digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

"The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder"

huffingtonpost.com — Charles Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi lays out his case.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Lahonda, on 05/20/2008, -41/+12Justice? Or just us?
    • Ocelot13, on 05/20/2008, -2/+7nope. just ice
      • caramba420, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1That episode of night court was rad
    • TritonVision, on 05/20/2008, -1/+10oh Just Shut Up.
    • matthughes, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1love it when people make failed attempts at deep thoughts...that was a good one.
  • zlatinb, on 05/20/2008, -15/+330You have to love it when the guy who prosecuted Charles Manson is now thinking about Bush.
    • dondara, on 05/20/2008, -3/+55He has experience with nutjobs, perfect guy for the case.
    • WELLDOITLIVE, on 05/20/2008, -18/+4Oh he's been thinking about bush since he was 14 or so I'd imagine.
      • MoofTheStoof, on 05/20/2008, -1/+714? Must have been a late bloomer...
    • kooky, on 05/20/2008, -0/+15He also wrote a book about how the OJ prosecutors messed up, and another book about how the Kennedy assassination was not a conspiracy. Both books were fantastic.
  • Krisgi, on 05/20/2008, -31/+123In Europe, there is a movement to have Bush and Cheney brought before The Hague -- the International Criminal Court.... just like they did with the Nazis in Nuremberg.

    Bugliosi is the most brilliant attorney... Maybe he could represent us against Bush...

    Bush might end up with an international search warrant if he steps outside the US in the future. Look what happened to Pinochet when he went to England! And it was a judge from Spain, who represented the victims of Pinochet´s regime, who started the whole thing and had him detained and extradited.

    The same judge just did the exact thing with Peron´s widow. She had a whole bunch of murder and kidnapping charges pending in Argentina... Now she will stand trial.
    • AirRaven, on 05/20/2008, -5/+21The key difference between Pinochet and Bush being that *Bush* leads a nation with over twenty thousand armed nuclear warheads.
      • Amazetbm, on 05/20/2008, -6/+18Only until Jan 20th, 2009. After that he's a private citizen again.
        • keymanjim2, on 05/20/2008, -2/+10He will never be a private citizen. He will always be a former President with a Secret Service detail to protect him.
          How are you going to feel when some idiot from the ICC comes to arrest him and things get violent?
        • Demener, on 05/20/2008, -1/+5I'm going to hope that the people arresting him succeed without anyone except maybe Bush getting injured.
        • keymanjim2, on 05/20/2008, -5/+1You just keep on hoping. But, if there is one frenchman in the group, they'll surrender to his security detail.
        • skribeForti, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5Bush loses his SS detail around Jan 20, 2019.
    • Digger1218, on 05/20/2008, -8/+18"In Europe, there is a movement to have Bush and Cheney brought before The Hague -- the International Criminal Court.... just like they did with the Nazis in Nuremberg."

      Yeah, good luck with that.
    • keymanjim2, on 05/20/2008, -9/+19The US doesn't recognize the ICC and any attempt at forcing him to appear before them would be an act of kidnapping.
      • Altotus, on 05/20/2008, -8/+12The US recognizes the ICC when it chooses to do so. After the president has served his term, he COULD be extradited under existing treaties if the Justice Department were to think it a good idea and they got the proper go-aheads. However, if the DOJ suddenly took law and justice to heart, there'd have to be prosecution in the USA first. The very same things that he'd be tried for in the ICC are also illegal under US law. That US law isn't being enforced and there's been no substantive movement on impeachment simply just enforce the idea that the US is contemptuous of holding the administration accountable in any way.
        • bentman78, on 05/20/2008, -11/+8And he would be tried for what exactly genius?
        • keymanjim2, on 05/20/2008, -10/+5Whatever they can think up to appease the "peaceful" muzzies that burn up their cities every summer.
      • itzac, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Yeah... yeah, I guess it would be. How 'bout that.
      • spongya77, on 05/20/2008, -4/+2And who would kidnap a suspected criminal?

        (Sarcastic question. Don't answer.)
    • bentman78, on 05/20/2008, -23/+16The Constitution is the highest law in the US not the ICC. The Europeans can shove it.
      I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but I will not stand to see any US citizen stand in front of a tribunal filled with the jury and judges of another country.
      • jezsik, on 05/20/2008, -9/+15"In the US" is the operant phrase. If you commit a crime in a another country, you're subject to that country's law.
        As for not wanting to see a US citizen stand before a foreign judge, well, just imagine how those bastards in Guantanamo feel: kidnapped, imprisoned without charges, tortured, denied access to a lawyer and no hope for anything even appearing as a fair trial. As the saying goes, do unto others ...
        • bentman78, on 05/20/2008, -9/+10There is a difference between us and Guantanamo, they're mostly terrorists or people who associate with terrorists, we're not. They're not enemy combatants because they fight for no nation, they're terrorists not covered by the Geneva Conventions. It is the critics, such as Amnesty International, who insist that terrorists should be protected under the conventions as if they were legitimate soldiers or civilians. The purpose of the Geneva Conventions is not to protect combatants' "human rights" but to spell out the rules of war, rules that impose reciprocal obligations on both sides of a conflict.

          If you commit crimes against another person in another country you will stand trial there if you haven't made it back here and we lack extradition with them. Since Bush hasn't committed a crime against another country he shouldn't and won't stand trial...

        • venuspcs, on 05/20/2008, -7/+4You, my friend, are a complete idiot if you truly believe Bush has not committed crimes against another country.....IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN are obvious choices, but how about all the citizens of other countries we are holding in secret prisons with no trial, charges or representation then after 6-7 years just letting them go free without even an apology.

          And just for the record, the instant we started letting them go free without ever being charged we admitted we ***** UP and admitted we DETAINED THEM ILLEGALLY. There, at that point he became a criminal for kidnapping another sovereign nations citizens.
        • jezsik, on 05/20/2008, -4/+3bentman78, a terrorist is one who uses violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives. Has the US government used violence (e.g. Iraq) and intimidation (e.g. Iran) to achieve political objectives? That's quite a conundrum, eh? As for Amnesty International insisting that terrorists be protected as if they were soldiers or civilians, that's incorrect: they want them treated as human beings.
      • bono4u, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2well as an European i would prefer if you handle your criminals on your own and don't bother us, but hey if you need some help because the fish is too big for you, no problem ;)
    • pakruse, on 05/20/2008, -0/+13To fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC, a case must meet one of the following (according to the Rome Statute):
      - The accused must be a national of an ICC member state;
      - The alleged crime must be committed on the territory of an ICC member state; or
      - The case is referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council

      It seems unlikely that the third will occur, and as neither the US nor Iraq are or were members of the ICC, the court has no jurisdiction.
      • venuspcs, on 05/20/2008, -6/+5Any citizen held in a secret USA controlled prison that is a citizen of an ICC country that is later released without ever being charged, tried and convicted thus is a victim of kidnapping by George W. Bush. That makes George W. Bush an international war criminal and gives any ICC country with illegally detained citizens the right and obligation to have him tried before the ICC.
        • pakruse, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2In terms of jurisdiction it would be a difficult case, assuming that the crime was committed on US soil. If the crime was committed on the territory of an ICC state, then I agree with you completely.

