above the law. . .

[ProSense]

36. That is not the statement Feingold made.

Congress may also consider a range of actions, including investigations, independent commissions, legislation or even impeachment. But, at a minimum, Congress should censure a president who has so plainly broken the law.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=408983

[pat_k]

39. Minimum is minimum. For Feingold, Impeachment is on the table. . .

. . .He is not demanding it now, but he DEFINITELY doesn't oppose it.

[ProSense]

41. Why has his statement been altered? n/t

[Senator]

49. <deleted>

[pat_k]

50. Nothing altered in "Best Of" which was pulled from Remarks posted on

. . .Sen. Feingold's site.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/2006313.html

[ProSense]

53. Sorry, you are right. I was referring to his most recent statement. n/t

[pat_k]

4. Every Senator who is keeping their mouth shut, when they know (or suspect)

. . .Bush is breaking the law and abusing power, is an accomplice to Bush's crimes.

Senators who voted for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force are paying a hefty price for their complicity in starting the war. It's hard to believe they don't see that failure to stand up for censure is the same thing -- that as more and more of this administration's crimes come to light, they'll be viewed as unprincipled weasels who betrayed us becasue they feared being called names.

Senator Feingold is giving every member of the Senator a fantastic opportunity to break their silence and complicity. Every Senator ought to be jumping at the chance to redeem himself/herself.

The discussion in the following piece on Impeachment are transferable to Censure.

To Impeach, or Not Impeach? That's the Wrong Question

[blm]

56. Feingold has censure where he wanted it - it's in committee. Why don't

people here GET THAT? They will be discussing it IN COMMITTEE amongst the Dem judiciary committee members.

People are demanding that senators come forth now when it's in the committee process - that's just dumb. Feingold wants censure debated in committee, he doesn't want it voted on right away which the GOPs were trying to do.

The longer it plays out now the better.

[mtnsnake]

57. I think you're right. Wasn't it sourpuss Cheney who challenged Democrats

to vote on it right away in a feeble attempt at discouraging discussion on it?

[blm]

61. Yep - you think THAT should've clued some DUers in then? Or when Frist

tried to demand a vote? Or when Feingold left the floor of the senate and wouldn't further debate Specter on the floor?

Man, people need to LEARN about how process works before they pull the pins on the grenades they are so quick to throw.

[snappyturtle]

5. NO!!!

The time is now! I want to see the "spineless" Democrats now BEFORE the election. The facts for impeachment are as good now as later. How much of this do we have to take? How does waiting improve our international image? Besides, if impeachment were now instead of later maybe we can get rid of even more repubs in the Fall election.

[mtnsnake]

13. I felt like you a couple years ago...

I wanted to charge Bush with impeachment articles, despite not having the majority to actually impeach him. I just wanted to at least get it on his record that an impeachment attempt was made.

However, since we've waited all this time to do nothing, and now with the mid-terms only months away, we might as well wait that short additional time and go for broke. At this late stage there isn't much point in going after him now from a position of weakness. In November, that will all change and we can do it from a position of strength, judging by all pre-election indicators.

[snappyturtle]

18. I don't think we're...

operating from a position of weakness! The repubs are.....too many of them are turning (I guess they're leaves!) sorry, I couldn't help myself!

[pnwmom]

71. We have the facts, but we lack a majority in either house.

We're doomed to fail if we try to impeach now, barring unforeseen circumstances. But come next fall, we may have a majority in either or both houses. And then all bets are off.

[Sparkman]

82. Why shelter the lying propagandists for another minute. DENOUNCIATION now

and suport ANY and ALL methods to bring the FACTS into light. The RW neo-cons and their appologists (for $$ or political correctness) WIN ever time EXCUSES are proferred up to DEALY JUSTICE. Justice delayed is Justice Denied seems to fit here for me. Comfortable, well fed RICH citizens OWE it to themselves to ACT. WE ARE RICHER THAN 90% OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD, and yet play political rhetorical games to avoid taking a side, for truth and for democracy.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Censure Forces The Issue

If Dubai W is censured over evading FISA, and he continues to evade FISA (which is his nature), he will be mpeached.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. practice makes perfect.

[Zen Democrat]

8. Feingold's move was in response to the Republican senators ...

who want to pass a law to legalize Bush's criminal usurpation of the 4th Amendment. The Republicans would love to cover Bush's ass with ex post facto legislation to innoculate him against impeachment -- which is not an option with Republicans running Congress.

I see this move by Feingold as a nightmare for Bush and Gonzales and their attempts to carry out illegal surveillance and physical searches without warrants. And that's a good thing.

