What is Digg?139 Comments
- vankent45, on 10/11/2007, -12/+42There is no doubt that few members of our Congress who actually studied the situation really understood the potential problems of going into Iraq. The rest fell victim to their inability to actually comprehend anything deeper than the talking heads on Fox News Channel, and they took the bait hook, line and sinker.
- spamfiltertest, on 10/11/2007, -6/+27Clinton wasn't impeached consensual affair, he was impeached for lying under oath. (perjury)
- thefirelane, on 10/11/2007, -11/+32>was a better justification than a consensual affair.
THIS WAS NOT THE REASON.
I'm not even being political, I don't care about parties, I care about people understanding history correctly.
Clinton was impeached for LYING UNDER OATH.
During a sexual harassment suit, they try to establish a 'pattern of behavior'. Clinton lied about his other activities, which constitutes an OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE for the other woman bringing the suit.
Please get it right. - ishwarchand, on 10/11/2007, -13/+32YES!!! It is amazing that while someone can get impeached for having consensual sex (I know I know, for political gain), but you dont get impeached for killing thousands on a FALSE propaganda. Bush has absolutely no concerns about what the Iraqi people really want. I know Arabic people who didnt like Saddam but say they would gladly have him than Bush. Forget impeachment, he should be tried by an international tribunal for war crimes.
- counihan3, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19A Senator calls for impeachment when he doesn't even know why Clinton was impeached that is funny. Clinton was impeached for lying about Monica, not just the affair. Can we make an amendment to the constitution that before we elect someone they have to pass a competency exam, maybe then we would have as many problems.
- robdiggity, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11@JimSpaza
God is out of the equation. As president, go ahead and have an affair. You won't get impeached. Go ahead and lie to your family. You won't get impeached. Go ahead and lie to your priest. You won't get impeached. Go ahead and lie on camera to the American people, punctuating every syllable with the pointing of your finger. I swear to god, you won't get impeached.
Now, take an oath before a Federal Grand Jury to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, AND THEN LIE. You will get impeached. I promise you.
See, it's not about morals, or God, or popular opinion, or any other stale horse *****. It's about violating the law. Do you get it yet?
And before anyone spouts off about how I am some wacky Bush supporter, get a grip. I think this current lot have violated the Constitution time and time again on an unprecedented scale, and I am nauseated by it, and I look to that same Constitution for a remedy. - LoveWidescreen, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11And what good will an impeachment do? You people need to start getting your facts straight. All that an impeachment does is specify the charges in the House of Representatives. That's it. It does nothing except put into the history books that George W. Bush was impeached. Big flipping deal.
At that point it goes onto the Senate for the actual "trial". News flash - indictment requires a two thirds majority. Right now, the Dems have a one seat (by party) majority totalling far short of the necessary 2/3 vote necessary. On top of that the Chief Justice of the USSC has to preside over the case. You know, the same Chief Justice who was nominated by the guy you people want to impeach?
What the hell good do you really think is going to happen by an impeachment and conviction? Cheney moves in, who as far as I can tell is hated even more. What then? Another impeachment? More time wasted? So, is this really to get Bush out or to get Pelosi in, the same Pelosi who wasted how much time at the start of this Congressional session with useless, symbolic resolutions that stated nothing more than what we already knew - Democrats hate Bush. Well, duh!
Bush and Cheney are out of here in 19 months anyway! What good is an impeachment going to do except to give the Bush haters a reason to say, "Yay! We got the lame duck!" Or is Digg really so blinded by Bush hatred that they are really willing to waste so much time on the fallacy that anyone has to be better than who we have now for someone who is out of here in less than two years?
For the record, I'm not a Bush lover by any chance. For starters, he betrayed the Republican party and I will never forgive him for that. But even I knew that the Clinton impeachment was a crock of sh*t. I knew it should never have happened; I knew it would go nowhere; I knew that it would do more harm than good; I knew that it was just a waste of time in order to make a useless, symbolic attack. It's a shame that some of you apparently haven't learned from history. - joper90, on 10/11/2007, -7/+15Even though he so so so deserves it.. In this corrupt world, he will never have to explain any of his lies.
Bush: They have X
three years later..
Bush: I never techinally said they had X
Other: We have a video of you saying that.
Bush: I never techinally said they had X .. repeat 100 times
Everyone: he never actually said they had X.
