digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

President Obama To "Immediatly Review" Potential Bush Crimes

huffingtonpost.com — "Tonight I had an opportunity to ask Barack Obama a question that is on the minds of many Americans, yet rarely rises to the surface in the great ruckus of the 2008 presidential race -- and that is whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration..."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • toosinbeymen, on 04/15/2008, -31/+272Senator Obama's he first candidate to mention this and it indicates that it's a priority to him as it should be to everyone. How can we preserve our democracy and checks and balances in government unless the bush/cheney administration is investigated? The democrats in congress can't do it because of republican filibusters and zero cooperation from the white house.
    • tc399, on 04/15/2008, -25/+130What democracy? When Dubya stated that the Constitution is 'just a piece of paper', revoked Posse Comitatus (which said that American troops could not be used on American soil against Americans).....but now they can; let New Orleans drown, invaded the wrong country (and is STILL planning to bomb Iran), can't catch bin Ladin but spent billions developing the infrastructure to spy on AMERICANS, approved torturing prisoners, and generally acts like a typical illiterate dictator with no regard for the law, he and his cohorts had BETTER end up in prison at the very least. He has done everything he accused Saddam of doing, except he hasn't used chemical weapons on the Amish yet. Give him a month.
      • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/15/2008, -39/+15That "quote" turned out to be a complete fabrication. I have to say that are right about NO though, he did let that hurricane hit. All he had to do was stop Katrina from making landfall, and then raising the elevation of NO so it was no longer below sea level.
        • RC212V, on 04/15/2008, -9/+24No, maybe instead of sitting on his ass for 4 or 5 days he should have done something about that natural disaster. How is it that our president can be so clueless and in the dark that he didn't realize for almost a week that there were thousands of people stranded in a major city without food or water? That is incompetence at its worst. There is no excuse for his lack of action in that situation.
          • noahhoward, on 04/15/2008, -11/+6You do know FEMA was there from before the Hurricane hit right?
          • boredrph, on 04/15/2008, -17/+3why is it always the gov's job to take care of you? you chose to live there, you chose to stay, you should take care of your family and be responsible for getting them out. Don't wait for someone else to do it for you.
          • RC212V, on 04/15/2008, -3/+17Oh really? So if your house catches on fire you don't need the fire department to come put the fire out? If there's an earthquake that destroys all of the major highways in a city you are going to use your helicopter to evacuate your family? When there's rioting in the streets you are going to bring it to an end by yourself with your trusty shotgun and your 2 month's supply of provisions? If a chemical truck spills toxic material in your neighborhood you've got hazmat suits for you and your family?

            Sorry but there are some major calamities that we PAY the government to assist in. Hurricane Katrina was one of them. I don't believe in the government saving people from minor situations but in a major disaster they have a mandate to help. In Hurricane Katrina they failed in that mandate.
          • jaznova, on 04/15/2008, -3/+5Hey boredrph. FEMA is the "Agency of the US government tasked with Disaster Mitigation, Preparedness, Response and Recovery planning."
          • PolishLogic, on 04/15/2008, -7/+5Maybe Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco should have accepted the help when it was first offered, rather than allowing egos to get in the way of sensibilities. Or maybe the levee project that was commissioned in 1965 shouldn't have taken the Army Corps of Engineers 40 years to reach a 90% completion on the original 13 year project.

            As a sidenote, it was nice to see Nagin left all those busses just sitting there, didn't bother to issue an evacuation until 2 days after a state of emergency was declared.

            To blame the Katrina catastrophe on Bush, merely because some dumb ***** rapper like Kanye West says he hates black people, is ridiculous. Nagin and Blanco should share an incredible amount more of the blame than Bush should.

            Ah, ***** it, you're right. It was all Bush's fault.
          • PolishLogic, on 04/15/2008, -4/+4@RC212V

            The feds are there to give the assistance the state asks for, not to barge right in and supersede the states. You want to start pointing fingers, start with the State of Louisiana first and foremost.
          • twinklyJesus, on 04/15/2008, -3/+4FEMA was there. Unfortunately, the Constitution mandates the Fed cannot take action inside a State, without the Governor of that State requesting this aid. Nagin was AWOL and didn't call the Governor and the Governor didn't call the Feds.

            The company my wife worked for at the time had equipment ready to move in, at the request of the Federal Gov. BEFORE the storm hit. they couldn't do it because the formal request was never given by the State of LA. It is the same rule that prevents the US Army or National Guard being deployed in a city or state without authorization of the Governor and mayor.

            Instead of bitching about Bush and blaming others for this, read the Constitution, some history books and open your eyes and see who was really responsible. I don't give a ***** who dropped the ball, they had enough warning to walk the ***** to Tulsa!
        • Gregbertt, on 04/15/2008, -15/+10He also failed to break the law which requires that the federal government be petitioned for aid by the governor of Louisiana before the government could render aid to Katrina victims. The 'inconvenient truth' that it was the governor's own inaction that caused the delay in aid is somehow overlooked by the slathering mob eager to lynch the current administration. To quote Ronald Regan: "Facts are stupid things". Indeed.
          • michaelb1, on 04/15/2008, -6/+9I wonder how long it would have taken to save people if the Katrina hit Palm Springs Florida or The Hamptons NY? seriously.
            I would wager that the govt would have been all over it in a nanosecond. I'm not saying Bush is racist. I'm saying the black people in New Orleans don't vote so they have no political influence.
            Neither to young people, generally speaking. I think Obamas campaign will reverse both of these facts though.
          • DavidS9, on 04/15/2008, -6/+2But again you have to look at the local governments of both those places.
            And the Black people of New Orleans didn't help much either they are a bunch of well fare suckers that don't want to work for a living.

            And before you go nuts I know I used a general term but I didn't mean all of them
          • PolishLogic, on 04/15/2008, -1/+4@michaelb1
            (I'm assuming you meant Palm Springs, CA)

            Probably not long at all, because I'm sure they would have asked for help rather quickly, considering how quickly previous governors of CA have acted in regard to getting federal emergency aid. As for NY, I can't really answer because I can't recall the last time (other than 9/11) that the state has made an emergency aid request.

            When looking at the debacle of N.O. you can look first and foremost at the mayor and the governor to shoulder a huge bulk of the blame.
        • smotpoker, on 04/15/2008, -10/+17Bush was warned the levees had a high probability of failing/breaking several days before Katrina hit and he did nothing in response, despite the opportunity to help reinforce them, place response teams, etc
          • Charlotte_Web, on 04/15/2008, -6/+10You've been smoking too much pot, and you're definitely uninformed/underinformed.

            I grew up in New Orleans. It was well known by the residents that New Orleans was a hurricane disaster waiting to happen. The city is 12 ft under sea level, and anyone with a clue was aware that the city's pumps were already running 24/7 on a good day.

            New Orleans had an evacuation plan. It was a decent one. They didn't follow it.

            Worse yet, the plan called for the city to evacuate residents using the many school buses they had. Not only did they not mobilize the school buses, but the city government mandated that the buses be housed at one of the lowest spots in the city. So, here's why so many people died:

            http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/floodedbuses.jpg

            New Orleans is a Democrat stronghold. So, every failure is due to Democrat mishandling, INCLUDING the entire levee system that was not built up to the proper specs in the 1960's. Ray Nagin, the city's mayor during Katrina, should be serving prison time right now, because all of those needless deaths are rightfully in his hands.

            Oh, and Bush should have reinforced the levees? Are you kidding me? That's a massive engineering project that could have spanned a decade, and Bush is supposed to get that done in a few days?!? Yeah rite.
          • smotpoker, on 04/15/2008, -7/+5@Charlotte - There's no such thing as "too much pot" and it would seem based on your opening statement that you are prone to typical conservative tendencies to ridicule/discredit based on irrelevant or flawed observations

            I never claimed to be very informed or that the local government there shares no responsibility. I also did not explicitly state he *should* have reinforced the levees, I was only suggesting possibilities off of the top of my head. It seems you are not immune to typical conservative impulses exaggeration as well.

            What is even more deplorable than your ridicule of myself, however, is your attempt to use a tragedy to pursue your political/partisan agenda. Even if the situation was truly avoidable , and not partially the result of economic strife or other factors, making the responsibility rest solely on the shoulders of the evil democrat government, how does that in any way justify refusal to provide assistance when it was requested or the subsequent denial of such requests and evidence?

            It isn't unreasonable to consider that if there was truly nothing that could have been done Bush would not have immediately thrown another lie onto the pile. I also question you would assert Nagin deserves prison time for *inaction* that lead to hundreds or thousands of deaths but seem to be defending a president who not only contributed to those deaths, but whose *actions* directly lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans and possibly millions of Iraqis. There was a ***** more evidence about the levees than Saddam's 9/11 connection.