[MrBenchley]

9. Hell, even if it passed, it's nothing but a symbolic move....

The only president ever censured was Andrew Jackson, and there's no sign Old Hickory did anything but sneer. It certainly didn't change his policies one iota.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Censures_President.htm

[pat_k]

70. There's nothing symbolic about transforming from an accomplice to

. . .an objector.

Every Senator who is keeping his or her mouth shut about the charges against Bush and Cheney is aiding and abetting. Censure is an accusation and a verdict of guilty. It is a meaningful act and a first step out of complicity for every member who chooses to stand with Sen. Feingold.

Further, Censure by the Senate is essentially a verdict of guilty from the body that serves as trier of fact in an Impeachment.

With Censure, they've already found him guilty, removal from office is simply deferred until the House gets their act together and sends up Articles of Impeachment for a vote.

[MrBenchley]

72. It's symbolic grandstanding, and nothing more....

"With Censure, they've already found him guilty, removal from office is simply deferred until the House gets their act together and sends up Articles of Impeachment for a vote."
Yeah, THAT's progressive justice in a nutshell......

[pat_k]

73. Simply standing up and accusing is a step away from complicity. .

. . .I note that you have ignored that central point.

Feingold always emphasizes the significance of Bush's response to Censure -- a point that most seem to miss.

If the Senate Censured Bush and Bush arrogantly refused to acknowledge wrong-doing (as would be expected), it would leave no doubt that he is the kingpin in a rogue administration that will only respond to force -- i.e., Impeachment and forcible removal (and the trier of fact, the Senate, have already recorded thier guilty verdict via censure).

[mtnsnake]

74. The trouble is, at this point in time, it would never come to that

"If the Senate Censured Bush and Bush arrogantly refused to acknowledge wrong-doing (as would be expected), it would leave no doubt that he is the kingpin in a rogue administration...."

Trouble is, chances of getting Bush censured at this point in time are next to nil, considering there probably isn't a single Republican senator who'd go along with it. With no majority to vote it through, it could drop like a lead balloon. Thus, the move to censure at this juncture of time is, in essence, symbolic.

[pat_k]

76. Perhaps the most common rationalization invoked for failure act when . . .

. . . principle demands it is "Can't Happen, So Don't Try."

You have once again failed to acknowledge the inescapable choice that every member of Congress faces: duty or complicity.

Every day that they maintain their silence they are making a choice; a decision to evade duty and thereby act as accessory after the fact to the crimes that they know, or suspect, the administration of committing.

Feingold has offered them an opportunity to break that silence and the complicity that plagues them. Whether they take advantage of this opportunity, or stand up later, they can redeem themselves. (Just as Sen. Boxer admitted her mistake, and redeemed herself for her failure to object to the Florida electors on January 6th, 2001.)

Censure is a start; an accusation; an end to silence. Ultimately, as the threat to our Constitution continues, the only way they will be able to discharge their obligation will be to initiate impeachment proceedings.

The choice is an individual choice, the complicity, individual guilt. But each one who chooses duty is doing far more than making a symbolic, meaningless, stand.

For their sakes, and for the sake of the country, we do whatever we can to make their duty clear to them, but whether 5, or 50, or 100 ultimately choose duty depends on them.

When principle demands action, outcome expectations, positive or negative, do not enter into the decision to act.

You are not alone in belittling action against long odds. Too many on the center/left would have us sit on our hands because they believe defeat is assured, and therefore action is futile -- "a waste of energy" (as if we have some limited pool of energy that we need to conserve) or a "meaningless" act (as if an individual's choice to "do the right thing" is meaningless.)

This type of rationalization is perhaps the biggest barrier to action we face on the center/left. It is very deeply ingrained. Over and over we allow appeals to "practicality" and "realism" immobilizes us. One of the primary reasons Democrats are viewed as wimps is their failure to "fight the good fights," come what may.

Like an addiction, "Won’t happen, don’t bother" is terrible habit that reinforces itself. People don't fight for something because "it's futile." The something never happens because people aren't fighting, "proving" the futility.

Conventional wisdom assured us (even mockingly) that we would never get a Senator to stand up and object to the Ohio electors on January 6th. No mainstream good government entity even considered fighting to make it happen. They were too busy whipping themselves for losing, when Kerry had in fact won. Citizen lobbyists took up the fight. Mainstream folks didn't jump on board until it was clear that the effort itself was energizing people in a way they might well capitalize on.

Had they acted sooner, who knows? We might have inaugurated President Kerry on January 20th, 2005. And acting "sooner" could have been as early as December 12, 2000. Who knows? We might have inaugurated President Gore on January 20th, 2001.

There are so many other examples.