Thats what happens.. people get brainwashed with his propaganda (in fact i believe he used that term once) - Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -8/+15 Over questioning on his relationship with an intern which is....... *tada* None of your F'n business!!! But that was merely a poilitcal thing as the republicans couldn't get Clinton on anything political - so they went after a line of questioning that would make him either purger himself or confess to an affair...
- david76, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10Listen, if you're going to point out that Clinton was impeached you should also mention he wasn't convicted, which is the important part.
Further, if you're going to bring up the Clinton impeachment and you think it was justified because he lied (split hairs) about a consensual affair, and then stamp your feet about how he disgraced the White House, how can you DEFEND Bush and his lies which have resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis all on false pretenses? Give me a break. - ishwarchand, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11Oh yeah, thats a huge mistake. Oh wait there is the Alberto's video 'I DONT REMEMBER'. And now Bush 'I NEVER SAID THAT IRAQ HAS WMD's'. How do you ***** like that. Reality check, lies that are hurting a nation are not justifiable for impeaching a person. But killing your own people is.
- godzillaWax, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6In a world where we can't even have a successful no confidence vote on Gonzales, there is no chance in hell an impeachment will do anything other than just cost the Democrats the White House in 08.
- TheSak, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6OMG, we've got to invade Iraq, because they've got completely useless defunct WMD's from 1991! THEY'RE GOING TO KILL US, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!
(and vote Republican) - Sucat, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8@WAITING2WAKE
So its okay for people to lie under oath if its none of the publics business? I'm sure if everyone did that it would really help out our justice system. - JigoroKano, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Actually Clinton never perjured himself, but he did obstruct justice. I.e. he never made a false statement, but he strung together true statements in a very deceitful manner. He basically exploited the asymmetric definition of "sex" given. By that definition Monica had sex with Bill, but Bill did not have sex with Monica due to who was touching whom's genitals.
Clinton was impeached for a count of perjury and obstruction of justice. The votes were 45-55 for perjury and 50-50 for obstruction of justice. So that's about 5 senators who were voting according to the law. But to be fair, obstruction of justice is subjective here while perjury is clear cut. - Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4 Reports aren't debunked because you don't like what they say. Reports are debunked if the methodology is faulty - but this methodology is the same that are used for polling and are accepted throughout the world. Of course, even polling data - that historically has been exceptionally accurate - seems to fail where Bush is involved...
I am sure there is a connection, but I don't think the Bush defenders will like where that goes.. - bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Sucat, do you even remember how that investigation began? It was over WHITEWATER. Ken Starr investigated that for what 18months before they realized there was nothing there. Then they expanded it into his sexual practices. How do you spell witch hunt?
- StrangeFamous, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6@therightside:
There's no such thing as a terrorist NATION. Iraq is a nation of people. Some of them are terrorists, some are religious zealots, some are ordinary citizens who just want to be able to send their kids to school and live a quiet life.
It seems like the first line of defense for people like you is to say that "if you don't support Bush/Cheney, then you're a coward and you want to "surrender to terror". Maybe you haven't noticed, but CHENEY DOESN'T GIVE A ***** ABOUT YOU, your family or your friends. If he did, then he'd stop spending 550 BILLION dollars a year on the military, and start putting money into education and health care.
If you or others you know are in/ have been in the military, then it's even MORE important that you realize this. Cheney pledges allegiance to weapons manufacturers, which happen to be the ONLY people who EVER benefit from war. He honestly thought we'd be greeted as liberators! Obviously, the man doesn't know anything about Islamic fundamentalism or what it takes to actually succeed in winning over a nation's citizens. He's in his own little isolation chamber where every choice he makes is the right one, and there's nobody to tell him any different.
For the life of me, I can't understand why you still stand by the Bush/Cheney administration. How many *****-ups will it take before you realize that these men are KILLING this country's unity??
We've willingly submitted ourselves to the idea that "some states are red, some are blue, so pick a side and start fighting." We're playing right into the hands of those who benefit from this gap! It's so much easier to get elected when all you have to do is pander to people's insecurities. All you have to do is say that you don't think Homosexuals deserve human rights, and you've immediately won the minds of hundreds of thousands of people.
It's sickening, and you're contributing to the madness. - williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4The war was illegal from Day One.