          The stipulations for jurisdiction in the Rome Statute say nothing of where the victim or victims are from, only where the accused is from and where the crime took place.
    • SillyDigger, on 05/20/2008, -8/+3I love how many of you blindly assume that he will still be president if any international charges are filed. Remember, hes leaving office in less than a year.
    • pinguwin, on 05/20/2008, -4/+5I think the ultimate question here is whether bush and cheney are willing to risk prosecution. Pinochet found out that maybe that trip to England wasn't such a good idea even though England was a "safe" country for him, but it was a Spanish judge that requested extradition. Let's see how much time bush or cheney spend in the French Riviera. If I were them, I'd play it safe and stay in the U.S.
    • cdahlkvist, on 05/20/2008, -13/+16In the U.S. there is a movement to have the Europeans brought before the STFU.
      • bono4u, on 05/20/2008, -3/+1Perhaps you didn't know but the court in Den Hag is an "international court" not an european court, as an european i neither could say i don't like the UN only because their main facilities are in the US.
    • TinternAbbot, on 05/20/2008, -9/+11No American president will ever be prosecuted abroad. Sorry, Eurofags.
      • bono4u, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2well perhaps it should be as it seems so you can't handle the situation probably.

        perhaps we make a exchange program, germany sends in exchange the minister of the Interior.
    • lineweight, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1While i support your movement wholeheartedly, i ask you to step with caution. The last thing you need in Europe is 10-20 million pissed off gun-wielding hick extremists in and around Texas plotting how to free him.
      • bentman78, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Nice stereotypes. That must be the liberal openmindeness talking....
  • smacksaw, on 05/20/2008, -11/+25It's funny, because going to war is an excuse - mitigating circumstances. Of course the people who appealed to him to commute their executions had an excuse. They had mitigating circumstances. He just didn't care to weigh them against his desire for punishment.

    It's impossible to be pro-death and not be a hypocrite. There are always exceptions to the rule, but those exceptions define how much of a hypocrite a person is. We're all guilty of being hypocrites. And if we can't be hypocritical once in a while you become fanatical. Fanatical in your inflexible beliefs. Bush is not only fanatical, but he's hypocritical. Both to an extreme, and that's the worst. You simply cannot execute all of these people accepting no excuses (152 of 153) and yet expect us to buy your excuses about being wrong on Iraq.
    • KLBP, on 05/20/2008, -3/+5Actually, according to the article, Bush signed the death warrants for 152 out of 152 individuals. The one exception he made was for one conviction of a mass murderer who was executed for other murders.
  • oldhick, on 05/20/2008, -13/+88Good read. Its always one little point though that bothers me... The author rightfully makes the case that Bush should not only be impeached, but tried for murder IF he lied. The problem that the author completely ignores and so does nearly every other author is, how do you PROVE he lied.
    Nearly every member of the bureaucracy and the administration that has spoken publicly discusses the complexities of the intelligence and the need for interpretation and ultimately lays the blame on failures in judgment. I wish someone would do a better job of PROVING he lied.
    That is all the American people want is concrete, irrefutable evidence he actually LIED.
    • CrazedLeper, on 05/20/2008, -30/+14If everyone would get their collective head out of their collective anus and realize that Iraq could not have happened without 9/11 and that 9/11 was too great a series of coincidences to have been "opportune". Bush must have had foreknowledge of those events making him a co-conspirator and again, qualifying for the death penalty. Unfortunately, there is no goverment agency so empowered to prosecute and execute the serpent that isn't already under his control. They were all in on it.

      Look again at the video in the classroom, why did he have NOTHING TO SAY when it was whispered in his ear that "America is under attack"? Anyone who didn't already know would have had to say SOMETHING in return. "Attack? What kind of attack? Nuclear? Where?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BMGc2uRrO8

      What held the Secret Service back from doing their job? Shouldn't they have "whisked" away the president to safety? It seems there was an "exception" in protocol, just like on this day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEMnYDAMC88

      There's no way a president (doesn't deserve a capital letter) who didn't already know would have continued to sit there reading to children (his video alibi) if he didn't already know that, as the front man, sitting quietly in front of the camera was all he could do.
    • h3lx, on 05/20/2008, -2/+15After hearing the interview with Douglas Feith on the John Stewart show where he(Douglas) knowingly admits that the misdirection was intentional to support the overall perceived immediate threat that led us into this war, Bush did undoubtedly lie.

      It's not a failure of judgement to omit scenarios better represented by current intelligence and replace it with 'questionable' information previously refuted by the intelligence community simply because it further supports your intentions to go to war. That whole 'mushroom cloud' bit, preached from every pulpit is fairly concrete.
      • OffPiste, on 05/21/2008, -3/+1Nice! Getting your facts from a comedy show.
    • Smuikas, on 05/20/2008, -3/+19Evidence is tried in court. We can't look obliquely at the evidence until it is laid out in court.

      There is more than enough evidence to pass a Grand Jury - what I want to see is an actual trial. Whether or not he lied and the evidence thereof is not something that can typically be used to convince a grand jury to turn down a case. Imagine this:

      Man shoots wife. Gun is wiped clean, but found in his car under the seat. Back of the car is covered in her blood. He reported the car stolen six hours before killing her. She had been cheating on him.
      .
      He comes before the grand jury and says, "but I MIGHT not have done it!" the grand jury says, "Well, yeah, you might not have - but that's for the jury to decide! there's more than enough evidence here to go to trial."

      Grand jury does not say, "Ok, you might not have. We've only heard a little bit of evidence, but you seem like a nice guy even though you deliberately mislead investigators with suitably vague rhetoric, so we won't even send you to court."
      • bono4u, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Well would be nice to see a trial, but that's no guarantee for anything, look at Oliver North he was accused and judged and sentenced to a couple of years of prison, but he never set a food into jail. But that doesn't mean we must not try. It means we have to do it really really correct and save.
    • tooweighmirror, on 05/20/2008, -10/+6I'm not going to give a long drawn out response, because I'm in a hurry, but there is plenty of proof showing how not only him, but his entire administration lied to the American people.
    • jmahnn, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Its only an excerpt. He probably makes that case in the rest of the book. It's an advertisement in the Post.
    • tc399, on 05/20/2008, -1/+5He stated, without doubt or equivocation that Saddam HAD weapons of mass destruction and was preparing to use them on America, or at least provide them to al Qaeda. It wasn't true. He said Saddam was trying to purchase uranium. When Valerie Plame's husband investigated and reported that it wasn't true, Cheney outed Valerie as a CIA agent. Bush was trying to cash in on the 'political capital' he thought his father had lost by not deposing Saddam during Desert Storm and because he sold out America to Saudi Arabia . His advisers for that nonsense were Henry Kissinger, Cheney and Rumsfeld and they destroyed the careers of everyone who disagreed with them.

      It was all a lie. There are and were no WMDs in Iraq. Now he wants an excuse to bomb Iran. If he does, it will start WW3.
      • jpop, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Didn't Valerie Plame's husband send in a report stating that Iraq was indeed attempting to get uranium. Then said the opposite in the papers?
      • biotch, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Just in case anyone forgot all the slogans we were hearing over and over during that time period on every major news broadcasting system...

        http://zfacts.com/p/581.html

        The question that should be answered in a court of law is: To what extent did Bush and his administration follow the intelligence information they were receiving and to what extent did they embellish facts or leave out information or in any way consciously manipulate information to bolster their case for war? In other words, did their actions show motivation to go to war outside the realm of national security intelligence information or not?
      • bono4u, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1well sadly that wasn't a complete lie. Sadam have had WMD, at least till the first gulf war. Back then a lot of them were destroyed. Have a look for the documentary "Beyond Treason". And this administration can know that for sure because of Rumsfeld and Bush Senior sold those to Sadam in the first place. The only mistake in the calculation was that they have assumed that there has to be still more of them and perhaps there are anywhere in the desert, but even if that can't be a reason for attacking this country or it is a reason for any country being invaded who has WMDs and that are quite a lot of countries aren't they? So using the argument is crippled anyway.
        • CokeBear, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2As others have stated previously: of course we knew that Saddam had WMD...


