Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
President Bush committed political treason today
philly.com — President Bush went on foreign soil today, and committed what I consider an act of political treason: Comparing the candidate of the U.S. opposition party to appeasers of Nazi Germany -- in the very nation that was carved out from the horrific calamity of the Holocaust.
onyxcoltrane- 2800 diggs
- digg it
- 533n, on 05/16/2008, -112/+184So now he's a war criminal and an unpatriotic jackass
- WhiteRaven, on 05/16/2008, -108/+20He is neither. He has committed no war crimes. It is also 100% patriotic and American to oppose a politician you believe to be misguided. After all.... that's what you are doing.
- 533n, on 05/16/2008, -11/+36First off, I'm not American, I am Canadian and proud. Just because you legalize it and do it does not make it legal. If anything he is more like a Nazi in doing so. What do you call arresting American citizens without laying charges? What do you call shooting unarmed Iraqis? What do you call bombing buildings that are SUSPECTED of having enemy combatants. I'm not sure what you call these things, but I do know what we call people like you in Canada; ***** retarded.
- rentmitchum, on 05/16/2008, -21/+12If something is legal .. it's legal. I don't know if you know what you're talking 'aboot'. actorboy below you has the right idea on why this is wrong.
- noahhoward, on 05/16/2008, -19/+5"What do you call arresting American citizens without laying charges?"
Questionable but lacking substantial proof and clear link to the White House. Being arrested by a douchebag cop overstepping his bounds does not mean Bush signed an order to have you arrested.
"What do you call shooting unarmed Iraqis?"
Depends on the case, but all of the thing's I've seen so far have fallen into the categories of crossfire, collateral losses or unauthorised action. None of which are ordered by the White House.
"What do you call bombing buildings that are SUSPECTED of having enemy combatants."
The best you can do given the information. Do you want them to knock on the door and ask? - OwdenBowden, on 05/16/2008, -19/+4This is the only time I actually agree with what Bush has said. Shame to think BHO is going to talk the world into loving him because the rest of the world doesn't smoke crack like BHO and his Obamacans.
- archiesteel, on 05/16/2008, -2/+9OwdenBowden, please look up "diplomacy" in the dictionary, because I don't think it means what you think it means.
So, according to your logic, was Reagan smoking crack when he talked with Iranians? Was McCain smoking crack when he proposed doing that last year? Was Bush I smoking crack when he negotiated with Saddam? Was Bush Jr. smoking crack when he negotiated with Gaddafi and Kim Jong-Il?
You guys complain about double standards all the time, but your side is the most hypocritical of all. I can't wait for the Republicans to be wiped off the electoral map come November... - archiesteel, on 05/16/2008, -1/+8rentmitchum, I think your cowboy hat is on too tight.
(See, cultural stereotypes are fun!) - bemenaker, on 05/16/2008, -1/+7Rentmetchum, just because you pass a law doesn't mean the law is completely legal. That is why we have the court system, to rule on the legality of laws, which is the job of the Supreme Court, just in case you forgot. Yes, they strike down laws all the time. There are also rules of warfare, called the Geneva Conventions. And guess what, the US was a major player in establishing those rules of war.
- HanFastolfe, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1@533n
Go be Canadian in Canada. It's presumptuous, and arrogant on your part to think that you matter in the internal political discourse of my country. Just as it would be same if I were to involve myself in yours. Your future silence on this subject will be reciprocated by mine as concerns your nation as well. - HanFastolfe, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1@archiesteel
Citation needed for your assertion that Reagan talked to the Iranians. I'm not asking about `backdoor' diplomacy though the Swiss or other intermediaries. I mean Ronald Wilson Reagan face to face with anyone in the (then) Iranian government. I'll even give you half credit for a "high level" exchange e.g. Sec. of State (George Shultz etc ) meeting with the Iranian Foreign Minister. Otherwise your assertion is dismissed without merit.
As pertains Libya, when Gaddafi decided that he was going to change his behavior of course we were willing to speak with him. Libya has been one of the stunning successes of Bush's foreign policy.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2006/66244.htm
However at no point has there been a direct meeting between Bush, and Gaddafi. In actuality Tripoli called Washington, not the other way around. Just as if Iran wanted to call and follow the Libyan model we would be more than happy to oblige them.
As concern N.Korea, again at no point has Bush met with Kim Jong-Il. Of course there is an ongoing discourse between the U.S. and the DKPR, we still have 40k troops stationed there.
As concerns McCain, it doesn't really matter to me. Candidates, say, all kinds of things. I've seen plenty of presidential elections, and know better to get excited about too much that comes out of their mouths.
- actorboy, on 05/16/2008, -6/+511. He does have the right to oppose a fellow American politician -- on American soil. But as president, he is our representative, which makes it his job to represent all of us with overseas with dignity, including the politicians he disagrees with.
2. Not only was he taking a swipe at Obama, he was planting seeds of doubt in the minds of Israelis about the man who might very well be our next president. He was essentially setting them up to put additional pressure on his successor. What kind of patriot attempts to strong arm his own government through a foreign power?
You need to look up the definition of patriot. It doesn't include the words flag pin. A true patriot doesn't send his countrymen into unnecessary wars, he tries his best to keep them out of harms way.- HanFastolfe, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Even though I don't believe that he was taking a swipe at Obama, I'll agree with the tone of your post. The first thing I thought was, Jimmy Carter, and have been surprised at vigor of Obama's reaction ( to me he,"doth protest too much").
Getting back to you tone, as long as that standard applies to both side of the aisle then we can agree. But if your willing to give a pass to a former president (Carter with Hamas), or a speaker of the house (Pelosi in Syria), or a former vice-president (Gore in Saudi Arabia,"indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."), then, no.
One standard will do. Foreign policy of the United States is almost the exclusive realm of the sitting president. Bush (41) didn't comment on Clinton hardly ever. He knows that it's a tough job, and the current president needs the space to act. Carter stayed quite during Reagan, and others until this presidency. Once your an ex-president (or vice president), it is custom in our country that your done, go away for a while, write a book, give speeches, work on your library, but we expect you keep a low profile for the nation to continue.
As pertains members of congress involving themselves in direct diplomacy even members of Pelosi's own party didn't want her to go. They have their fact finding mission they get to go on (on our dime), but policy with other nations is almost exclusively the prerogative of the President.
If what you think that Bush did was so wrong, then you must assuredly see that what Democratic opposition was wrong as well. I expect your reply to contain as much, otherwise your partisan hypocrisies are showing. And that, sir, is not patriotic.
- HanFastolfe, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Even though I don't believe that he was taking a swipe at Obama, I'll agree with the tone of your post. The first thing I thought was, Jimmy Carter, and have been surprised at vigor of Obama's reaction ( to me he,"doth protest too much").
- V3n0M, on 05/16/2008, -7/+17The war itself is a crime!
- noahhoward, on 05/16/2008, -13/+7No it is not. I'd challenge you to prove that it is but I know I'll get some ***** instead.
- archiesteel, on 05/16/2008, -3/+8Well, it was started on false pretenses, and so far about 100,000 Iraqis have been killed. It may not be a crime in the legal sense (though that remains to be seen), but it is one in the moral sense (except if your part of the brain-dead 20%ers who still think the war was a good idea).
- V3n0M, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War"
Did the Congress declare this war or did the President? If it wasn't the Congress (which it wasn't!) this war is illegal... a crime. No *****. - Mothrog, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2"Did the Congress declare this war or did the President?"
Congress did, in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. At least bother to do some research before you trot out your talking points. - iLLz, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2Yea Congress did Authorize the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, but it was all based on ***** that there were WMDs in Iraq. The Executive Branch mislead Congress on why we should be there and wasn't that Congress at the time mostly Republican, pretty much doing whatever Bush wanted them to do?
Bush lied to the people and to Congress to get the war started. That is a crime. I just don't get why people don't see it that way. - V3n0M, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1I'm quite aware of the unconstitutional "Authorization of Military Force". Congress acted outside their authority.
Creating an illegal bill to "authorize" an illegal war doesn't make it legal.
- Pyehole, on 05/16/2008, -4/+18His speech in Israel may not make him a criminal, but his actions over the last 7 years do.
- gutistg, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4No, no. Everyone is missing the point. Bush has invoked Godwin's law on all of American politics.
It's over. Bush just lost politics, America is no longer a country, and we can all get back to what we were doing.
- gutistg, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4No, no. Everyone is missing the point. Bush has invoked Godwin's law on all of American politics.
- brstilson, on 05/16/2008, -6/+14"He has committed no war crimes."
He has personally ordered the torture of war prisoners, which is in violation of the Geneva convention. That sir is the very definition of "war crime." - Kerrigore, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Read the book "President of Good and Evil" then come back and say that.
http://www.amazon.com/President-Good-Evil-Peter-Si ...
- 533n, on 05/16/2008, -11/+36First off, I'm not American, I am Canadian and proud. Just because you legalize it and do it does not make it legal. If anything he is more like a Nazi in doing so. What do you call arresting American citizens without laying charges? What do you call shooting unarmed Iraqis? What do you call bombing buildings that are SUSPECTED of having enemy combatants. I'm not sure what you call these things, but I do know what we call people like you in Canada; ***** retarded.
- swrostmore, on 05/16/2008, -20/+117He's a war criminal because his administration authorized torture...using the parliament of a foreign country to launch political attacks is a trivial bit of asshattery when you look at the larger picture.
- BaudiIROCZ, on 05/16/2008, -5/+29Not to mention he and his "intelligence" led us to war under false pretenses that Iraq had WMD's or was somehow a threat to our national security. So either they are incompetent or they are liars.
- DangerMouse9, on 05/16/2008, -4/+15They wanted the war, so I don't think they are incompetent.