            Take your partisan-based selective-justice attacks elsewhere. Bush is a dishonest moron who *could* have done a lot to help mitigate harm from Katrina, starting with offering some of the aid that was requested at the time.
          • Charlotte_Web, on 04/15/2008, -6/+5Oh I see. It's perfectly OK for you to assail Bush, who was indirectly responsible for the FEMA mishandling (Michael Brown was the director at the time), but it's not OK for me to lay blame with Democrats who are directly responsible for deaths and destruction in New Orleans due to their mishandling of the emergency preparedness and evacuation

            I'M the one who's being partisan/political? You're dragging 9/11 and Iraq into this!
          • smotpoker, on 04/15/2008, -6/+4The way I see it, both the local and federal government failed to some degree. However, this particular discussion is not about an entire party but one man who we *know* had the ability to offer aid, neglected to and lied about it.

            I don't suggest prosecuting the local government because I don't know for a fact they had they ability to do much more than they did and because I know they did take some actions but even if they *were* criminally negligent, that does not absolve Bush of his duty to help thousands who need the help.

            I bring the war into it because it is evidence of his character and credibility. In both instances he lied and in both instances he showed direct disregard of human life, so it is a relevant consideration when judging his overall blameworthiness IMO, since it illustrates pattern.

            Your blame of Democrats is entirely inappropriate, and partisan for two main reasons:
            1- It has no relevance to the issue of whether Bush did or did not do what he could/should have to help thousands of citizens
            2 - It is an attempt to attack an entire party (otherwise why say "democrats" instead of "local government"?) when the entire issue at hand is about one person's involvment.

            Regardless of New Orleans government's culperability, it has no bearing on Bush's neglect, unless you are trying to support an argument that it somehow justifies the neglect


            Finally, it is fallacious to insinuate I am being partisan since I do not belong to either party (though I do dislike nearly all conservatives I've met and tend disagree vehemently on nearly all issues) and because I did not attack an entire party, such as you. Naturally, since this is a political discussion, about a politician, it's understandable to get a little "political" (Perhaps you do not understand the definition of "partisan" or "political"? Not sure why you added the "/political"....)
          • papipablo, on 04/15/2008, -1/+6@smotpoker, there can in fact be instances in which there is too much pot. For instance, if a room was so full of pot you could not enter the room to smoke the pot, that would be a clear case of too much pot.
          • PolishLogic, on 04/15/2008, -3/+4@ smotpoker

            Read up about the Flood Control Act of 1965 and the fact that nearly 40 years after the project was enacted, what should have taken only 13 years to complete was only 90% complete at the time of Katrina. Furthermore, the project called for upkeep to be done by the local municipalities where the levees were stationed.

            Needless to say, Bush cannot shoulder all or even most of the blame for the Katrina disaster. Blanco asked for $9 million on August 27th and received word that same day that she would get it. The following day she issued an amended request for $130 million (underestimation #1). Now add to this the fact that she only assembled half of the available National Guard force to lend aid (underestimation #2). When the President is getting underestimated figures from the head of the state, what's he to do? The fed typically gives what is requested of them. That's their job. That being said, in most cases like this, governors will estimate, then pad those estimates before sending their requests in.

            Just the mere fact that she upped her financial request by $121 million, should have told her that maybe activating only half of the National Guard, instead of all of it was a terrible idea.

            Our system is set up in a way that the federal government is merely a vehicle for assistance to the states, it does not supersede state control of situations like this. That's how this country was founded, and that's how this situation played out. The biggest problem with Katrina was the complete and utter incompetence of the Governor and the Mayor, everything after that was merely part of the snowballing of that incompetence.

            I'm amazed to see that on a website that screams murder any time the federal government tries to elbow it's way through things, that here, in this situation, where it acted completely in it's proper role of merely lending the assistance asked of it, that the federal government and the President are being made the scapegoats for the situation as a whole.

            It clearly shows that if the name Bush in anywhere in the story, people are more than ready to make him the bad guy, whether he deserves it or not. The only true neglect Bush showed, was not doing something to strip the State of Louisiana of it's power to do anything involving the Katrina situation. Had that happened, and those incompetent blunderers been taken out of the equation, I'd argue that the disaster might not have been handled as poorly as it was..
          • smotpoker, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1@papi - Pffft!! It's physically impossible to have a room full of pot that *I* couldn't enter! :P

            @Polish - Look, you and Charlotte can crawl up my ass all you want, my only intent was to state a fact: Bush had warning and his denial of that warning seems to imply some amount of guilt. I know specifically only of the video conference/debrief the day before Katrina but IIRC, New Orleans claims they requested and were denied assistance a couple of other times before that as well.

            I am not saying they were solely responsible for the hurricane or the damage but it seems to me they are responsible for failing to act and that failure probably resulted in hundreds if not thousands of lives. What you suggest is akin to saying police hold no responsibility for a domestic beating/murder, though they were called and refused to show up, because the previous day/week the residents refused their help.

            Sure they might not be as guilty or the sole cause but they were still obviously negligent of their duties and that negligence can still be used as evidence of pattern in conjunction with other events
        • DavidS9, on 04/15/2008, -10/+9Yeah and the Local DEMOCRATIC government that got millions upon millions for years had nothing to do with the reason why the levees failed. That's right its all Bush's fault and the local government that knew and stole all that money had nothing to do with it.
          • EtherGnat, on 04/15/2008, -1/+7The local government obviously bears a large portion of the responsibility for Katrina. Unless you live in Louisiana, though, that's largely irrelevant. The local government there doesn't affect me, and there's nothing I can do to change it. I'm concerned about how my federal tax dollars are being spent, and whether the federal government will be there to help me (or others) when another large scale disaster strikes.
          • PolishLogic, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1@EtherGnat

            They are there, however the state has to ask them for their help first. They can't waltz right in and claim it as their own to deal with. That's the way it's been since the country was founded. State's rights, federalism, and all that good stuff.

            Your federal tax dollars, just like mine go to funding programs like FEMA that are there and at the ready if and when an individual state requests assistance from that program.
        • MoofTheStoof, on 04/15/2008, -4/+16The failure of the levees did far more damage than the actual storm. Something definitely could have been done by the corps of engineers about the levees. NOLA administrators had been begging the feds for years to have them upgraded or at least better maintained. Instead we had thousands of people drowning when they (as predicted) failed. And the administration found no reason to rush to the aid of the dying and displaced. It's only their job, after all...
          • DavidS9, on 04/15/2008, -4/+3Again you don't put the blame where it really belongs the Locals new the situation a heck of a lot better then those in the white how they should have been doing something long before it became an issue
          • darkcooger, on 04/15/2008, -2/+6Agreed that the levees were known to be in pretty poor shape, but the Corps had been requesting money to work on them for years, Congress just kept denying it. It's an unfortunate reality that government agencies just can't do work that isn't budgeted, especially such high-dollar items.
          • DavidS9, on 04/15/2008, -6/+5The city received the money but the CITY GOVERNMENT broke it into there own little pet projects instead of fixing the Levees
          • darkcooger, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1@DavidS9: Just curious, have you read the Interagency Performance Evaluation Taskforce report? https://ipet.wes.army.mil/ if you're interested (I especially like how the certificate is invalid, and has been since day 1)

            The Corps was responsible for maintaining parts of the levee system and the city of New Orleans was responsible for other sections. The Corps maintained its section directly from federal funding. The Corps also maintained the rest of the levee system, but that money came from New Orleans. The Corps did *NOT* get its federal funding to maintain its parts of the levee system.

            It may be true that the city of New Orleans received federal funding to maintain its section of the levees and then squandered the money, but it does not change the fact that the Congress did not give the Corps the money it requested to maintain its section.
          • PolishLogic, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1As stated in the original bill passed by Congress in 1965, the Corps were responsible for building them, but the localities were responsible for maintenance from that point on.