          *WE STILL HAD THE RECEIPTS*
      • issachar, on 05/21/2008, -0/+0tc399, comments like yours are a huge part of why no one is bothering to prove that Bush lied.

        Before you hit the bury button, follow this through. Your statement gives an example of a statement that Bush made that was false. Then you stop and assume that this proves that Bush lied when it does nothing of the sort.

        A lie IS NOT just a false statement. It's a false statement that the person making it KNOWS to be false. To prove the man lied, you have to prove that he knew the statements he was making were false when he made them.

        And that's the problem. NO ONE in the "impeach Bush" camp bothers to do this properly. So the argument goes nowhere.
    • siwu, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4Well, I think they want concrete proof that he lied about a sexual affair.
    • yeahgoggletan, on 05/20/2008, -1/+5He already has.
      If even one single solitary action he took violated the constitution. He has committed perjury.

      "I George Walker Bush, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

      GUILTY
  • tillerman00, on 05/20/2008, -40/+39Doesn't he know the civilian death toll is actually closer to a million?
    • JimmySpaza, on 05/20/2008, -28/+18Where do you get your statistics? Not from the Iraqi government or U.S. military obviously. Maybe from some anti-war, lying website.
      • kemp34, on 05/20/2008, -9/+13Oh yeah, government is always 100% accurate, I forgot.
        • JimmySpaza, on 05/20/2008, -17/+7It's more accurate than some leftist website that makes up stuff.
        • Waiting2awake, on 05/20/2008, -6/+10@ JImmy - history would seem to indicate otherwise.
        • RonBurgundy76, on 05/20/2008, -2/+3Replying to Jimmy = feeding the troll.
      • swrostmore, on 05/20/2008, -4/+17The US military doesn't estimate civilian casualties, you know that, Jim. And the Iraqi government that was placed in power by way of this war isn't exactly an unbiased source either (they estimate 150,000).
        • JimmySpaza, on 05/20/2008, -16/+6I trust people that have been there and done that, like the Iraqi government, police, and military...as well as our own military albeit in an unofficial tally.

          I don't trust unreferenced statistics on a liberal website, placed there by anti-war activists whose only experience in a foreign country is on vacation at a nice resort.
        • kemp34, on 05/20/2008, -3/+8But Jimmy, don't you see the conflict of interest inherent in government statistics? They always want the situation to look as little bad as possible. The worse things are, the bigger desire there is for radical change. They present false reality to maintain the status quo. To believe government figures are unbiased takes quite leap of faith.
        • 55mph, on 05/20/2008, -1/+6take our currency inflation for example.

          M3 was removed from monthly reporting because it told the truth.

    • keymanjim2, on 05/20/2008, -16/+23That one million number has been thoroughly debunked and exposed as a soros funded anti-soldier hit piece.
      • Smuikas, on 05/20/2008, -6/+3lol
      • ralph123, on 05/20/2008, -10/+10Nope, I'm sorry, but it hasn't.

        If anything, there have been incredibly inadequate attempts by some right wing nutcases to debunk it. But that's it.

        Oh, and it wasn't funded by Soros btw.


        http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/framing_ir ...
        http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/01/flypaper_f ...
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Ira ...
        • keymanjim2, on 05/20/2008, -8/+8Yes it has. Simple math will debunk it. If only the liberal education system still taught math instead of feeling good about hating America.
          A simple Google search will show you 53,600 results that soros funded the fake reports.
          And wikipedia isn't a good source for information since it's user editable.
        • poidh, on 05/20/2008, -7/+5Dude, you got owned by keymanjim2. The difference in your intellectual honesty to his is astounding. You're of very low quality.
        • ralph123, on 05/20/2008, -6/+6keymanjim2:
          So, the amount of google hits should now be considered proof for something? Well, I guess Bush is responsible for 9/11 after all then, as you'll find countless whacko sites claiming that he is.

          About wikipedia not being a good source, I agree. But first off, I'd still consider it a much better source than counting google hits and second, it wasn't the only source I provided, was it?
          Anyway, the wikipedia article and the other two articles I linked a both heavily sourced, making them all useful sources.
        • keymanjim2, on 05/20/2008, -4/+6There's a difference between wacko web sites and legitimate new sources.
          Here's some simple math for you:
          1,000,000 deaths in 5 years is 200,000 a year.
          200,000 deaths for 365 days in a year is about 548 deaths a day.
          Where are the bodies? With 548 dead Iraqis a day everyday for 5 years, somebody would have seen something.
          But, no. All we have is a statistical analysis that has a margin of error of 1200% and tons of data that was ignored because it didn't fit its funders political belief.
        • ralph123, on 05/20/2008, -5/+5That there's a difference between wacko web sites and legitimate news sources was exactly my point. That's why your "argument" that one just had to count google hits was so incredibly silly.

          And I don't know under which rock you must have been hiding to claim that nobody saw anything in Iraq. Are you serious? Simply following the western media one could have gotten a very good impression about how catastrophic the situation in Iraq has been and that there must have been loads and loads of casualties. So to claim that nobody saw anything defies belief.

          Finally, don't you feel ashamed about making your debunked claims again and again and again, without providing any source whatsoever for your claims and all the while ignoring all the sources I linked to on the matter?
          Don't get me wrong, disagree with me all you want, but please, show at least some intellectual honesty and capacity while you're at it.
        • swrostmore, on 05/20/2008, -3/+4"With 548 dead Iraqis a day everyday for 5 years, somebody would have seen something."

          First point is that Iraqi custom is that bodies must be buried immediately after death.
          Second point is that Baghdad's morgue claimed 50-100 bodies a day in 2006. Thats a single morgue in a single city, and its not an accurate count for total deaths because of their burial customs.
        • keymanjim2, on 05/20/2008, -3/+4So, you've accounted for an average of 75 bodies a day in the most populated city for one year. That's not discounting the deaths from causes other than the war. Still 473 unaccounted for.
          Where are the rest of the bodies, what are the claims for the rest of the morgues and what are the previous and following years tallies?
          While you're at it, show us a link to your claim of 50 to 100 bodies in one morgue for one year.
        • swrostmore, on 05/20/2008, -2/+3I'm not "accounting" anything, I'm relating to you what the facts are, since you don't seem to be familiar with them. You think its unreasonable to assume that, given 75 is the average deaths per morgue per month, there are over 6 other morgues in the entire country of Iraq? What about Basra, Mosul, Ramadi, Kirkuk, Irbil, Najaf and Karbala? What about Fallujah?

          I understand that 75 per month is high. This was at the height of sectarian violence in 2006. There are other peaks in violence that there are no numbers for. I happen to think that the ORB poll was a high estimate and the real number is 1/2 or 1/4 of that. But your assertion that there simply weren't enough bodies accounted for is ignorant and has no sort of factual basis.
        • ralph123, on 05/20/2008, -3/+6keymanjim2, you of all people demanding that someone provides sources for a claim. Now that's what I call ironic.

          Anyway, here are some figures for the morgue in 2006:
          "The bodies of 6,000 people, most of whom died violently, have been received by Baghdad's main mortuary so far this year, health ministry figures show."
          http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/50531 ...

          "Baghdad Morgue Tallies 1,815 Bodies in July"
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

          But as you so elloquently put it, if there had been so many deaths, somebody would have seen something. Apparently, you had to have your eyes closed to not see something...
        • spazam2, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1keymanjim2, you fail to account for the >500,000 Iraqi deaths due to the U.S. sanctions from 1991-2001.
      • RussellDovey, on 05/20/2008, -2/+3True, a million deaths is pushing it.

