What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Killer Gift For A Movie Buff view!
bestbuy.com - Insignia Blu-ray player instantly streams Netflix movies right to your TV & comes with a free disc.
158 Comments
- cdlavalle, on 10/12/2007, -11/+74The point of impeachment goes beyond simply placing blame to discouraging future presidents from the same behavior.
- fancypantscz, on 10/12/2007, -16/+76The impeachment of G. W. Bush is probably the best thing our nation can do to fight against the future abuse of power by presidents of the USA. If you do not consider the abuse of power by president Bush as a problem and you do not see impeachment as an important message from the people of the USA to our future leaders then I must question your interests in our democracy.
If the Democratic party fails to bring about Impeachment proceedings, it will confirm my suspicions that the Democratic party is placing its own interests before those of the citizens they claim to represent. I have become such skeptic of our current two system because both parties apparently focus more on re-election than on good governance. I don't think I'm alone in this opinion. If our representatives miss this opportunity to impeach and in doing so clearly state, "The USA is still a democracy, representatives are still servants of the people, and we will not tolerate Presidents who mislead our great nation" then I fear the malfeasance of our future leaders. - FoxFaction, on 10/12/2007, -21/+80Bush IS the problem.
- millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -13/+64"We have far valuable more things we could be spending resources on."
You mean like all the billions wasted when the Republicans unsuccessfully investigated Clinton? - FoxFaction, on 10/12/2007, -7/+56Punishing people who actually break laws? What a novel concept.
- gareth805, on 10/12/2007, -9/+52Impeach him. If Clinton can be impeached for lying about a BJ, then Bush should certainly be impeached for knowingly pushing false intelligence on the American public to pursue an illegal war that has resulted in almost 3000 U.S. dead and upwards of 600,000 Iraqis dead.
- jwaddell, on 10/12/2007, -16/+42Start the impeachment NOW!! Aside from being just punishment, and sending a message to future presidents, there is a valuable side-benefit: Congress will be so distracted with impeachment, they will do little else, like passing stupid new laws and spending bills which strip us of liberty and money. That was the beauty of the Clinton years: so much focus on Whitewater and "that woman....Ms. Lewinsky", that nothing much else got done.
Bring on gridlock!!! - dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -13/+36"How about instead of worrying about who will be blamed we actually try solving some problems? "
So the world is watching with keen interest how the US is trying to become a democracy again and is making up for the nightmare it has dumped on the rest of the world, causing massive destabilization in the middle east and other untold atrocities, and what do some estranged, demented minorities in the US do? Ask to NOT impeach their lying mass murderer of a president. It is insane. - lopla, on 10/12/2007, -13/+28Bush should NOT be impeached. He should be arrested, tried, and executed. He deserves nothing less folks. His execution will be the nations 1st step towards true healing and rebuilding.
- airiox, on 10/12/2007, -11/+24How about these politicians start running on their own merit, rather than the blame game and pointing fingers?
Seriously, the sooner we see the end of these two parties the sooner America benefits. - snds, on 10/12/2007, -12/+24@tmm3k
"In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor.'"
So, in effect, by lying to the nation, proposing laws to undermine personal freedom of U.S.citizens (Despite how they intend to use it, or whom they intend on using it against), disregarding international law regarding torture, etc. all have caused harm on the local front as well as the international front to the United States which to most people would be considered disloyal and almost to the point of anti-USA despite his righteous cause of protecting us. His job as defined by law: "The President, according to the Constitution, must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." However, he is disregarding the laws that he is supposed to defend because he thinks that reducing or removing rights will make this nation safer when all it has done has been to scare the crap out of little christians and those who don't know better. He has caused irreparable damage to the constitution that he was assigned to uphold, and if that isn't Treason and disloyalty to ones country then I guess the lines of disloyalty have been severely blurred. Blurred enough that even the people don't know what/who is against them, even if it's their own president. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+21economy doing damn good??
why? because we borrowed a few trillion from China to keep it aloft and fund an illegal war? is it good when Executives and Politicians Salaries are growing exponentially, while minimum wage does not keep up with inflation?
the Facts of the War were a little bit off? how about Completely off - Jelfish, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16'The poll found that 53 percent agreed with the statement, "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."'
I'm no fan of Bush, but push polls are manipulative and underhanded no matter who uses them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_Polls - tmm3k, on 10/12/2007, -15/+24@dagonweb
The US is not nor has it ever been a democracy. We are a republic, also known as a representative democracy. - RTCA, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12God, I hate you people! The court of public opinion, not knowing what the ***** they're talking about, strikes again. You still believe everything that the news media puts out, and I'm appalled.
