OK. This is getting ridiculous

[ProSense]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-greenwald/the-feingold-resolution-_b_17485.html

[Mass]

1. Any line in particular?

There are so many things that are ridiculous in this article that I have stopped reading. But, it is clear that we have one more week of this at least, except if another scandal happens in-between. The bloggers have found their subject and they will continue, even if I am not sure it gets that much traction in the public. Dont lose too much sleep on that.

I dont think it will go anywhere, except if a couple of Democrats actually able to build a coalition sign on it.

The utilisation of polls to show that the American people are behind that is simply disingenuous as it ignore polls that show the opposite.

Using Dana Milbank's article is getting more than tiring, particularly in the case of Kerry who had already spoken to the media about that,

And of course, it is the Democrats' fault if the media lie, as if it was the first time they did.

[MH1]

2. Eh, it's Greenwald. No big surprise.

Stopped clock and all that, but of course now isn't one of those times.

I think a lot of these guys are just reveling in their own echoes right now.

[jenndar]

3. Yes.

Yes it is.

[ProSense]

4. Just how ridiculous?

Feingold is further clarifying his position, which is good

Censure of Bush appropriate
By RUSS FEINGOLD
Posted: Mar. 17, 2006

The president has asked for the American people's trust as he conducts the fight against terrorism. But presidents don't only serve our country by asking for trust; they must also serve it by telling the truth.

This president has violated the public's trust, both by authorizing an illegal program to spy on Americans and by misleading the country about the existence and legality of that program.

Congress should respond by passing a resolution of censure condemning the president's misconduct. If Congress fails to censure the president, we will be tacitly condoning his actions and undermining the separation of powers and the rule of law.

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.

The facts are simple: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act makes it a crime to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without the requisite warrants, and the president has ordered warrantless wiretaps of Americans on U.S. soil.

more...

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

And Conyers is defending the Democrats (expected) and his position (notice the and or and link to his resolution, which clearly states impeachment)

Rep. John Conyers
03.17.2006

New York Times Shines Shills Again

The New York Times has had some remarkable coverage about Senator Feingold's censure resolution. Remarkable in its naivete and lack of balance.

Snip...

Perhaps more alarming is the transparent manner in which New York Times journalist, David D. Kirkpatrick volunteers as his sources in this article: "Paul Weyrich ... declared last month in an e-mail" or "The Republican National Committee sent the editorial out to its e-mail list of 15 million supporters" or "Rush Limbaugh told listeners on his syndicated radio program" or "The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, a conservative standard-bearer" or "Conservative Web sites and talk radio programs have lavished attention on the impeachment resolutions" or "for three days the Republican Party has sent radio hosts news bulletins."

Perhaps Kirkpatrick's "sources" may have explained to him I have done a bit of work. He mentions that I have "proposed an initial inquiry into a censure or impeachment of Mr. Bush over the war." He continues, "(s)o far, the Conyers proposal has attracted support from about two dozen of the chamber's 201 Democrats." About two dozen? An inquiry into censure or impeachment?

This flippant account of what must count for research is preposterous. There were actually 32 Members of Congress on my resolution. Maybe that's about two dozen. Or maybe that's more than 15% of the Democrats in Congress and a number that's growing every week. Maybe the author could have signed up for my email, or even called me or my staff if he wanted to know the facts. Or he could have gone to Congress.gov to find out who has signed up as a cosponsor.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-conyers/new-york-times-sh_b_17489.html