            The only job that the federal government had, was to ensure that it provided the state with assistance, if and when they ask for it.
          • DavidS9, on 04/17/2008, -0/+0And the Levees, if I remember correctly, weren't rated for that level of Hurricane. And improving the levee system is for sure not the responsibility of the Corps.
        • art42, on 04/15/2008, -2/+4http://www.google.com/search?q=bush+knew+levee+bro ...
      • thanakar, on 04/15/2008, -10/+4Ya'll can't have it both ways, NO was the responsiblity of the Governor of the state, not the White House.
        • MoofTheStoof, on 04/15/2008, -5/+8You are factually incorrect. I was, indeed, FEMA's responsibility BY LAW. The Governor called them begging for help two days before the storm hit. Two... *****... days... and who suffered? The poor, the elderly, the infirm - the people who had no means to flee. They were left and many drowned in their own homes while praying for rescue. Rescue, however, is contrary to the ideals of the "Ownership Society." People should be encouraged to find their own way out of their troubles. Too bad that some might not make it...
        • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/15/2008, -2/+7Bush was holding back federal aide from Louisiana, trying to persuade the governor to give him complete control.
          I actually downloaded the document that Bush signed, that said it was a federal disaster and that relief would be provided.
          You guys who support Bush seem to find anyone else to blame while ignoring the common factor.
          The Buses, by the way, were supposed to be brought in by FEMA -- they are contracted to provide evacuations. But the former head of FEMA, who was now a contractor -- subcontracted out the Bus service, and that company was waiting until the last minute to get the buses (and thus make more profit). The reason people were not evacuated by a fleet of buses was due to profit taking and insider cronyism at FEMA.
      • forgiste, on 04/15/2008, -2/+4Well there was a Polygamy compound busted here in Texas and although the news said they were marrying 12 year old girls and there was physical and sexual abuse going on, it turns out that the women from inside the compound said there wasn't, and all they wanted was their children back. So I wouldn't doubt that this is the beginning of an attack on religious hermit societies. I'm against polygamy myself, but this kinda reminds me of the whole David Koresh debacle.
        • tjmb9, on 04/15/2008, -1/+4Well a lot of those kids are turning out to be pregnant...
        • PolishLogic, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Oh, the people from the church said it wasn't happening....ok,that makes it all better now. The Catholic Church also maintained for years that kids weren't being fondled by priests. I guess we should have just taken their word on that one, too.
    • Turambar, on 04/15/2008, -8/+29IIRC, trying bush and the admin for war crimes was an integral component of Gravel's platform.

      Obama is far from the first to mention this.
      • Ebonsteel, on 04/15/2008, -4/+29Both Gravel and Kucinich, Turambar - and as much as I would have rather seen either of those gentlemen become President, it is time to rally behind the only person with a chance of winning the White House in November who WILL look into the crimes of the Bush Administration. Obama.
        • michaelb1, on 04/15/2008, -12/+4aughh I can't stand when people say Kucinic would be a good president. That man is NOT a leader. he may be a good congressman (debateable) but there is NO WAY he could be a great president.
          • jroyale, on 04/15/2008, -2/+19Yes, but Kucinich would make a better President than Bush. In fact, it's hard to think of someone who'd make a worse President.
          • xtmno3, on 04/15/2008, -6/+2With that kind of evidence, who can disagree!
            /failure.jpg
          • smotpoker, on 04/15/2008, -1/+8So what about Kucinich makes him unworthy of presidential status? Too short? Too blunt? Standing up to lobbyists? Opposition to war without direct threat? Wanting to shrink our military budget and make it more accountable so that half of the equipment doesn't wind up stolen by our "honorable troops" and hocked on ebay? Teaching kids to seek other answers than violence?

            Which of your criteria for elligibility for commander and chief does he not meet? I'm honestly curious wtf so many people think the idea is laughable when EVERYTHING he says is pretty much proven right, proven fact and/or based on the ideals upon which this country was founded
          • DavidS9, on 04/15/2008, -5/+0Its rather easy they both are running for President under the Dem banner right now.
          • forgiste, on 04/15/2008, -1/+4He's not going to provide any actual evidence of his claim.
      • 5urr3al5am, on 04/15/2008, -7/+2what a bunch of wasted breath.. we all know nothing is going to come of it, because everything was run by and approved by the government/congress, and nothing illegal was done. Its just the mantra that the liberals use to get their base in a tizzy, which it appears to be working quite well. Hey did you know that Global Warming is Real and it started exactly 7 years ago, when Bush took office?
      • imgstacke, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Helter Skelter!
        /shudder
    • mal1964, on 04/15/2008, -3/+10This is an important quote and is telling me that nothing will come of it..
      "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted"
      • spawnfree, on 04/15/2008, -3/+1bingo.
        Bush has protected himself and his family from any future legal action anyway.
        • jroyale, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Well, not so much under the current theory of the Unitary Executive and the suppression of Habaes Corpus and our "quaint" Constitution.
      • TrevorBradley, on 04/15/2008, -1/+4"Bush has protected himself and his family from any future legal action anyway."

        Those are just pieces of paper too...

        I sometimes wonder if the Bush Presidency won't end with some crazy event to keep Bush in power, but some last second flight to some foreign country where Bush will spend the rest of his days safe from the US legal system.
    • TinternAbbot, on 04/15/2008, -27/+3It isn't up to us to preserve checks and balances. It is up to the government to preserve checks and balances and, for the most part, they have. Just by doing their jobs, each branch preserves checks and balances. Learn what these terms mean before throwing them out there.
      • darkcooger, on 04/15/2008, -2/+12If you truly believe that it is not the citizens' collective responsibility to maintain checks and balances, then are you a part of the problem. Period.
        • TinternAbbot, on 04/15/2008, -4/+1I don't think you understand what you are saying. "Checks and Balances" simply means that each branch of the government acts in such a way that no one branch attains total control of the federal government. It has nothing to do with private citizens, except for our role in electing officials who will perform their duties. Given that each branch will always, by nature, act in a way to exert the most authority, by definition these branches will inherently "check" and "balance" one another. It isn't up to citizens to preserve. I'm sorry, but it doesn't even make sense to argue that.
          • darkcooger, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2You're right, it doesn't make sense to argue, because it is the people's responsibility to make sure their government is always checked. You're arguing that our government is self-checked. Is it? No. Look at what kind of ***** Bush has gotten away with. He wasn't checked or balanced. So the people did their duty and replaced the Congress. When Bush still wasn't being held in check, the people bitched. Now what's happening? In case you haven't noticed, the House of Representatives has started standing up to Bush and checking him. Why? Because the people stepped up to their responsibility.

            So you're wrong, it is ABSOLUTELY the responsibility of the people to keep the government in check. If you trust the government to "just work," you are exactly the sort of citizen that tyranny loves. Ultimately the burden of maintaining government in a republican state is on the people, otherwise you don't have a republican state for very long.
        • mal1964, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2There is only one thing in your comment that i don't totally agree with.
          "the House of Representatives has started standing up to Bush and checking him. Why? Because the people stepped up to their responsibility"
          I not saying you are totally wrong but i think its more about Bush being a lame duck President with a very low approval rating. But mostly they are thinking about themselves and being reelected
          • darkcooger, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Alas, I think you may be right. However, I could always counter that in their effort to find re-election, they're listening to the voice of the people! I'm not sure anyone would believe me, though. :)
          • mal1964, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1A push is ok with me.
    • toekneebullard, on 04/15/2008, -13/+9If any one falls for this their dumb. This screams "I'll say what needs to be said to get elected." He's gonna have a lot of things on his plate, and I don't think he's going to push anythign off of it to make room for prosecuting a former president.
      • ...---..., on 04/15/2008, -1/+4"If any one falls for this their dumb"

        Hahahahahaha!!!!! Funny, with spelling like that... calling someone dumb!
    • oldhick, on 04/15/2008, -9/+2Why do we need to investigate? Everyone on Digg is positive Bush and Co are guilty of war crimes and should be punished!!! How is it that Obama isn't aware of this? He doesn't KNOW for a fact that Bush and crew are guilty?
      • debbiedragon, on 04/15/2008, -5/+5True. if everyone on digg thinks they're guilty of war crimes, it must be fact :)
      • StarlessKnight, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3There's still a justice system in America, however suspect people may find it to be. Due Process still exists.
        • jpete71chevmal, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1Not according to the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Directive 51...look it up.
    • omegaredIX, on 04/15/2008, -8/+3Sorry but the Democrats are spineless cowards it is as simple as that. What they are doing is playing politics that is all. All the issues we are ***** off about they are simply going to ride that until the national election then once that comes they will bring it to light even more and then they will try and do something about it.
      • marillion, on 04/15/2008, -1/+7The Democrats remember that when the Republicans impeached Clinton, Clinton's approval ratings went up. Democrats are afraid the same thing will happen. The fallacy of this (in my opinion) is that Americans understand that the trial of President Clinton was the result of a witch-hunt that could only charge him with perjury about sexual affair.
        I feel the Democrats could be quite successful if they pursue the allegations with a delicate balance of openness, transparency and a presumption of innocence - the very antithesis of a witch-hunt
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 04/15/2008, -2/+8Even if Democrats don't have the votes to proceed with investigations and impeachment, they can still introduce it and vote for it, for the sake of integrity.

      So far only a handful of Democrats (Dennis Kucinich) had the balls to do this. When it comes to politics I don't see the Dremocrats on average being any better than Republicans. I see only a few politicians on both sides that are honest and willing to do whats right.
    • xen0blue, on 04/15/2008, -10/+5the democrats can't do it because they know they have nothing...fortunately not all of them are members of the 911th truthers batallion in the tin foil hat brigade
      • StarlessKnight, on 04/15/2008, -4/+4Anyone that questions Bush: Truther. Anyone that supports Bush: Patriot. Nice dichotomy you got going there. With us or against us much?
    • donelson, on 04/15/2008, -4/+7THE PROBLEM IS....

