Feingold announces he will move to censure President

[flashback]

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Full_transcript_Feingold_announces_he_will_0312.html

Full transcript: Feingold announces he will move to censure President

RAW STORY

Published: March 12, 2006

ABC'S "THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS" / MARCH 12, 2006

STEPHANOPOULOS: Good morning, everyone. President Bush is coming off a week that one top GOP strategist called the worst of his presidency. And on Friday, our first headliner said it was time to get tough with the president. Senator Russ Feingold, welcome back to "This Week."

FEINGOLD: Good morning, George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Tomorrow in the Senate, you're going to introduce a resolution to censure George W. Bush. Let me show that to our viewers.

It says, "Resolved that the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, president of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans."

That is a big step. Why are you taking it now?

FEINGOLD: It's an unusual step. It's a big step, but what the president did by consciously and intentionally violating the Constitution and laws of this country with this illegal wiretapping, has to be answered.

There can be debate about whether the law should be changed. There can be debate about how best to fight terrorism. We all believe that there should be wiretapping in appropriate cases -- but the idea that the president can just make up a law, in violation of his oath of office, has to be answered .

STEPHANOPOULOS: But as you know, the president says he was acting on his inherent authority under the Constitution -- and even your resolution acknowledges that no federal court has ruled that a president does not have that authority as commander in chief.

So aren't you jumping the gun?

FEINGOLD: Not at all. You know, we've had a chance here for three months to look at whether there's any legal basis for this -- and they're using shifting legal justifications.

First, they try to argue that, somehow under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, they can do this. It's pretty clear that they can't.

Then there's the argument that somehow the military authorization for Afghanistan allowed this. This has basically been laughed out of the room in the Congress.

So the last resort is to somehow say that the president has inherent authority to ignore the law of the United States of America.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Inherent authority...

FEINGOLD: And that has a consequence that the president could even order the assassination of American citizens if that's the law.

So there is no sort of independent, inherent authority that allows the president to override the laws passed by the Congress of the United States.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So if you're so convinced -- if you're so convinced -- that the president has broken the law, why not file an article of impeachment?

FEINGOLD: Well, you know, that's an option that we could look at, if somebody thought that was a really good idea.

There are other options out there.

In fact, this conduct is right in the strike zone. Even though the founding fathers, they didn't have strike zones; they didn't have baseball -- but this is right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So are you pulling your punch?

FEINGOLD: We have to consider: Is it best for the country to start impeachment proceedings? Is it best for the country to consider removing the president from office?

We're not mandated to impeach a president who has broken the law, but I think we are required to do our job to live up to our oath of office and say, "Wait a minute, there has to be" -- at least as a first step -- "some accountability."

STEPHANOPOULOS: But...

FEINGOLD: Proper accountability is a censuring of the president

-- saying: "Mr. President, acknowledge that you broke the law, return to the law, return to our system of government."

That's what I think we should do.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But censure appears nowhere in the Constitution. The Constitution spells out the impeachment proceedings quite clearly

-- and you just said yourself, it's right in the strike zone of high crimes and misdemeanor.

Let me ask it again: Why not impeachment?

FEINGOLD: Well, censure isn't prohibited by the Constitution...

STEPHANOPOULOS: It's not prohibited, but it's not talked about.

FEINGOLD: Well, in fact, there have been six or seven instances that I have here where presidents have been attempted to be censured

-- and Andrew Jackson was censured.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the only one censured.

FEINGOLD: So it certainly is not prohibited.

And what we have to do here is do what's right for the country. Our number one priority is fighting terrorism. The president is right about this.

His intentions here may have been honorable. He may have been just trying to do everything he could to protect the country.

But that's not our system of government. He has a right to do everything he can to protect our country within our laws. We have to respond in a way that's responsible.

I'm not ruling out other actions.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you might go for impeachment down the road?

FEINGOLD: I think we have to look at all the options. But I think this one could help us resolve this.

The problem here is that we're trying to just gloss this over. Almost every member of Congress is saying, "Well, yes, he broke the law -- but let's see if we can fix the law."

Well, if we have that kind of a system, if we don't answer the president now with a censure, then we're not going to get back on track.

FEINGOLD: We're not going to get back to a system where the Congress makes the law and the president signs the law. He doesn't get the laws -- to make up the laws by himself.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So, have any other members of Congress or senators signed on to your resolution?