        It's only just over half that; 600,000, according to peer-reviewed epidemiological research published in the Lancet. That was over 2 years ago, but it makes a good conservative lower bound.
        • poidh, on 05/21/2008, -3/+2Even you have been hoodwinked. The figure is around 100k, almost all of which were killed by jihadis.
        • swrostmore, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3I guess the Iraqi government was also "hoodwinked" by liberal websites, right poidh? Because their official number was 150,000 two years ago. However they admit they got part of their numbers (in the areas too dangerous to poll) from Iraq Bodycount, which is itself a low-ball.
    • poidh, on 05/20/2008, -13/+14Wow, how simple.

      The death toll is around the 100k mark, almost all of whom were killed by those you idolise, the jihadis.
    • sodade, on 05/20/2008, -6/+7What about the span of time between the Iraq wars when we bombed the living ***** out of the civilian population in Iraq?
      • keymanjim2, on 05/20/2008, -5/+6What about it? It only happened in you mind.
        The only bombing that went on was when their military shot at our jets patrolling the no fly zones. This, in itself, is an act of war.
      • RussellDovey, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Not true. The bombing was mainly of SAM sites; very few of them were in urban areas. The huge death toll, around 1 million Iraqis, between the wars came from famine and lack of medical supplies, due to US sanctions. Both sides of politics admit this, since both were equally culpable. The UN was also culpable; they agreed to the sanctions. Therefore, France, Germany, and many other countries who now berate the US were standing there right beside them.
      • saigumi, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3You mean the entire Clinton administration?
  • ElAssoWipo, on 05/20/2008, -29/+181Just murder?

    You're leaving out so much.

    Crimes against humanity (torture)
    Treason (sending the military to die for false reasons)
    Conspiracy (which was required to fabricate evidence)

    I'm sure there's few more we can add.
    • CrazedLeper, on 05/20/2008, -14/+6He's this bad and yet *above* faking 9/11 in the first place? Better do your homework. This conspiracy if far larger than the white house.
    • Altotus, on 05/20/2008, -4/+5While I would agree that the president has violated his oath of office, perjured himself, and is likely guilty for what you claim, I don't believe that he can be tried for treason for doing it. The US very strictly interprets treason as taking part in the attempted armed overthrow of the government. Trumping up a war probably doesn't suffice since it could just as easily be done for profit or self-aggrandizement, and the act itself didn't pose a violent act against the US government.
      • sodade, on 05/20/2008, -1/+7In the years to come, as all the blowback for our insane foreign policy keeps coming back, we will learn that these actions truly were treasonous. Just like Operation Ajax, which kicked off 60 years of criminal US foreign policy.
    • Nanite, on 05/20/2008, -2/+9I'm sure there's miles and miles of fraud in all of his business dealings, all of his old companies went under.

      Not to mention the croniyism, but is that illegal?

      He also completely ruined the Texas Rangers for years to come! And yet he is still treated like a hero here, i just don't get it...
    • DownkeyKowng, on 05/20/2008, -4/+10Poisoning Gotham's water supply with a psychotropic hallucinogen.. a panic inducing toxin.
    • mmandy, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Yes yes yes! Prosecute Bush for Treason! *pictures Bush in an orange jumpsuit complete with plastic zip tie being led into a cell*

      I'll second that.
      • Combat, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Great imagery. Wish i could see if for real. :(
    • fxu1989, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2And the obvious destruction of evidence.

      Deleting e-mails... burning room in the white house when information was stored? riiiiiight.
  • PolishLogic, on 05/20/2008, -16/+45This will probably work just as well as Bush's impeachment. How's that coming along, anyhow?

    (insert fake outrage here)
    • hmmmok, on 05/20/2008, -1/+7Kucinich seems to have failed with this. That's disappointing, he did such a good with that One Ring.
    • gavinonymous, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1There's the problem that Cheney would be president.. and would pardon Bush. If you impeach both, then Pelosi would be president I guess? She says impeachment is off the table..keeping that powder dry I guess.
  • knumbknuts, on 05/20/2008, -27/+14Hmm...

    Impeachment is the proper way to deal with Bush's alleged crimes.
    • ralphthemagi, on 05/20/2008, -2/+7Impeachment would fail miserably, leaving everyone even more disgruntled.
    • Disregard, on 05/20/2008, -2/+7So 3-4 months of lost Presidency is suitable punishment for a war costing 2-3 trillion and over a million dead? Well he won't do that again will he!
    • spongya77, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Yeah, the Germans should have left to deal with their Nazis after WWII, too.
      Right?
  • openj, on 05/20/2008, -32/+10Bush only did what God told him to do. You wouldn't want God to go on trial for murder too, would you?
    • l0k0, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Care to elaborate on that? "I don't recall" (no seriously) Bush ever using God to justify any of his actions.
      • sugarazor, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.u ...
      • openj, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2Looks like you got the elaboration you requested. So, I'll ask the question again. If Bush is supposed to be tried for war crimes, then should you not put God on trial for the same crimes, seeing as God tells Bush what to do?

        Of course not. You would never try God, because He is perfect. If Bush is just following God's Plan, then by extension does that not make him perfect as it relates to Iraq as well?
        • nycmac247, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2monotheism is the bile of the spiritual world
      • joshhan, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Not for anything but FTA:

        "But the Palestinian delegation was reluctant publicly to acknowledge its authenticity."
      • gandhii, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2If Bush's god was real... I would. Of course I would. What kind of stupid question is that anyway? What kind of moron wouldn't want to put an evil god on trial if they could?
    • 55mph, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Bush made reference in 2003 that his actions were motivated by his belief in God and that he believed he was a messenger of God's will.
    • CrazedLeper, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Idiot. Nothing Bush says is ever true. He well knows there's no God with him; why do you take him at his word? Even if he says "I'm hungry" he has an ulterior motive.
    • kadavy, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Guys, clearly this comment is a joke.
    • Clearmedium, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2I would want god to go on trial. For the majority of conflicts that have erupted throughout human history in his name (ie : almost all of them). And for all of the terrible things he did to the jewish people during the entire old testament. I think his death toll is far steeper than Bush's. Though if you believe in superstition then I guess he's had a lot more time to rack up the kill count.
    • Demener, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1And if you don't believe in fairy tales he's had even more time!
  • jhirsch4, on 05/20/2008, -23/+78***** bush
  • papipablo, on 05/20/2008, -9/+105Charles Manson was a charismatic leader. I don't think we can say the same for Bush.
    • Jexie, on 05/20/2008, -5/+8The US and Iraq would actually be better off had Charles Mansion been the president instead of Bush.
    • Merendino, on 05/20/2008, -2/+8ZING!
    • delvach, on 05/20/2008, -1/+8True, but Bush has Manson's body count beat hands-down.
    • Dibou, on 05/20/2008, -7/+1And you guys have screwed up your mind so much you probably even believe this.
  • PolishLogic, on 05/20/2008, -24/+42Digg is really slipping. Here's the quintessential anti-Bush article and it has yet to make the front page after being submitted almost 22 hours ago. I thought with a title like this it would hit the front within 3 minutes. Maybe the submitter should find a story calling for a public lynching. That would certainly get the diggs.
    • Albear89, on 05/20/2008, -10/+6better yet just put the word Obama in the article. Huffington Post. Brainwashing = mish mash rag mag.

      =p
    • wizzroom, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Cmon we all know that Digg users only bump up news about video games, Ubuntu, and iphones,
  • diskit, on 05/20/2008, -8/+14Good luck with that...
  • texasag03, on 05/20/2008, -38/+42If Bush should be impeached, then so should everyone in Congress who authorized the war (including Hillary). They, using the same intelligence as President Bush, voted to go to war.