We like to think of ourselves as reasonable people, but it is not reasonable to guarantee failure with the notion "can't be done, so don't try." That only makes sense if you believe in your own omniscience.

It is time to be truly reasonable and fight the good fights. Even when we don't think anything will work, we must still act on principle. (There are always benefits on the road, no matter what the outcome.)

For any who doubt that members of Congress are duty-bound to act

With regard to criminal activities of in the judiciary or executive branches, Congress has a duty that is akin to any law enforcement agency.

If the police see a crime in progress, they have a duty to act. They do not stop to ask whether or not they will successfully catch, convict, and punish the criminals. They do not ask whether the criminals' friends will call them names. They go after the criminals. They seek to bring them to justice.

Congress is no different. Every member is sworn to support and defend the Constitution.

Compelling evidence has been presented -- by analysts, credible reporters, countless insiders, and independent sources -- that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other high officials have abused power, broken our laws, and violated the Constitution for the United States.

We have a prima fascia case that Bush is continuing his criminal surveillance program, and thereby, continuing to break our law. In addition, on several counts, powerful cases have been compiled based on credible and verifiable evidence that Bush and other high officials have engaged in, and are continuing to engage in, criminal conspiracies that constitute serious damage to the institutions of United States Government and the principle of consent (the sole moral principle on which the nation was founded).

Given the gravity of the charges, the continuing threat to our constitutional democracy, and their sworn duty, members of Congress are duty bound to accuse and seek punishment.

To Impeach, or Not Impeach? That's the Wrong Question

[MrBenchley]

75. It's an empty gesture, full of sound and fury but signfiying nothing

When the Senate censured Andrew Jackson, it didn't mean jackshit. Nor would a censure of Bush today.

And it's intriguing to note that a trial in which the verdict has already been pre-rendered seems hunky-dory to you...

[pat_k]

77. You fail to acknowledge each member's inescapable choice: duty or complici

Like mtnsnake, your reply ignores the content of my post. You have failed to acknowledge the inescapable choice that every member of Congress faces: duty or complicity.

Every day that they maintain their silence they are making a choice; a decision to evade duty and thereby act as accessory after the fact to the crimes that they know, or suspect, the administration of committing.

Censure is a start; an accusation; an end to silence. The choice is an individual choice, the complicity, individual guilt. But each one who chooses duty is doing far more than making a symbolic, meaningless, stand.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2521165&mesg_id=2524340

[mtnsnake]

78. Yes censure is a start. It's also symbolic despite any way you spin it

Trouble is, not only is censuring the president symbolic because it amounts to nothing more than a slap on the wrist, but the MOVE to censure is also symbolic in itself because that's as far as it would get...just the move to do it. The actual motion wouldn't get passed at this juncture in time.

Censure or the move to censure = symbolic and symbolic

[pat_k]

79. Like a whistleblower who can no longer go along to get along, there's

. . .nothing symbolic about a member of Congress breaking their silence and accusing Bush of his crimes. It is a meaningful, not a symbolic, action.

Once again, you merely reassert your belief rather than challenge the content of my post. "That's spin" wins no points in a debate.

[mtnsnake]

80. No one wants to see Bush punished more than I do

Check out this thread, which I posted last year: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1827147#1828030

Getting back to the subject of censure, it wouldn't amount to a pile of beans.

I want to go for broke. I want impeachment. The more I hear about censure, the more I think that any censuring move at this point of time is more of a threat to impeachment than anything else. Any move to censure right now will only result in mobilizing the Republican forces to get reunited, re-group their fragmented conservative base, and come out to vote in force in the midterm elections. Maybe you're not worried about impeachment being jeopardized with this censure move. I sure as heck am. I want impeachment or at least an impeachment attempt on Bush's record, not any symbolic censure move that really means diddly squat.

[pat_k]

83. Your reply is, once again, not responsive to anything I have said (nt)

[MrBenchley]

84. It's a cheap stunt.....

If you want to posture dramatically, feel free....but don't be surprised it fails to fetch....

[pat_k]

85. Your reply isn't responsive to anything I have said (nt)

[MrBenchley]

86. Well, hell, if that's all that bothers you....

I'm still bemused by somebody whose notion of justice is a trial in which a guilty verdict has already been decided upon.

[pat_k]

87. Why do you reply to me when you apparently have no intention of addressing

. . . a single point I have made?

Your repeated failure to acknowledge the duty demanded by the oath that every member of Congress takes, indicates that you don't think that oath has any practical significance (i.e., its AOK to for them to say "maybe later" when duty calls). I wonder if you would oppose court marshal of a soldier or marine who chose to evade their sworn duty by deserting until they deemed it safe to join the battle?