- IslandDog, on 05/16/2008, -22/+9You mean the war that democrats supported and authorized?
- EarlOfLade, on 05/16/2008, -3/+12No, they are "incompetent liars".
And a bunch of war criminals who should all be arrested ASAP. I don't understand why there is not a million angry Americans parading around Washington with their guns, demanding the president's impeachment. That disgusts me equally.. - keithb1984, on 05/16/2008, -34/+0OR you suck dick and need to learn to support your president... if this were china you'd be dead
- BaudiIROCZ, on 05/16/2008, -1/+17Well Keith, I'm in luck because I dont live in China.
- DangerMouse9, on 05/16/2008, -3/+11@Keith
You do realize that its better to die standing up for what you believe, than to live in fear or die for something you don't believe in.
Supporting this douche of a president is essentially saying you agree with him and have no problem with his policies and practices. Hell, you'd ***** skull ***** the people in Guantanamo yourself and jizz all over their prayer rugs if they made you guard.
It's your kind of mentality that cause a lot of our problems, you know the whole "you disagree with me so you're a terrorist and hate America, even though we're ***** over all the other countries in the world because we think we're morally superior and we could be as great as we claim if we weren't such ***** douches."
I really hope that someday you see past your blind eagerness to agree with whatever your told, as you said that attitude belongs in China and not somewhere you're given the freedom to voice your dissatisfaction with the leaders and representatives. - bjornski, on 05/16/2008, -1/+13Keith sounds like a "Good German".
Never question your Fuhrer.
I love listening to Bush comparing the Democrats to "Hitler appeasers", when a large part of his family fortune was made from grandpa FUNDING Hitler.
That's not appeasing the enemy. That's joining their team.
- noahhoward, on 05/16/2008, -32/+6His administration did NOT authorize torture, he specifically is on record in a published document forbidding the use of torture. Any torture that this nation has been doing was authorized well before Bush and is likely common practice elsewhere. Bush just happened to be in office when we got caught holding the whip.
Please start focusing on the things he HAS done, rather than this fantasy crap.- jwelchtex, on 05/16/2008, -3/+19I know there are still people out there who think like you but, when I actually see it in print, it still freaks me out.
- swrostmore, on 05/16/2008, -2/+16White House lawyers are on record in a published document specifically authorizing torture. Why would they have to write a document authorizing torture in 2002, if torture was already authorized before Bush?
- AmaDaden, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5He Godwined his own speech. If that's not a crime i don't know what is.
- noahhoward, on 05/16/2008, -11/+4Got a link Swrostmore, because if I remember rightly you interpreted "I will not autorise torture' as 'I authorise torture'
And jwelch, think like what, like a rational human being who wants to see the people responsible in trouble rather than the scapegoat? I'm sad that that scares you. There are plenty of things that can be linked to Bush and should be, conjuring hurricanes and authorising torture are not on that list. - swrostmore, on 05/16/2008, -3/+14Do YOU have a link to Bush's "published document forbidding the use of torture," Noah? Because if I remember rightly, every time Democrats pass a bill forbidding torture, Bush amends it with a signing statement saying he can do it anyway.
"Justice Dept. Memo Says Torture 'May Be Authorized'" Washington Post, June 13 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A388 ...
"Memo: Laws Didn't Apply to Interrogators" Washington Post, April 2, 2008
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story ...
The White House Office of Legal Council "asserted that the President's war powers entitle him to ignore multiple laws which criminalized the use of torture"
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/02/ ...
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/pdfs ... - archiesteel, on 05/16/2008, -2/+8noahhoward = pwned
- noahhoward, on 05/16/2008, -9/+3The document referenced by your first link clarifies what classes as torture. Most of what has been aledged to have occured at Guantanamo does not fall under that definition. So, no number 1 does not authorise it.
Number two says essentially the same thing with the addition of the fact that if he so chooses, Bush can authorise whatever he feels appropriate to defend the nation. So, again, 2 does not show that anyone authorised it, merely that they could.
Don't know why you bother with three as it references the same thing as two which, just to repeat, does not authorise torture. That leads me to my document...
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02 ...
Sections three through five specifically state that, though he could, he DOES NOT authorize torture. All of your sources are the laws that he used to come to his conclusions not authorizations or endorsements. - swrostmore, on 05/16/2008, -1/+8The first link clarifies what the OLC classes [sic] as torture, NOT how torture is defined under international law (which is what we're talking about when we refer to war crimes). By narrowing their definition of torture, the OLC is implicitly authorizing torture which doesn't meet their definition (but unquestionably meets the definition under international law).
The dictionary definition of "authorize:" To make legal; to give legal sanction to; to legalize - swrostmore, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5Another thing Noah - the memo you linked to "forbidding the use of torture" doesn't "forbid" anything. In fact it specifically states that Bush thinks he has the legal authority to order torture if he decides to do so: "I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva['s prohibitions against torture]."
In fact, Bush's top lawyer John Yoo specifically stated that, if the President deems it necessary, interrogators can "torture a detainees children, including crushing their testicles." - noahhoward, on 05/16/2008, -4/+2""I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva['s prohibitions against torture].""
As a matter of fact he does, what is your point? That is STILL not an authorisation to do so. - swrostmore, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3The dictionary definition of "authorize:" To make legal; to give legal sanction to; to legalize
How is Bush saying he has the legal "authority" to torture NOT an authorization of torture? - swrostmore, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4Whis was not even my point - my point was that you claim the document "prohibits" the use of torture when the opposite is true. Unless you think "I have the authority to torture but I'm not going to use it for now" constitutes a prohibition.
- noahhoward, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3"I have the authority to torture but I'm not going to use it for now"
That is the exact same ***** thing as saying "Do not torture." The fact that there is an implied "For Now" in there does not constitute and authorization. While you have your nose in the dictionary you may want to read up on the difference between authorize and authority. - swrostmore, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2"Do not torture, for now" is supposed to be your proof of a specific PROHIBITION OF TORTURE? You are digging your hole deeper every time you post, Noah.
The "for now" clause (which you refer to as a "fact") doesn't in itself constitute an authorization, but it does prove that there IS an authorization, because it implies that there are circumstances in which torture is legal (or "authorized").
The real frightening thing is that when Bush says "do not torture," he's actually saying "do not torture according to the OLC's definition, which allows techniques held by the international community to be torture."
But when he claims the right to suspend Geneva conventions on torture, he's saying that, if he gives the OK, interrogators can go BEYOND the OLC's definition of torture, which is inflicting pain and suffering equal to organ failure or death. - paperclipsNsoup, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1I'm giving swrostmore a gold star
_/_
/
- BaudiIROCZ, on 05/16/2008, -5/+29Not to mention he and his "intelligence" led us to war under false pretenses that Iraq had WMD's or was somehow a threat to our national security. So either they are incompetent or they are liars.
- salimk786, on 05/16/2008, -12/+15He is a war criminal that can never be tried.
"deep inside this legislation is a provision that would pardon president bush,
and all the members of his administration any possible crimes connected with the torture and mistreatment
of the detainees ... " President bush is pardoning himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGnaSN5Twq8- bemenaker, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5YOu can't pardon yourself. If Bush signs it, that portion by default is unconstitutional. It would take the SC even with Bush's addition 30 seconds to strike that clause down.
- realperson, on 05/16/2008, -8/+24Here's some perspective , Bush knows all about the Nazis
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100474,00.html- bjornski, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2And it's golden how that can't be written off as "propaganda from some liberal site".
- ccheath, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1too bad that story is from 2003, not 2000 because that would have been good info to know before electing him the first time, not the second time
and that fact that he was re-elected says a lot
- Nougat, on 05/16/2008, -4/+9The person who insists on defining patriotism cannot, by definition, be unpatriotic.
- CrazedLeper, on 05/16/2008, -5/+10You'd better read this...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/reich- zebubble, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Wow, what does that remind me of....?
Maybe our own country!?- ccheath, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1you didn't read the whole thing did you... it closes really well i think
- tunafizzle, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1You should read this.....
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Fresh_Prince
- zebubble, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Wow, what does that remind me of....?
- stonewaljacksn, on 05/16/2008, -27/+4WHY IS THIS ***** HOLOCAUST SYMPATHY CARD PLAYING MISLEADING TITLE WRITTEN BY SOME LOSER DOUCHEBAG DUGG UP.
barack obama's supporters need to stop embarrassing themselves.- xEn1gma, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Please...just stop.
And read a book while you're at it.
- xEn1gma, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Please...just stop.
- kemp34, on 05/16/2008, -7/+24Bush's family helped finance the Nazi's during their rise to power. I'd hardly call him someone who should talk unless he sincerely denounces the actions of his own paternal grandfather during the 1930s.
- CrazedLeper, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2Keep following the trail...
- Zoplax, on 05/16/2008, -3/+4NOW???
- protogenxl, on 05/16/2008, -4/+3And a Nazi
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html - dyoungdigger, on 05/16/2008, -3/+5I find it mildly hypocratic that so many people call out Bush on this, when so many democratic leaders have gone over seas and openly attacked US Foreign Policy. Let's name them off... Carter, Clinton, Reid, Kennedy, you think that Republicans are the only ones to attack political rivals overseas? Come on people... grow the ***** up and stop swallowing what main stream media feeds you.
- keltin, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1I just wish he had been such a defender of our borders and was more willing to take on the Dimos over the past seven years. Instead, we have a Schwarzenegger RINO look-alike...we surely don't need any more of those in the US.
- WhiteRaven, on 05/16/2008, -108/+20He is neither. He has committed no war crimes. It is also 100% patriotic and American to oppose a politician you believe to be misguided. After all.... that's what you are doing.