      Bush will be handing out pardons like hot cakes before he leaves...
      • darkciti2, on 04/15/2008, -2/+4He won't be able to pardon himself though. ;)
      • imgstacke, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1You have to be indicted FIRST before you can get a pardon... Impeachment was off the table not because there was not basis, but timing...
    • darkciti2, on 04/15/2008, -3/+5This alone is enough for me to vote for Obama.
      • Paul101590, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1This is just ONE example of how ignorant and unintelligent Democrats are. Thank you for that.
    • sandsailor, on 04/15/2008, -5/+4obama may have lost my vote for this article. for a candidate that is supposed to be the candidate of change this is the same old Washington agenda, investigate the past for another 8 yrs until the next candidate for change comes on the scene. so far i have not seen anything new that is worth my vote.
      • LunaticFringe, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Naw. You look at it, and then decide whether or not to pass the issue to a committee while you handle other more important business while O'Reilly has a whiny bitchfit for the next 8 years. America has wasted enough time shining a spotlight on the lowlives of the current administration. Time to move on, fix things, learn from the mistakes, rectify the past, and try to make for a new golden age in this country. The nation needs to be united once more, and a witch hunt won't help things any.
    • OdinEye, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3Anything like this will be, at best, a huge waste of time and resources, as well as a distraction from the much needed work to be done in Washington. I have absolutely no love for the current administration, and will be pleased to see the term end. However, I absolutely do not want to see the next administration get mired in this sort of mess.
    • BalzacOG, on 04/15/2008, -3/+2Kucinich delivered articles of impeachment on the floor of the House. If Obama wins, he better put Bush behind bars or he should be impeached himself.
  • gilbertagab, on 04/15/2008, -42/+670Recession is when your neighbor losses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. And Recovery is when Bush loses his.
    • MonsterChaOS, on 04/15/2008, -11/+99A++
      • mali1, on 04/15/2008, -5/+41Would digg again.
        • almightyzam, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1I logged into my other account so i could digg him again.
        • Loxias, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0Alts? in my Digg?
      • hippiehater, on 04/16/2008, -1/+0Unemployment is at 5.1% now it was at 6.9% under President Clinton.
    • KraftDinner101, on 04/15/2008, -18/+13Bush is going to be set for life once he's out of office. He doesn't have to work anymore, he'd made millions off of his presidency. We all know he's just idling his way out of office so that he can retire a wealthy man.
      • exscind, on 04/15/2008, -8/+21Bush was loaded before he became President, moron.
        • smotpoker, on 04/15/2008, -6/+11Loaded is not the same as wealthy. He now has 8 years of less taxation, secret embezzlement/shady deals and equally/more corrupt allies who also benefited from the lacking taxation/deals helping him return favors.

          How much you wanna bet he goes into hiding and is harder to find than bin laden and Hussein combined?
          • jroyale, on 04/15/2008, -3/+6I doubt he'll leave the country, tho'... too much risk of being arrested for war crimes.
          • MacEnvy, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2@jroyale
            Unless he goes to the UAE. He and Cheney are in pretty solid with them. Now all they need to do is build him a nice private little bass lake in the desert with some fences to mend and he'll be happy.
        • jpetrin, on 04/15/2008, -3/+2Allegedly
        • thanakar, on 04/15/2008, -2/+9Bush was worth over $30 Million when he became president, so yes, he was both loaded and wealthy before office.
          • smotpoker, on 04/15/2008, -5/+2"Wealthy" usually implies not only money but other assets that are enough to sustain a family for generations. $30 mil is rich but nothing a few years of taxes, frivolous spending and/or leaching family cannot quickly drain unless a large portion is properly invested
          • Altotus, on 04/15/2008, -3/+5If he started with $30 million, invested it the day he became president such that it appreciated 10% per year, he'd have $59,871,236 in 2008 dollars. However, with an average of 2.7% inflation during the same time, and almost 43% drop in the value of the dollar, that is about $28,848,087 in 2001 dollars. Despite an investment yielding 10% he still nets a 3.8% loss...
            I guess, luckily for him, most of his investments are abroad, not in the US, and those in the US are primarily with oil companies (which have seen their profit margins increase about 15%) and military contractors who have really seen a big pick-up in business since the beginning of 2002. So, he's been fairly isolated from the drop in the dollar and turbulence in the stock market. I'm sure he's still doing OK. No need for concern (for him).
        • publiclurker, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2I don't think they were referring to his drinking problem.
      • michaelb1, on 04/15/2008, -3/+41You know what, I don't even care if he is rich for life. Whatever, lets just get him out of office soon and stop him from doing anymore damage before he leaves.
        Also, he may be rich later but his name will be worth $.00 in the history books. His presidential library will set low attendance records forever. His phone will never ring with questions from future presidents. Many of his staff will be in prison or broke from legal fees. A lot of the people that he unjustly imprisoned and ***** over will be cursing his name to their grandchildren. When traveleing abroad you will have to make excuses for him and apologize for having once had him as a President. America will in effect, disown him.
    • robthom, on 04/15/2008, -9/+4Cute.
    • sovereign3, on 04/15/2008, -9/+4I bet he didn't write that himself.
      • microbreak, on 04/15/2008, -4/+5You're right...he adapted it from Reagan's line about Jimmy Carter.
    • Locnar, on 04/15/2008, -5/+3BRILLIANT!!
    • Infidelcastr0, on 04/15/2008, -4/+13Doubleplusgood.
      • dudeguy1234, on 04/15/2008, -1/+4Do you people READ?! Why isn't this Dugg more?
        • TungstenPC, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1From book 1984
          ...brought back memories from high school lol
    • ksieradski, on 04/15/2008, -11/+4I remember it as: Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.
    • chenley1, on 04/15/2008, -15/+4My car broke down today, it's all Pres. Bush's fault! The economy goes up and down people, let it go.
      • fmaxwell, on 04/15/2008, -1/+6No, under Bush, the economy just goes down. He's spent us into a hole that we'll never get out of. Your children's children will still be paying interest on the debt that he accrued. And that interest will, primarily, be going to overseas investors. What stupidity to push for massive tax cuts, launch wars in two countries, and then try to make the tax cuts permanent. Then when the ***** really hits the fan, he borrows more money for "economic stimulus" checks so that people can go to Walmart and buy Chinese-made goods.
      • Paul101590, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Thank You! Everyone it's called the Business Cycle...take an economics class: Expansion=> Peak=> Recession=> Trough...repeat
        • fmaxwell, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1No, it's not a "Business Cycle." $4/gallon gasoline is not part of a business cycle. Every U.S. man, woman, and child having a $31K+ share of the national debt is not part of a business cycle. a $220 billion federal deficit is not part of a business cycle. Home foreclosures at a rate not seen since the Great Depression is not part of a business cycle. Three major airlines ceasing operation in one week is not part of a business cycle.

          Why are economic bad times part of an unstoppable "business cycle" when a Republican is the President but are a result of poor leadership and policies when a Democrat is the President? Just for once be honest: We are in this mess largely because of Bush's reckless spending, ongoing wars with no end in sight in two countries, a mortgage crisis brought on by Bush's hands-off policy when it came to regulation, and massive tax cuts for those who needed them the least.
    • diegogarcia12, on 04/15/2008, -1/+8http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/11883
    • aimhelix, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1I found a new hero!
    • AzureRise, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2I love you. Have my babies. Here, take them.
    • digginghacker, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2I logged into digg solely to digg this comment.
  • smacksaw, on 04/15/2008, -55/+12Alright. Let's see which can create the largest pool of tears today - Huffington Post or Daily Mail? On your marks...get set...FIFTY INDIVIDUAL POSTS SAYING "Huffington blah blah buried" - GO!

    How PC have we become if investigating someone for possible criminal infractions is harming Obama by creating a partisan divide? Besides, Bush will pardon everyone and then Cheney will pardon him. End of story. Nothing will happen. They got away with any possible crimes when Bush was sworn into office.
    • fyrehart, on 04/15/2008, -6/+18I may be missing something here, but in order to be pardoned don't they have to be convicted of something first? And the conviction won't happen until he's out of office, meaning he looses the ability to pardon?

      Also, what does this have to do with a pool of tears?
      • jroyale, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2In theory, but I bet Bush has some crony come up with a new theory that allows preemptive blanket pardons. I suspect he'll also pardon himself.
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/15/2008, -22/+5How PC have we bcome that the word "boy" is now a racial slur?
      • MacEnvy, on 04/15/2008, -6/+26The word "boy" when used in certain contexts was considered a racial slur long before this thing you call the "PC movement", and it was considered a racial slur long before you or I were born.