FEINGOLD: I'm announcing it right now, George, so we'll talk to them about it...

STEPHANOPOULOS: You haven't talked to any of them about it?

FEINGOLD: No. I'm announcing it right now.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And what do you expect? I mean, do you expect this is something you're going to push for and demand a vote on and make sure everyone goes on record?

FEINGOLD: You know, I think this is a great way to resolve the problem, at least initially, on a bipartisan basis. Many Republican senators have said, wait a minute, I didn't vote when I voted for the military authorization for any illegal wiretapping.

This is an option for members of both parties, without getting into impeachment, without getting into some of the other things, to say we have to answer. We have to stand up for our constitutional form of government. This gives both parties a chance to say, Mr. President, you made a mistake here. We're going to pass this censure.

Hopefully, he would apologize for having done this. Say that he did it with good intentions, and then let's get back to work together to resolve the problems of this country, especially the fight against terrorism. It's a reasonable approach. It's not a harsh approach, and it's one that I think should lead to bipartisan support.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm not sure the president would not see it as not a harsh approach, and I'm not sure he's going to come out and apologize. But -- in fact, I'm pretty sure he probably will not do that. But...

FEINGOLD: What I'm interested in is my colleagues acknowledging that we as a Congress have to stand up to a president who acts as if the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were repealed on September 11. We didn't enact martial law on September 11. We still have a constitutional form of government, and if the Congress of the United States does not stand up for that authority at this point, it will be an historic failure of our system of government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act. Do you think you might be the only person to be for this right now?

FEINGOLD: No. I think others will for it, and I'm no longer the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act. Even though I was the one four years ago, now we've increased it tenfold. There are now ten senators that voted against the Patriot Act.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's talk about the politics of this. Are you concerned at all that this might backfire? The Republicans in the Senate and the House have been pulling away from President bush. Do you think this might unify them behind him?

FEINGOLD: This is the tough question for us, especially the Democratic Party. We have a choice here. We can try to sort of gloss this over. In other words, go out like a lamb in March and say, OK, the president broke the law, but we're going to get in political trouble if we talk about that.

That is not the way for Democrats to talk. Democrats have to be as tough as they can on national security. This whole Dubai thing has indicated that. But we also have to be the party that stands up for the rule of law and for protecting the civil liberties of innocent Americans. We are the party, if we do it right, that can do both of those things, and I think that's the right message for the American people.

I agree with you, though. There is a possibility -- I've even heard some Democratic potential presidential candidates saying, you know, the president might have broken the law, but we shouldn't touch that. We have an absolute obligation as members of Congress and public servants to stand up for our system of government. And that overrides any political considerations that might exist.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you think President Clinton should have been censured?

FEINGOLD: You know, that was an option there that I think was not a bad idea. I understand that people were determined in the House to go through the whole impeachment process, but this conduct here is so much more serious, clearly, than anything Bill Clinton ever did that it can't even be compared.

This is an open and shut case for the censure of the president. This is the foundation of our nation. It's the whole reason that we created our system of government is that the president can't take authority and violate the laws of the country.

Bill Clinton got into a bad situation and he didn't handle it very well, but this is a conscious and repeated attempt where the president continues to say that what he did was proper, and has repeatedly misled the public.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But even though you voted against the articles of impeachment for President Clinton, you did -- in fact, you were the only Democrat to vote against dismissing the charges before the trial went forward. Do you stand by that vote today?

FEINGOLD: Oh, absolutely. And I hope this points out that this is certainly not a partisan attempt on my part. I was the only senator to call for independent counsel on the campaign finance issues under President Clinton. I was the only senator on the Democratic side to say, let's hear the evidence.

And I'll tell you something, George. When I saw the evidence, the case against the president was pretty weak. I concluded that there was not a clear case that he had obstructed justice. This president, however, has openly, and almost thumbing his nose at the American people and the Congress, said, I can make up this law. I'm here to protect the American people.

Well, of course, he's there to protect the American people, but not against the laws and our system of government. That's a different kind of system of government, and it's inappropriate, and the president has got to be condemned for having done it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And finally on this issue, you are committed, then, not only to introducing it but to putting it forward for a vote and putting all senators on record.