- Ridgeliner7, on 05/16/2008, -69/+33"The White House says U.S. President George Bush's comment about "false comfort of appeasement" is not directed at Democratic Party presidential hopeful Barack Obama. Spokeswoman Dana Perino says the President is not going to stop talking about the ideals and values of the United States because there is an upcoming presidential election.
She told reporters in Jerusalem Thursday that she understands that when candidates are running for office, they sometimes think the world revolves around them. She said that is not always true and it is not true in this case."- bbwolf7, on 05/16/2008, -15/+16More BS from the White House
- Gemfinder, on 05/16/2008, -11/+6Dana Perino should be boiled in beezlenut oil.
- actorboy, on 05/16/2008, -2/+7I know. It's almost to the point where I wouldn't even hit it anymore.
- sonofblacula, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4Not even close.
- colincornaby, on 05/16/2008, -11/+17I feel sorry for the lady. Trying to find ways to cover for the crazy crap that Bush pulls must be the worst job in America.
- JointVenture, on 05/16/2008, -2/+10Its real simple, did he say Obama's name?
Did he say democratic party, or refer at any point to "candidates"?
No he didn't, so give it a rest.
Oh yeah, it was Obama who said in the debate that "he would meet without preconditions", the caveat being that there would be "preparations".
So what we have here is a defensive reactions on the part of Obama and the Democratic party.
My god I cant believe I'm defending GWB, but when wrong is wrong, its wrong. - heypetray, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Back in middle school, we learned the importance of citing our quotes... I don't suppose you could simply paste the link to where you found it for your reader's convenience? Thank You.
- Cobain27, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2quotes within quotes get single quotation marks.
- jim51109, on 05/16/2008, -361/+23waa waa bo hoo. It is just so funny how Dems hate Bush soooo much but he still won the 2nd term. Cry me an f'ing river hahahah
F Monkey boy Obama
Even if he wins some good ole boy will take him out. Think i am joking. Search google for forums about it- foxhaze, on 05/16/2008, -60/+2I agree with everything you said from "Waa waa" to "Cry me an f'ing river." Card-carrying liberals are nincompoops.
At the same time, it's unnecessary to say that Obama could be assassinated. It wouldn't happen. And it won't happen, because he's just not going to be the President. Again, people forget how likely Amuhricans are to vote for McCain-dawg. Don't kid yourselves. You know what's going to happen.- shadus, on 05/16/2008, -2/+10The GOP will continue to delude themselves into thinking the American population is going to continue to put up with the ***** they've taken for the last 8 years and will flush the election because they're all neo-cons and not real conservatives like the people want?
- purplehaze420, on 05/16/2008, -6/+10So you agree with "F monkey boy obama"
you racist redneck *****- setabs, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3where is monkey boy in this quote:"waa waa bo hoo. It is just so funny how Dems hate Bush soooo much but he still won the 2nd term. Cry me an f'ing river "
- CryRightardCry, on 05/16/2008, -2/+11. They don't have cards to carry.
2. With the failures you have cheered for over the last few years you've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you lack the ethical, moral, and intellectual capabilities neccessary to judge what goes on in the world around you.
Someone as deluded as you pretending they can guess what will happen is laughable.
You rightards have been WRONG in everything that matters from day one, yet you continue to cheer as though failure was your goal.
Good luck with that, loser.
You and all the other rightards KNOW that McCain has no chance unless the machines are tampered with again.
Yeah,I see the GOP trying to block minorities from voting, but you can really only defraud so many voters of their rights before the election. Do you really think you can stop ENOUGH people to make a difference.
I don't. But I know there will be jail time for the GOP members who pull that crap this year.
Oh, are you going to pretend that didn't happen?
- afterlife23, on 05/16/2008, -12/+25monkey boy is going to be running your country, and if hes shot youd only be helping his cause
- ThickGreenPuke, on 05/16/2008, -5/+4tells you about the country then, doesn't it? what the ***** is "shot youd?"
- afterlife23, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6***** people who correct spelling on stupid blogs get a life
- ThickGreenPuke, on 05/16/2008, -3/+6You should have a period go in between "blogs" and "get a life" to separate the two sentences.
- afterlife23, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3again, get a life
- RanIntoTheDevil, on 05/16/2008, -3/+5Again, get a life.
Corrected. - ThickGreenPuke, on 05/16/2008, -3/+2Yesterday, I went to Walmart to get a life but they said they were all sold out. Do you know a good place to get one?
- 55mph, on 05/16/2008, -6/+23monkey boy? ignorant ass!!
- hauntedchippy, on 05/16/2008, -7/+26Proof that the U.S. really is diverse culturally as well as intellectually. Quite frankly sir, you do not deserve the freedoms that so many gave their lives for you to enjoy.
- GreenBlanket, on 05/16/2008, -4/+6That statement is evidence that your sense of freedom is just as low as what you believe Bush's is. I don't believe in what he says either, but I'll let him speak his mind because that IS part of what our men died for.
- hauntedchippy, on 05/16/2008, -2/+8Oh I shall certainly let him speak his mind and defend his right to do so. But it is my right to my opinion that he does not deserve it.
- GreenBlanket, on 05/16/2008, -4/+2I thought Jim was the intellectually diverse one, I didn't say you didn't have the right to say what you did, I said your opinion shows that although you exercise freedom you do not understand it.
- GreenBlanket, on 05/16/2008, -3/+3I didn't say you didn't deserve the right. I said your opinion shows that although you exercise your freedom, you don't understand it.
- GreenBlanket, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4whoops, now i'm the intellectually diverse one...sorry, i'm new to digg and that whole wait a minute thing...
- GreenBlanket, on 05/16/2008, -4/+6That statement is evidence that your sense of freedom is just as low as what you believe Bush's is. I don't believe in what he says either, but I'll let him speak his mind because that IS part of what our men died for.
- purplehaze420, on 05/16/2008, -6/+30Yeah... Monkey Boy? Wow. What a *****' redneck. Buried and reported as offensive.
- akuma1, on 05/16/2008, -10/+2Offensive, poor you! go smoke some more weed! I got my feelings hurt......little bitch
- purplehaze420, on 05/16/2008, -2/+5Akuma1,
I checked your profile and all you do is flame people in your comments. Go grow some balls and move out of your parents basement.
You're probably a dumb redneck from Alabama just like jim51109 - akuma1, on 05/16/2008, -5/+2Then you must not read very well, and your right I do live in my parents basement, I also am a mac fanboy, and I never get laid. How did you become so smart?
Oh, and I am from Alabama too.
You say all I do is flame people, and look what you are doing....idiot!
- purplehaze420, on 05/16/2008, -2/+5Akuma1,
- purplehaze420, on 05/16/2008, -3/+2Wow Akuma1 (aka Joshua) you really ARE some dumb redneck.
Is this you?
http://akuma1.iwpage.com/image/1446/8766_brothers_ ... - akuma1, on 05/16/2008, -3/+2LOL you really are a *****, which one am I suppose to be? You think you are that computer savvy, thats whats even more funny, keep trying though.....wannabe! Enough said you are a COMPLETE IDIOT! :))
- purplehaze420, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1It's funny cause everyone keeps diggin me up, and digging you down. I noticed that almost all of your comments get dugg down, which is not surprising in the least considering all you do is flame people. Maybe you need to smoke some weed too - you need to relax, man.
And, my guess is you are the douche in green.
- purplehaze420, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1It's funny cause everyone keeps diggin me up, and digging you down. I noticed that almost all of your comments get dugg down, which is not surprising in the least considering all you do is flame people. Maybe you need to smoke some weed too - you need to relax, man.
- akuma1, on 05/16/2008, -10/+2Offensive, poor you! go smoke some more weed! I got my feelings hurt......little bitch
- neems25, on 05/16/2008, -4/+22Someone should take you "out". You're whats wrong with this country and why I get ***** from foreigners when I travel abroad....Dick.
- gcsmit6, on 05/16/2008, -4/+18WOW, You are a disgrace to this country. Its just too bad that the majority of American's are as ***** retarded as your dumb ass and the minority is actually interested in changing things for the better instead of pointing to scoreboards. Go play in traffic, you ignorant piece of *****.
- adogg06, on 05/16/2008, -5/+13Wow Jim Jeffords....why don't you go iron your pointy white cap with the eyeholes in it? Its sad we have to share a country with idiots like you. You are a stupid racist piece of *****, full of hatred for anyone not like you. Do us all a favor - next time you're having a threesome with your sister and your favorite sheep, see if one of them will bite your dick off so there's no chance that your unfortunate assembly of chromosomes will make it to the next generation.
- wasabimonster, on 05/16/2008, -4/+7I found a photo of Jim Jeffords: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/chriskemp1.ht ...
While you're at it take a look at this guy's other comments. His mother must be proud.- DatDudeWiggs, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Beavis?
- AvidPreatorian, on 05/16/2008, -4/+6laughed off. reported. blocked. dugg down. and of course ***** slapped. when you die off, world will be a tiny bit better. good luck with life, lowlife.
- kayvman78, on 05/16/2008, -8/+3I'm hoping "monkey boy" Will take out all the good ol' boys so this country can finally move forward without some ignorant half-evolved monkeys like yourself getting in the way of progress.
- schroderr224, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3It's fun to hear racism from a guy with a big red nose and a rainbow wig.
- Joomal, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4He just meant because he looks like Curious George. The hairline, the cheeks..
- McDeath, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4Jim your a retard, and you're part of the reason why this country is in trouble.
- mummbleswers, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4that ***** is ***** up, but it scares me he might be right. Hillbilly's got Bush elected twice! Which was a big ***** you to the rest of the world. I lived in Texas for a while and even as governor he was a piece of *****, but he still got elected president... Over Al friggin' Gore. C'mon! "What's the Matter With Kansas." Great book explaining how the GOP rapes middle and low income white american families and they still vote republican. Even thought both dems tout tax cuts for the poorer people in the country they'll still vote for McCain. Ignorance is a bitch isn't it?
