It’s Time to Censure a President
March 24th, 2006 | by steve |What is it about all this censure talk? You hear it on the radio daily. Sen. Feingold of Wisconsin. Last week, Babs Boxer. What are they talking about?
A censure, from what I have read, is a strong worded letter from Congress to the President to show they are upset about what’s going on. They basically all get together and put into words what they are all upset about. Presumably, with this President, it has to do with Iraq, wire tapping, and the War on Terror.
Fair enough…
On my way to work today in the fine city of Modesto, I flipped to, ironically enough, to the left side of the dial to hear San Francisco’s “right” talk station KSFO. Imagine, a conservative station in the heart of ultra liberaldom. During the mornings before Rush, the Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan Show plays. They talk about this and that, and to suprise you, they have strong criticism of the President and his work. Criticism yes. They are disgusted at his job performance and have had harsh words for the President, like during the recent Port Security snafu.
The show’s resident hottie, Melanie Morgan, chairman of Move America forward has written a blistering case for censuring a President. However, not for Mr. Bush. But for former President Carter. (Read here) She makes some seriously valid points in her case against ole Jimmy and his “foreign relations” with known terrorists, North Korea, Castro and the UN Human Rights Commission. (Here is the Censure Carter Website)
Folks, I read all this stuff on Carter and things here on BIO about Bush and I gotta say, I think Melanie here is right. Carter, being Carter, a former President, no-longer in charge is creating more harm than good. What the hell is this guy doing, hanging out with Hamas, associating with Saddam’s henchmen and meddling around with life long enemies like Kim Jung Il and Fidel Castro. Elder statesman my ass! Just on his actions regarding the UN Human Rights Commission alone as Melanie points out is scary in its own right:
This month, Carter announced he had made a personal promise to ambassadors from Egypt, Pakistan and Cuba that he would fight to undermine U.S. opposition to the new U.N. Human Rights Commission. The United States opposed the new panel because it would continue to allow known human-rights abusers to serve on the commission.
It’s understandable why the United States, led by the fabulously stalwart and principled Ambassador John Bolton, would oppose such a commission. In May 2001, a bloc of nations led by despots and tyrants voted the United States off the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Nations with known human-rights violations, such as the Sudan, were instead placed on the panel.
So here was Jimmy Carter urging the nations of the world to rebuke the United States once more. “My hope is that when the vote is taken … the other members will outvote the United States,” Carter recently told the Council on Foreign Relations.
And they did.
So who is really poisoning America? Is it Bush or is it Carter? I vote for the latter and am signing the petition. This is one of many reasons why I cannot grasp the liberal movement. Put America first, Mr. Carter!
13 Responses to “It’s Time to Censure a President”
By pjordansr on Mar 24, 2006 | Reply
steve wrote: “led by the fabulously stalwart and principled Ambassador John Bolton, would oppose such a commission.”
Are you out of your mind?
“Bolton originally was a supporter of the Vietnam War and enlisted in the National Guard, though he did not serve in Vietnam”
“Public policy career
Between 1997 and 2000, Bolton served pro bono as an assistant to James Baker in Baker’s capacity as Kofi Annan’s personal envoy to the Western Sahara[5]. Before joining the George W. Bush administration, Bolton was Senior Vice President for Public Policy Research at the American Enterprise Institute.
During the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations, he served in several positions within the State Department, the Justice Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). He is the former executive director of the Committee on Resolutions in the Republican National Committee.[6]
Bolton’s government service included such positions as:
HAWK!!!!!!!!!
Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs at the Department of State (1989–1993);
Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice (1985–1989″
HAWK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By steve on Mar 25, 2006 | Reply
Uh… so you are saying Bolton wouldn’t be against Egypt, Cuba and Pakistan being the leading countries heading up human rights?
By Paul Watson, Cranky Brit on Mar 25, 2006 | Reply
Steve,
It doesn’t matter if he’s against it or not. He hasn’t got the diplomatic skills to persuade other countries to go along with what he wants. He comes across as if his idea of diplomacy is ‘I say, you all agree with me. Or else.’, and most other countries do not take well to this.
Personally, I agree that having human rights abusers on a human rights commission is ridiculous. But then, I think that appointing political cronies without any real experience to head government bodies like FEMA is also ridiculous.
By steve on Mar 25, 2006 | Reply
“It doesn’t matter if he’s against it or not.” It doesn’t matter? What are you talking about? You act like he is the American equivilent to Saddam Hussein or Che Guevara or something, which he emphatically isn’t.
But if you both notice, I didn’t call him stalwart. Melanie Morgan here did. And former President Carter is the bigger issue here, which I was trying to draw attention to. Do we really need some elder statesman doing what Carter is doing?