FEINGOLD: Oh, I would very much like to have a vote on this censure resolution. I would hope there would be bipartisan support and a recognition that this is a way, without going too far, without sort of causing a constitutional crisis, to say, Mr. President, this was a mistake. This is how we feel. This is a censure. And we hope the president would acknowledge it in an appropriate way.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Before we go, you mentioned the Dubai ports deal. It seemed to go down this week. The company said it was going to transfer its assets. Are you now prepared to join other Democrats, like Senator Hillary Clinton, and pass legislation that would prohibit any foreign entities from managing American ports?

FEINGOLD: I'm willing to look at legislation like that. I think it has to be a reasonable approach. I don't think it should be an extremely harsh approach. But I think it's something...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is the Hillary approach reasonable?

FEINGOLD: I haven't had a chance to review it in enough detail to say I'm for it or against it, but I'll give it a fair look.

I'm extremely concerned that we have a good image throughout the world. I do support stopping this Dubai deal, but I hear the president talking about not wanting to alienate the Islamic world, and I find that somewhat ironic in light of the fact that his conduct in taking us into Iraq war was the most damaging thing to our reputation in the Islamic world of anything that's been done.

But I will want to take a rational, careful look at any legislation that is going to regulate this.

But homeland security, port security is a great example of where we must do a better job, and this administration is not handling the war against terrorism well at all.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you really positive that this is going to make any difference in our national security? As the administration pointed out again and again and again, the security at our ports is going to be done by Customs, it's going to be done by the Coast Guard. Wasn't this just the Democrats and some Republicans playing politics?

FEINGOLD: You know, I'm not certain it's going to make a difference, but you know, we have to err on the side of safety when it comes to this kind of an issue. We have to make sure that we do everything we can, and that means not just sort of opening up every kind of port deal to the free market. It would be nice if we could do that, but it's too dangerous. So we do have to consider our national security in these situations, and I think it's a good point of caution that the president I think would even admit was not the finest hour of his administration.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally before you go, last time you were on the show, you said the chances of you running for president were better than 100:1. Now, how much closer are they to certain?

FEINGOLD: You know, I'm so busy trying to deal with the problems that this administration is causing with not getting the fight against terrorism right and not handling the situations that are relevant to the American people that I haven't really had a chance to figure that out. I'm going to worry about that after the 2006 election.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no decision until 2007?

FEINGOLD: Probably not. This is -- I'm focused on this kind of concern. I am frankly -- if there was a way that I could get this president to say that he had violated the law, to reverse course on this Iraq mess and to stop promoting the policies that he has in the USA Patriot Act, I'd be happy not to run for president. I want to change these laws. I want to make sure that we're protecting the American people and protecting our rights. That's what matters to me most.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Feingold, thanks very much.

FEINGOLD: Thank you.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is next. And later, Art Buchwald, savoring and sharing his final days.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUCHWALD: What's really good (ph) and really crazy is I am hearing from everybody. I am hearing from girlfriends that I didn't know I even had.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: And we're back now with the Senate Majority Leader and the winner of the first straw poll of 2008, Senator Bill Frist.

Welcome, Senator.

FRIST: George, good to be with you. Good to be with you, George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You heard Senator Feingold there. He wants Democrats and Republicans to come together on the censure resolution he's going to introduce tomorrow.

I can't imagine you're going to support that.

FRIST: George, what was interesting in listening to my good friend, Russ, is that he mentioned protecting the American people only one time.

And although you went to politics a little bit later, I think it's a crazy political move.

And I think it, in part, is a political move because here we are, the Republican Party, the leadership in the Congress, supporting the president of the United States as commander in chief who is out there fighting Al Qaida and the Taliban and Osama bin Laden and the people who have sworn -- have sworn -- to destroy Western civilization and all the families listening to us; and they're out now attacking -- at least today through this proposed censure vote -- out attacking our commander in chief.

It doesn't make sense.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're against it. Are you going to allow it to come up for a vote?

FRIST: Well, George, this is the first I've heard about it. I really am surprised about it, because Russ is just wrong. He is flat wrong. He is dead wrong.

And as I was listening to it, I was hoping deep inside that the leadership in Iran and other people who really have the U.S. not in their best interests are not listening because of the terrible -- the terrible -- signal it sends.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're saying that censure resolution actually weakens America abroad?