If you would not oppose such action, I would ask why you don't expect members of Congress to risk being called names or losing their an election to fulfill their oath? Certainly the fears that a kid in the Army or Marines must overcome to carry out their duty are far more significant than any risk a member of Congress faces.

The bemusement you express indicates that you do not acknowledge the Bush's offenses have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whatever your reasons for replying when you have no intention of addressing any point I have made, I will nevertheless respond to your implied assertion because composing the response will be useful to me in other contexts.

Indictable offenses for which guilt is self-evident

By his own admission, Bush violated, and is continuing to violate, the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act -- U.S. Code Title 50, Section 1805 (Unauthorized surevilance). This is a prima fascia case -- by definition, a crime on it's face. All that remains is comprehensive investigation to determine the scope of the criminal program and to identify and try the high-officials who participated in the conspiracy to violate our laws and our Constitution (with Gonzales and John Yoo being at the top of the list).

Also, by their own admission, Bush, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, John Yoo and other high-officials violated, and are continuing to violate, Title 18 section 2441. War crimes, but I would leave prosecution of these crimes to the International Court of Justice at the Hague. Once they are forced from office, the next step is to turn them over to answer for their crimes against international laws that we have adopted in our own Federal Criminal Code.

Indictable offenses for which there may be valid reasons to reserve judgement

Although Abuse of Power and other High Crimes need not be violations of U.S. Code, the charges against Bush and his co-conspirators include additional such violations. For example, although one could probably make a valid argument that the following charges have yet to be proven, there are powerful cases on the following:

18 USC Sec. 844(e) Bomb threat -- They TERRORIZED the American people with the most colossal bomb threat in history (mushroom clouds in 45 minutes) in violation of violation of U.S. Code Title 18, Section 844 paragraph (e). Specifically:

Whoever, through the use of the mail, telephone, telegraph, or other instrument of interstate or foreign commerce, or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, willfully makes any threat, or maliciously conveys false information knowing the same to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made, or to be made, to kill, injure, or intimidate any individual or unlawfully to damage or destroy any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property by means of fire or an explosive shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years or fined under this title, or both.

Countless acts of negligent homicide, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and wreckless endangerment of the members of our armed forces.

In their failure to take even minimal steps to prevent the attacks of September 11th, they committed more than 3000 acts of negligent homicide and countless acts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and reckless endangerment.

To Impeach, or Not Impeach? That's the Wrong Question

Impeachment First. Our House is Burning. Stop Remodeling and Put Out the Fire!

How to Resist the Fascist Take-Over: Banishing Fascist Fantasies from the "Marketplace of Ideas"

[MrBenchley]

88. Yeah,it's that progressive attitude that amuses me so....

"Verdict first, then the trial".....

[pat_k]

89. With an irrefutable prima fascia case, the only questions

. . . that each member of Congress must answer are:

1. What immediate action do I need to take to defend the principles and institutions
   we established under the Constitution for the United States?


2. What action do I need to take to hold Bush accountable for his violation of
   the Constitution and U.S. Criminal Code? Officially denounce? Seek to remove from office?

Far more devastating than Bush's violations against individual Americans is his assertion that unitary authoritarian power puts him above the law. First and foremost, members of Congress have a duty to banish that fascist fantasy in any way they can.

From Charges Against George W. Bush:

. . .
By his own admission, George W. Bush violated, and is continuing to violate, the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- U.S. Code Title 50, Section 1805 (Unauthorized surveillance).

Further investigation could uncover additional violations and co-conspirators (with Gonzales and John Yoo likely to top the list), but we know everything we need to know to find Bush guilty on the charge of Unauthorized surveillance.

The case that Bush violated FISA is a simple one. The evidence is readily accessible to the public. It is an irrefutable prima fascia case that can be easily conveyed to the American people.

George W. Bush's violations pose a grave threat to the principles and institutions we established under the Constitution for the United States. While the violation of individual rights is intolerable, it is Bush's claim that his unitary authoritarian power puts him above the law that is truly devastating. Given the gravity and urgency, members of Congress have a sworn duty to take immediate action to defend the nation.

Sen. Feingold's Censure resolution provides one mechanism by which members of Congress can record their judgment of guilt and denounce George W. Bush for his actions. Should Bush dismiss that judgment and continue to violate our law, the only way to defend our constitutional democracy from his assertion of Un-American, dictatorial, power is Impeachment. . .

[MrModerate]

10. Because dems in the senate have to show US . .

(and by US I mean the progressive wing of the party) that they have some backbone. If they wimp on this, I'm afraid too many people will sit at home on election day.