        Consider yourself lucky that you didn't grow up in a time or place when it was used in that way, and STFU.
        • KirbyMeister, on 04/15/2008, -7/+2Well it isn't a slur anymore, since we don't recognize it as a slur. A language is defined by it's speakers, not by any external authority. As such, if the speakers decide that word X is not a racial slur, it isn't a racial slur. Of course, said opinions can be divided and that's how languages change, evolve, and speciate. (Analogously, of course - it would be an... interesting picture, language on language action)
      • smotpoker, on 04/15/2008, -4/+5Any word can be a racial slur when frequently used to degrade an entire race. Just because it once had a legitimate meaning doesn't imply it cannot ever become a slur.

        That said, I don't think anyone is suggesting "boy" is a slur. Anyone who suggests otherwise should probably learn the definition of "slur" (including yourself).

        Personally I seriously oppose saying that senator (or whatever he is) is racist *just* for using the word in a demeaning manner unless it is known he never uses it when referring to people of the same race, but I do think that in that context it could easily be interpreted as racist and it was *definitely* demeaning. Therefore, if anyone with greater knowledge of the man and his speaking habits thinks he is racist/prejudice for using it to demean Obama because he typically uses other demeaning terms to attack white people such an interpretation would be justified.

        </oneethnicguysperspective>
    • JointVenture, on 04/15/2008, -9/+4You missed the point, people are ***** off at the hijacking of digg by the huffington post and its ilk by the use of shouts, friends lists and the fact that the Huffpost puts a ***** CURRENTLY BEING DUGG section on its site.
      • fyrehart, on 04/15/2008, -3/+1Yeah I completely missed that whole blog drama. Thanks for keeping me updated by explaining.
      • buckrogers1965, on 04/15/2008, -3/+5*blinks* Most blogs have a digg link now.
        • JointVenture, on 04/15/2008, -2/+3Its not a digg link at the bottom of the story, its a box that pops up on the FRONT PAGE saying DIGG this now.
        • graderguy, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1O H M Y G O D !!!!!
          Kill those liberal bastards NOW before they take over the entire internets and everything!
  • foxhaze, on 04/15/2008, -94/+33Congratulations, Obama. You are catering to your rabid "I HATE BUSH" fans, by promising that you plan on reviewing the Bush administration for its theoretical crimes. I know you won't, but congratulations for saying you will. You will receive votes for it, and therefore your actions are well-played.

    Indeed, even though every single American in this entire country knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush, Cheney, and all members of the Bush administration will be indicted on absolutely 0% of the "crimes" they've committed, it is IMPORTANT that you act as if you're concerned, and tell us that you shall immediately review their actions.

    I congratulate you, Obama. I wish for more sheep in your flock.
    • metapop, on 04/15/2008, -11/+18you've been lied to and believe it if you think that the bush administration has clean hands. oh, and the terrorists hate us because we're rich and free.
      • foxhaze, on 04/15/2008, -12/+3Cool. Nobody will do anything about it.
        • daEvan, on 04/15/2008, -2/+3Oh okay. You certainly sound like you know what you're talking about, so everything you say must be true.
      • inajeep, on 04/15/2008, -3/+4Read his comment again.
    • senatebuddy, on 04/15/2008, -11/+7I agree wholeheartedly. What a hack...This poor country..
    • pintomp3, on 04/15/2008, -9/+38"You are catering to your rabid "I HATE BUSH" fans" you mean 70% of americans?
      • senatebuddy, on 04/15/2008, -11/+4Jeez are you people thick? I doubt anybody in this thread is pro-bush, what foxhaze is saying is: Obama is just telling people what they want to hear, but he obviously does not intend to act in the interest of justice in this case. Any honest person would DEMAND prosecution for observed crimes against country and humanity, Obama shows his true colors in this article, you can see it is not his interest.
        • Jlaugh, on 04/15/2008, -4/+10Everyone knows Obama is the lesser of three evils. That's a huge improvement over what we have in office now.
        • sqwirl, on 04/15/2008, -3/+6And which of the other candidates, may I ask, is DEMANDING the prosecution of the current administration? Even better, which of the other candidates has even made the suggestion? That's right. None of them.
      • geoff1210, on 04/15/2008, -10/+3these obama people sure are defensive! What he is saying is, yeah he does mean 70% of americans, he wants votes. He is doing like every politician and saying what he needs to get votes
    • michaelb1, on 04/15/2008, -1/+9he didn't promise to convist Bush. He said he would review his actions. To paraphrase our President "If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide"
      • CrazedLeper, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2Cheney has two man-sized safes in his office. Two. Man-sized. That's a lot of something to hide.
        • KidDynamo0, on 04/15/2008, -2/+1Maybe is has two boy toys in them?
      • Paul101590, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1What does "convist" mean?
        "If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide" ...it's true.
  • milou, on 04/15/2008, -20/+45I doubt it will happen. Just the phrase he used:

    "...but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide."

    This indicates he would have more trouble than it is worth. Besides this is something that should have been done way before or even now. Yet no one is standing up. Even the world court could bring War Crimes on Bush/Cheney. Nothing happens.
    • SuperVepr308, on 04/15/2008, -3/+13"World Court"...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
      • t3rmv3locity, on 04/15/2008, -2/+3I bet the Obama Administration wouldn't harbor Bush or Cheney against the request of an international court though...
        • SuperVepr308, on 04/15/2008, -4/+3You might be right on that one. What good global socialist would?
        • Hey_Vern, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2I bet they would, as they should. You think the outrage against Bush is bad? Let Obama try that and you'll see some real outrage. No American President should be subject to such a tribunal, no matter how bad he is in the eyes of the rest of the world. If he's not bad enough for our own country to indict him, then he should be defended by our country.
    • joshuabowers, on 04/15/2008, -3/+6That's not entirely true: Congressman Wexler from Florida (and, apparently, about 17 other senators and congresspeople) has been making a small amount of fuss over holding the administration to, as he puts it, the "Rule of Law". Of course, about 18 people out of 535 is only about 3 percent of the elected officials in Washington, so your point is mostly valid.
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 04/15/2008, -2/+9World Court. What a joke.
      • KidDynamo0, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1its only a joke because we don't abide by it. Did you know the US is the only country to ever to found guilty in a world court. We got in big trouble for bombing Nicaragua in the 80s. What did we do, did we pay the fines for destroying their country? Nope, we said ***** you and walked out. That is why the world court has no power because we can just walk out if we dont like their conclusion. However I am sure we would hold other countries to it if they were found guilty.
        • lotsa1s, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1As much as I hate intervening in ANY country and as hardcore an isolationist as I am, why SHOULD we give a ***** about what a world court thinks we should pay for our haphazard interventionism? Allowing a international organization any control or power over your own government means you loose a certain amount of sovereignty.
          • SuperVepr308, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Absolutely. ***** the idea of World Courts or the UN. We don't need their asses. They need us and we ain't buying.
    • moush, on 04/15/2008, -3/+3Who would bring the charges forward? Congress, the people who are just as responsible as Bush?
      • keishax, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3It would need to be the international criminal court. The Bush Administration has violated many of the crimes listed in the war crimes statute.
        1. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
        1. Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
        2. Torture or inhumane treatment ***Waterboarding, Abu Grahib***
        3. Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property (Iraqi oil, destruction of historical landmarks and museums)
        5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
        6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
        7. Taking hostages
        2. The following acts as part of an international conflict:
        1. Directing attacks against civilians
        3. Killing a surrendered combatant
        4. Misusing a flag of truce
        5. Settlement of occupied territory
        6. Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory

        3. The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:
        1. Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
        2. Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
        4. Summary execution
        5. Pillage
        6. Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy

        I would that the crimes are pretty extensive. And they outsourced the war to try to get around the Geneva convention. I have way more respect for GHWB than jr.
    • LukasSmith, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3Well apparently Obama is way smarter then digg obama fanatics. When Obama talked with the author of the article he stated A. He would search for evidence of crimes but not assume guilt until evidence of wrongdoing was found. B. He would not impeach or react unless the proof was sound and not just based on bad policy moves. The fact is Obama doesn't have the witch hunt mob mentality of digg.com. So I'm not sure you can handle a president who is so above bitter lib diggers.
      • mattbdavis, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Don't call Diggers bitter you elitist!
    • jabberwolf, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Maybe Obama might get investigated for his past ties for funding the PLO when it was declared a terrorist organization.
  • SpeakerCity, on 04/15/2008, -47/+24I guarantee that there will be no prosecutions of anyone in the Bush Administration.
    Obama will play the "we need to move past that stuff and look forward" card.
    He's bought-and-paid-for by the same people that own Bush.

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
    • CrazedLeper, on 04/15/2008, -8/+4You're probably right but Obama has a snowball's chance in the basement of the Twin Towers of getting in that chair. Inside job.
    • sagien, on 04/15/2008, -3/+4Sources of your statement?