FRIST: Yes. Well, I think it does because we are right now at a war, in an unprecedented war, where we do have people who really want to take us down. And we think back to 9/11 and that war on terror is out there.

So the signal that it sends that there is in any way a lack of support for our commander in chief who is leading us with a bold vision in a way that we know is making our homeland safer is wrong. And it sends a perception around the world.

And, again, that's why I'm saying -- as leader at least of the Republican side of this equation -- that it's wrong, because leadership around the world of our sworn enemies are going to say, "Well, now we have a little crack there."

There is no crack. The American people are solidly behind this

president in conducting this war on terror.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, Senator, you say that -- but your own party has been running away from the president on several issues, most recently this Dubai Ports deal. And one of your colleagues, Senator Norm Coleman, told the New York Times that it's time for a White House shake-up.

Do you agree with that?

FRIST: Yes. But before you move to that, let's come back to that.

This proposal, at least as I just heard it, was on international terrorist wiretapping -- which affects the safety and security of the American people.

The American people feel vulnerable now. The people listening to us now feel this insecurity -- and we're seeing it a little in the Dubai Port deal, as well -- and this censure proposal really goes at the heart of a program that is lawful, that is constitutional and it is protecting the American people.

And that's the bad signal that it sends.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, let's go to that Dubai Ports deal, because you broke with President Bush early on that. You said the deal raises serious questions about homeland security.

But about a week after that, you seemed to change your tune. And I want to show our viewers something written in the Lexington Herald- Leader on February 25th:

"Frist said last night that, after recent briefings, he is now comfortable with an Arab-owned company running port security for six American cities, and backed off a pledge to pass legislation to stop the deal.

"'My comfort level is good. The Senate is behind the president 100 percent. We believe the decision, in all likelihood, is absolutely the right one'."

So was this deal bad for national security or not?

FRIST: You know, we don't know yet -- and that's the problem. And that is: the review process, this Committee on Foreign Investment, is a broken process -- the process by which we review these foreign investments is a process that needs to be fixed.

We will fix it in the United States Senate. It lacks full transparency. It does not have any congressional oversight.

And the fact that the law is written that way today means that I don't know -- United States senators don't know because we don't have access to the information of the deal.

Thus what I did -- I said, to the administration, let's go back, let's re-review, let's make available the information and data that you put forward and then let's make a decision.

FRIST: Let's take a 45-day pause, do the investigation so that we can have the information to share with the American people. And that's why I achieved, and that's why it's not necessary to pass legislation to stall the deal -- or it wasn't at the time. Let's give it those 45 days.

All of it has changed as of last Friday in that the companies said that they are going to sever these six ports out of the deal. It does not yet fix the process itself, the transparency of this -- this is called CFIUS, but it's the Committee on Foreign Investment.

We need to have better oversight there, congressional oversight. I would argue we need to have stronger intelligence input into that committee. And also, we need to go back and fix our port security. We are not as secure in our ports as we'd like.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Excuse me, sir. You said that the company announced the deal -- they would transfer their assets.

And everybody is assuming the deal is dead. But they also said in their statement that this was on the understanding that the company would not suffer economic loss. And a lot of people are looking at that and wondering if that's some legal room to get out of killing the deal if they can't sell it at the price they want.

Are you committed -- is that your understanding, first of all, and are you committed to killing the deal no matter what?

FRIST: No, well, I think, George, you're right in the sense that we don't know what the outcome will be. We have their press statement that said what the company intends to do.

And we have to wait and see if they're going to do it. I would still encourage the CFIUS process to stay under way in the event they don't, so that we, in the event it doesn't work out, it's not a total separation, they can't find a buyer, that we can act and act accordingly.

And I haven't taken legislation off the table. But the fact that they've say that they're taking it to sever themselves completely -- it means we don't have to go to the United States Congress and, again, vote. At least it doesn't now.

Let's continue that investigation. If they don't sever it -- and then we can wait and see.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that's what I'm asking, though. If they can't find a buyer, will you vote to kill the deal?

FRIST: Well, it depends on the outcome of the investigation. If everything that the president, the administration has said, and that is that there is absolutely no threatening or jeopardy to our security and safety of the American people and they tell us and they prove that to our satisfaction and we go to the American people and they understand, I don't see how the deal would have to be canceled.