[MadisonProgressive]

40. That is the bottom line for me

Feingold is doing all of us a BIG FAVOR! He is putting the DLC cowards in a position that they don't want to be in - exposing their cowardice! The seed is separated from the chaff on this one, folks! For all the world to see. I for one, want to know which ones are the lilly-livered DINOs BEFORE it's time for the election.

[IndianaGreen]

12. I am sure that our courageous Nancy Pelosi will carry the impeachment

banner if she becomes Speaker of the House.

:sarcasm:

[aden_nak]

14. This censure is a very smart PR move for the 2006 elections.

Bush's approval rating is about 1/3 of the country. Which means that 2/3 of the country don't approve, and at least half the country (according to the same polls) strongly dislike him. The GOP response to this has been to try to distance its candidates from Bush (the Dubai Port Deal, for example). But you know they're not going to go as far as to Censure him. So when the 2006 elections roll around, every Democrat going after a Republican seat can point at them and say, "They side with Bush."

[pat_k]

16. Impeachment: A Campaign's Tactical Nuke

Impeachment: A Campaign's Tactical Nuke = Standing up for Censure now, and making a commitment to pursue the charges against George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and other high officials in the administration in the only meaningful way available to Congress: Impeachment.

[mtnsnake]

17. Good point

I just hope it wouldn't jeopardize any future impeachment attempt.

[pat_k]

43. Doesn't matter. We must fight the good fights, come what may. . .

http://thedeanpeople.org/impeachment-clobber-rationalizations.html

With regard to criminal activities of in the judiciary or executive branches, Congress has a duty that is akin to any law enforcement agency.

If the police see a crime in progress, they have a duty to act. They do not stop to ask whether or not they will successfully catch, convict, and punish the criminals. They do not ask whether the criminals' friends will call them names. They go after the criminals. They seek to bring them to justice.

Congress is no different.

Related Post #32
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2521165&mesg_id=2521252

[flpoljunkie]

64. Why? Censure says that we Dems believe no one is above the rule of law..

not even the president of the United States, and that we are willing to stand up and say so.

[TayTay]

15. There are reasonable arguments for this and against it

This is a President who is vastly weaker than he was about a year ago (pre Terry Schiavo.) It is possible that this censure resolution will further weaken him, if enough Dem Senators sign on. This President rules by intimidation and threatening members of his own political Party by stating that the gravey train will end for individual Congressmen or Senators if they oppose his bills and such. This censure resolution, whether it has 'teeth' in it legally or not, would show that people are not intimidated by this blow-hard and are not afraid of him.

The tide of public opinion has turned against this phoney and shallow man. The public has seen that this Emporer has no clothes and *enough* people are ready to call him on this. (Enough is important. The amount of support now is, I think, a floor for approval of the censure motion, not a ceiling. I think support for this will grow.)

The best argument against the censure resolution is that it takes the focus away from the months long pursuit of the Democrats to get formal hearings. That push goes back 2 years now and the Repubs have shown no sign of holding any kind of responsible hearings at all. Getting Intel Hearings was what Sen. Reid and the Dems 'shot down the Senate' for on Nov 1st. The Democrats should be consistent and push for that continuing agenda and consistly push Frist and Roberts to hold those hearings and demand accountability.

I don't think one cancels out the other. I think we should have hearings. I think a censure resolution should be debated on the floor of the Senate. Ideally, this could be a whole day debate, with actual meaningful speeches on the floor. However, that has zero chance of happening. The Rethugs will read the current polls that show a split in the country on this and bury it in committee. (There is nothing the Dems can do about that. Even if every single Dem signs the censure resolution, the Rethugs have the power to kill it in the Judiciary Committee. Sen. Specter baited Sen. Feingold on the floor last Monday and proclaimed that he wanted a debate in the Judiciary Comm. I wonder if he has read the latest polls and still wants to take that chance? If he does, I bet the Rethug caucus would have something to say about it and possibily take the Committee chairmanship away from him.) Still, the Dems can show the public that they are a serious critical force if they do press for both events and emphasize that they want accountability and responsibility in this government. We can do both.

[pat_k]

19. No reasonable arguments against -- Just rationalizations that must be. . .

. . .challenged.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=676532&mesg_id=689323

And the biggest rationalizations for inaction is "can't happen so don't try" -- When principle demands action, outcome expectations, positive or negative, do not enter into the decision to act.

Tragically, too many are immobilized by the rationalization that "It can't happen, so there is no reason to try," or "We aren't acting because it's futile," or some other variation.

We MUST challenge and get past this rationalization. The consequences of falling victim to it are catastrophic.

The notion that "it's futile, we can’t do anything" is perhaps the biggest barrier to action we face on the center/left. It is very deeply ingrained. Over and over we allow appeals to "practicality" and "realism" immobilizes us. One of the primary reasons Democrats are viewed as wimps is their failure to fight the good fights, come what may.