If even one of you had a clue as to what really happened, and is happening, you'd be kissing the collective asses of those in the White House and those that are still in Congress.
Yes, I noticed... Almost everyone who speaks against impeachment gets dugg down. Typical. - rcomegys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Uh, how do you figure? The next election won't take place until November 2008, after which he won't give up his office until January 2009.
As far as I can tell, that's roughly 2 years from now. - scratt, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17How about impeaching the members of the American public who voted Bush into office TWICE!
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -14/+22@tmm3k
"The article provided no feasible evidence as to why he should be impeached.
Refusing to testify is not a crime (read the 5th amendment), being associated with a criminal is not a crime ...and lying to the country is not a crime (though it is bad form) The other ones (inaction in New Orleans, Valerie Plame, wiretapping) were not his doing..."
OMG Scoot over...i wanna bury my head in the sand too!
I'm so tired of the constant tensions of REALITY!
Maybe it's time to put down the crack pipe. You're starting to sound like a real idiot! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16if everyone on Digg put as much initiative into getting Bush impeached, as they do reading about video cards, and debating the truthiness of fundamental christians, im sure we could get it done. go team!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12@tmm3k
"I'm simply saying that no one took the threat of terrorism seriously, and that's why we could have never imagined something like 9/11 happening nor could we have planned for it."
uhhhhh...dude, come out of the cave you live in, and educate yourself about the memo the Clinton Administration gave bush, which the Bush Administration did not take seriously.
"Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S."
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061029/OPINION02/610290303/1009/OPINION
"During the period in which the brief was prepared, says a senior intelligence official, the CIA came to the conclusion that al-Qaida "was determined to attack the U.S."
After the strike came, White House sources concede, the administration made a conscious decision not to disclose the August briefing, hoping that it would be discussed "in context" - and months later- when congressional investigations into the attacks eventually got under way.
And that wasn't the only embarrassing paper kept under wraps. The Associated Press reported new details from a July 2001 memo by an FBI agent in Phoenix, Ariz., who presciently noted a pattern of Arab men signing up at flight schools.
The FBI agent in charge recommended an investigation to determine whether al-Qaida operatives were training at the schools. He was ignored.
Also, I guess we can disregard the Presidential Daily Brief of Aug. 6, 2001, prepared by the intelligence agencies, titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." - schlurp, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16it will be a million Iraqi dead easily by the end of Operation Iraqi Liberation.
And on the US side you can add the probably 10,000s of Americans that have died/will die because the Bush admin used the political sentiment after 9/11 to roll environmental and product/workplace safety regulations back by decades. - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16@muramasa
"Clinton committed perjury, it's not about the blowjob. That's much more cut and dry than the Bush situation. There isn't a hope of impeaching Bush before he's out of office anyway."
Forget that stupid technicality that you were told by the corporate media owned by the republicans.
They had no business asking Clinton about a anything like BJ, or marital infidelity, etc. ...it is his personal life, and had nothing to do with the good of the country!
It was a witch hunt, based on utter nonsense. Don't fall for the bigger lie by believing what they TOLD you.
As an alternative....try THINKING for yourself.
Clinton was loved throughout the world, because of his exceedingly clever way of cutting deals with every leader in the middle east, that created a peace plan that made them all interdependent.
And he was loved throughout Latin America, again for his incredible way of relating with the leaders of all the countries.
It was so shameful that the pathetic republicans tried to destroy the man, as a prelude to stealing the white house for the bush crime family, so they could finish the destruction of the country. - tehyorkus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11If the Dems try and push for impeachment now they will lose all they have gained in the 2008 elections. The American public does not want this, they want the government to get off of it's collective asses and fix things!
If the Dems really want to be seen as the "anti-corruption" party there is something they can do that is far easier than impeachment.
1) Take a look at all of the governorships they won in this past election.
2) Look at the members of their party from those states in the House and Senate.
3) If that member has ethics issues have them resign and the governor can appoint a new member (of the same party) to the position.
If they do this now they will keep the House, the Senate AND win back the Executive in 2008. - merky1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Yeah, lets get rid of all the criminals in government... Except, who would run the place when we're done?
- musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10ALL MOONBATS THAT THINK BUSH WILL BE IMPEACHED:
I know in your middle school/high school classes you might not have gotten to this as of yet but 2/3 of the Senate (that is the one with 100 seats) must vote for impeachment to impeach a President. Even if you keep these two contested seats you will have at most 49, even if all of them vote for impeachment you also have to get the two independents and 16 Republicans to cross party lines. Sufficed to say, the next two years will not result in impeachment but most likely will result in governmental paralysis. Not to mention articles of impeachment being brought about would directly contradict what next Speaker of the House Pelosi has said over the past few months on the issue.
Digg down the truth! - portwojc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The Democrats who are coming into office claim they want to get to work. If they do this it isn't them getting to work. It will bog everything down and may not succeed much less remove him from Office.
Democrats have only two years. They need to be on the ball and do good. If they can't show real movement the margins that supported them will shift away.
I know I'll remember this come election day if all they have to show for it is impeachment proceedings. - docjeff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Impeachment does not remove an idiot from office. It merely makes that process a viability. Many people still seem to believe that impeachment == removal from office. It isn't.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14"the stock market recently reached an all-time high. real grim!"
in comparison to past growth rates, the "all time high" is a bit underwhelming. especially when its driven by an economy running on borrowed money. we will be the ones paying off the debts of the bush administration. not the baby boomers in their SUV's. Grim? nope, but our quality of life will greatly decrease in ratio to the rising one of Asia in the future. you can bet on that - onwardknave, on 10/12/2007, -14/+21Impeachment would be getting off easy. What about his war crimes?
- toomuchgreentea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@beedebo
If Bush were killed in a freak accident a year later ... well, good luck, 'cause the FBI will be all over ya. - schlurp, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12@charlie55
if you adjust the stock market for inflation and the devalued $ which tanked thanks to Bush's borrowing the stock market is down about 50% from the all-time high. - schlurp, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15I'm with lopla. In the end there will be >1million people dead because of the Bush admin lies for their personal enrichment - an impeachment that compares this to getting a blowjob would be a slap in the face of all these killed people.
And the whole government should be on trial, not just Bush. - nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12
As a republican let me just say this to the prospect of Impeachment talking place on TV every day....
PLEASE
PLEASE
PLEASE
PLEASE
PLEASE
PLEASE
....nothing else in the world could possibly expose the nutcase left like actually seeing them on TV opening their mouths...the only way the Dems won is by not saying anything or saying things that sounded conservative. Every time liberals say what they really think, then the public goes running and screaming in horror. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14haha. good thinking Lopla! impeachment is long and slow, and im going to get very impatient. We should just use his own Logic against him, and take Preemptive Action.
- tmm3k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9The Constitution (I forget which amendment) says the VP (Cheney) is next, followed by the Speaker of the House (Pelosi).
Neither of those people would be favorable, in my opinion. - False_Prophet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Your Holiness was impeached for lying under oath !
You wish to impeach Bush for keeping his? - fancypantscz, on 10/12/2007, -14/+20@tmm3k
I support the call for impeachment of the president for many reasons but most importantly because of what has happened in Iraq, what is happening in Iraq, and what will inevitably happen in Iraq. You wrongly assume my support of impeachment is based on hatred of Bush. I can see there are facts on the ground that in my mind constitute impeachable offences. The invasion of Iraq in order to decrees acts of international terrorism has been a colossal failure and will degenerate further. A majority of Americans supported war on Iraq because they felt they were under a uniquely eminent threat by Saddam Hussein and his role in international terrorism. The grounds on which Americans believed we initiated the Iraq war were clearly false.
I don't know if Bush willingly mislead the country into war. I don't know if his administration willingly mismanaged our war effort. The way I see it is that there was either willful negligence of duty or gross incompetence on part of the Bush administration that has compromised the future of America. Either way, Bush is worthy of impeachment as the head of that administration. Now, I'm no lawyer, and we my not get successful impeachment but the facts on the ground remain. And even if the president of the USA is strangely not responsible for starting the Iraq war and the resulting crises of global public confidence the facts on the ground still remain.
Maybe you don't see it but something is royally ***** up and the white house smells like *****.
Check it out: We had unprecedented international support immediately following 9/11. We continue to hold sole hyperpower status in the world and yet everyone in the US is still living in fear and to add another ironic twist, everyone outside the US now lives in fear of us! Our response to 9/11 has been one catastrophe after another. I do not believe that it is all Bush's fault because we live in a democracy and he was in fact supported by many people. In my opinion, our current crisis results from the ill informed and often ignorant global perspective of the US citizenry and their falling victim to its own propaganda. We have huge problems with private and corporate influence on government and on our media. As a result people are unable to make sound decisions about the roll of our nation in the world. Its no wonder things have gone so badly.