But we don't have that information yet because that process is broken. And it's a process that we will fix.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, I understand. I'm surprised here, Senator. You're saying it's still possible that Dubai Ports World will end up managing six American ports.

FRIST: Well, what I'm saying, under your hypothetical, is that they don't have a buyer and they can't sell it. I'm not agreeing with that presumption at all.

All I know is that right now, they said they are going to sell; they're looking for a buyer. That's what I expect them to do.

And if that's what happened to me, the deal is over with. There is no issue except that we need to fix the process that caused it in the first place, number one, and, number two, we need to tighten up our port security.

STEPHANOPOULOS: This week, Governor Mike Rounds of South Dakota signed into a law a ban in his state on all abortions except when a woman's life was in danger, no exceptions for rape, no exceptions for incest.

I want to show our viewers what your fellow prospects for 2008 are saying about that bill.

Senator George Allen says he would not sign it. Senator John McCain, Governor Mitt Romney, Governor Mike Huckabee, Senator Sam Brownback all said say they would sign that bill. What would you do?

FRIST: Well, you know, I made it very clear from day one when I first really started making public statements about my personal views that I am pro-life, that I am opposed to abortion except in exceptions, rare exceptions of rape and of incest and of life of the mother, that there are too many abortions in this country today.

I'm opposed to abortion. I'm not -- the governor myself, didn't have to vote on it, but if I ever did have to vote on a situation like that, it would be around that feeling, opposition to abortion with those exceptions.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But with those exceptions, so you would not sign the South Dakota ban?

FRIST: Well, again, I'm not going to put myself in that situation. I can tell you what my feelings are, my beliefs are and my philosophy is about it.

And that's how I vote and vote accordingly. I am pro-life and I have a 100 percent pro-life voting record. And I would vote accordingly.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You did have this win yesterday in the straw poll. I guess that was expected because it is your home state of Tennessee. But I was wondering, were you surprised that Governor Romney, a northerner from Massachusetts, came in second, beat out Senator Allen, beat out Senator McCain, Governor Huckabee?

FRIST: Well, I don't know if I'm surprised. Mitt Romney and I are very close friends. Everybody on that list, we're all close friends. Let me say, I wouldn't make too much over the poll.

I know a lot are trying to analyze and reanalyze and all. It really is a reflection of the energy, enthusiasm that 1,600 people came together in Memphis from 26 states, actually over 30 states but 26 with delegates, around those core principles of limited government and low taxes, a more prosperous America with a strong military and individual responsibility.

What was interesting, which I should mention, is that every time President Bush's name was mentioned here, because you mentioned some fracturing in the future, the round of applause was unbelievable, standing applause each and every time that President Bush and his leadership was mentioned here.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, sir, immigration is scheduled to come before the Senate in the next couple of weeks.

Senator Allen is against a guest worker program. Senator McCain, President Bush are for it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Again, this is something you haven't taken a position on. Are you for a guest worker program or against it?

FRIST: Well, George, let me tell you what we're going to do. And it's going be about 10 days from now -- no, about 12 days from now. We're going to go to the floor of the United States Senate, and we're going to stress border security, enforcement first. We're a nation of immigrants, and immigrants have made this nation strong.

At the same time, we're a nation of rule of law, and we've not been enforcing that rule of law. We're going to focus on border security. We're going to tighten our borders. Secondly, we're going to move to interior enforcement. What happens when immigrants illegally come to Tennessee or to Ohio or to Michigan? What do we do with them? How do we enforce that interior, addressing issues surrounding employers, where we actually send these illegal immigrants back to.

And then thirdly, we're going to come to the question of more comprehensive immigration reform, guest worker immigration reform. And we will take that to the floor. We will be voting on it. I will end up at the end of the day as we go through this debate making a decision of exactly how far we need to go on a guest worker program. But we will have a guest worker program of some sort, I predict, by the time we finish on the Senate floor.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you will vote for it?

FRIST: It depends on what the nature of it is. I'm against amnesty. I've made that very clear. On the other hand, I understand that there are many, many workers who come here legally, who need to continue to work legally. I want to maximize the number of legal workers that we can -- that can come from other countries. And we need to clearly improve their documentation to see if they're legal or illegal. If they're here illegally, they need to be sent back home.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Frist, thank you very much.