- ObeseEurotrash, on 05/16/2008, -5/+3hahahaha I love the internet. I wish I could like promote your comment. A+ trolling.
- kenedamick, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Way to be a hick racist.
- saisumimen, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1Blocked and reported to https://tips.fbi.gov
- Killah_xxx, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3I hope you're not serious.
- Chassit, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1I seriously doubt the ignorant hicks who are stupid enough to make threats against a possible US president on a Google searchable forum have an iota of a chance of getting past the secret service.
- ciaran036, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Well done. This is the most buried comment I have ever seen.
- SuperWinner, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1I'm surprised it wasn't made by jimmyspaza...
- Indierocka, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1I wish i could bury you twice. One of those times would be near the river bank in a hefty bag
- crackedlogic, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3how does it feel to know you're disliked by 300 people?
- asspants, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2EPIC TROLL
+1 internets to you, sir. - Cobain27, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1people like you should be held for treason for dishonoring your country's principles. and for being a duesche-bag you should be buried, oh wait, you already are.
- foxhaze, on 05/16/2008, -60/+2I agree with everything you said from "Waa waa" to "Cry me an f'ing river." Card-carrying liberals are nincompoops.
- WhiteRaven, on 05/16/2008, -59/+30Um.... "political treason"? He voiced an opinion. Any person can make any comparison between any two people or things they like. It is a logical impossibility for such an act to be treason.
Feel free to *disagree* with the characterization. But treason is a word with actual meaning and it simply doesn't apply.
Would you like to actually discuss the insanity of believing that fanatics can be bargained with? The Chamberlain analogy is apt.- mabs0, on 05/16/2008, -4/+20No, the comparison is not legitimate. Chamberlain was not criticized for talking to Hitler, which a lot of statesmen at the time did, but for giving half of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in the hopes it would avoid another war. The analogy banks on the hope that people skipped history classes en-mass and gullible enough to buy into it.
- WhiteRaven, on 05/16/2008, -18/+2You don't seem to understand that negotiation requires an *exchange*. Anyone in favor of negotiation is either planing to do so in bad faith or is prepared to *give* something. There is nothing that Iran wants what we can even consider giving them. What they want is nuclear weapons. So... is Obama going to negotiate with them without any intention of ever making any progress or is he going to let them build nukes?
- mabs0, on 05/16/2008, -1/+12Wow, you make lots of assumptions about what other people might want. And no, negotiations don't require an exchange. They are necessary for an exchange to possibly happen in the future if the negotiations succeed.
Don't be so naive as to think that Iran has made all its intentions and demands public. That's the whole point of diplomacy: leaders meet to disclose other positions that might not be popular but that might not be as extreme either. Think about it. Iran doesn't want nuclear weapons because they are cute. They want them because they are a means to and end. Well, you find out what the something else is through talks and negotiations. Maybe there is a peaceful solution to it, maybe there isn't, but you'll never know if you only go by what leaders (especially absolutist ones) declare in public.
- mabs0, on 05/16/2008, -1/+12Wow, you make lots of assumptions about what other people might want. And no, negotiations don't require an exchange. They are necessary for an exchange to possibly happen in the future if the negotiations succeed.
- WhiteRaven, on 05/16/2008, -18/+2You don't seem to understand that negotiation requires an *exchange*. Anyone in favor of negotiation is either planing to do so in bad faith or is prepared to *give* something. There is nothing that Iran wants what we can even consider giving them. What they want is nuclear weapons. So... is Obama going to negotiate with them without any intention of ever making any progress or is he going to let them build nukes?
- V3n0M, on 05/16/2008, -5/+12"Metaphor" is also a word with an actual meaning. You may want to look it up.
- WhiteRaven, on 05/16/2008, -8/+1What leads you to believe that the term was used metaphorically?
- akent22, on 05/16/2008, -3/+6It's funny that you should apply the word fanatic so firmly to those you oppose when clearly those "fanatics" would call the U.S. by the same name. Time and again people forget the power and confusion of limited perspective. Perhaps if negotiations were considered prior to occupation there could be recognition on both sides that maybe the other isn't an unbending fanatic, and that a resolution without killing could be a possibility.
- kayvman78, on 05/16/2008, -4/+2shut up. Are you blind? Can you not see how your "grand ol' party" is going down the tubes? Shut your mouth and back in your cave.
- confoundedjoe, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2the main issue with him saying it in israel is the fact that it is not kosher to talk negatively concerning national politics on an international scale. you leave national politics "at the water's edge" as it were.
- Dibou, on 05/16/2008, -4/+4It is so funny that you are buried because you stated that a opinion (one that is true by the way) is not political treason (what the hell is 'political' treason anyway?!)
He didn't even mention Obama (Carter would be more appropriate person to think he was talking about) yet these liberals still have a panic attack. - Cobain27, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1The president isn't "any person" he represents and embodies out country and it's current values and policies. He also has a "bully pulpit" which means his views are largely felt throughout the world which means he needs to be extra careful in what he says because it reflects the image of our country. Of course, the world knowing Bush, this is no surprise and will just go down as another failed excuse at attacking anyone who wants peace and not war. My advise to you, stay in school, learn more about politics and more importantly, what are country's principles are, not values which change during time, but principles that are the same no matter what tragedy or event happens.
- mabs0, on 05/16/2008, -4/+20No, the comparison is not legitimate. Chamberlain was not criticized for talking to Hitler, which a lot of statesmen at the time did, but for giving half of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in the hopes it would avoid another war. The analogy banks on the hope that people skipped history classes en-mass and gullible enough to buy into it.
- NoDrama, on 05/16/2008, -37/+185It was an ill-advised comment that would have earned the scorn, ire, and wrath of the administration if another person had made such an assertion in such a venue, but it falls short of treason.
- aliengoods, on 05/16/2008, -5/+31It falls way short of treason. Perhaps that's why its referred to as "political treason".
- 0gre, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6Treason is a betrayal of a trust. Who's trust did he betray? He made a criticism of a viewpoint which is contrary to his own. The whole phrase is ridiculous.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1He undermines America and a political leader.
Using another country as a soap box is considered "below the belt." But he is using his office of the Presidency to score political points -- while threatening the public relations of our entire country.
It is a huge abuse of his office, and embarrassing at that. This guy doesn't understand tact.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1He undermines America and a political leader.
- 0gre, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6Treason is a betrayal of a trust. Who's trust did he betray? He made a criticism of a viewpoint which is contrary to his own. The whole phrase is ridiculous.
- nastronomical, on 05/16/2008, -11/+9Obama: Sure, I'll meet with Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, etc
****Link****
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFSUbMWenU- swicken, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5I'm not sure your angle on this, are you trying to say that what he said is bad? I don't get it.
- sa9e, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad can be blamed for American deaths throught their support of terrorists and paramilitary forces. For a candidate to say he would speak to them directly as the president, and without any preconditions whatsoever, is just phenomenally insensitive diplomatic policy. Can you not understand the disrespect felt by the families of victims of terrorism when someone like Pelosi goes and chit-chats with Hamas and honor the grave of Arafat?
- saranagati, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3Whats wrong with talking to someone to try and convince them not to do what you don't want them to do? None of those people are actually terrorists, they're leaders of their countries as bush is the leader of our country. Many people consider bush to be a terrorist so should other countries not talk to us? Talking with someone isn't the same as giving in and accepting whatever you're mad about (what is it we're mad at castro and chavez about again?). Of course this is assuming your not 8 years old and consider giving someone the silent treatment a punishment.
- bjornski, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Yeah, how dare someone talk to Hamas. That'd be appeasement.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
And this one has video, for the "tl'dr" crowd. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/16/mccain-hamas-f ...
- VitriolAndAngst, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Why do we have diplomats if they do NOT meet with rivals? It's the job description for the President. They have to deal with foreign affairs.
And Bush's people have met with those folks as well -- so quit being as dumb as they think you are.
- swicken, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5I'm not sure your angle on this, are you trying to say that what he said is bad? I don't get it.
- Gorgamel, on 05/16/2008, -8/+5I love how everyone pretty arrogantly assumes he was talking specifically, unequivocally, about Hillary/Barack. He made a vague opinionated statement about foreign policy, since when was that treason of any sort?
- mummbleswers, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3It's not arrogant, I want to know your suggestion of who the hell he was talking about then. I've already made this case to someone else dumb enough to believe this wasn't aimed at Obama, which is that the other person he could be talking about is his own Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who recently made the same comment about how we need to talk to Iran. If he was addressing people in his own cabinet then he's more ***** than I thought, and I can't believe people still defend this *****. Regardless of who he was talking about you cannot argue that this is the right venue. Imagine the Israeli prime minister starting political attacks during a speech to congress on the 4th of July, wouldn't you be like WTF? Also if that's vague, you sir, are an idiot.
- sa9e, on 05/16/2008, -3/+3Your anger is palpable, sir, but the nasty remarks make you look foolish and petty.
Bush was referring to anyone that thinks we should negotiate directly with men who can be directly blamed for killing Americans or anyone America calls a friend. Bush told the Israeli parliament that he thinks the suggestion that he, as the president, should meet with someone like Ahmadinejad, who speaks of eradicating Israel a la Hitler, is unconscionable. That isn't to say that America won't talk to its enemies. It's that America shouldn't have its chief representative act like he is on the same level as Ahmadinejad.