By PhiloTBG on Mar 25, 2006 | Reply
Steve, you’re missing the elephant in the room. The talk of censuring Carter is talk about censuring a private citizen (not even sure how that would happen) for expressing his PERSONAL views and talking with people of his own choosing. He expressed a view that the US shouldn’t try to stonewall the UN Human Rights Commission and the majority of UN nations voting on the matter agreed with him. His views were different from Bush administration policy - so F’ing what? I guarantee ever person on this blog - including you, Kevin, and John Rogers - has expressed personal views that split with the Bush administration. Should we all be censured for it? Emphatically no. And Carter is just as much a private citizen as we are, he just happens to be a public figure.
Bush, on the other hand. is the sitting president. He has a responsibility to uphold the Constitution and the law. And yet he has persisently and continuously broken the law with his illegal surveillance of Americans outside of FISA law (not to mention the Patriot Act). He should, at bare minimum, be censured for his illegal actions in direct violation of his oath of office.
This Carter censure stuff is pure bullshit meant to rouse up the rightwing over a non-issue so irrelevant they have to direct it at an ineffective, unpopular president (Carter, not Bush that is). It’s sad to see you’re falling for it.
By steve on Mar 25, 2006 | Reply
Falling for it? It’s a fact man… What the hell is a private citizen doing what he is doing? Nobody asked the man to do it like Bush asking his dad and Bill Clinton for help in the Tsunami relief. I can see Cindy Sheehan doing it but she is a wannabe twit. A former President should have more tact then to make false promises to America’s enemies.
What law did President Bush break? It’s not like he lied to a grand jury.
I noticed on an email from one of the authors here on BIO the Edward R. Murrow quote: “We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty”. How true is that or else we wouldn’t use out free speech rights for blog like this. Carter is doing more than expressing dissent. He is displaying disloyalty to our country by implying he can set and make policy decisions. He did so by saying to the UN Human Rights Commission that he would “undermine US Policy.” That is not dissent, that is disloyalty.
You can’t have it both ways. He is clearly in the wrong.
By Kevin W. on Mar 25, 2006 | Reply
I agree completely. Censuring Carter would be a brilliant move. IMHO, it’s one that should have been done years ago. Hell, he should have been censured when he was in office.
By PhiloTBG on Mar 25, 2006 | Reply
What law did Bush break? The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Feel free to argue, as I know you both will, that the president can do whatever he wants during times of (undeclared) war. I disagree with that argument entirely, but the reality is that it doesn’t apply to the question of what law Bush broke.
It is unquestionable that Bush broke the FISA law by authorizing domestic electronic surveillance without a warrant. That is, Bush broke the law. Now your argument suggests that Bush is allowed to break the law because he’s the president. I prefer my Constitution in one piece, not shredded and scorched thank you very much.
Neither of you have addressed what law Carter broke. Disagreeing with government policies, even publicly, IS NOT ILLEGAL. It’s called the First Amendment folks (that’s the one before the ever-popular Second Amendment). Carter, like any other American, is allowed to voice his opinion.
Steve- what is disloyal about Carter’s opinions? By disloyal I assume you mean approaching treason or an action that seeks to delibrately weaken our country (like say leaking the name of an undercover CIA agent?). Carter owes no loyalty to the policy positions of the US government or the Bush administration. His loyalty is to the flag and to our country. I’m not sure when George Bush became the United States of America, but I’m truly disappointed that you both would suggest that because Carter disagrees with Bush he should be punished by the government.
Expressing an opinion about a policy isn’t trying to set the policy, he has no power to do it. You make it sound like he’s secretly rallying generals and admirals to his side in a preparation for a coup d’etat. I say bull shit.
Kevin - thanks once again for saying something and not explaining why you think it, let alone what legal or historical justifications support your juvenile opinions.
By Kevin W. on Mar 25, 2006 | Reply
We aren’t talking about Carter’s disagreement. We’re talking about his current and active endorsements of murderous regimes around the world. He gives a free pass to the murderers like Castro and Chavez while claiming that our entire government is corrupt. His rampant anti-Americanism is worthy of censure.
By steve on Mar 25, 2006 | Reply
Philo…
It is interesting to sit and watch you defend Carter by blaming Bush. My entire post was about Carter. He should have done something about Iran and if he did, we wouldn’t be where we’re at right now. And for him to keep doing the same things almost 30 years later? WTF is up with that?
By pjordansr on Mar 26, 2006 | Reply
your entire post was a cry for help and an acknowledgement that you have no clue to today’s realities..carter ain’t it dude
By Paul Watson, Cranky Brit on Mar 26, 2006 | Reply
Steve,
What should Carter have done about Iran? Invade? Nuke it? Reimpose the Shah again? What was the solution that Carter didn’t take?
Well, when a certain current President keeps doing the same things when people think its stupid and wrong, it’s called conviction. Maybe Carter has the conviction that the US’s current policy is wrong and is protesting against it. Isn’t that free speech? You might hate what he’s saying, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a right to say it.
By steve on Mar 26, 2006 | Reply
Paul,
Actions speak louder than words. This isn’t about what he says.
pjordansr,
Ha! This entire blog is a cry for help from you party. The reality is, your party has been spewing the same crap since before November of 2000 and your track record of winning “your point of view” doesn’t look so hot.