FRIST: Good to be with you, George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The roundtable is next with George Will, Donna Brazile, Jay Carney and Claire Shipman. And later, the Sunday Funnies.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAY LENO, HOST, "THE TONIGHT SHOW": That's something you rarely see, Republicans rejecting a business deal. That's like a Democrat turning down a hooker. That never happens.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: The roundtable, Art Buchwald and the Sunday Funnies after this from our ABC stations.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(ROUNDTABLE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Our voice this week, Art Buchwald. The Pulitzer Prize winner is best known for his razor-sharp columns published in more than 300 newspapers. And now, Buchwald is scripting his final days. Refusing dialysis, the 80-year-old author has decided it's time to die. From a bed in his Washington hospice, he tells us why.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BUCHWALD: It was a tough decision, because you're affecting other people. You know, yourself, you're affecting your family. But I made it. I was relieved. It was over. The decision was made. The only part of it that I don't understand, and nobody else understands, is why I'm still here.

But, you know, it's a no-no. You're not supposed to talk about death. You're not to talk about where you're going. Yet everybody that's listening to this show knows they're going to go. And so it shouldn't be a secret. It shouldn't be banned. It should be a good thing. At least, you know, the way you go, I can't predict that. But you don't have to make it a terrible thing.

I'm having the best time of my life. Wouldn't you, to be sitting here, and everybody thinks you're a wonderful person? And you can't take it all, because first of all, you know, you start to feel like John Glenn. The big question that keeps coming up all the time with anybody -- an interviewer talks to me -- is: Do I believe in God?

The answer is: I believe in God, but I'm not too certain that the people that are telling me, "It's God's will" are the ones I want to listen to. I've found a way that not a lot of people have to make other people laugh. And I'm proud. I hope I can be remembered for that. Because everybody wants to be remembered for something when they go.

Well, I enjoyed talking to you. And I hope I see you next week and the week after and the next month. And we'll say something's wrong with the camera. He's still going.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here's to broken cameras and Art Buchwald. Now, the Sunday Funnies.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LENO: You hear about this? The people have spoken. The Dubai Port deal is dead. We got our ports back. Dubai announced that it will sell ownership of the six American ports to another investor. The bad news: It's Iran.

(LAUGHTER)

But OK, it's a step in the right direction. They're calling this the biggest setback to the Bush administration all day.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CONAN O'BRIEN, HOST, "LATE NIGHT WITH CONAN O'BRIEN": According to The Washington Post, newly retired Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has been offered $8 million to write a book. Yeah. Yeah. Finally, a book that captures the romance and excitement of an old man talking about interest rates.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

LENO: Oh, did you hear about this? Now, to get even with us, the United Arab Emirates -- they're talking about not buying any American-made products. Ooh. Yes, we got them there, too. We don't make any products in America anymore.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's our show for today. Stay tuned to ABC News this week for a special series: Bird Flu: Fears, facts and fiction; what Americans need to know.

Thanks for sharing part of your Sunday with us. We'll see you next week.

END

[PleaseBlitz]

What exactly does Censuring him mean?

Probably nuthin' right?

[SnyderShrugged]

What exactly does Censuring him mean?

Probably nuthin' right?

further b!tching about every single little thing.

It's yet another mistake by the dems if they think this is what america wants.

Dems, please just come up with some good, solid plans for America, rather than continue to bash a President who cannot be elected again anyway!

I have nothing against any political party as a whole (well. maybe the socialists and commies), I'd keep an open mind for good ideas from anyone.

[visionary]

oh, ok, if it's about the wiretaps, then this is supposed to be a Senate approved condemnation of the action in question. I'm not sure if it will pass or what it would mean if it did.

I think it's mostly kind of the opposite of making resolution that congratulates someone, but is more serious and historically significant (though I'm not exactly sure how). I recall censure was an option with Clinton too.

This seems to come at an odd time though.

[flashback]

Its basically a public declaration that the Senate or the Congress as a whole disagrees with the President. The real meaning will be felt in November or in 2008, when people are campaigning on where they stood on this issue. There are no legal or parliamentary consequences of the vote.

And I wouldn't be too sure about it not being something that America wants. A majority of people in every state think the warrantless wiretapping was illegal, or possibly illegal. Only about 23% believe that the President definitely did not break the law, and that was back in February. I'll try to find some more recent numbers.