You, sir, probably can't understand that. - mummbleswers, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2That's why you don't act like your on the same level, you act like you're willing to give them sticks and carrots. Like we did with North Korea; saying "you stop blowing us and our friends up, and we can talk trade." Not to mention the fact that Obama claims he would never meet unless they recognized Israel as a real state. I sir, can understand that. And you know, you're right, my name calling takes away from the point I was trying to make which is that if Obama wasn't running for president, and it was just his secretary of defense making that argument, would he have said it? You never addressed that point. Another thing you are right about is the fact that no, I don't understand why we need to bomb the rest of the world. Do you ever stop to think why it is they hate us? It has a lot to do with this particular president. Why wont diplomacy work for this situation? Do you have any idea how long the middle east has been in turmoil? And the approach people like you have is "let's do what's NOT worked for 500 years and engage in war with them." Give me a break, don't try to take some higher ground with the "sir" routine, your ideas are barbaric and prove useful to no one except middle eastern people looking for more of a reason to hate America. But you sir, can't understand that.
- phrenzy, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Nice try at "ration discourse" sa9e, but it is still emotion-based jingoistic superficial nonsense. It won't work this time.
What did you think of:
Kennedy meets with Khrushchev. (at the height of the cold war)
Nixon meeting with Mao Zedong. (in the midst of vietnam)
Reagan meeting with Gorbachev.
Ah, but I bet you'll suddenly see a bunch of nuance and rationalize as to why we "HAD to meet with THOSE enemies".
"EMBOLDENED..LEGITIMIZED..ENERGIZED!!"
- sa9e, on 05/16/2008, -3/+3Your anger is palpable, sir, but the nasty remarks make you look foolish and petty.
- Alexandru25, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2I think he was talking about Carter, who went to talk to Hamas and made an ass of himself.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Carter has accomplished a cease fire with Hamas and a diplomatic structure for Israel to settle their differences.
-- more than the entire Bush administration has accomplished in almost 8 years. They can't hold Carter's jock strap.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Carter has accomplished a cease fire with Hamas and a diplomatic structure for Israel to settle their differences.
- mummbleswers, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3It's not arrogant, I want to know your suggestion of who the hell he was talking about then. I've already made this case to someone else dumb enough to believe this wasn't aimed at Obama, which is that the other person he could be talking about is his own Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who recently made the same comment about how we need to talk to Iran. If he was addressing people in his own cabinet then he's more ***** than I thought, and I can't believe people still defend this *****. Regardless of who he was talking about you cannot argue that this is the right venue. Imagine the Israeli prime minister starting political attacks during a speech to congress on the 4th of July, wouldn't you be like WTF? Also if that's vague, you sir, are an idiot.
- agentem, on 05/16/2008, -4/+5I'm pretty sure it would fit Ann Coulter's definition of "treason"
- aliengoods, on 05/16/2008, -5/+31It falls way short of treason. Perhaps that's why its referred to as "political treason".
- doctorfungi, on 05/16/2008, -60/+471You need to stop being so heavy with your terminology. It only makes you seem illogical and delusional.
This wasn't "treason". Bush isn't a "tyrannical dictator". Using such terms only makes you seem like that guy at laser tag who thinks he's on a SWAT team.- aliengoods, on 05/16/2008, -22/+4It's not treason, but as far as the dictator remark....
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI ... - wild, on 05/16/2008, -6/+217You clearly don't take laser tag seriously enough.
- doctorfungi, on 05/16/2008, -7/+15Touché good sir, touché.
- endlessoul, on 05/16/2008, -3/+14Laser Tag.
Serious Business. - Seemefearme, on 05/16/2008, -1/+21We lost some good men out there...
- fatrandy13, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along"
"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.'
epic win- fatrandy13, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1classic diggers - nobody dares to respond, yet everyone diggs me down
- thedogfatherx, on 05/16/2008, -14/+24Oh my god you made my day!!! Thanks. You rock.
- Infidelcastr0, on 05/16/2008, -16/+10Ahem, Military Commissions Act, Executive orders and signing statements, warrant-less wiretaps, REALID, Election Fraud, U.S. Attorneys, etc, etc,etc. No He's not a "dictator yet" but he gets closer every day (and yes I'm aware of congress's complacency which is shameful and disgusting but does not make Bush innocent.)
- DangerCollie, on 05/16/2008, -19/+11"You need to stop being so heavy with your terminology."
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm sick to death of some know-it-all telling me what I "need" to do. Can't pinpoint when that annoying social fad started but when someone tells me what I need to do, it generates a need to stick my boot up their a**.
You might suggest he consider a word choice that would be more persuasive, but telling someone else what they need to do has become an irritating and counter-productive habit all on its own.
Bush may not meet the textbook definition of tyrannical dictator, but he's as close to it as this country has produced in the last 200 years. Secret prisons, torture, invading a foreign country on fabricated justification....makes him closer to that label than this nation should tolerate.- DteK, on 05/16/2008, -4/+5Dude, you need to chill
- doctorfungi, on 05/16/2008, -4/+3You need to stop bitching too.
- cotaskmemalloc, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1'Bush may not meet the textbook definition of tyrannical dictator, but he's as close to it as this country has produced in the last 200 years. Secret prisons, torture, invading a foreign country on fabricated justification....makes him closer to that label than this nation should tolerate.'
That's a stupid statement. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. FDR threw thousands of Japanese into interment camps. John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts? We've seen worse things done than what Bush has done.
- Wormfather, on 05/16/2008, -3/+18Whoa, whoa, whoa, laser tag and paint ball need to be taken more serious than SWAT, that's war man.
If you're on a SWAT team and someone shoots you they typically flee. In laser tag they can rub it in your face later. - CrazedLeper, on 05/16/2008, -41/+9You are the illogical one who is deluded. Bush is one of the most evil men ever to disgrace the planet. You simply lack the presence of mind to think for yourself and verify what you're being told. You let the machine condition you to accept a one-sided story so they first convince you that they and their intent is "good" then they go off and do what evil, heinous atrocity they deem fit for the occasion.
No juror is qualified to render an opinion unless he has heard from both sides. You better start doing your homework because once the soldiers hit the streets, you'll have no chance of learning then.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/reich- doctorfungi, on 05/16/2008, -5/+17Go take some history classes you ignorant child. If you honestly think that Bush is "one of the most evil men to ever disgrace the planet", then I can't do anything for you other than laugh at you.
- bencefeher, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4On a site full of Bush-bashers, I thought just digging you up wasn't enough.
While my political opinions may differ (and that matters not) I back up your statements. People like CrazedLeper are the ones being "conditioned by the machine."
I'd just like to copy and paste his last part just to reiterate how stupid it is, and to point out that CrazedLeper watches "V for Vendetta" too much:
"You better start doing your homework because once the soldiers hit the streets, you'll have no chance of learning then."
What a buffoon. Go wear a Castro-cap, Che Guevara shirt and drink your Starbucks somewhere else CrazedLeper. Yeah yeah we know, it was bombs, planted by Bush himself, in fact, he piloted the planes too, and ejected himself before impact. - dyoungdigger, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2hahaha doctorfungi + bencefeher = awesome. CrazedLeper sounds a lot like a tree huggin hippie that has no clue about current affairs or politics. It astounds me how many people here on digg have so much fun attacking the president or Conservatives. Talk about programmed by the machine! LOL I think people need to pay more attention to what ALL politicians say and comment accordingly, NOT just regurgitate what the DNCs talking points tell them to say.
- bencefeher, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4On a site full of Bush-bashers, I thought just digging you up wasn't enough.
- Farik, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4*I put on my robe and tin foil hat*
- doctorfungi, on 05/16/2008, -5/+17Go take some history classes you ignorant child. If you honestly think that Bush is "one of the most evil men to ever disgrace the planet", then I can't do anything for you other than laugh at you.
- sgtpppr, on 05/16/2008, -2/+22The word 'treason' should be used cautiously. Using it inappropriately lessens its meaning. I'm having a hard time understanding why it is so easy for some people to go ballistic over a republican calling a democrat 'unpatriotic', but turn around and call a republican a traitor and guilty of treason for criticizing a democrat. Politics is bad all around in the US these days...don't lower yourself into it as well. Bush is most likely the worst president in the history of the US, but that doesn't justify making up things because the 'ends justify the means'.
- Jlaugh, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2He didn't call him unpatriotic he called him Neville Chamberlain. Bush reminds me of Doctor Evil.
- EarlOfLade, on 05/16/2008, -8/+2And the Chinese are currently hating the US political landscape. They were so close to get their own agent inside the White House, to get the president. They had been grooming him since the days in Hanoi. And now, their life long efforts have been thwarted by the moron himself, Bush. So close to getting McCain into the White House, it would have been the intelligence coup of all time.
- Labourer, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2mccanin the manchurian candidate
- anubis2night, on 05/16/2008, -5/+7Political Treason - Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
A betrayal of trust or confidence. this is the definition of treason. now apply it to politics.
When you are the president of the United States you are supposed to be Bipartisan acting in the interests of both political parties for the betterment of the country and it's people. By taking a moment in a friendly country on a sensitive issue to cut the legs out of a potential future leader for you own political party is acting in your own interest and not that of the country or other party your supposed to represent. It also undermines future talks and adds distress in a area of the world that's already agitated. As someone who is supposed to represent the american people I would say that President Bush betrayed my trust, not just with these actions either but with his whole time in office, and I say this as someone who originally thought he might be able to make a difference. In the political sense he failed to represent both parties equally abroad. If he want's to campaign for McCain he can but to slander a Democratic Candidate on foreign soil only further damages our image abroad. So in the political sense he has committed treason.- Dibou, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3Making up gross generalizations about what the President should or shouldn't do based on your opinion and then labeling it "treason" is typical of liberals everywhere.
- Jlaugh, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Bush is a Trotskyite wannabe, you should look into the socialist roots of your precious neocons.