No declaration of war. No act of war against the U.S. No proper surrender. No authorization behind the occupation. No ***** wonder it turned into a *****. - Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Islanddog
WHAT? A liberal lie? Is that like the well known liberal bias of reality?
Are you saying that that whole Iran Contra, Iran/Iraq war wasn't funded by the US? Because, I think there is a few hundred hours of television court proceeding's that declare you are wrong - at best, and knowingly lying at worst.
The facts are that the US supplied most of the middle east(and still does) with arms. - veganoob, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4throw the bums out
- blaze4metal, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10Please impeach Cheney, too. The thought of him becoming president scares the ***** out of me. Bush is just a puppet and maybe the world's most powerful fall guy if anything ever hits the fan (ahem, Iraq?).
- ecorona, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3You know, asshats like W are going to keep getting elected as long as kids don't receive a real education right? It's retarded that all schools don't receive the same funds. The kids are essentially being punished for their parents being poor. Then we need these kids to vote intelligently as adults. There are schools deciding what to do with excess funds (like buying students laptops) while others don't have enough money for out of date textbooks.
Keeping kids dumb does make for an easy to manipulate public. - chukd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Pull your head out of your arse's. Clinton was impeached for not being honest while testifying under oath. This is the same basic thing as Scooter Libby. It is undermining one of the basic principles of the US Justice system.
If you want to impeach Bush, it should be under the wire taps and Habeas Corpus situation. These are things that violate our basic freedoms. In these cases, Bush broke the law and our civil liberties. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"Anyone who uses this number to represent the number of Iraqi's killed by U.S. warfare has no credibility."
Hey, I'm sure that you right wingers don't like this number. But simply calling it wrong doesn't mean it's wrong. Let us know when a scientific study refutes it.
Until then, it is the only science existing that counts the number of deaths caused by George Bush's illegal war. - jakenovak, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Yes, because all Republicans know how to lie under oath... and only Republicans. There isn't a single Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Greener, Dixiecrat, Nazi, Federalist, etc. who knows how to lie under oath.. because they have to be Republican.
*Rolls eyes*. - Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8SUCAt
So, we'll get you on the stand over a parking ticket and then proceed to ask you if you masturbate? If you masturbate over pictures of Bob Dole?
Or, maybe, we can be adults about it and call a hit-job a hit-job. BTW - I find it almost humourous how many that cry about Clinton's lies on the stand over a line of questioning that didn't effect the running of the nations business - have no problems forgetting the endless line of lies from this Admin... - dfuess, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5monsterchaos "At least Clinton had enough balls to stand up and say something."
Well, perhaps after he got them back from Monica.
I am not opposed to impeachment given sufficient grounds. But what drives me up the wall is the continual and deliberate misstatement of why Clinton was impeached. Had he had a lawyer he would probably have been told to keep his balls in his pants and his mouth shut. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10@jcm267
Do you really think lying under oath about a sexual affair is worse than misleading the world, starting a war with Iraq, and costing thousands of lives and millions of livelihoods? If so you have some very sick ***** up morals and ethics.
Let’s not rewrite history will Republican lies. President Clinton was under oath for questions about Whitewater, not sex with ML. Asking President Clinton if he had an affair; years after Whitewater, was out of place and should never have been allowed.
Whitewater was a sham that the Republicans made up and when failed to prove any wrong doings, only then did they sneak in the question about this great President’s personal life. - Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@William
Very true.. so what are you against? Against the Dem's because they went with the Repub's? Or are you made at the Democrats because they lied - as did the republicans? Or are you angry because the Democrats pork barrel their politics as do the republicans?
See the bottom line is that it doesn't matter who is in power - they are all crooks. However! Right at this moment the crooks in office happen to be republicans, and therefor a lot of the anger is directed at them. Sadly, this only helps create the partisan politics that keep the broken system up and running.. - oldman, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7The charge of lying under oath appears to be a remarkable red herring. Scooter lied, and all the Republicons, and right wing pundits are all up in arms, demanding a pardon for him. Poor poor scooter was just defending his boss (Just like a blow job if you ask me)
NO PARDON, HANG the Mother! - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -9/+12I think Lewinsky was brought in as part of Paula Jones's sexual harassment case... Why is it that you bleeding heart liberals, who made up this law, all of a sudden think it's something that shouldn't be taken the slightest bit seriously?
ishwarchand:
I don't really know if your quote is for real, and I don't really know if my memory is correct, but didn't Bush say we were going to war because Saddam was going to develop WMDs? Didn't the intelligence say that he already had anthrax? If he had mobile weapons labs, why are we so naive as to think that Saddam wasn't smart enough to have someone drive them to a neighboring country (like Syria...)? - Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Mu99ins
I don't digg down people, but if I have a strong reaction to their post, I'd rather leave a post to question. So, my comment...