[twa]

I think it is a great idea, sure to bring the Dems back to favor with the public :laugh:

[Sarge]

If the Dems spent as much time coming up with some platforms/positions that are in line with average Americans as they do on this silly stuff, they might actually win an election again

[Teller]

Where was Senator Feingold's outrage over our last president's commission of a FELONY in a federal courtroom? It wasn't about sex, that's a cop out and the dems know it. The man committed a FELONY and was disbarred. At least the Alabama Bar had enough sense to take action.

And anytime a democrat talks about national security, I die a little inside. Tell it like it is Mr. Feingold, "We don't believe it's right for the federal government to monitor calls from suspected Al Qaeda members to people in the United States."

There's a reason we haven't been attacked since 2001, and it's not dumb luck. It's having an administration that is proactive on matters of national security. That would have been nice to have after the first Trade Center bombing in 1993.

:2cents:

[flashback]

Where was Senator Feingold's outrage over our last president's commission of a FELONY in a federal courtroom? It wasn't about sex, that's a cop out and the dems know it. The man committed a FELONY and was disbarred. At least the Alabama Bar had enough sense to take action.

And anytime a democrat talks about national security, I die a little inside. Tell it like it is Mr. Feingold, "We don't believe it's right for the federal government to monitor calls from suspected Al Qaeda members to people in the United States."

There's a reason we haven't been attacked since 2001, and it's not dumb luck. It's having an administration that is proactive on matters of national security. That would have been nice to have after the first Trade Center bombing in 1993.

:2cents:

Well, as is stated clearly in the interview, Feingold was the only Democrat who voted with the Republicans to invesgate Clinton's behavior, but eventully voted against impeachment.

And what do think Bush did? Violating FISA is also a FELONY, not to mention what he's doing to the 4th Amendment. What Bush is doing is 1,000s of times worse than what Clinton did, the Democrats just don't have the clout or the will to do about it what the Republicans did back in the 90's.

[flashback]

Also, the NSA is perfectly capable of spying on Al-Qaida using FISA. Listen to the President's own quotes after the Patriot Act passed, which ammended FISA to make it more effective by expanding it to include all types of surveillance. There is no reason that I've heard for the Administration to circumvent FISA. When asked about it, the Administration says "Its a secret."

[Thiebear]

Another winning strategy...

It should be investigated fully on a year by year basis...

AND THEN: a decision should be made on the consequences...

Not consequences first and then investigation...

[Destino]

What exactly does Censuring him mean?

Probably nuthin' right?

It's congresses way of sayin "bad President BAD! No cookie for you!"

[PleaseBlitz]

It's congresses way of sayin "bad President BAD! No cookie for you!"

Ah, doing the People's work. Thats just great.

[flashback]

Ah, doing the People's work. Thats just great.

Well, 60% of the people now disapprove of the President. I'd say "the People's work" is exactly what Feingold is doing.

[Kilmer17]

Sort of like when a British cop chases a bad guy with his billyclub screaming-

STOP, or I'll say STOP again!!!!

[PleaseBlitz]

Well, 60% of the people now disapprove of the President. I'd say "the People's work" is exactly what Feingold is doing.

How is this productive?

[Air Force Cane]

The Congress should censure Feingold for being a moron.

the only Senator to vote against the first Patriot Act.

[luckydevil]

the only Senator to vote against the first Patriot Act.

Yes indeed

He should be applauded. I hope he wins his party's nomination in 08.

[flashback]

I think its kind of an homage to the conservative principles of accountability and personal responsibility.

Maybe it'll be productive in that it will produce some observance of the 4th Amendmant for Americans.

Also, if there's any effect at all, it will be felt in the next 2 elections. I think this is mostly about the Democratic party attempting to grow a pair, separate themselves from the corrupt Republican party, etc.

And if the whole thing is a waste of time, how much time are they really wasting? A little lobbying to get Frist to allow a vote, and then a roll call and a vote. Whats the harm?

[flashback]

Maybe he's the only Senator who read the Patriot Act. Nope, my bad. No Senators read the Patriot Act.

[Art Monk Fan]

:doh: The Supreme Court has already decided that the Congressional authorization to use force in Afghanistan grants the administration power to detain American citizens suspected of terrorist activites. Last I checked, physically detaining a citizen was far more invasive than eaves-dropping on their conversation.