- Dibou, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3Making up gross generalizations about what the President should or shouldn't do based on your opinion and then labeling it "treason" is typical of liberals everywhere.
- gnarbuckets, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Well put, doctorfungi
- devophl, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6I don't see why this is an issue. We've heard this rhetoric from the conservatives ever since Bush/Cheney started talking of going into Iraq. In fact, I think Bush hit it out of the park with his comments.
First, this was intended to energize his base in the US. These are the same right wing Republicans who are questioning why bombs aren't already flying in Iran. These are the same neo-cons and neo-con followers that want the US to be the dominant political, economic and military force in the Middle East. Of course you can argue that this base has shrunk considerably in the last 3+ years but McCain is a clear backer of this policy so if there is anything Bush can do to raise these issues over and over again, it will help McCain.
Second, this was a play to the right wing in Israel who have been pushing an anti-Hamas and anti-Iran agenda for several decades. The majority of the Israeli parliament endorses this even though it could be argued that a majority of Israelis don't. So why not cheer lead for the very policy position Bush has had since he came into office. The same policy position that stopped the Israeli/Palestinian peace process dead in its tracks.
Third, he was appealing to Jewish Americans. In a recent poll, it showed McCain getting about 35% of the Jewish vote in November against either Democratic candidate. Even though that sounds small, Republicans rarely get more than 20% of the Jewish vote. This shows that McCain's backing of the war on terror and an aggressive stance on Iran plays well for Jewish voters. By pointing out that Democrats are Muslim appeasers enhances why Jewish voters are somewhat uneasy with Democrats.
I personally don't like the comment and prefer Obama's stance but for the right wing, Bush put his mouth where is his policy is and this can't do anything but help his base here in the US. - soupnrc, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2hahahaha, that's one of the best analogies I've heard in a long time. Well done with your words sir, well done.
- JohnFromChicago, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1While I would agree with you that this doesn't quite rise to the level of treason, I would disagree with you're assessment that Bush is not a tyrannical dictator. He is. And he has committed treason against the United States. But this isn't it.
- Drax0n, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1Bush has killed more people than every single seriel killer in US history combined. Bush is responsible for more pain, suffering, wasting of billions (soon trillians) than any other human being that has lived since hitler.
Bush is the next hitler. How many houndreds of thousands of muslims have to die so bush can funnel money into his military buddies. - shibatoman, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1Bush comitted treason and is a tyrannical dictator. I stand by that.
- hypermog, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1EYES AND EARS BOYS; DELTA TEAM, GO!
- DaPistolPat, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0Yeah it is crazy how many liberals are jumping on this grasping and flinging it around in the air screaming controversy, when any schmo that pays attention to politics knows that both sides have been going back and forth hitting whoever is on top with a low blow.
- aliengoods, on 05/16/2008, -22/+4It's not treason, but as far as the dictator remark....
- zenbiont, on 05/16/2008, -63/+90God damn it, this is dead on - Bush dealt with Qaddafi, paid Sadr to stand down, let Darfur fester to get shoddy al Qaida intell... god damn it impeach these ***** and/or show them what the 2nd amendment is all about
- personalj, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3Too bad Democrats like you attempt to take away second amendment rights, good luck fighting the government with your bolt action .22 rifles.
- itswhts4dinner, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3How does Impeaching the President involve the 2nd Amendment right of the People to keep and bear arms? Unless you're implying violence towards our President, which will usually get you a visit from the Secret Service. Otherwise, you might be talking about Article 1, section 2 and 3 of the US Constitution.
Buried because Zenbiont can't read Law.
- NyteStarNyne, on 05/16/2008, -34/+132BREAKING: Bush doesn't obey rules.
- elamr, on 05/16/2008, -3/+5No. No. He obeys the rules HE makes.. everything else is a suggestion.. the WRONG suggestion.
- Zippo, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Yeah, I don't think Bush has ever heard of Godwin's law
- Nathan187, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1Hey hey hey! That's our president you're talking about!
- seemattrun1, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1its so fun to hate bush. to twist his intentions all kinds of ways. like the laws in the u.s. they are so fun to twist. its fun...isn't it? oh wait. thats how societies fall.
- colonelbuckshot, on 05/16/2008, -44/+33That puppet Bush was reading from the Israeli script from start-to-finish:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3544033, ...
Speaking of the "promise of God" for a "homeland for the chosen people" in Israel, Bush told the Knesset after a visit to the Roman-era Jewish fortress at Masada: "Masada shall never fall again, and America will always stand with you."
He predicted the defeat of Islamist enemies Hamas, Hizbullah and al-Qaeda in a "battle of good and evil".
Letting Iran have nuclear weapons would be an "unforgivable betrayal of future generations", he said.
Bush described the "bonds of the Book" - faith in the Bible shared by Christians like himself and Jews - as bolstering an "unbreakable" alliance between Israel and the United States. During a later visit to the Israel Museum, Bush, referring to the old biblical texts housed at the building, said "these documents tell the story of a righteous God and his relationship with an ancient people."- sonofblacula, on 05/16/2008, -8/+3Conveniently forgetting that the Bible is also read by Muslims?
P.S. I'd like to add that you're ***** insane colonelbuckshot. Go read some Mike Shermer and get all that crazy zionist illuminati ***** out of your head.- Jlaugh, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Um what crazy zionist illuminati ***** in the above are you referring too? Does your statement have anything to do with his?
- sa9e, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Comment dugg down because you didn't really read Colonelbuckshot's post.
- snotrokit, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2I think he has been reading that script for years now.
- sonofblacula, on 05/16/2008, -8/+3Conveniently forgetting that the Bible is also read by Muslims?
- amightywind, on 05/16/2008, -80/+20I commend the good President for his bold words. The fact that it elicited such a shrill response from Pelosi, Obama and the rest of the leftists warms my heart. I am sure the sweet tongued junior Senator was shocked by this first 'brush back pitch' of the general election. It is a shock to Obama. We play hardball, and we play for keeps!
- jstohler, on 05/16/2008, -7/+35Correction, loser: You don't play hardball. You post in the comments section of a news aggregator site.
- jer2eydevil88, on 05/16/2008, -6/+23I thought maybe you were a troll looking to elicit a response from someone but after reading your comments in your history on here I can tell you are the real deal. As someone who disagrees with your point of view in almost every way I can safely say that I will continue to digg down all your posts. As someone who believes in freedom in any venue I say keep posting and keep sharing your thoughts.
- akent22, on 05/16/2008, -2/+8Have you ever considered the possibility of approaching political ideals without assigning party names and the division of left or right? I am shocked at people who use political happenings in order to pick your teammates and square off against the other side. A country's goverment, an election, the support of a candidate - these things are meant to represent as many people as possible; as accurately as possible; as often as possible. If you just want to spend all you political vigor on decrying the leftists and smirking at the discomfort of people you inaccurately label then I feel it is safe to say you are missing the point entirely.
- supermanred, on 05/16/2008, -5/+20You commend him for his "bold words"?
He's just sucking on the Israeli ***** as usual, bowing down to his Jewish masters.
He was being applauded for giving YOUR tax dollars to a FOREIGN COUNTRY.
And you commend your President for this?
Man, some of you Americans are really ignorant of the world.- amightywind, on 05/16/2008, -5/+3Compared to you sophisticates from China? LOL! Have you figured out you don't drink from toilets yet?
- DreKor, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Even if they haven't, they've sure figured out how to dominate the US economy. That should count for something.
- amightywind, on 05/16/2008, -5/+3Compared to you sophisticates from China? LOL! Have you figured out you don't drink from toilets yet?
- DreKor, on 05/16/2008, -3/+9I'm always excited to read Mr. Wind's posts, but lately, he's been phoning in his trolling.
- elamr, on 05/16/2008, -5/+7The Republicans keep loosing elections because of neo-conservatism and Bush.
- amightywind, on 05/16/2008, -3/+4No, the Republicans are losing because we are at the end of an 8 year domination of the Whitehouse and a 10 year domination of the congress, and the electorate historically desires a change. The same thing happened to Klint in hist first term. I don't see McCain losing to Obomber, given how unpopular Obomber is with working class whites. Lose *any* of Michigan, Ohio, or Pennsylvania and Obama is doomed. There are lots of ex-servicemen in those states who will like McCain's maverick style. *grin*
- StGhurka, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4LOSING, not loosing.
Sorry. Pet peeve.
- Locnar, on 05/16/2008, -6/+7And like the rest of the Bush supporters.. your not playing with a full deck..
Time for this slime bag to go.. (Mr Bush.. he's not my leader) - CryRightardCry, on 05/16/2008, -4/+4It's funny when the liars and cheerleaders for the warmongers start pretending that warmongering and lying are virtues.
- Klak, on 05/16/2008, -4/+3thats why republicans suck. they dont care about making anything better, they just want to win the "game"
- waynier6514, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2This is why I'm not voting republican.
- yoshi911911911, on 05/16/2008, -72/+265Dear Bush
Shut the ***** Up!!!
Signed
The American People- heliox, on 05/16/2008, -15/+24Who appointed you spokeshole for the US?
- seleniumdream, on 05/16/2008, -5/+21That was me, sorry. :(
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/16/2008, -6/+5You should be sorry but apology accepted.
- seleniumdream, on 05/16/2008, -5/+21That was me, sorry. :(
- xyzzypoofs, on 05/16/2008, -19/+11You are NOT the "The American People" you are one "American Person". You need to get that straight in your brain. Put the Ganja down for a moment. Besides, Bush's comments were probably about Jimmy Carter, who just got through with committing treason by going against a current administrations request that he not go meet with the leader of a nation that sponsors terrorist organizations. Even if it was "aimed" at Obama, it was just pointing out what Obama had actually said. He said he would "negotiate" with them. Regardless of whether you agreee -or- disagree with a current American President's administration does NOT in any way shape or form give you the gavel to proclaim the that you speak for "The American People"
- AvidPreatorian, on 05/16/2008, -5/+7If you look at the number of digg down and digg ups on this comment, it is a good representation of Bush's approval rating in U.S.