    The intelligence was faulty, but EVERYONE, including many foreign leaders, thought Saddam had WMD (he did and we did find evidence of such, despite what is reported).

    This has not been a perfectly executed war, but none are.
    • TobiasParker, on 05/20/2008, -18/+20Since when is Tony Blair "many foreign leaders".
      • RussellDovey, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2You're forgetting John Howard of Australia, George Bush's best friend in the southern hemisphere.
      • lustyrusty, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2When he said many, I think he included the leaders of Spain, Denmark, Italy, Portugal, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic when they publicly endorsed Bush on the Iraq War on January 30. Or maybe was including countries that later endorsed it after the 5th of February, namely Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

        But you are right, Tony Blair is not "many foreign leaders."
      • gavinonymous, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Congress never did declare war. Only supported the funding of the use of force.
        "GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force."
    • Migito, on 05/20/2008, -20/+12Wow, someone who actually used logic instead of drinking the anti-Bush kool-aid getting dugg up! Congrats, texasag03!
    • Brownds, on 05/20/2008, -16/+10No facts please, hate is easier and more fun. Bush went to war with faulty intelligence, Congress approved it and now the Democrat congress keeps funding it. This problem is a lot bigger than Bush he is just 1 of many politicians on BOTH sides that belong behind bars. But hey what do you want if you keep voting the same ass hats into power.
    • TheInfamousOne, on 05/20/2008, -3/+10Honestly curious about the evidence we found? I've never saw anything about it on the internet or news. I'd like the chance to read about it if someone has a link.
    • wacomwacoff, on 05/20/2008, -4/+20That's not the way it works. If a leader offers up false information to mislead people into voting the way he wants them to vote, and the lies are uncovered later, then he's responsible for his actions, not the people he misled.
      • sodade, on 05/20/2008, -3/+3actually, the way it works is that criminals get off and the american people continue to get *****.
    • jer2eydevil88, on 05/20/2008, -2/+15http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_m ...
      Please enlighten me on the evidence we found that was relevant to the 2003 invasion? The only evidence we found in Iraq was that the weapons program had pretty much ceased operations by 1991.

      I don't drink the kool aid but then again I actively spoke out against Bush and the war in the 2004 elections.
    • greenm1981, on 05/20/2008, -5/+6Be careful.... Congress gave Bush authority for the use of force in Iraq, IF and ONLY IF he gained permission from the UN. Bush never obtained that permission before he started dropping bombs over there.

      Where Congress should be criticized on this is continuing to provide the funding.
    • alenox, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3The bush administration ignored all the evidence that Iraq didn't have WMD anymore, and made up their own (yellowcake from Africa?). They also tried to push a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda which our intelligence repeatedly said did not exist, so we based our "evidence" on the testimony of a man tortured in Egypt, who we later found out had lied.
      the PBS documentary talks a lot about this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/
    • delvach, on 05/20/2008, -1/+13Why do we keep calling it a 'war'? Isn't it an occupation? Our country invaded a sovereign nation. Our nation maintains a military presence while it assembles the 'local' government. It never garnered international support because it did not meet the justifications for declaring war, correct?
      • RussellDovey, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1It's not an occupation, because "good guys" don't occupy other countries.
      • wizzroom, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2correction: Illegal occupation.
    • spongya77, on 05/20/2008, -6/+4You lie. I knew there were no WMDs, and I'm a Biologist without the CIA, Mossad and other intelligence services' support. I guess that makes me a genius. Or makes you all who ate it all up a bunch of ***** losers.
    • phydeaux70, on 05/20/2008, -9/+3Well said.

      Iraq violated UN Sanctions for 10 years or more and nobody did anything. Saddam even said that he lied about WMDs because he didn't want to be attacked by Iran. Maybe the pansies who are sticking up for their boy Obama and how he wants to 'talk' to our enemies should play this scenario out again.

      Maybe the Congress should do their duty and sign an official declaration of war instead of shipping the responsiblities to the President, and then cry about the job he did.
      • spongya77, on 05/21/2008, -0/+0Israel has along list of UN resolutions for quite some while -and no sanctions only because of the automatic US veto. Are you going to invade them, too? By the way, when did UN become soooo important? Usually when it comes up, your type argues that the UN is not worth *****.
    • gandhii, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1I thought he was arguing for putting Bush's administration and all those losers in Congress and the Senate who backed him up in to jail. Which is a good idea. But judging from many of these comments some are seeing it as a either or? I'm confused.
    • gavinonymous, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Only Congress can declare war .. that was no obstacle for Bush:
      GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.
  • Hetman, on 05/20/2008, -5/+29I do not know see how you could actually prove that Bush willingly lied to the American public. I am not saying he didnt. It just seems like it would be very difficult to prove that he intentionally lied to the American people to start an illegal war.
    • darkcooger, on 05/20/2008, -2/+10It would be difficult to prove, but since there is reasonable suspicion, it's worth taking it to trial.
      • ironsam, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1"Reasonable suspicion" is all "we" need to take something to trial?
        • darkcooger, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1That's the only reason we ever take anything to trial. If we could only take people to court when we knew they were guilty, there wouldn't be any need for the courts. Remember that nobody in this country is ever legally guilty until they're convicted in court, and without a trial, all the evidence in the world is pointless.
        • ironsam, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1To clarify:

          "Reasonable" suspicion

          In that, I don't find it reasonable.
    • norcalscan, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4Those emails were delet...errrr...lost.
  • Jakeman21co, on 05/20/2008, -28/+14I don't agree with the war, or how it was handled. But this article was F@#$ing pointless
    • BigW, on 05/20/2008, -4/+3As are almost all huffington post articles.
    • h3lx, on 05/20/2008, -3/+1It's not really an article, but more a preface to his GODDAMN BOOK. ***** whore of a lawyer is shilling this craptastic garbage instead of you know, actually goddamn doing something about it. Apparently, the *****-wad doesn't have enough cash.
    • rhumber, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1wow, you know you CAN swear on the internet. just ask yahtzee ^^
  • Lancer28, on 05/20/2008, -36/+22Buried for Huffington Post.
    • keymanjim2, on 05/20/2008, -12/+4I buried it for being a duplicate. But your reason is just as good.
    • veersite, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1Yawn... Huff-N-Puff bashes Bush... again... Yawn....
  • LukasSmith, on 05/20/2008, -39/+17The only prosecution happening should be for your mother. For squeezing a hippie out. I have news for you hippies. Even your God Obama says at this moment he has no evidence that this war is anything but a bad decision or a mistake. He says after he is in office he will search for evidence though. If this Obama is the messiah as you Obama fanatics seem to think why doesn't he believe at this point any crime has been committed? Why do you hippies continue to forget Obama is the guy who has no problem with poking at our other scab, Iran, probably at the behest of his Israeli masters? You want change you want something different? Well I guess having a black president is all you'll get. Sorry to blow your hopes.
    • Deadpixel1221, on 05/20/2008, -6/+6Vincent Bugliosi prosecuted Charles Manson I don't see how that qualifies him as a "hippie". Did you even read the article?
      • mike17032, on 05/20/2008, -8/+3Of course not, its huffington spam. No reason to give them more ad revenue.
    • Migito, on 05/20/2008, -8/+3He's speaking to the Digg community for eating this bullcrap up, moron. Any half-wit who even read HIS comment could see that.
    • Smuikas, on 05/20/2008, -2/+11"There is no evidence that this war is anything but a bad decision or a mistake."

      Read that sentence again -- you typed it. Let me reword it so you can understand what it means:

      "This war is a bad decision and a mistake. I have no evidence that proves otherwise."