In addition, the taps are only in cases where one of the parties is located outside of the U.S. and is suspected of terrorism. The tap is technically on a foreign entity.

As for the old fall back that FISA allows for unwarranted taps for 48 hours: the law as written requires that the NSA be assured, before beginning the tap, that the FISA court will grant the tap within that 48-hour period. In practice, the NSA has to go through the entire vetting process, and must build their entire legal arguement before they are allowed to begin the tap. This precludes the quick-reaction capabilites that the program in question affords.

[flashback]

:doh: The Supreme Court has already decided that the Congressional authorization to use force in Afghanistan grants the administration power to detain American citizens suspected of terrorist activites. Last I checked, physically detaining a citizen was far more invasive than eaves-dropping on their conversation.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the FISA law. So until it does, the law is still a law. If someone from the Administration is charged and tried, they can appeal the outcome up to the Supreme Court and maybe get a favorable ruling. What do you think the odds of that happening are?

Feingold has basically given up on the Congress exercising real oversight in this case. He's not trying to get anyone arrested or impeached. If there was an honest person with subpeona power in Congress, we might be going down that road, but unfortunately, all the people in Congress with subpeona power are Republicans... :laugh:

In addition, the taps are only in cases where one of the parties is located outside of the U.S. and is suspected of terrorism. The tap is technically on a foreign entity.

Actually, theoretically the tap is on the foriegn entity. Technically, the tap is on an American resident. We're not tapping phones in Saudi Arabia with this program. We're tapping phones in America and listening for calls from Saudi Arabia...

As for the old fall back that FISA allows for unwarranted taps for 48 hours: the law as written requires that the NSA be assured, before beginning the tap, that the FISA court will grant the tap within that 48-hour period. In practice, the NSA has to go through the entire vetting process, and must build their entire legal arguement before they are allowed to begin the tap. This precludes the quick-reaction capabilites that the program in question affords.

I've never heard this partcular argument. Do you have a cite? In any case, the Bush Administration has had more than one opportunity since this warrantless eavesdropping program began to rewrite the FISA law. Why not change it from 72 hours (not 48) to something more comfortable with the Patriot Act, which already made other changes to the law. Why not relieve the NSA of the vetting process. Let them submit to the FISA court an "intent to ask for a warrant", and if the justifacation is forthcoming in the investigation, go through the vetting process and obtain the warrant when they're ready.

And none of this addresses the fact that the Bush Administration broke the law. If FISA was truly inadequate, we should fix it, if they were only doing it to protect us, that's admirable, but was still against the law.

[webnarc]

My word, a lot of you hate freedom - rather pathetic that you aren't exporting a side of accountability with your version of democracy.

And while this won't pass and it likely hurts the dems chances of winning anything, it is the right thing to do given that you are now starting to enjoy the freedoms that Saddam offered his people.

It is becoming very obvious who here thinks and who here just goes along with the party lines, err, the administrations wishes.

[Cskin]

I think it's a waste of time and a true indication of the Dems white hot hatred of George W. Bush. Instead of simply opposing the wire tapping and presenting an alternative solution... they would rather waste their time with teethless grandstanding to futher attack the president and his politics.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstructing justice. Bush simply created an apparatus to protect Americans through his legal team's interpretation or written law and war declarations. Additionally, and here's the kicker... the same Democratic congressmen who were aware of the program and were given updates will NOW probably vote for censure of the President.... a further indication of the lengths for which the left will go to bring down the president.

[Midnight Judges]

I think it's a waste of time and a true indication of the Dems white hot hatred of George W. Bush. Instead of simply opposing the wire tapping and presenting an alternative solution... they would rather waste their time with teethless grandstanding to futher attack the president and his politics.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstructing justice. Bush simply created an apparatus to protect Americans through his legal team's interpretation or written law and war declarations. Additionally, and here's the kicker... the same Democratic congressmen who were aware of the program and were given updates will NOW probably vote for censure of the President.... a further indication of the lengths for which the left will go to bring down the president.

I think where you are mistaken is that you think Bush bypassing FISA laws makes us safer in any way. FISA laws allow the President to tap almost anyone's phones. Out of 19,000 FISA wiretap requests since 1979, less than 10 have been denied. He could keep us safe AND follow the law, he simply chooses not to. Some of us here seem to think the President is above the law.