Senator Tom Harkin: 'Dems don't have guts to censure'

[kpete]

Bill Press: Senator Tom Harkin our guest on The Bill Press Show. Senator, your colleague and buddy Russ Feingold had a hearing last Friday on his motion to censure President Bush over the NSA spying program. Why haven’t more democrats lined up behind him?

Senator Tom Harkin: Well, Bill, quite frankly I don’t know, and I’m embarassed that more democrats haven’t lined up on this. I mean, for crying out loud, the republicans, they can see fit to impeach… IMPEACH a president, Bill Clinton for lying about having an extramarital affair. But they won’t stand for a censure. The democrats don’t have the guts to stand up to censure a president who misled us, who lied to the American people, who broke the law and violated the Constitution of the United States in spying on the American people. I tell you, we’ve got to get some more backbone to a lot of democrats. We need to hear from people. We need to hear from people. The American people need to know, and to show support for this resolution.

http://www.billpressshow.com/?cat=5
via:http://www.rawstory.com/

[mike_c]

1. sounds about right....

eom

[Radical Activist]

2. Friggin A

What a great President that guy would have been.

[Southsideirish]

7. You are correct on both observations! nt

[0007]

3. I miss Paul Wellstone! He would have kicked out I bet.

[BOSSHOG]

4. Agreed, but more telling, neither do the Republicans

[Selatius]

5. Yeah, but censure is an extremist measure

What we need are more centrist Democrats who are willing to disagree with Bush but won't do something absurd like censure or even impeach. That's over the line. :sarcasm:

[Jack Rabbit]

8. My view

Without the sarcasm, if the US government is unable or unwilling to hold Mr. Bush and members of his regime responsible for their war crimes and crimes against humanity, then an international tribunal should be established for that purpose.

The sad thing is that the censure resolution in question is over a serious and impeachable offense, but it is not the worst thing Bush has done nor anything that an international tribunal can address. The fact is that censure is such a mild remedy for Mr. Bush's misdeed as to be hardly a remedy at all.

[Selatius]

10. I doubt many Democrats would want an international war crimes tribunal

It sets a bad precedent as far as US governmental power is concerned because it would be the first time the US government officially acknowledges that there is an extra-Constitutional avenue of dealing with those guilty of gross abuses of power. The precedent would have a chilling effect on what a president may or may not do with respect to the exercise of power.

To be sure, I would think such an effect is good; we need fewer wars and body bags and more presidents afraid of unleashing war for their own sake, but the goal of any political party is to win and consolidate power. When it comes to gaining and holding power, if people who want power know a question about power has an answer they do not like, then those who want power would rather that question not be answered than fully answered and reveal the true limits of power. This way, the power holders are better able to leave their enemies guessing about the true extent of their power.

It's the same logic employed by Saddam when he was trying to make his enemies guess about the true extent of his WMD. He had none, but he certainly didn't want anybody knowing that because it would mean those who opposed him would have less fear of Saddam. The same is true about presidential power or even governmental power in general. If people were allowed to know the answer, then the people would be less fearful of government, and the government would be more fearful of the people.

This is why I believe you'll never get the support of Congress regardless if it's a Republican or a Democratic one on this issue. You're more likely to get Democrats in the Senate/House to agree to impeachment long before agreeing to put a president before the Hague. Power concedes nothing without struggle.

[Jack Rabbit]

11. A few points

First of all, I am a registered Democrat. As you are aware, there is a disconnect nowadays between rank-and-file Democrats and much of the party leadership. Almost no Democratic member of Congress wants to use the "I" word, at least not yet, where I believe there are more than enough reasons to not only impeach Bush but Cheney and three of the four highest ranking cabinet officers charges of violating international humanitarian law.

Second, I think it would be best to handle this matter within the context of the US system of justice. Because of Bush and the criminal activities of this regime, the US has lost a great deal of its credibiltiy and standing. The American Revolution and the ideas of government by the consent of the governed and of the rights of citizens were highlights of the Englishtenment. As an American, I am proud of that heritage. As Americans, we need to demonstrate to the world that this system of government we built is strong enough to withstand an assault from tyrants like Bush and the neoconservatives. That can only be done by removing them from power and holding them accountable for their crimes.

Third, it would be wrong to allow these people to go unpunished and pretend nothing happened. Therefore, we either resolve to do it ourselves in an act of puragation or we allow an international tribunal to do it for us.

[demnan]

6. I'd like to see someone say this

on the Senate and House floors. That would be worth taping C-Span for.

[dogday]

9. Wait-- are we not the Strong Dems who forced out DeLay?

Do not underestimate the might of the Democrats, We have been through 6 years of hell and we have someone who will carry the banner against corruption:::Russ Feingold.....