The Reactionary Right are not blocked in this way. They go for it and are perceived as strong. Public opinion is swayed by the strength, no matter how wrong-headed the goals are.

Even if the ultimate goal is not achieved, there are ALWAYS wins and benefits along the way, not the least of which is simply engaging people in a common endeavor. (If you want people to get hooked on action, just meet their need to be effective by celebrating the interim achievements -- e.g., tracking the number of previously disengaged people we are involving).

Some call it confidence; some call it faith. The label doesn't matter as long as we understand how powerful it is to act from the knowledge that anything is possible.

[TayTay]

24. No, I have read good-faith arguments from people

who have been standing up to Bush for a long time. They *did* doubt that this would do any good.

Every so often something comes along that re-shuffles the deck. This may just be one of those things. If so, let the Senators go to their home states and take a sample of public opinion. Cong. Murtha has said that the American people are way ahead of the Congress in their concerns about the war and their doubts about it's outcome. It may be that way with this resolution.

Let the Senators see what public opinion is like in their home states. (That is the whole theory of a representative democracy, isn't it?) Then we shall see what happens next week when Congress goes back into sesssion.

We have time on this. We have oodles of time. It's not like the Rethugs are now in any hurry to bring this to a vote either in Committee or on the floor. (I am beginning to think that the more Dems that sign on, the worse the chance of it every getting to any vote at all is. I think the Rethugs would be afraid of having to go into the '06 elections having voted against it.) Time might just be our best friend on this one.

[pat_k]

27. "Good faith or not" they are rationalizations that crumble in the . . .

when confronted with simple truths and moral positions.

[TayTay]

30. How so?

What are you extended thought on this? It is not self-evident.

[pat_k]

34. The referenced links in my posts to this thread make the case. (nt)

[mtnsnake]

21. I have a question

and I'm asking this because I don't really know the answer.

If we had a censure vote now, could that jeopardize any future chances of impeaching him? I guess that's what I worry about the most. I want this guy impeached and I don't want anything to come between him and that.

[TayTay]

28. No. They are not related votes.

Impeachment starts in the House anyway. Rep Conyers has a motion to start the ball rolling on Impeachment and 30 House members have signed on. It has zero chance of going anywhere in the current House of Representatives. (Rep. Conyers was put in the basement of the office buildings when he had the DSM hearing last year. They would make him sit in the parking garage for anything as serious as even beginning to debate an Impeachment.)

The Senate Resolution is, as far as I know, a stand-alone motion that would not impact anything else. The Rethugs are trying to spin like mad and make it sound like voting this down would end the debate for all other inquiries, but that is just spin. And it was spin that came out before the polls that show that this Resolution is not nearly the loser with the public the Rethugs thought it would be. That changes things a lot.

[mtnsnake]

33. Thanks

That makes me feel a little better

[pat_k]

32. No. Some might try to weasel out of impeachment . . .

. . . rationalizaing that we already Censured him, but there is nothing about Censure the precludes impeachment, in fact, once they take a step toward breaking the bonds of complicity, they are on the right path. There is every reason to believe that it will make it easier for many to take the next step.

Amd. whether or not is makes it easier or harder to move individual members of Congres toward impeachment, when principle demands action, speculation about outcome must not weigh into the decision to act.

The discussion in http://thedeanpeople.org/impeachment-clobber-rationalizations.html is transferable to Censure:

. . .
On the Eve of Battle: Unfounded Fears and Realistic Rewards

When principle demands action, outcome expectations, positive or negative, do not enter into the decision to act, but a realistic assessment of the risks and benefits can make it easier to take the necessary action.

Discussions of impeachment typically focus on dire predictions of "backlash" or other negative consequences that have little basis in reality. Rarely, if ever, do we hear that taking up the fight to initiate impeachment proceedings will benefit any leader who does so. This omission is mystifying, particularly because there is solid evidence that fighting for impeachment is a political winner.
. . .

[mtnsnake]

35. Cool

thanks

[Clarkie1]

20. You do know that Feingold is against impeachment, right?

What senators do you anticipate beginning impeachment proceedings?

[mtnsnake]

22. Impeachment proceedings would have to start in the House

and that's a shame if Feingold is agaisnt impeachment. Yikes.

[Clarkie1]

44. These are his words.

"But the Constitution does not require us to go down that road,
and I hope that in a sense I'm a voice of moderation on this point,
where I'm saying it may not be good for the country to do this, it may
not be good for the country in a time of war to try to remove the
president from office, even though he's surely done something wrong."

