Posted on 02/01/2006 6:09:12 AM PST by OXENinFLA
Are the hearings finished, or will Gonzales have to come back? I had to log off before Specter finished with his performance.
Did you hear about the cat fight between Reid and Arlen yesterday...
No where, on the floor?
Is the Senate gone for the day?
No, they're not gone. Feingold is on the floor calling the President a lawbreaker. It's pretty awful.
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Feingold now on the floor of the Senate ranting about the State of the Union address, including comments about the NSA terroist surveillance and WMD/war in Iraq.
I wonder if someone will get up and respond to Feingold.
Me too. He's a a tear of a rant, that's for sure. The chamber looks empty.
The "pre-1776" line of argument is really offensive to me. As with nearly every other issue, instead of having an honest, tough dialog, both sides are playing sound-bite politics using extreme terms and inapt examples. / sigh /
DEMs being more over-the-top and inflammatory - and really not much can be done without rebutting their crap.
Is Feingold jumping into the "impeach Bush now" camp? It sounds like it. Bad road to go down, imo.
He's repeating the same old groundwork for some sort of political payback.
Bad road to go down, imo.
I agree. They won't get enough traction with these issues. At the same time, I don't thenk Presindet Bush has played his hand very strongly. That "AUMF gives us authorization for this" gets under the skin of Congress - not just DEMs either. At some point, the administration will want to distance from that, but I don't know how it will manage to do so with grace and saving face.
Here's Harry to tell us what the REAL problem is.
Just talking to myself for no particular reason other than to point out that Dingy cannot pronounce "judiciary." He has never managed to say the word correctly that I have ever heard.
I won't ask what Feingold said..but, please tell me that it made him look stupid!
Yes, he did, and angry and spiteful. This guy is just not presidential material. He'll get the Kos Kidz and that will be about it.
LIVE on SENATE FLOOR * Harry Reid calling for Filibuster *
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1573829/posts
Wednesday, Feb 8, 2006
9:45 a.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.
Thereafter, begin consideration of S. 852, the Asbestos Claims bill.
Previous Meeting
Tuesday, Feb 7, 2006
The Senate convened at 9:45 a.m. and adjourned at 7:20 p.m. One record vote was taken.
I heard Frist close the Senate last night...saying today would be speeches only...offering amendments...no votes..
there will be a long break for Dem caucus.
So...yet another day that our pocketbooks are safe...ahhhhhh.
I wonder if any of the REPS will have anything to say about that funeral/dem campaign rally yesterday?
There are all kind so hearings on the budget...on c-span 1 & 3...
BUT, guess what it on C-span 3 at 1:00???
LOBBY REFORM...with MCCAIN and FEINGOLD!!!
OH, MY....
Both sides are still dicking around on material that is pretty far from the eventual battlefield where this issue is decided. It's easy to demolish the "AUMF authorizes this program" argument, and that is where most of the argument has been conducted.
It's harder to refute the "inherent authority" argument, and harder still if and when the administration brings up some rhetoric that resembles the notion of "repel invasion" and applies it to an invader that comprises, in part, US citizens located on US soil.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Last week the President of the United States gave his State of the Union Address, where he spoke of America's leadership in the world and called on all of us to ``lead this world toward freedom.'' Again and again, he invoked the principle of freedom and how it can transform nations and empower people around the world.Almost in the same breath, the President openly acknowledged that he has ordered the Government to spy on Americans on American soil without the warrants required by law. The President issued a call to spread freedom throughout the world, and then he admitted he has deprived Americans of one of their most basic freedoms under the fourth amendment--to be free from unjustified Government intrusion.
The President was blunt. He said he had authorized the NSA's domestic spying program, and he made a number of misleading arguments to defend himself. His words got rousing applause from Republicans and I think even from some Democrats.
The President was blunt so I will be blunt. This program is breaking the law, and this President is breaking the law. Not only that, he is misleading the American people in his efforts to justify this program.
How is that worthy of applause? Since when do we celebrate our Commander in Chief violating our most basic freedoms and misleading the American people in the process? When did we start to stand up and cheer for breaking the law? In that moment at the State of the Union, I felt ashamed.
Congress has lost its way if we don't hold this President accountable for his actions. The President, of course, suggested that anyone who criticizes his illegal wiretapping program doesn't understand the threat we face. But we do. Every single one of us is committed to stopping the terrorists who threaten us and threaten our families. Defeating the terrorists is our top national priority. And we all agree that we need to wiretap them to do it. We all agree on that. In fact, it would be irresponsible not to wiretap terrorists. But we have yet to see any reason at all why we have to trample the laws of the United States to do it.
The President's decision that he can break the law says far more about his attitude toward the rule of law than it does about the laws themselves. This goes way beyond party and way beyond politics. What the President has done is to break faith with the American people. ...
I don't want to hear again that this administration has somehow shown that it can be trusted. It hasn't. That is exactly why the law requires a judge to review these wiretaps. It is up to the Congress to hold the President to account. We held a hearing on the domestic spying program in the Judiciary Committee yesterday, where Attorney General Gonzalez was a witness. We expect there will be other hearings. That is a start. But it will take more than hearings to get the job done. We know that, in part, because the President's Attorney General has already shown a willingness to mislead Congress. ...
Wiretapping American citizens on American soil without the required warrant is in direct contravention of our criminal statutes. The Attorney General knew that, and he knew about the NSA program when he sought the Senate's approval for his nomination to be Attorney General. He wanted the Senate and the American people to think that the President had not acted on the extreme legal theory that the President has the power, as Commander in Chief, to disobey the criminal laws of this country. But he had. ...
That is one of the reasons the Framers put us here--to ensure balance between the branches of Government, not to act as a professional cheering section. We need answers, because no one--not the President, not the Attorney General, and not any of their defenders in this body have been able to explain why it is necessary to break the law to defend against terrorism. I think that is because they cannot explain it.
Instead, this administration reacts to anybody who questions this illegal program by saying that those of us who demand the truth and stand up for our rights and freedoms have a pre-9/11 view of the world. In fact, the President has a pre-1776 view of the world. That is the problem. Our Founders lived in dangerous times, and they risked everything for freedom. Patrick Henry said, ``Give me liberty or give me death.'' The President's pre-1776 mentality is hurting America. It is fracturing the foundation on which our country has stood for 230 years. ...
The President has argued that Congress gave him authority to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without a warrant when it passed the authorization for use of military force after September 11, 2001. Mr. President, that is ridiculous. Members of Congress did not think this resolution gave the President blanket authority to order these warrantless wiretaps. We all know that. Anyone in this body who would tell you otherwise either wasn't here at the time or isn't telling the truth. We authorized the President to use military force in Afghanistan, a necessary and justified response to September 11. We did not authorize him to wiretap American citizens on American soil without going through the process that was set up nearly three decades ago precisely to facilitate the domestic surveillance of terrorists--with the approval of a judge. That is why both Republicans and Democrats have questioned this theory that somehow the Afghanistan resolution permitted this sort of thing.
This particular claim is further undermined by congressional approval of the PATRIOT Act just a few weeks afte r we passed the authorization for the use of military force. The PATRIOT Act made it easier for law enforcement to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists and spies, while maintaining FISA's baseline requirement of judicial approval for wiretaps of Americans in the U.S. It is ridiculous to think that Congress would have negotiated and enacted all the changes to FISA in the PATRIOT Act if it thought it had just authorized the President to ignore FISA in the AUMF. ...
16 . FAIRNESS IN ASBESTOS INJURY ... (Senate - February 07, 2006)
I see the defese of the President has begun. First Chambliss, then McConnell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.