      • SpeakerCity, on 04/15/2008, -3/+4The past 50 years of American history.
        • lotsa1s, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2Try a little longer then just half a century there, buddy.
        • CrazedLeper, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2ty, SpeakerCity, but it goes further than that...
  • aajjcckk, on 04/15/2008, -54/+260Dugg for "President Obama" in the title. I hope we'll be hearing that many times a day after November....
    • thanakar, on 04/15/2008, -34/+10Only in the form of "I could have been President Obama"......
    • Arcesius, on 04/15/2008, -10/+22Yeah, holy ***** I love the sound of that.
      • Pillage, on 04/15/2008, -4/+1knowing digg the articles with President Obama in them will be followed by "Is a traitor for not indicting Bush"
    • JointVenture, on 04/15/2008, -25/+5Just like you HOPE you'll get a better job while you sit on your ass doing nothing about it?
    • GhostyBoy, on 04/15/2008, -4/+20Funny I didn't even notice.
    • RRJackson, on 04/15/2008, -10/+3I suspect if you hear it you'll be hearing it in that 'Emperor Norton' kind of context.
    • Dinomight, on 04/15/2008, -6/+12Am I the only one who found the use of "President Obama" as a factual statement a bit tacky. Whether or not he actually wins election I don't think it's very appropriate to refer to a candidate as the president while we still have a president in office (like him or not he is still the president). Now if you referred to Senator Obama as presidential hopeful or presidential candidate or even if you shout Obama for president that would be okay by me. But maybe we should wait until he is at least president elect before we start calling an election 6+ months before anyone has actually voted (for the actual presidential race not for primaries). I'm not trying to say he won't win or that he will. I just don't think any side should be calling a hopeful president when they are not (maybe it's just me).
      • t3rmv3locity, on 04/15/2008, -5/+2No it's not tacky, I love it.
      • oscenester, on 04/15/2008, -1/+5That ***** sitting in the oval office is NOT and WILL NEVER be MY president...and btw it's not a "factual" statement. Its a theoritical statement. You know, like when and if he IS president (my guess is he will be), theres gonna be lots of questions people will need to answer to.

        Just sad that "the people" haven't done anything to remove him. Back to the lowest rated president, and yet somehow he still commands.
      • pcore, on 04/15/2008, -2/+4I think what they mean by this is that if Obama becomes president he will do this. I don't think he is really being referred to as the current president.
    • CypressQ, on 04/15/2008, -24/+13Buried for "President Obama" in the title.
      • MrCobaltBlue, on 04/15/2008, -11/+7Same.
      • t3rmv3locity, on 04/15/2008, -7/+1Lemme guess...you would probably digg something up if it had "President Clinton" in the title...
        < Silence >
        Right.
        • ExSlashdotter, on 04/15/2008, -1/+8Thats because we did have a president clinton. bill clinton. its not inaccurate to call a past president by that title.
      • oscenester, on 04/15/2008, -6/+2comment buried for lack of an argument, among many other derogatory lackings.
    • CrazedLeper, on 04/15/2008, -10/+6You won't hear it even once. His job it not to win but to be a less-desirable choice than the Republicrat offering. It was the only way the Demopublicans could lose.
      • oscenester, on 04/15/2008, -1/+5Right. Because everyone wants "bomb bomb iran" as president. I'd be a little weary of having his finger on the button...

        I think enough of my tax dollars have gone towards a causeless cause.
        • CrazedLeper, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Begging your pardon, sir, but what does *what everyone wants* have to do with *what everyone is going to get*?
      • hellathatguy, on 04/15/2008, -2/+1buried for the use of demopublicans.... i bet you use the word sheeple too!

        i see what you did there.
        • CrazedLeper, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Sorry, did I call you out? I have a habit of doing that.
    • zspeed78, on 04/15/2008, -3/+11Tacky? Burried for it? It was said that way to point out that if Obama won, as president, at which time he would be called President Obama, he would do this..
    • dopke, on 04/15/2008, -7/+5Since when do we start digging for inaccurate titles? In the past, it would have been dugg down for inaccuracy. Oh, I forgot- we're talking about Obama here. He gets front page no matter what.
    • SpookyPig, on 04/15/2008, -2/+6It would be January before we start really hearing it
  • LibertyForever, on 04/15/2008, -50/+13Speaking of "immediate reviews", let's review this one now. Just in from the Chicago Sun Times:

    Obama's name in Rezko trial
    FEDERAL COURT | Levine says senator attended bash for Iraqi crook

    April 15, 2008
    Recommend (8)

    BY NATASHA KORECKI, CHRIS FUSCO AND TIM NOVAK Staff Reporters

    Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama was again drawn into Tony Rezko's corruption trial on Monday, when the prosecution's star witness placed Obama at a party for an Iraqi-born billionaire who was later barred entry to the United States.

    Stuart Levine testified under cross-examination that Obama and his wife, Michelle, attended the April 3, 2004, reception for Nadhmi Auchi....

    ....Later Monday, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said: "As he has said previously, Senator Obama does not recall meeting Nadhmi Auchi at any time or on any occasion, and this includes any event that may have been held for Mr. Auchi. Senator and Mrs. Obama have no recollection of attending any such event."

    But according to two sources familiar with the gathering, the Obamas attended the Wilmette reception, which came less than a month after Obama's Democratic primary win for his U.S. Senate seat. Rezko had been a key fund-raiser for Obama, who has since given to charity nearly $160,000 in Rezko-linked contributions.

    [Someone is not telling the truth here - but who? Worth investigating, and preferably before November, don't you think?]

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/894559,CS ...
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/15/2008, -25/+8Stop bringing up facts about Obama's corruption.
    • notoneofus, on 04/15/2008, -4/+22I sure hope I'm not judged based on the parties I've attended. If so, I'm screwed. I don't even remember many of them.
    • Peko, on 04/15/2008, -5/+14Kind of a random derail? Why not have some damning article written by a bowling specialist?
    • klodholz, on 04/15/2008, -7/+2ADD?
    • Nougat, on 04/15/2008, -5/+14In the part of the article you excluded from your quote:

      "Rezko had been a key fund-raiser for Obama, who has since given to charity nearly $160,000 in Rezko-linked contributions."
    • treed, on 04/15/2008, -4/+9Even if this is true, he says that Obama gave the contributions away to charity. I'm not seeing a problem here.
    • moulin1, on 04/15/2008, -4/+12It has been investigated. Reported on, discussed and beaten to death. There is plenty of reading material for you to peruse. But I doubt you are interested in reading it as the whole thing comes to nothing.
    • JointVenture, on 04/15/2008, -9/+4Dont bother, these bellends are blinded by their emotional investment.

      I must say it is fun watching them dance.
      • Hypermarkalan, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1Dugg. If for nothing more than your use of "bellend." Don't hear enough of that on this side of the pond.
    • pitlord, on 04/15/2008, -6/+3What a bunch of hypocrites! You're all diggin up any comment that supports investigating alleged crimes committed by Bush but if someone suggests investigating Senator Obama's crimes you bury him.
      >.>
      Typical libtard *****.
      • StrubyTuesday, on 04/15/2008, -3/+31) i agree it is unfair
        2) it's a social network, so it probably never will be fair, and digg is very liberal at the moment, so it's expected
        3) it's nearing elections, and the votes for topics are going to come straight down the party lines
        4) Obama seems to be the favored candidate on Digg
        - just because there are more people on Digg who like Obama does not mean its 'libtard *****'. It simply means that Obama supporters are outnumbering all others, so you might as well get used to it at least until the elections are over.
        --not an Obama supporter, just hate red/blue hatemongering
        • imgstacke, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1@#2
          People are 'liberal' in general, especially when they want things to change. Conservatives on the other hand are frightened of change. So if everything was going swimmingly then Digg, simply as a reflection of society as a whole, would become more conservative. BUT since everything is generally ***** up beyond belief, people are willing to change directions.
  • aajjcckk, on 04/15/2008, -40/+16THE war crime that President Obama would need to prosecute Bush Co for is their participation (not necessarily leadership of, incidentally) in the 9/11 inside job (now proven beyond doubt even if some people continue to wilfully deny it to themselves). And we all know what the punishment for that would be. However it could be commuted to life, or even a partial pardon, if they revealed the true extent of who was behind it (big clue: not a bearded guy in a cave) and those people were successfully tried. The question is however, does America have the balls to examine the demons within?
    • piper999, on 04/15/2008, -16/+12***** off
    • GhostyBoy, on 04/15/2008, -8/+12You can digg this dude down all you want, or tell him to ***** off, but the reality of the situation is that the 9/11 investigation was a failure.

      Seriously, how many of you have gone to 911truth.org and looked at the enormous amount of evidence they offer? If you relax those pre-conceived notions that it's crazy and ridiculous and actually take a good look at it you might be surprised.