-Senator Russell Feingold, 3/16/06

[pat_k]

25. No, he is not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2521165&mesg_id=2521202

[Clarkie1]

31. Yes, he is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2519667

[pat_k]

52. Oppose Impeachment **is NOT equal to** Consider Impeachment

. . .as we move forward.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/2006313.html

As we move forward, Congress will need to consider a range of possible actions, including investigations, independent commissions, legislation, or even impeachment. But, at a minimum, Congress should censure a president who has so plainly broken the law.

[ProSense]

58. But three days later he said this during his press conference

But the Constitution does not require us to go down that road, and I hope that in a sense I'm a voice of moderation on this point, where I'm saying it may not be good for the country to do this, it may not be good for the country in a time of war to try to remove the president from office, even though he's surely done something wrong.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/2006316.html

[pat_k]

68. His position, "Censure now, perhaps Impeach later" isn't opposing . . .

. . .impeachment.

Characterizing censure as "moderation" or as "minimum" in no way rules out impeachment. In essense, Censure is Impeachment without removal from office. Removal from office can come later.

Censure = charge, find guilty, and denounce

Successful Impeachment = charge, try, find guilty, and remove from office

Unsuccessful Impeachment = charge, try, find innocent

It is notable that Feingold always emphasizes the significance of Bush's response to Censure.

No one is saying it, but if the Senate Censured Bush, and Bush arrogantly refused to acknowledge wrong-doing, it would leave no doubt that he is the kingpin in a rogue administration that will only respond to force -- i.e., Impeachment and forcible removal (with the guilty verdict already in place via censure).

[ProSense]

37. Feingold's did not state "Congress will need...

Here is the actual statement:

Congress may also consider a range of actions, including investigations, independent commissions, legislation or even impeachment. But, at a minimum, Congress should censure a president who has so plainly broken the law.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=408983

[pat_k]

51. See official remarks "As Prepared" posted on Senator Feingold's site

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/2006313.html

[BR_Parkway]

23. Censure resolution leads to investigation leads to impeachment

and keeps the pressure/media coverage on the entire way. Initial media coverage was greater because Dems didn't support it, so media had a 'hook' instead of the more typical "in other news, obstuctionist Dems voted along party lines to censure the President, stay tuned for... OMG, wait, another missing white pregnant cruise ship victim who once auditioned for American Idol and thought about staying overnight with OJ at Michael Jackson's ranch back when he was paying the employees to work has just been reported, here is our own breathless Wolf who sleeps in the Situation room with more...

Actual coverage should continue as more Dems Senators sign on.

[MadisonProgressive]

26. I can hear them now...

What hypocrites! You never did anything about impeachment or even censure and now that you have the majority you are just doing it because you can! Purely political dirty tricks!!

[radio4progressives]

29. cuz impeachment is going disappear from the agenda, that's why

[AtomicKitten]

38. censure and impeachment are independent actions

- one does not preclude the other. And in spite of all the predictions offered as certainty (as usual here at DU), the misinformation, and the gratuitous slams based on predictions, the truth is we can't predict the future and the ever-changing political climate. We can, however, deluge our elected officials with our demand that they proceed with impeachment hearings tout suit as a condition of their (re)election in November.

[MoonRiver]

42. Because it shows that Dems do the correct and moral thing, i.e.

uphold the rule of law and the Constitution, unlike our Repuke brethren.

[Neil Lisst]

45. Foreshadowing.

Some of us appreciate the drama of this play! :)

[Radical Activist]

46. It makes it an election issue and builds momentum toward impeachment

You can't go from zero to 60 in no seconds.

[Senator]

47. One of the Stages of "Giving Ourselves Grief"

As I replied to the Legalistic Stage:

. . .
This is just the "legalistic" form of knee-jerk defeatism. There will also be "backlash" defeatism to deal with, and "civility" defeatism, and "later is always better - ducks in a row - strategic" defeatism, and "never gonna happen - gosh, we're so helpless" futilism, and on and on...

We're liberals. It's an ingrained behavior
. . .

However, unlike death, impeachment and/or censure is not inevitable.

For those who want to move beyond these counter-productive cul-de-sacs I have written a RoadMap to follow.

--
www.january6th.org

[NanceGreggs]

48. Impeachment/Censure ...

... is not an either/or choice.

During the Ports Deal fiasco, many DUers were calling it another Rove tactic - the Repubs will stand up to the president, to look good in front of their constituents in an election year. That battle was strictly in the hands of the GOP, and through back-room machinations, the battle was averted. So now they look as though they stood up for what was right, and would have gone down to the wire against the WH if necessary. (Always easy to use the, "Yeah, but I WOULD have hit the guy" excuse, after the other guy has already walked away.)