      Let's break down the grammar of your sentence so you can see what this means.

      "anything but a bad decision or a mistake": anything except a bad decision or a mistake; as in, something that is not a bad decision or mistake. This phrase means, basically, "Good decision."

      Now, let's replace that in the sentence:

      "There is no evidence that this war is a good decision."

      There you go. ***** plebeian.
    • wacomwacoff, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4I couldn't care less if Obama was white, Hispanic, Asian, or purple. I respect his ideas and values, which you've apparently not paid any attention to.. it's a lot easier to assume people are voting based on race and get on Digg to call names and whine a lot.
    • eleete, on 05/20/2008, -2/+0awwwww, you should know by now how liberal digg is, you can't say that about Obama, this is the premiere kool aid site.Hate Bush or go home is the vibe 'round here. And NEVER forget Obama is the lamb. The perfect man. Watch this post go down in flames, lol.
  • suckanucka, on 05/20/2008, -21/+11Too many ***** essay comments on this post.
    Hating on bush is soooo 2004.
  • Platanoranger, on 05/20/2008, -12/+0This comeback has to be better than Rocky 6! I struggle to see any reality in this case.
  • GhostyBoy, on 05/20/2008, -15/+21I recommend the gallows.
  • bobjohnsonmilw, on 05/20/2008, -8/+19I wish I truly had the freedom to type what I believe should be done to him.
    As one of my favorite Sopranos lines goes, "It won't be cinematic".

    Actually as to proving that he lied, which is a good point: Why can't we just waterboard the truth out of him? He authorized it.
    • mike17032, on 05/20/2008, -10/+3You have that freedom big talker, so lets see it.

      Or is we afraid of the big bad black choppers?
      • submitdig, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Those bad black choppers probably wanna kick the retarded chimp in chief down the hole to hell too.
    • Hetman, on 05/20/2008, -13/+4Please show me a document where Bush has authorized water boarding. I dislike him as much as the next guy but there is just no proof that he authorized water boarding.
  • Migito, on 05/20/2008, -15/+9This is rediculous. The main problem with Digg is NOT that a majority of the users have these insane ideas, it's the fact that they honestly, beyond a shadow of a doubt believe that most Americans, or "any thinking person" would agree with them! I wish there was a some way to filter out all the political articles for my viewing on Digg, because only 1/2 of the Democratic party gives a crap about Obama, and the other half has been so insulted and dismissed as idiots by the kool-aid-drinking side that there's ZERO chance they'll cast their vote for your "messiah" come this November. True, about 60-some-odd percent of Americans don't like the way Bush runs this nation, but you ask them if he should be put on trial for MURDER and you'll find yourself with a VERY different statistic.
    • Hetman, on 05/20/2008, -1/+6Just so you know it is pretty easy to filter out all the political news. You can customize what articles you see on digg. There is a big customize button right on top of the page.
    • Migito, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Thanks, Hetman. I'll try it out.
    • truthhurts28, on 05/20/2008, -4/+1your right,
      most of these assholes dont realize that they are only hurting themselves and their chances of seeing their "messiah" become elected whenever they open their dirty rant filled mouths. In reality, there are probably only a handful of these "great debaters" on digg. Most people probably just read the articles and move on, and try to avoid a pissing contest by commenting on their "higher intelligence".
    • sodade, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2"True, about 60-some-odd percent of Americans don't like the way Bush runs this nation, but you ask them if he should be put on trial for MURDER and you'll find yourself with a VERY different statistic."

      That's because we all remember the douchebags who had W stickers on their cars...
  • swrostmore, on 05/20/2008, -3/+28This essay was disappointingly shallow, I was hoping for some explanation of the legal basis for murder charges, when the person being charged did not actually commit the murder (as is the case with both Bush and Manson).
    • Anachronus, on 05/20/2008, -1/+5It was just a plug to get you to buy the book.
    • bxblox, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Maybe felony murder. That charge doesn't require that you did the actual killing to be charged with it. i.e. We rob a bank together and you shoot the teller, we both get charged with murder.
  • mike17032, on 05/20/2008, -19/+18Since its more huffingtonspam, its safe to assume this article is pure ***** and has very little (if any) real content. Makes it a lot easier to just bury it without having to give them ad-revenue first.
  • Pedwidget, on 05/20/2008, -22/+12Pure Libnut, DIGGIdiot, Lefty-Loon, Brainwashed Spewage.
  • HenryJonesJr, on 05/20/2008, -14/+8Bush-haters are so pathetic. Not to mention delusional. The man is leaving office soon, just be thankful for that and get on with your sad little lives.
    • jer2eydevil88, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Why insult someone based on their political values? I don't hate George Bush as a person (I think he's probably a terrific guy to hang out with) I just dislike his warmongering, bankrupting, socially conservative politics.
  • Bacontastic, on 05/20/2008, -14/+6Someone wants attention.
  • Madoc, on 05/20/2008, -2/+36Politics aside, lying is not illegal; perjury is.
    • bcamp1973, on 05/20/2008, -6/+8lying to start a war in which hundreds of thousands die is beyond illegal...
      • Mabx86, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2Since when have hundreds of thousands of people died, unless you are counting Iraqi citizens, but they would have died anyway due to all the fighting that was already taken place there and suicide bombings.
        • dillona, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Since when do only American lives count?
    • salinemist, on 05/20/2008, -2/+10Which is one of things Clinton was impeached for.
      • chicofaraby, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2How'd that work out? I forgot.
      • gypsi, on 05/20/2008, -3/+1you've been reading those republican-approved textbooks again. no wonder america's intelligence standards are in the toilet
        • phydeaux70, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1He was impeached because he knowlingly lied to the grandjury about his relationships. He was not impeached for having those relationships.

          What was that you were saying about intelligence standards??
        • sassip, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1He was impeached by Repubs because he had sex with a Woman...
    • Hetman, on 05/20/2008, -6/+2Spreading propoganda using the federal budget is a crime though. But again I do not see how you can prove that he was aware he was doing that.
    • jer2eydevil88, on 05/20/2008, -1/+9Glad someone else actually remembers why Clinton was impeached. I was afraid it was lost to the masses on Digg.
      • awtripp, on 05/20/2008, -5/+3at least Clinton went before Congress and tried to get way with it (a ***** BLOWJOB!) by lying. Bush, Cheney, Rove and all those assholes don't have the balls to even go on record; because they know what they did (starting a war under false pretenses, war profiteering, etc), and they don't care, but they sure as hell won't go on record lying about it.
        • Mabx86, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2WOW you have the ignorance to defend him and even go as far as to praise him for lying under oath. Any way to be against Bush I guess.
    • dswinscoe, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2unfortunately, you cannot commit perjury unless you're tried ... so fire up the grand jury and let's get started! Hell, I agree with the author: if consensual sex and cover-up are sufficient for grand jury proceedings, what's the hold-up already? I give him and his cronies less than a month before they perjure themselves black and blue; especially, if someone can find all those purged emails ...
      • Smuikas, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Lying to congress is considered perjury.
      • dswinscoe, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Smuikas - vague, sorry. UPDATE: unfortunately, you cannot be tried for perjury until you lie during a Congressional Grand Jury hearing (which is not a trial, per se, but instead, a secretive hearing to determine "that there exists reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or a prima facie case that a crime has been committed.") Sorry, forgot there were litigators in the room ;-)
    • generalalcazar, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Actually, lying is illegal in depending on the circumstances. It is called fraud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

      If, as it seems, Bush lied, or more accurately, intentionally misconstrued evidence in order to gain authorization to utilize the US Military for activities overseas that resulted in the deaths of thousands of US citizens, and at least tenfold that number of foreign individuals - then, yes, I would think that his actions most definitely may be classified as fraud. And if this is so, he may also be held responsible for the resulting damages to all parties from this fraud.
    • spazam2, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Yes, when the government lies to you, it's perfectly legal. However, when you lie to the government, it is illegal (perjury). Sounds real fair to me.
  • salinemist, on 05/20/2008, -14/+8Somebody call the waaaaambulance
  • stix213, on 05/20/2008, -18/+15"With respect to the position I take about the crimes of George Bush, I want to state at the outset that my motivation is not political"

    Why does everyone who is about to lie to you to promote a political agenda say they are doing it not for political reasons?