      I was just like everyone else. I thought it was stupid, too. Then I spent a few days researching it and the official story does not work.
      • johniskew, on 04/15/2008, -8/+6Thats because the "facts" you are reading are twisted, turned, and manufactured to fit a square peg in a round hole. They are taking convenient "facts" and tying them together however they can to present their arguments that 9/11 was an inside job. After you read their drivel, find some sites that offer the opposite viewpoint, then make your decision.
      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 04/15/2008, -7/+7Truthers have no facts. Just speculation and conjecture. When cornered, truthers claim they're "Just Asking Questions" aka JAQing off.
        • Yatata, on 04/15/2008, -2/+7not true. most 9/11 truthers are highly educated. case in point - my structural engineering professors. not ONE of them can stomach the standard story for what happened. to them the evidence of pre-planned internal sheer failure is too great. there is simply no way that for the first time in history a steel structure has collapsed from being hit by an airplane. especially a building many times stronger than other steel highrises that have been hit by bigger airplanes that have not failed. especially considering the temperatures it takes for steel to weaken, no amount of jet fuel could have caused the building to fall. there is evidence of thermite which is used to melt steel at the base. there is clear evidence of demolition. we have some leading architects coming to give a talk on their extensive private research into the issue for the masters students in the architecture school i go to. it's easy to dismiss, but it's also cowardly. It takes balls to ask questions.
      • piper999, on 04/15/2008, -8/+2The 'reality of the situation' is that you are a ***** stain on the Y-Fronts of common sense and will believe any fairy tale you are told because you have very low intelligence.

        ***** off
    • Yatata, on 04/15/2008, -3/+9i'm in architecture school and not ONE of my structural engineering professors believe the standard story - according to them it is simply impossible that those towers came down without the help of pre-placed demolition explosives. we have some leading architects coming in a few weeks to go over the technical aspects in detail. it's not a wacko conspiracy theory. there is more evidence supporting the fact that it was an inside job than evidence saying that it was simply some guys with box cutters. stop labeling and dismissing those brave enough to question the standard line and employ a little critical thinking. this self-imposed denial and dismissal of the facts is amazing.
    • worldinmyeyes, on 04/16/2008, -1/+5ABC News on Operation Northwoods
      May 21, 2001
      U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba
      http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

      In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

      Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

      The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

      America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."



      ----------

      For all those that are blinded by "our government would never pull off 9/11" need only open their eyes and mind to see that official document proves the government would have staged terrorist attacks, KILLED American civilian and military personnel, and blame them on a false enemy to justify war over 45 years ago. And you put the Bush administration (proven liars) ABOVE these sort of tactics? Wake up!
  • jeremyduffy, on 04/15/2008, -19/+31If he were to make sure Bush didn't get away scott free for all the damage he's done, that would be the major tipping point for me as a voter. This guy has balls to state this outright though.
    • lacronicus, on 04/15/2008, -2/+1Problem is, no one can "make sure" of anything. I very much disagree with what bush has done, and I very much dislike how he has managed his time in office; however, it's impossible to say for sure that he will have to pay for it all. I have full faith that the next president will look into this matter, but whether they actually act on it, or are allowed to act on it, is still up in the air. All we have right now is their promise. Sure, if that's all we can get, take it, but always remember that there is no guarantee.
    • LukasSmith, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Actually he didn't actually say he was going to do anything about Bush. He said maybe if he finds evidence a crime was committed. He also said he didn't find the idea of impeachment very useful. So basically in a roundabout way he said A. He is too smart to simply think Bush is some criminal like most digg.com users B. He would actually look for real proof before making stupid remarks like those made on digg.com against Bush daily.
  • Nosocialism, on 04/15/2008, -52/+17He's just bitter because he knows he's going to lose.
    http://www.nosocialism.com/2008/04/obama-loses-10- ...
    • Dantehman17, on 04/15/2008, -2/+17Posting a reply with a link to your own blog doesn't really support your case here.
    • why3th, on 04/15/2008, -3/+0Yes my young padawan, let the bias consume you....
  • jarbarf, on 04/15/2008, -49/+24Are we done blowing Obama yet?
    • thesonofdarwin, on 04/15/2008, -20/+6Not until he comes into Presidency.
      • DavidS9, on 04/15/2008, -13/+6That will be a very very cold day in hell. He would make Carter look like the best President in history.
  • suzywang3000, on 04/15/2008, -31/+17I'd like to see him try...
    • Acewrap, on 04/15/2008, -9/+21So would the rest of us. We're tired of these ***** Bush criminals.
    • InfamousAtheist, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3Why, are you personally going to do something about it Suzy?
  • rpfinley, on 04/15/2008, -32/+21Sounds like someone is talking out both sides of his mouth:
    "America, our moment is now. I don’t want to spend the next year or the next four years re-fighting the same fights that we had in the 1990s. I don’t want to pit Red America against Blue America, I want to be the President of the United States of America."
    http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForCh ...
    • MacEnvy, on 04/15/2008, -5/+35Upholding the law and the Constitution is not picking sides. It's incredibly sad that so many on the right have forgotten this during their brief stint of absolute Executive power.
      • JointVenture, on 04/15/2008, -8/+2So he was lying the when he said the bit that was quoted?
        • smotpoker, on 04/15/2008, -2/+5So you're asserting everyone in any given party will completely reject any new evidence that might be found, oppose investigation of it, or suggest ignoring illegal tyranny based solely on partisanship?
        • Aadain, on 04/15/2008, -2/+7How was he lying? He doesn't want to have yet another administration that spends 4-8 years beating their political opponents into the ground (basically what he said in the quote). But at the same time, no one is above the law, even the President. This new quote says he'll look into the situation to see if there was any willful law breaking and if so follow up on it. How does that negate his previous quote? Enforcing the law is not a partisan issue (or at least is shouldn't be).
  • plizard, on 04/15/2008, -57/+23he's not president. he won't be president.
    apparently obama has replaced ron paul for digg spam.
    • TonyLocNE, on 04/15/2008, -14/+8I'm glad someone else has seen this correlation. All these Obama fanboys ***** and moaned about Ron Paul spam on the front page everyday, but yet now that Obama has replaced Ron Paul on digg, they can't see past their own hypocrisy.
      /but sadly will vote for Obama to avoid the politically confused John McCain.
      • EtherGnat, on 04/15/2008, -3/+4What's hypocritical? Ron Paul never had a significant following among the general population, or truly even on Digg. Obama has 10 times as much support as Paul ever did. I'm not saying that every Obama story actually deserves to make the front page, but equating Obama with Ron Paul isn't very accurate.
        • TonyLocNE, on 04/15/2008, -3/+3either way you look at it, its still spam.. I can see the same story on digg eight different times a day. When we had it for Ron Paul, I'll admit, it was spam, and all you guys cried about it every god damned day. Its just sad that when someone speaks out about how Obama supporters and how they are spamming the ***** out of digg, you guys get up in arms over it and can't admit it.
          But anyways, back to the article, you guys don't seriously believe that he'll do anything about GW, do you? You guys have had 4 years in both houses and haven't done *****.
        • imgstacke, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2@TonyLocNE : then bury them, every single one... But if you find that they still get to the front page despite your efforts, don't whine about it like a child.
  • metapop, on 04/15/2008, -32/+47this may earn my vote, as long as opening up the 9/11 investigation is considered "potential bush crimes".
    • permadank, on 04/15/2008, -9/+11Finally someone who isnt living in dreamland! It amazes me how ignorant americans are to the actual events on 9/11....
      • hinchb, on 04/16/2008, -4/+4Patronizing people just because you (think you) know more than them about the events about 9/11 is not only pretentious, but also is going to make people angry at you and lessen the possibility that you can change their minds. But if you guys want to keep posting things like this go right ahead.
      • imgstacke, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2I used to hand out information in my community, and only then did I realize that MOST people are aware but the climate is so toxic that public dialog is nonexistent. Especially among veterans.

        truthaction.org - the 11th of every month...
  • rasinhussy, on 04/15/2008, -34/+22News Flash: A liberal presidential candidate hates BUSH!! That's news in my book!

    You see what I did there with the sarcasm...
    • wafla, on 04/15/2008, -4/+3You have to get some of the basics right before sarcasm will really work. Obama is not particularly liberal; Obama's schtick is to help Republicans save face so they'll stop filibustering every piece of legislation and work can get done again. (E.g., that's why he merely said "No child left behind needs tweaking," when everybody else said, truthfully, "it's a mess.")

      Republicans have forgotten about rule of law, honesty, being american, etc. If President Bush is torturing children, raping nuns, cutting throats of impoverished school-teachers, or merely leading a conspiracy to destroy the constitution -- he should be brought to justice. That's not "hatin' on Bush."
      • t3rmv3locity, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2Woah WOah WOAh WOAH WOAH....slow down there buddy...
        Yeah, I know, Bush has done a lot of bad things, torture - check, war on false pretenses - check, illegal wiretapping - he slipped some of that in there, issuing bid-less contracts to personal friends - check, exposing a CIA agent's identity - check, firing generals and top-ranking military officials for disagreeing with him - check...