Bringing a censure resolution to a vote is NOT a battle of the GOP's choosing. They will either have to stand FOR their president's breaking of the law, or against it. We all know what they'll do - and I want it on the record.

The Democrats, on the other hand, could stand firm AS A PARTY on this. They just might look like they're not the spineless group they have been perceived to be for the last five years.

Censure is a public humiliation, domestically and internationally. And Bush no longer has the political capital necessary to come back from that blow and stand as strong as used to. He will be severely weakened in the eyes of his own, as well as the rest of us.

"Evil also flourishes when good men stand by and do nothing."

And doing nothing has, unfortunately, been the 'political strategery' of the Dems for too long.

When someone breaks the law, as Bush has so blatantly done, you stand up and say so, and let the chips fall where they may.

I, for one, am tired of hearing about 'waiting for the right moment', when time and again, the Democrats have let the moment pass until it is too late.

It's one thing to keep your powder dry until you get a better shot. It's another to keep it dry until the enemy has already defeated you, and moved on.

The time is now.

[Minnesota Libra]

54. You going to GUARANTEE another election won't be stolen?? nt

[mtnsnake]

55. If push comes to shove do you think the leaves might forget to bud?

[Minnesota Libra]

59. Great-when we don't like the answer-we change the subject. nt

[mtnsnake]

60. Look pal, if you wanna discuss Diebold, start your own thread if you care

so much about it.

Now run along...

[Minnesota Libra]

62. The point being why wait for impeachment when we can't guarantee..........

.....the next election will be fair and, therefore, we can't guarantee Democrats/Liberals will be in the majority?? We all know neocons won't impeach Bush. Now, how is that? :eyes:

[PBass]

63. No 'double jeopardy' on impeachment...

Everybody knows that the Democrats don't have the numbers needed to impeach Bush now (even if they had the will, which I'm not convinced they do).

So impeachment resolution would fail, if it were brought up today. After that, impeachment is a dead issue. You can't reasonably expect to bring up impeachment a second time, once it's already been shot down.

Censure resolution accomplishes much of what an impeachment resolution would do, with no negatives if it is defeated (as long as Dems support it as a group). Force the GOP to go on record with a vote for/against censure, and it's lose-lose for them... do they support the rule of law? Or do they support the President? Either choice has negative political consequences for the GOP.

Plus, impeachment is still on the table.

[Minnesota Libra]

65. That's what I've been advocating but it seems many want to wait on the....

.....censure and just go for impeachment later.:wtf: My contention is there is no guarantees this next election will be any more fair than any election has been since 2000.:freak: So why not take what we can get for now? Then if Democrats take over control of the House and Senate we go for the big impeachment.:bounce: It just seems to me that Democrats have been waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and since Feingold introduced his censure bill many here at DU all of a sudden want to wait.:wtf:

[hippiechick]

66. Why does a prosecutor give an opening statement ?

To lay the groundwork for their case in the jury's mind.

Why censure ahead of impeachment ? Same reason, IMO.

[pat_k]

69. Censure = charge, find guilty, and denounce

It's more than an opening statement. In essence, it is a verdict of guilty with a deferred sentence (i.e., a successful impeachment w/o removal from office).

It's notable that Feingold always emphasizes the significance of Bush's response to Censure.

No one is saying it, but if the Senate Censured Bush, and Bush arrogantly refused to acknowledge wrong-doing, it would leave no doubt that he is the kingpin in a rogue administration that will only respond to force -- i.e., Impeachment and forcible removal (and the trier of fact, the Senate, have already recorded thier guilty verdict via censure).

[Sparkly]

67. Gets in on the radar, and forces hearings.

Edited to add: The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[Sparkman]

81. Censuring a war monger, for any reason at any time, is bit of JUSTICE.

Do you Americans pride yourselves for censuring voices here on DU, that serve up reminders that the U.S. murders tens of thousands of INNOCENT MEN, WOMEN & CHILDREN, for the LIBERTIES YOU DEMAND?!
Not supporting ANY attempts to educate and announce and decry the crimes of a despot, a TERRORIST like those in political office is COMPLICITY IN THEIR CRIMES.
How difficult is it to add just one simple task to your day, and voice support for those truths that the corporate owned propaganda machine suppress. WE SHOULD BE SEEING PHOTOS DAILY OF THE DEATH & DESTRUCTION OF LIVES in Iraq, in Afgahnistan, in Columbia, in any region that U.S. tax dollars fund military and clandestine war and infiltration into sovereign nations. You even ignore the BAN on U.S. military caskets and casualties? What kind of sugar mountain, lollypop world is this nation becoming. VIDEO GAMES ARE NOT REALITY.