"What's not understood by those who are pitted against Bush no matter what,
and those who see the Iraq conflict as being identical to Vietnam, is that the
struggle to establish a democracy in Iraq, though costly, is the correct strategy
if the West is to oppose the take over of the Middle East by the terrorists."
- OK, firstly - people are not against bush for any reason. There are very definate reasons, that were stated prior to him ignoring them and the world and starting this whole mess. It is similar to vietnam as it is to do something milartiry that can not be done militarily. Quite apart from that - please define for me a "terrorist" - when you can do that, without the definition also encompassing what America(and many other countries do as well), then we can talk - until that time "Terrorists" should be read as "boogey man".
"The choice is there, do we oppose the terrorist's grab for power in the Middle
East or not?"
- With us or against us? And whom are these "terrorists" you speak of?
" And in the deck of cards is nuclear armament in the hands of
the terroirists. We could trust the Soviets and the Chinese, but how much
trust can we have for religious fanatics of the most extreme kind?"
- I am not sure - I am still trying to get a definition of who the "terrorists" are. - Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Of course the problem is how it looks. To you, the average American, you'll say suck it up and deal. I understand that feeling. However, what about those within the next year that will die? They aren't going to be able "to just deal", and they are going to be looking for blood - ideally Bush blood, but failing him those that allowed him may be a subsitute.
So, what then? Those that have had their families destroyed, will want their ounce of blood. They will try and get pay back, and that may result in an attack that affects/effects Americans - possibly on American soil.
So, what then? Will you accept responsibility for it? Will you see, and draw the connection, between allowing Bush to finish his term because it is too much of a bother, and dead/injured Americans? Or will you rail against those towel heads attacking you for no reason?
If the worst case is realized - will you in turn, tell those Americans mourning their ruined families that they "should just suck it up and deal"?
Action - Reaction. Cause - Effect.
- david76, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7@jcm267
I don't know about you, but I'll go with the sources, like David Kay, Cheif Weapon's Inspector with UNSCOM, who said they had no active program and they had no weapons, than with sources like "Curveball" who said there were mobile weapons labs. The Bush Administration actively cherry picked intelligence to suit their case. Fortunately, Clinton had the presence of mind to not invade, where as Bush didn't.
Oh, and regarding the number of deaths, I'm sure the families of those 3500 are glad that you say "We've only lost 3,500". I guess the 10s of thousands of Iraqi deaths don't concern you. - netjd, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Finally!! A post that is well thought out, informative, and not so dripping with bias.... there is intelligent life on Digg!
Does anybody ever wonder what Clinton may have achieved had he not had to deal and waste time with the witch hunt? (For good or bad?) Inquiring minds would like to know. - TheSak, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4They didn't "vote for the war," knucklehead, they authorized the use of force, because they were naive enough to think Bush would use that authorization diplomatically to actually *finish* the weapons inspection, rather than marching us headlong into this trainwreck of a war.
- iith096, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Enough already. Impeach him and lets move on with our lives......
- uberfu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Impeach him and then sentence him also_
Seeing as how Clinton was impeached but got No Repremand for his actions_
People need to also understand that impeachment merely means to bring charges against the President [or other government official] Not that they are found guilty and are being charged and sentenced with anything_ - ishwarchand, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Excellent post. True I am a huge Bush hater, but I never put things in that prospective. Thanks
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6ishwarchand
I guess I am an insenstive *****, but this is a war. How many innocent Muslims have been killed by other Muslims vs killed by us? I said it's a cakewalk because we're WINNING this war if you go by the numbers. Two guys from my high school class have actually been lost because of this war, do you think it's fair to them if we just pull out now before leaving Iraq secure?
david76
The wikipedia tells me that David Kay was the chief weapons inspector from 1991 until 1992. He went into the private sector for a while and then was reassigned in 2002 as an advisor on Iraq's WMD programs. In September 2002, Kay told U.S. News & World Report that “Iraq stands in clear violation of international orders to rid itself of these weapons.” It sounds like he was on board, too. Clinton had the piece of mind to bomb Iraq, if his pollsters thought invading wasn't a bad idea he would've sent our troops in. - StrangeFamous, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6@JimSpaza:
You seem to be a tad full of yourself.