So why impeach Bush? Hatred? No, far from it… We need to send a signal to the rest of world that America is still a democracy for the people and by the people. We must show that Americans are still sane people, that we have solutions to the worlds problems, and we can be trusted to lead the world forward. If we fail to do this our 'interests' abroad will be seen not as spreading the ideals of our nations founding fathers but as an all but completed attempt at a global empire and world domination engineered to serve the corporate elite. At that point we will have real reason to be afraid at home in the US. Sorry, but as the head of at best an incompetent administration Bush must bare the burden of his bold actions on the international stage because they just so happened to be major *****-ups of the most inexcusable kind.
If our nation is truly great we must reclaim the moral high ground, in more than just words, through Bushes resignation. Perhaps then, with true international support we can begin to solve the crisis we have created in Iraq and set a new course for our nation; a course aimed at projecting global peace and prosperity and not global war. - addrake, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I love no matter how well articulated or thoughtful a post is..if it doesn't follow the digg mainstream opinion it's buried to the depths of obscurity.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Inaccurate: Utter ***** from whining liberals.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13"I agree he de-prioritized anti-terrorism, but so did Clinton."
Clinton isn't the president though is he? so your point is irrelevant to the current debate. why must Bush Apologists so quickly pull the Clinton card? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I was pointing out that your argument was recycled Bush Sympathizer crap thats already been refuted over and over. Hell, I can recall being worried about terrorism 20 years ago. Its absurd to claim Clinton didn't take it seriously. Its been shown time and again how he tried to get Bin Laden. He took it seriously. Bush did not. Besides, Bush still got that memo, and his staff read it, and did nothing. If he worked at my company, his ass would have been fired already.
On another note. i recall a bestselling author who wrote a not-so-fictional book back in the mid 90's about Islamic terrorists who hijack a plane and crash it into an American landmark. cant recall who it was. Maybe Tom Clancy? so the excuse that we couldn't imagine something like 9/11 just is not true. its just that the people in power, didn't want to have to do anything about it.
Clinton's Administration uncovered the modern mid-east Islamic-fundamentalist organization Al-Qaeda, and as they learned more and more about it, they certainly did begin to worry about their plans.
dont have to shut down airports. just guard tall buildings. like 110 story ones
Anyways, Bush had 8 months, He did nothing. He should be fired - zephc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Quoting the Bible and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? Insta-lose.
Also, why are all these conspiracy sites like 500 pages of unintelligible 1995 HTML? "I'm too busy being crazy to come up with a decent layout and better clipart!" - Bhima, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Or at least having them send their children to Iraq and havng them pay for this debacle.
$20,000.00 for each person, each time they voted for Bush would be fair. - RTCA, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I actually posted that to prove a point. Whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant.
- JzLosman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+54bit, you make clear and educated points, thanks for that. I absolutely enjoy when someone challenges anything I have to say, if they do it intelligently. Debate and discussion are great tools of education if done properly.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15Clinton screwed a Fatty, Bush screwed a Country
this isn't proving any point. its just good comic relief between the serious stuff - Darkside2984, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The reason the Dems will lose in 2008 is the same reason they lost in 2004, despite winning both the house and the senate, they still lack clear leadership and if Nancy Pelosi continues to dominate the media it should be a cakewalk for the Republican Party. Oh and Bush, just like every other American President, is effectually exempt from war crimes, because we are the USA and we control the world.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7ahh, just watch this video and you will learn a few things. that article was all i could find on the whim from my local paper. but im sure there are thousands on google.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fsIdAYTh4o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQvN1CP45cw
Richard Clarke was Clintons Man. so yes that memo was from Clintons Administration - schlurp, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13He went to war with the intelligence he had specifically asked for.
Aaaand, his reaction to all the warnings before 9/11 was to completely deprioritize anti-terrorism, which conveniently resulted in 9/11 - the best thing that ever happened to Bush and the oil and "defense" industry.
Extremely good luck that they got what they wanted shortly into Bush's term, eh? - tmm3k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Now if only the president actually had something to do with the economy, rather than investor's trust."
People blamed Bush when we had a bad economy. -
Show 51 - 100 of 158 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is