        Wow...I was going to present a balanced political view but now all I can think is:
        Burn the Bastard!
    • MrCobaltBlue, on 04/15/2008, -3/+2The Huffington Post is a respected and factual source of Liberal news akin to Fox for the Conservative side.

      You see what I did there?
  • spamcrusher, on 04/15/2008, -34/+23This is worse than the Ron Paul spam, I was a Paul supporter and even I got sick of Diggron.com, now it's turned to Diggbama.com.
    • rezistance, on 04/15/2008, -6/+5Honestly I'm not sick of it. Once big media quits their biased reporting and I can get fair news then will it sicken me. Rght now its just keeping me from loosing my mind over the foolishness of the CNN's and Fox's.
    • TonyLocNE, on 04/15/2008, -10/+2It's sad that they can't stand their own hypocrisy, and you were condescending to the whole spam notion too.
    • geoff1210, on 04/15/2008, -11/+2are you serious? you all aren't sick of this? oh my god, aren't you the same people who say that Americans are sheep? look at you in your little herd moving from RP to obama.
    • mattrmcg, on 04/15/2008, -3/+1but the URL still says digg.com :/
    • mechnoch, on 04/15/2008, -5/+5Now, I am an Obama supporter, but I have to agree with you that Digg is being a bit overloaded by Obama stories. However, this is merely a consequence of millions of people being excited about Obama. It seems obvious to me that on a website where the users pick the content, the presidential candidate that the majority of the users support will dominate the headlines, in an overwhelmingy positive way. If you want to take a break from positive Obama stories, simply head to foxnews.com, where Rupert Murdoch gets to pick the content.
      • TonyLocNE, on 04/15/2008, -5/+1Don't patronize me, then tell me to go watch Foxnews. You can take your poser mohawk and shove it up your ass.
  • senatebuddy, on 04/15/2008, -9/+145Spoilers: They won't prosecute.
    • TonyLocNE, on 04/15/2008, -7/+4Even if they could, what good would it do? Let's say you open up investigations, find them guilty, etc, etc. How are you going to get them back to the United States? Bush and Cheney both own estates in Paraguay, a country with no extradition laws.
      • RudeTurnip, on 04/15/2008, -3/+15I thought we don't take ***** from countries that harbor terrorists...Afghanistan Part II!
      • buckrogers1965, on 04/15/2008, -4/+8If only we had some sort of military forces capable of extraditing people using extreme force... oh wait...
        • oscenester, on 04/15/2008, -3/+4I'd be more than happy to foot the bill with my tax dollars to see them brought to justice.
      • senatebuddy, on 04/15/2008, -5/+6Well first of all I'd add them to a terrorist watch list. They should be sent to The Hauge to stand under the world court, for crimes of aggression and most probably genocide.

        Nobody but the American taxpayer and Iraqis are going to have to pay for this war, two groups that arguably had no say in initiating it. Disgusting.
        • anthmarc, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1There's no magic world court in The Hague that can prosecute anyone they want.
      • TonyLocNE, on 04/15/2008, -7/+1So now we are going to have President George W Obama? I was pretty sure you guys were voting for him because he was not like the other George W.... Well nevermind then, McCain can just get my vote. At least he "might" lower taxes. You Obamafanistas really show the depth of your intellect.
        • TonyLocNE, on 04/15/2008, -3/+2truth in your face sucks doesn't it?
        • t3rmv3locity, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3Too bad McCain probably will attack Iran in his first few days in office...He has sorta lost touch with reality...(100 year comment)
    • zspeed78, on 04/15/2008, -3/+4Evidently you can prosecute and hang Saddam, why not our leader if need be?
    • coresnake, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1SPOILER ALERT!
    • LukasSmith, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3"innocent till proven guilty"
      As of yet there is no concrete evidence that Bush is a criminal. He said as much in his talk to the author of the article. But of course the lib diggers mind can only swallow up any parts that make it sound like Obama supports digg libs gay ass lynch mob mentality.
  • zippy757, on 04/15/2008, -36/+7Obama may have just lost the election... he had it in his pocket , until this statement...

    In general, older US citizens don't want a continuation of the bad press/image that Bush has created...there is no benefit to a 24 month witch hunt at the start of his new term...which will, day by day, reset Obama's agenda and get focused by the zillions of republican operatives that will come to the aid of the Bush administration...in the end, this will grind down Obama, and most likely produce the answer (with proof) that key democrats have been equally involved at every step along the way...this is why Pelosi is adamant against impeachment...

    Trust me... impeachments, witch hunts, and other personal attacks only harm the country.

    History will dictate Bush's legacy.... Obama shouldn't waste his precious time on it...

    • phybere, on 04/15/2008, -2/+17What, because justice is over rated? Because some people really are above the law?
    • senatebuddy, on 04/15/2008, -2/+11Yeah, let's give tyranny a slap on the wrist. Just this once.

      What's changed?
    • buckrogers1965, on 04/15/2008, -2/+5You are weak on crime.
  • momsshizzle, on 04/15/2008, -60/+10Don't worry. If Osama Obama doesn't get the nomination, Digg will just flip to whatever side they think will win. Digg: "Ron Paul? No, he won't get the nomination. Hey, let's jump to the Democrat side!." Other Digg user: "Duh, ok. Macs are pretty."
    • michaelb1, on 04/15/2008, -2/+24nobody even read your comment. Like me they all stopped reading at Osama Obama.
      • geoff1210, on 04/15/2008, -7/+2he is just noticing that Digg ***** dropped RP like a brick and picked up obama, thats all.
    • kenedamick, on 04/15/2008, -2/+3If digg is such a spam-filled hell hole then why do you continue reading it? You're a ***** racist idiot.
      • hippiehater, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0everyone that has a different view than you is a racist
    • pitlord, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2Hey I'm a conservative and I use a Mac!
      X^P
      They ARE pretty cool looking.
      >.>
  • fleischner, on 04/15/2008, -22/+13See? Obama wants to bring us all together with hope and change. And when I say "us all" I mean "half of the country, just like it always was and always will be."
    • serif69, on 04/15/2008, -6/+9But he WILL bring us together! We'll ALL have to pay for the hundreds of billions of dollars by which his proposals would increase the Federal budget.
      One Nation, Under Deficit.
    • michaelb1, on 04/15/2008, -6/+10"Half the country"? Bush WISHES he had the support of half the country. On a good day he has 28% of it. Of that 28% I bet 10-15% would jump ship if all his bad stuff came out in an investigation.
      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2Bush isn't running for re-election. And currently (according to rassmussen polls) McCain leads Obama 49 to 41
        • Bilabrin, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1I'd be surprised if bush could win approval to keep drawing breath.
    • NotAChickenHawk, on 04/15/2008, -3/+1Uh, yeah, but it would be a change if the people who pulled this kind of crap didn't get away with it, for once. Of course, half of us don't think it was crap. Sigh...
    • azpat, on 04/15/2008, -2/+3If Clinton had waged the Iraq war, and everything went just as it did with Bush, you'd be screaming for your constitution. The difference between you and me is that if Clinton had done it I would join you, but you're finding a way to defend Bush.
  • bjswick, on 04/15/2008, -25/+21This should be the least of his worries if he makes it to office. There are more pressing issues to take care of.
    • darny, on 04/15/2008, -2/+13An ounce of prevention...

      OUR LEADERS RAPING US IS A PRESSING ISSUE!!! IT'S THE MOST PRESSING ISSUE TO DATE!!! WHY ARE WE ALL ***** RIGHT NOW?!? BECAUSE OUR LEADERS HAVE BEEN PERPETUATING A CULTURE OF RAPING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR CHRISSAKES!!!

      The cycle MUST be broken or we'll be broken.
    • GhostyBoy, on 04/15/2008, -1/+21Not in the long run there isn't. If Bush is let off the hook that will set one of the most dangerous precedents in American history.

      It says to presidential candidates that once you get elected the throne is yours. You can do anything you want and never be impeached, and you will never be held accountable for anything you did.
    • wbeavis, on 04/15/2008, -1/+10On the contrary, it should be his highest priority to restore faith in government and reinstate accountability at all levels. Short of that, a leader risks revolution.
    • workfaster, on 04/15/2008, -1/+6I totally agree. Presidents should not waste any time fighting crime and corruption. They should be out starting wars, alienating allies, and running up deficits.
  • Chahrlie5, on 04/15/2008, -23/+10Lol, yeah right Obama.
  • test5477, on 04/15/2008, -29/+14more obama spam, great.
    • michaelb1, on 04/15/2008, -3/+7Apparently SpaM now means multiple but distinctive articles on the same subject or person that some people on digg don't care about.
      My question is what is the maximum number of articles we can submit on a specific subject without it being considered spam? If Obama said something amazing today should we not submit it to digg because we already reached our quota?
      • MrCobaltBlue, on 04/15/2008, -5/+2The problem is you Obamamonkeys think everything this guy