The use of words like hegemony means absolutely nothing when it comes to reporting the news. Fox News does not report the news. Fox News sensationalizes trivial matters for the purpose of influencing people's political beliefs. They distract their viewers from the real issues by focusing on hot-button topics that have no relevance to current events. They prey on the fears of the everyday citizen, which is part of the reason why this country is such a tense, xenophobic hotbed of resentment and paranoia. Fox News is an international symbol of what it means to NOT be fair and balanced, contrary to all the "Fair, unbalanced coverage" graphics that they spew out constantly. They represent the worst kind of journalism.
CNN isn't all that great either, and is stuck in a rut in much the same way. This is why the younger generations get their news from Comedy Central, Digg and UK news sites like the Guardian. They see through the ***** because they were BORN into the *****. They've grown up in a disposable culture that treats people like statistical wallets. Thankfully, most people are smart enough to catch on to the deception. It all depends on whether or not they decide to care about it.
We live in one of the greatest countries in the world, but as prisoners of our own TV sets. We allow pundits to be our sources of information about the outside world, instead of going out ourselves to discover what it's really like.
We still have access to solid, objective reporting on stories that have real importance to the future of this "democracy" we're supposed to be living. Unfortunately, most of the country doesn't really care. Instead of remembering to vote, we're focused on getting rich, staying in fashion and getting laid. Hey, that's fine if you don't give a ***** about the future. Unfortunately, our kids and grandkids will be the ones who truly inherit the ***** of a government/environment we leave behind. Too bad for them, huh? - david76, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@jcm267
Sorry, I must have been thinking of the wrong weapon's inspector. Blix was in charge of the investigation prior to the 2003 invasion.
--- From CNN.COM
"I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.
Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
"I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.
Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to CNN from IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria.
ElBaradei said he had been "pretty convinced" that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA dismantled in 1997.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/ - CourtesyFlush, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3If a person is on the stand in the middle of a sexual misconduct case, lying about sexual history and infidelity is bad.
What the action committee is actually trying to tell us all here is that it's OK to lie under oath if you have a reason of which they approve.
They think they should be the judges of what is a proper lie in court and what is not. The problem is.....there is no gray area about lying in court. A lie is a lie for any reason. Dishonesty is dishonesty for any reason.
Lying for some, honesty for everyone else! - Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5 @islanddog,
Absolutely right. It is amazing, kill over a half a million people over lies and suddenly everyone thinks your a lier! I mean really? - senorsam21, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Canada? But it's so cold there. I'd go with Panama or maybe Northern Australia.
- bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Do any of your Bush defenders remember how it went in 2002?
Bush: let our weapons inspectors in everywhere or we invade
Saddam: OK
Bush: that's not good enough, i am pulling the weapons inspectors out, and invading
Bush: We know where the weapons are
Weapons inspectors: Ok, tell us, and we'll go investigate
Bush: no, get out of the country, we're invading. - jakenovak, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Bob Graham? You mean the guy who gave up that job trying to run in the 2004 election? The guy who, after buying the Miami Lakes area while already in Congress, took the area and lobbied for eminent domain to build condos on the property, to gain millions in dollars for himself? The guy who claimed that the US government gave money to a foreign country, which used that money to hire Al-Qaeda, to perform 9/11? That guy? Oh, he's a great role model.
Why do we post articles of former politicians trying to boost their public image? - kwebb12, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Where have I heard a crazy man claiming something was his that really isn't again.... oh yea... that Irishman in Braveheart - "It's MY island!"
His quote of "My government" just disgusted me. Little by little he's turning 'our' government into a dictatorship.
http://digg.com/politics/George_W_Bush_Declares_Himself_Dictator_During_A_Catastrophic_Emergency
National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51 puts the President in charge of ensuring constitutional government for all three branches of government in the case of a catastrophic emergency. This effectively makes the President a dictator. The directive itself is unconstitutional and ensures constitutional government wouldn't exist. - senorsam21, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Without a single discovery of WMDs? http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mariani/2004/mariani052804.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 -
Show 51 - 100 of 134 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is