I'm likin this comment system more by the day.- xyzzypoofs, on 05/16/2008, -8/+2No, the thumbs up./thumbs down on this website is a good representation of a bunch of liberal screwballs's rating of Bush's approval is. This is a pretty limited set of viewers here...pretty much like a CNN/Reuters poll (which did not get the last two presidential elections right by the way).
- xyzzypoofs, on 05/16/2008, -8/+1...not to mention the fact that on this stupid website, you can elect to have self-imposed censorship by setting the threshold for "thumbs-down/thumbs-up" so that effectively, the only point of view you ever have to see is the one that makes you feel good. I believe that your "likin this comment system" makes you a "Thumb Sucker" !!!!
- StGhurka, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3Digg mob != US general population
- LastVisibleDog, on 05/16/2008, -8/+8Dear yoshi911911911
Pull up your pants and get out of your Mommy's basement.
Signed
The American People - pljwebb, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Co-signed
The rest of the World
- heliox, on 05/16/2008, -15/+24Who appointed you spokeshole for the US?
- oldhick, on 05/16/2008, -28/+66People clearly don't understand treason... Oh well. What Bush did was lame. But he has a right to express his views in historical context. He's trying to frame his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq against Europe's early appeasement of Nazi Germany. Basically he's claiming, and wrongly claiming I'll add, that if Britain and France had the ballz to do what Bushy did then WWII and the holocaust might have been avoided.
Further, those that talk of peace at all costs enable regimes like that of Hitlers. But of course Obama never said he would talk of peace at all costs. In fact he's admitted he's going to finish the job in Iraq and he's kept military force on the table for use against Iran.
Its a fascinating topic of debate... But its also *****. The past is the past and we can't know the future. Who's willing to risks the millions of lives we've taken in Iraq for a "what if". Who can really claim and prove that Iraq was going to be capable of building a war machine like Germany had. Iraq got bogged down fight Iran for how many years???- ConceptJunkie, on 05/16/2008, -9/+8"Millions" of lives. Get some sense of perspective.
- oldhick, on 05/16/2008, -5/+11If you have a better number you can back up, I'll be glad to use it. I thought I had seen some numbers recently that indicated over a million lives had been lost since fighting began in Iraq, but I could certainly be mistaken.
- netdance, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4Latest estimate is 1.2 million. Whether that merits a (s) after the million is kinda beside the point, isn't it?
- SpartanErik, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3..of which 4,000 are US soldiers. Majority of those deaths noted are from civil strifes between the two religious groups in the region that occurred before we were there in the first place
- oldhick, on 05/16/2008, -5/+11If you have a better number you can back up, I'll be glad to use it. I thought I had seen some numbers recently that indicated over a million lives had been lost since fighting began in Iraq, but I could certainly be mistaken.
- Andyschism, on 05/16/2008, -1/+8"The past is the past and we can't know the future."
But we can try and avoid mistakes and take lessons from the past, those who do not learn from it are doomed to repeat it. - TJATL, on 05/16/2008, -5/+6Millions of lives? What part of your ass did you pull that out from?
- netdance, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Credible NGOs, using computation methods used without any controversy in other wars.
Look it up - it was all over the news a few years ago.
- netdance, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Credible NGOs, using computation methods used without any controversy in other wars.
- kemp34, on 05/16/2008, -9/+3Too bad Bush's own paternal grandfather helped finance the Nazi rise to power in the 1930s.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.se ...- randeepjalli0, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4How is that bush's fault? Seriously, I hate him as bad as the next guy, but what you're doing is like that crazy pastor who call's Obama trash because his mom was white and poor(nothing wrong with either). Seriously, if you want to make an argument over what the man has done PICK SOMETHING HE HAS DONE. There's tons of good stuff, Iraq, the budget etc. but digging back to the 30's just kinda makes it look like you're desperate.
- cutekelvins, on 05/16/2008, -5/+5Only thing that bush lacks is leadership quality. What all he did to Afghanistan is okay, infact should have been done.
- SacraBos, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6Well, Europe's early appeasement certainly didn't hurt Hitler, did it?. Had Britain and France taken action earlier, his spread throughout Europe could have been curtailed much earlier. I don't think the Holocaust could be totally avoided (German Jews would still have been at great risk), but it could have greatly reduced the number of people and countries affected.
I don't think Obama has the experience to finish the job in Iraq (despite what he says), and Hillary will do whatever she thinks is politically expedient depending upon which way the wind is blowing that day (much like Bill).
The battle between Iran/Iraq, Iraq's invasion of Kuwaite, Iran and others desire to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, and more show that they are adamant about building a war machine, then attacking others unless someone comes in to stop them. Will it rival Germany? Only if we let it.
Look at the idealogy of using a common ground (replace "Aryan" with "Islam") to whip the populace into a frenzy against the common enemy (add the US "Great Satan" to the list with the Jews). There's not much difference between Sharia Law advocating death/Jihad to the non-Muslim infidels as there was with the Nazi persecution and concentration camps targeting Jews.
History is full of examples of hostile, aggressive, ideaological people/cultures that have forcibly attacked and subjugated other countries, especially in that part of the world. So historically, your "what if" is much more likely to be a "when if". - TantrooM, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4Actually he's kinda trying to take the Iraqi state, like Hitler did Poland, so yes some of the Democrats are appeasers, to their own legacy hungry, change the world to love me, president.
- Jlaugh, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4It's just a bunch of rhetoric designed to appeal to an Israeli audience. I'm sure money is pouring into the republican campaign coffers as we speak.
- inajeep, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4History may show this as the step towards another Crusade like battle that could leave millions dead so I agree with you. If Saddam was like a Hitler, which he wasn't, he was a dictator whose only goals it seems was subjugating his people and fighting in his own backyard. I see more of a threat from Russia and North Korea than anything Saddam did or said.
- sa9e, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Saddam was uniquely brutal in his era (both to foreigners and his own citizens), he did try and annex another country, and he did defy the terms of peace after totally losing a war, so in some respects he was very much like Hitler.
- seemattrun1, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0Why do people read so much into president bush's comment. they are very simple and direct. all he was trying to say was that the time for talking is over. you can only trust the leaders of iran to fullfill a treaty as much as you could trust adolf hitler.
- oldhick, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1You can't really be this ignorant can you? Why is the time for talking over? Are you in that big of a hurry to see more people die?
- ConceptJunkie, on 05/16/2008, -9/+8"Millions" of lives. Get some sense of perspective.
- ElAssoWipo, on 05/16/2008, -35/+24Nobody's bothered by the fact that Iran never even tried to get nuclear weapons?
That's what they did last time, they lie on top of lies so you assume the first ones are truth. You attack a ridiculous comment but Iran seeking nuclear weapons seems acceptable now.- Andyschism, on 05/16/2008, -5/+7You say and hear things enough times, your going to start to believe them.
- ElAssoWipo, on 05/16/2008, -3/+3Seeing how I got dugg down, seems it's already done.
- randeepjalli0, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1Right, because I'm sure that Iran hasn't admitted to having their Uranium enrichment program designed by AQ Khan. Obviously, the ONLY thing you can use for nuclear power is uranium, its not like there is a bunch of plutonium that is WAY cheaper. Nope, none of that is suspicious at all, its not like AQ Khan designed a nuclear program for anybody like, I don't know, Libya or North Korea or Pakistan or anything......
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3As in life, there are often times in global affairs when there isn't overwhelming proof for or against something. It is times like these that common sense is required. I for one think it's common sense to assume that any country with a history of violence (dolled out or received) could benefit from having nuclear weapons (for either offensive purposes or deterrent reasons). So it's not a major leap of logic to assume that Iran would benefit from having nuclear weapons AND they have the capabilities to create nuclear weapons. So denying that they are pursuing nuclear weapons seems ignorant IMO. The real debate and difficult debate should focus on what should or shouldn't be done about it. If you believe that they have the right to have nuclear weapons, that's fine. But to somehow claim that they aren't/can't/won't/haven't pursued nuclear weapons just isn't logical.
- voyvf, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3"So it's not a major leap of logic to assume that Iran would benefit from having nuclear weapons AND they have the capabilities to create nuclear weapons. So denying that they are pursuing nuclear weapons seems ignorant IMO."
Jump to conclusions, much? It'd be a great benefit (fast cash!) for you to rob a liquor store, and unless you're a quadriplegic you probably have the capability to do it as well. Using your logic, you should be in jail now.
- voyvf, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3"So it's not a major leap of logic to assume that Iran would benefit from having nuclear weapons AND they have the capabilities to create nuclear weapons. So denying that they are pursuing nuclear weapons seems ignorant IMO."
- ibbie, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4In other news, The United States' hindsight is no longer 20/20. In fact, it has been declared legally blind.
- Locnar, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4I really think this administration's grand idea was to go into Afghanistan and Iraq and walk all over the Taliban and the republican guard and have the people of those countries love us.. and peace would obtained easily.. then with Iran surrounded with us troops we would walk in and solve all the problems in the middle east.. BUUUUUZZZZZ WRONG!!!!
Its just opened up the biggest can of worms this country has seen since Vietnam... What a mess..
So when the next pres is elected.. he's going to have to wade thru so much ***** to fix this mess.. if he or she can fix it.. - LastVisibleDog, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1Moron.
- ElAssoWipo, on 05/16/2008, -3/+2You're all idiots.
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/inde ...
Good luck with your next war.