    "my political orientation is not rigid. For instance, I supported John McCain's run for the presidency in 2000. "

    So you are saying you were always against Bush, so what?

    "I mean, in America, we apparently impeach presidents for having consensual sex outside of marriage and trying to cover it up."

    Here is where your bias comes through the clearest. Clinton was impeached not because he had sex outside of marriage, but because he lied to a federal court under oath - someone writing a fair article wouldn't skip that point.

    If you believe that Bush knew there were no WMD's in Iraq and lied to go to war, you would have to also believe that Tony Blair did the same.... That Bill Clinton did the same.... That the leaders of nearly all the intelligence agencies of the world were in on Bush's big lie.
    • linda254, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1Clinton=Bush=Tony Blair.
    • veersite, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Well said.
    • thecatcantalk, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2Warrantless wiretapping is absolutely forbidden under U.S. law (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). Deliberately hiding said domestic wiretapping from the FISA review court constitutes contempt of court, and conspiracy to violate a Federal statute.

      Refusing to testify before Congress is a crime (called, appropriately enough, contempt of Congress). Therefore, for the President to explicitly order members of his staff (i.e., Harriet Myers, et al.) to refuse to testify before Congress, makes him and them guilty of conspiracy to violate a Federal statute, and conspiracy to stand in contempt of Congress, as well.

      Torturing prisoners is explicitly forbidden under U.S. law (in addition to being classified as a war crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice; U.S. military law allows for a death penalty if one is found guilty of ordering torture), as well...let's call this one (multiple counts of) conspiracy to commit a war crime under color of law, for argument's sake.

      No, he didn't "lie" to the public to get us into a war with Iraq; but he was grossly negligent of the duties of his office, and behaved with a blatant reckless disregard for the consequences of his actions, and that does constitute grounds for impeachment.

      It's one or the other; if he didn't lie (and I don't believe he did), then he's grossly unfit to command, and needs to be relieved of his duties, in the proper lawful manner laid out in our Constitution.
  • thedogfatherx, on 05/20/2008, -16/+8Well he should be persecuting every other political figure who thought saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to the United States let alone the world.

    The guy is obviously a way left liberal nut.
  • drgooch, on 05/20/2008, -14/+11you're an idiot
  • 55mph, on 05/20/2008, -24/+20Hard to believe there are so many Bush supporters posting here. Dick Cheney could show up at their house, ***** on their living room couch and they'd find a way to interpret his behavior as an honor bestowed on their humble home.

    Iraq is only half the story. 9-11 was an inside job!

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=iS2rlAoKiy4&feature=rel ...
    • jer2eydevil88, on 05/20/2008, -5/+7You really believe that an Administration which couldn't even organize the cleanup after Katrina could really have been responsible for the attack? I think its much more likely that some CIA trained terrorists who hate our country as deeply as they believe in a god did it.

      Although I do have some very fancy tin foil hats for sale if you are interested.
    • junkwheel, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2People who believe 911 was a complete inside job have a damn hard time explaining who the ***** Osama Bin Laden is. And why he went to the trouble of getting a fatwa to kill innocent American's and not just military. Also explaining the absolutely proven 19 hijackers and their backgrounds becomes difficult. Especially if you're into the no plane theory *****.
  • briansearles, on 05/20/2008, -12/+6You might as well bring charges against the American people as a whole. They wanted it, after all.
    • nycmac247, on 05/20/2008, -2/+5might want to look into that whole Florida / supreme court thing....
    • Anonchrist, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1The terrorist that this war has created and that we have given weapons to accidentally will bring the American people to justice and when they do you can only blame yourself.
  • bentman78, on 05/20/2008, -11/+5It's the leftists wet dream to bring Bush to trial for these alleged war crimes, but it will never happen.

    If he's to be brought to trial than everyone who voted for it on congress should also be guilty. However with no war crimes actually committed, it's going to be tough. And if Bush is going to be tried, you'll have to get some of the Brits, Aussies, El Salvadorians, Polish and any of the other countries that sent people there for the war. It was a badly executed way, but war crimes, that's just the hyperbole machine in full swing on this one.
  • drmangrum, on 05/20/2008, -13/+6Stopped reading when this popped up: "I want to state at the outset that my motivation is not political. Although I've been a longtime Democrat"

    *****.
    • Jan33, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1that was like the first sentence lol
      • drmangrum, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2That's the point. Anytime someone says aren't doing something for political reasons and then follows that up with saying they've been a longtime anything, they're about to spew a lot of political rhetoric.

        To me, this story ranks right up there with Jack Thompson and his GTA crusade. It's an media whore trying to get his next fix.
  • Elwayish, on 05/20/2008, -14/+4you bush haters really need to climb down off the cross you like to hang your selfs from and use the wood to build a bridge and GET OVER IT ...
    • 55mph, on 05/20/2008, -2/+9You get over it!

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=-PCr8CyG1Sg&feature=rel ...

      You have been sold out by the Globalists. They count on your national patriotic idiocy to advance their agenda. Keep up the good work azzwipe.
    • Macrophallus, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Stay in school.
    • Kune171, on 05/20/2008, -1/+5Should we forget and forgive the man who publicly, whether he lied about it or not, incited a war of aggression against an enemy who has been shown to be innocent of all the charges thrown against him?

      Should we simply "get over" the fact the thousands upon thousands of people have perished because of this man, this President who has refused and been refused punishment for his actions?

      Should we allow our President to escape and be a free man while we insist upon toppling a foreign dictator who committed the same basic crimes against humanity?
    • etx313, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2LSD is a helluva drug.
  • csm888, on 05/20/2008, -7/+16Aren't the US voters who voted him in for a second term also culpable?
    • IAmLegend24, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3So what should we do lets put Bush supports in box cars ship them to concentration camps and gas them.

      You sound like a good nazi.
    • Demener, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Most of them were fooled thoroughly. I tried to reason with a few close friends but they were all too wound up in the Republican Spin machine.

      Oh and don't forget about the rigged election process.
  • Jan33, on 05/20/2008, -5/+3You can't tell me the current white house administration is just going to step down when their term is up. I'll believe that when I see it. Nah - it just doesn't make sense to me. Why would these people run into this kind of fire, given their previous actions?
    • Hetman, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1Really you honestly believe that? I mean there are not many things that makes americans upset. But I imagine if Bush did not step down there would be some serious social uprising. Then you take into affect that the rest of the world would not be happy if this happened. And it is just easier for bush to keep his fortunes instead of going through the process of trying to take over the entire U.S government.
      • Jan33, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2From where Im standing, it looks as though they have been constructing ways to deal with some serious social uprising throughout their entire tenure in office. It's all been done veeery quietly. And kept out of the mainstream. I think they'd be ready for such an uprising. I doubt many people would do anything.
        • Hetman, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1I just do not think you can control 300 million people as easily as you would think. Then you take into effect that our army is completly volunteery and is made up of American Citiziens. It just seems a little far fetched to me.
        • Jan33, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2I see what you're saying - but the fact that two commercial planes could fly past north american air defence and embed themselves in two huge buildings, causing three to collapse seemed a little far fetched to me as well .. before it happened.