You deserve your fate. Natural selection is an unstoppable force.- xyzzypoofs, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1ohhh. the IAEA said it...oh that must mean it is the truth! Don't worry about all the deniro they had to cover up that they had been funneling in from Hussein, Sr. while helping him with his little shell game act. .....
- Andyschism, on 05/16/2008, -5/+7You say and hear things enough times, your going to start to believe them.
- rentmitchum, on 05/16/2008, -22/+5George Bush should consider himself lucky we don't have a leader in a Guy Fawkes mask with the resources to send us all a mask in the mail, as I'm sure we'd all be on his doorstep tomorrow.. He needs to shut up for the remainder of his term.
- sonofblacula, on 05/16/2008, -4/+4Did you come up with that in Home room today?
- rentmitchum, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I'm 24, squirtle.
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/16/2008, -3/+3Reality, rentmitchum. rentmitchum, reality.
- sonofblacula, on 05/16/2008, -4/+4Did you come up with that in Home room today?
- ejdunphy, on 05/16/2008, -18/+9The sad part is if you impeach him, who should take over but none other than the VP Dick Cheney? that sounds even worse.
- woodrow8292, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1And if you impeach Cheney then its Madame President Pelosi...............who has lead congress to a whooping 20% approval rating. Sounds like a great plan!
- bemenaker, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Pelosi's approval rating is only low, because she didn't do what she was elected to do, which was stop Bush in his tracks. Cut off funding, investigate his ass, and impeach him and cheney.
- woodrow8292, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1And if you impeach Cheney then its Madame President Pelosi...............who has lead congress to a whooping 20% approval rating. Sounds like a great plan!
- futureisours, on 05/16/2008, -55/+78Idiot Diggers.
- jerrysizzler, on 05/16/2008, -6/+6meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow
i love chicken i love liver
meow mix meow mix please deliver! - bwdd, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1PENIS!!!!
Haha! Good joke, right?
- jerrysizzler, on 05/16/2008, -6/+6meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow
- kcdstudios, on 05/16/2008, -16/+9So who the ***** would iran invade? iraq?
oh *****, wait...- Andyschism, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2All sarcasm aside, check your history.
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/16/2008, -3/+3Actually, yes. As soon as we can get our troops out of there.
- V3n0M, on 05/16/2008, -24/+36It's funny to see all the George Bush supporters who were outraged when the Dixie Chicks spoke bad about Bush while they were on tour in France, now defend Bush for doing the exact same thing to the Democrats.
I hold the same opinion now that I did then - say what you're going to say, but have the decency to say it on American soil!- thanakar, on 05/16/2008, -16/+10Too bad the comment wasn't directed at democrats.
- phatt-matt, on 05/16/2008, -12/+18Did President Bush mention the Dems? I watched the entire speech and he never mentioned the Dems or Obama.
- sonofblacula, on 05/16/2008, -12/+19You don't have to explicitly say their names for people to understand who you're talking about. You know damn well who Bush was referencing with his comments, you ***** apologist.
- Misanthrope, on 05/16/2008, -9/+4Nope, he didn't say the word Democrats OR Obama. He was talking about those...OTHER people...
I'll be over here with my fingers in my ears pretending like everything is OK, like a 12 year old girl.
LALALALALALALALALA. - yojiffyskippy, on 05/16/2008, -8/+3LOL. Paranoid much?
- cultureforall, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1Actually I was watching the entire speech. It had nothing to do with Obama or the 08 election.
- Misanthrope, on 05/16/2008, -9/+4Nope, he didn't say the word Democrats OR Obama. He was talking about those...OTHER people...
- Botanicus, on 05/16/2008, -0/+10Few people who understood what Treason means would've called the dixie chicks Traitors. they may be labeled as unpatriotic, but not treason.
Per the Google: Treason crime that undermines the offender's government - MrM1yagi, on 05/16/2008, -3/+7Dixie Chicks suck.
- nakani, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2@Botanicus: FYI, we (the U.S.A.) define treason in terms of the Constitution, not Google.
"Article III, Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."- lustyrusty, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0So what you're saying is....Bush still didn't commit treason, right?
- bitfreak, on 05/16/2008, -20/+11Bush is a fool and and an idiot, that's not really debatable at this point. This is not the issue to bring him down on though; he runs his mouth and has before. The actions and choices of both him and his administration warrant investigation and a determination of what war crimes, or rather how many, were committed. It would be a great day when he is prosecuted and convicted for those crimes by the American people, and someone in the audience catches his last few moments on this earth on their cell phone camera. That would be justice.
But we all know the Bush family is slicker than whale ***** in an ice flow, and GWB is the biggest turd of all. He will go on to make a mint in speaking engagements, and retire playing golf and laughing at the greatest heist the world has ever seen; The Trillion Dollar Heist of the American people. - JimmySpaza, on 05/16/2008, -29/+13Maybe Bush is simply take a cue from the Democrats Representatives David Bonior, Jim McDermott, and Mike Thompson when THEY went to Baghdad to denounce President Bush and U.S. policy before this Iraq war.
Strange how the liberals who are now whining about Bush didn't have a word of condemnation for those DEMOCRATS.
Weird how that happens.- vvaduva, on 05/16/2008, -7/+6Oh no you didn't point out what liberals do wrong?? On Digg even?!?!?
- jarredm, on 05/16/2008, -5/+3Representative Bonior is a Republican moron. If you don't know what your talking about then do us all a favor and keep it to your self. We are all now stupider for having read your comments.
- banshee430, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1jarredm:
ABC News has learned that David Bonior, the campaign manager for the 2008 presidential race of Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, will endorse Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, today.
Bonior, a former Michigan congressman, was once the second highest ranking Democrat in the House, and is influential with labor unions.
Easy on calling other people morons for getting their "facts wrong". - JimmySpaza, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Bonior is a Democrat. Who's the moron now?
- banshee430, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1jarredm:
- aahpandasrun, on 05/16/2008, -33/+29What politician hasn't used the Nazi Germany comparison argument? Non-story.
- imbok, on 05/16/2008, -6/+4Yes, when the Nazi argument comes up, that usually means someone is totally out of argument - nothing to stand on. Kinda like George.
- arjie, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4Yeah Godwin's Law applies to real life conversations too.
- josef27, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1http://xkcd.com/261/
- bshock, on 05/16/2008, -33/+28"Political" treason? You mean in addition to every other kind of treason he's been committing for the past eight years?
- HillerMylife, on 07/24/2008, -24/+100Calling this treason is alarmist hyperbole and cheapens the actual meaning of the word.
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6Agreed. There are better things to focus on people. Do you want me to guarantee that GW will no longer be president after this term? {Pooooooof} Your wish is granted. Now move on to more important things.
- RHagen, on 05/16/2008, -5/+1The author is calling this treason because he thinks it should be treated as such. He does not think this is literally treason. If he has to use some hyperbole to get people's attention, I think it's worth it.
- ConceptJunkie, on 05/16/2008, -34/+43Oh grow up. There isn't a Democrat in Congress or past Democrat president who hasn't done the exact same kind of thing many times both here and abroad over the past 7 years, and often much more directly. Get over yourselves.
- deslok01, on 05/16/2008, -2/+0OK, I most definitely am a grownup. Now that we have that settled, is it really OK that he said that? Shouldn't you expect more from YOUR president? Is he really so desperate and WEAK that he should NEED to stoop so low???
Oh wait, he is that desperate and weak, and he doesn't need to stoop so low he WANTS TO. Never mind. Go back to sleep.- sa9e, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1On the contrary, the president was RIGHT to say what he said, and all those Democrats that want to have high level negotiations with people that hate America and Israel (Pelosi, Obama, Biden, Carter, Murtha etc) are completely WRONG.
You should WAKE UP.- dyoungdigger, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Agreed! Terrorists should never be negotiated with. Just to clarify, my definition of terrorists are ANYONE who straps explosives to their own bodies and get on buses, killing civilians. I don't care if you're Israeli, Palestinian, Iranian or whatever... those who resort to strapping explosives to themselves and killing innocents can not be negotiated with, only destroyed. Think about the fanaticism involved in strapping a bomb to your chest and exploding yourself... now imagine the people who come up with that. Do you REALLY think you can negotiate with them? I say no.
- Cobain27, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Negotiation is the most important item in our arsenal, not weapons. Negotiation with "those commie bastards" won us the cold war and has averted countless others. People used to look to America as the great peace keeper, now we're the war monger. If you don't negotiate, what kind of message are you sending the terrorists or the rest of the peace-loving world? A message of react before you think and ask questions later. This is what starts these neo-con wars and if people still don't see it you must be completely blind to the truth. At least try to stand by our American principles and agree that negotiation must come first. War is not something to be casually thrown around especially if your a civilian on the end of a blackwater gun barrel. War sucks and should be avoided at all costs and is a last resort.
- sa9e, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Gorbachev was a friendly negotiator for Reagan, as was Nixon to Mao.
To compare an Obama/Ahmadinejad meeting to Reagan/Gorbachev or Nixon in China, is extremely disingenous and mightily disrespectful to the figures involved.
- sa9e, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1On the contrary, the president was RIGHT to say what he said, and all those Democrats that want to have high level negotiations with people that hate America and Israel (Pelosi, Obama, Biden, Carter, Murtha etc) are completely WRONG.
- deslok01, on 05/16/2008, -2/+0OK, I most definitely am a grownup. Now that we have that settled, is it really OK that he said that? Shouldn't you expect more from YOUR president? Is he really so desperate and WEAK that he should NEED to stoop so low???
- rblancarte, on 05/16/2008, -12/+4Since I haven't seen it yet:
GODWIN! George loses.- Misanthrope, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4Yeah someone mentioned that in the first thread