          Yeah and you're probably right, the National Guard wouldn't stand for it 1 second... unless.. wait - they're in Iraq. Hm - that would leave Blackwater, or the regular authorities, which over the last few years have been trained to view civilians in shall we say less than a humanistic light.

          Whats up with all those detention camps? Whats up with that list of 8 million citizens?
    • spongya77, on 05/20/2008, -1/+0Bush might be gone, but do you think the cronies behind the curtain will be gone, too? These bastards have been around since the '60s-'70s, pulling the strings, stirring up ***** all over the world.
  • Weaselski, on 05/20/2008, -3/+1check out his article "None Dare Call it Treason" from early 2001 (google will turn it up). it was a much more cogent "case-building" article about Bush v Gore.
  • jennicamorel, on 05/20/2008, -3/+9This news story is the first one that ever made me sick to my stomach because of Bush. Mimicking someone who's begging for her life? Isn't that something that only 3rd world nations do?
  • pershingdriver, on 05/20/2008, -11/+5You cannot impeach the President for lying to the american people no matter how hurt your liberal little heart is he was not under oath at the time and therefore no crime was commited.

    If your going to after him for Murder in Iraq there are 435 more you have to go after on capitol hill alone. After all Congress holds the purse strings and Bush could not go to war nor continue a war with out those "accomplices" . You also have to go after every civilian who paid taxes since those funds were used. How many of you liberal do gooders stopped paying taxes as part of you protests against the war. ...none .. .well then you are as guilty as Bush. Just like the person who pays a hitman is as guilty as the hitman.

    That also includes the moron who wrote the piece.

    So when are you going to get on a plane and turn youselves in to the ICC? Please do it soon
    • nycmac247, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2"...the moron who wrote the piece..."
      Do you even know his resume, even pre-Manson?

      and mayor bloomberg knows nothing about business, right?
      • pershingdriver, on 05/20/2008, -1/+0So I guess that means you agree with every thing else I wrote . thanks!
    • Anonchrist, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1You realize that you are saying that we should kill the American people for their leadership.... The American people are threatened with imprisonment if they do not pay taxes (that is not willing aid.) So, if you had any justification in that statement you would have said that we hold trials for the soldiers for actually being the ones that carried out the slaying and torture. Wait... That is ridiculous, we didn't even do that for Nazi soldiers, we put their leaders on trial. I am not anti-American. If people break the law, then they should be brought to justice. If Bush is innocent that is great. That is why people want a trial not an assassination.

      On a side note, I don't care. All of the soldiers that I know are so ***** up I do not want them on the streets anyway. I am tired of listening to their whiny "I want to go back and kill people *****." Maybe that is only the college aged soldiers, but our country would be a better place without the mentally ill killers that I know. Oh, and if you support the war than you might as well feel the same.

      Digg me down for saying the soldiers are better off at war, but maybe you should talk to some of the 18 - 24 year old returning soldiers in a casual conversation first. (My lowest rated comment ever will now get buried into obscurity.)
      • pershingdriver, on 05/20/2008, -1/+0I am saying no such thing what I am saying is that actions speak louder then words. If you are against the US being in Iraq and do nothing but talk you are a hypocrite and no one should pay any attention to you.

        Having seen combat I have no interest in seeing it ever again. So as for the whiney college age Soldiers you mention Counseling for returning war vets should be mandatory. Trust me its a lot different when you have more incoming then outgoing fire.


  • m4lomb, on 05/20/2008, -8/+6throw in all republicans too... and democrats like Spitzer.
  • anubis2night, on 05/20/2008, -7/+6Hey we invaded Iraq and took Hussein prisoner on war crimes, I say we string ol' Bush up and send him off to the United Nations to be tried and judged. He's a war criminal and a terrorist. Plain and Simple and this is from someone who once thought he might make a good president (I know what the hell was I thinking?) If he did the crimes and the evidence seems to show that he did than we as US citizens have the moral responsibility to show the world that we are not above the laws that we so righteously speak of. Someone charge him if he's guilty, send him off to be judged not only by our courts but by the UN as well. Maybe if there were consequences to these type of actions leaders would think twice before acting, and considering the power they wield I think that's a good thing...
    • dartmanx, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1The United Nations? I thought you wanted something useful to get done!
    • saigumi, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1"Hey we invaded Iraq and took Hussein prisoner on war crimes,"

      Actually, we never had the chance to try him for war crimes. His own citizens did that and hung him for it.

      Stop deluding yourself and take a little more notice in world events, please.
    • sleepbox, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1UN = Globalist piece of *****
    • randy1711, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1American Presidents have been butchering foreigners since the Unions inception. None had, have, or will ever face prosecution for it. Murder in the cause of freedom is not a sin, no matter how grotesquely large it becomes.
      So, in other words, If god is on your side there can be no murder just manifest destiny. At least that what EVERY empire has expounded.
    • rhumber, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1The UN would never convict Bush for the same reasons that it never sanctioned the Iraq war, but also never condemned it. America contributes something close to 40% of the UN's funding, and without it, it would crumble.
  • SOS84, on 05/20/2008, -5/+6I have made these same comments on many occasions. Bush is a murderer, and those who have supported him are accomplices in said murder. Bush should be thrown in front of an international tribunal like the war criminal that he is. He should have been placed in a cell alongside Saddam.
    • Hetman, on 05/20/2008, -2/+3I agree with you that if we charge bush then we should also charge he supporters IE the senate and the congress. Unfortunatly if we did that the only person who has consistently voted against the invasion and support for the war would be Ron Paul. And both Clinton, Obama, and McCain would have to be charged along side Bush as would the rest of the senate and congress who voted for the war and to continiue funding the war.
      • dartmanx, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Oh come now, Ron Paul is SO March... get with the program...
    • linda254, on 05/20/2008, -4/+2Saddam Hussein is still alive. He was not hung.

      11 master occultists, satanists, kabbalists, masons & witches (Bush, Cheney, Tenet, GWB's witch aunt, Bill Gates, Giuliani, Rice, Scwarzenegger. Silverstein, Soros, and Saddam Hussein, 33 degree mason) planned the 911 illusion and ritual of killing 3,000 in WTC and imploding the towers, no planes.

      See, September Clues on socialservice site:

      http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice

      http://www.pvi.tv/pvi/index.html

      plane broadcast of a virtual image animated on a camera shot, as virtual lines are generated on camera shot was a virtual animation.
    • rhumber, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Saddam isn't in a cell...he's dead
  • LMControl, on 05/20/2008, -3/+10Yeah... that impeachment is coming any day now.... I can feel it.
    • lunarcide, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1Kusinitch (please excuse the spelling) actually proposed impeachment to the house floor of Bush and Cheney back in November I think. It got deferred to the Judicial Committee in the House.
    • Deku, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Hmm, I would have to go ahead and say no, he won't get impeached.
  • fdfzalumni, on 05/20/2008, -4/+0who is this guy?
  • Zoshchenko, on 05/20/2008, -5/+6If Obama is elected president, his first act to unify the country should be the unilateral prosecution of the entire Bush administration...everyone from Bush to Cheney to Rice, Rumsfeld, Dean and even Tony Snow for being their lying whore. Even if we show them the mercy Bush refused 152 Texas prisoners, watching them rot in prison for the rest of their lives would be the best thing to demonstrate to the rest of the world that American still has hope of living up to its dream.
    • usingpond, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Yeah, that'll really unify the country.
    • dartmanx, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Letting the 152 prisoners rot in prison for the rest of their lives demonstrates that?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 122 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.