digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Former Senate Intel Chair Suggests Impeaching Bush

thinkprogress.org — Former Sen. Bob Graham floated the idea of impeaching Bush in July 2003, arguing that going to war under false pretenses was a better justification than a consensual affair. In a recent interview, he said his impeachment remark “was a truthful statement at the time and it’s even more truthful today.”

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 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.
    • DrDragun, on 10/11/2007, -10/+9Poor Colin Powell
    • 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.
    • godzillaWax, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3Your mistake is in thinking that Congress was worried with fact more than political capital. Christ, look how many presidential candidates we have this year? Choosing to vote against Bush was a gamble - what if he's right? What if this war is a blazing success and is necessary? If they were on the wrong side of that, they're ambitions of higher office were over.

      The few that did gamble (and gamble big, as far as Washington goes) and actually voted against the war have all the credibility of someone who said they were right and were proven to be right. The problem is, most people don't seem to care.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • ishwarchand, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4@thefirelane
      I am not saying what Clinton did was right or not. What I am trying to say is that even though it is agreed that his actions of not allowing women to bring up their cases is wrong, would you rather have that guy as your president or one that is bent on getting his plans worked out, irrespective of how much his policies are opposed.
    • therightside, on 10/11/2007, -13/+8No one is getting impeached or tried for war crimes.

      You Saddam supporters are a joke. He killed over 300k verified and you say he is better than Bush. Maybe you would think differently if it was your family killed or your wife and daughters in the rape rooms and torture chambers.
    • kethraal, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6"Maybe you would think differently if it was your family killed or your wife and daughters in the rape rooms and torture chambers."

      Maybe. But as it stands, he didn't, thus making the parent a less biased observer. So far, more Iraqi citizens have died under American occupation than did under the previous 5 years of Saddam's rule -- the US government's statistics even support this.
    • bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Can we take out Cheney first please. I'm mean common, if we impeach W, we had the keys to Cheney, and that, scares me.

      Hey JimSpaza, who wouldn't lie about an affair. How many times did Newt lie about his affair while impeaching Clinton?
    • 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.
    • 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!
    • 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.
    • bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Are you questioning my ethics? Did I ever say I had an affair, or would? Obviously, you don't know ***** about me. I was arguing on the case at hand, and not making sly underhanded bs attacks on people.

      Fact is, people lie about having an affair. How long did it take Newt to be honest about his? 10 years. Yes he was having an affair while presiding over these hearings, that is a fact he admitted too. It shows just how much of a farce trying to impeach Clinton over lieing about an affair was. Yes he did actually break the law, in lieing about it, but the question is, is it relevant? Have you ever heard of Jury Nullification? In principle, that is what happened, Congress said, yeah, he lied under oath, but it was about something so trivial, you are wasting the taxpayers time and money.

      Lieing about acts of war is a whole different ball of wax.
    • 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.
    • godzillaWax, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1How am I getting digged down? You people are ***** idiots.
    • rr12, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@godzillawax

      I'm with you. Many who supported the war were doing so for political reasons; not because they didn't understand. They were afraid of being labeled "unpatriotic" or "weak on terrorism" etc, etc.
  • Charginmahlazer, on 10/11/2007, -11/+2LOL @ Fox New Channel.
    • fwedwic, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2JimSpaza-
      dude are u actually supporting fox news?!
      ya its pretty much the best place ever to find factual and unbiased information... /sarcasm
      what a joke!
    • 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?
    • Bdog2g2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@fwedwic

      If Fox News was a person I'm sure Jim would ***** it. He also managed to rack up an impressive amount of negative diggs last count (-1068 diggss).

      http://digg.com/offbeat_news/If_Fox_News_Had_Existed_Throughout_History_PICS
  • 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)

    • godzillaWax, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5"Thats what happens.. people get brainwashed with his propaganda (in fact i believe he used that term once)"

      No, they get numb from hearing something a million times that they're powerless to change.
  • 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?).
    • therightside, on 10/11/2007, -12/+6sorry cry baby no one is getting impeached. just because you sissys are too scared too do anything to protect our country doesnt mean that there arent people that are still willing to stand up to terrorist nations
    • digghasnoethics, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5You need to simultaneously impeach and imprison just about all of the white house and its appointees. Everyone connected with the Iran attack, everyone connected with the torture, everyone connected with the spying, everyone connected with the falsifying and lying.

      It goes like this: show contrition and the realisation you were wrong to give these people power and you will be regrow some credibility, with terrorism against you lasting, maybe, a decade.

      Fail to do so, brush it under the carpet and forget, even let these same types contest further elections and you will remain beyond civilised acceptance and the terrorism WILL NEVER STOP.

      At the moment you need to avoid the level of pent up hostility that will result in a nuke turning up in one of your ports. Conviction of the guilty is the only way you can release the pressure valve.
    • 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.
    • ChronicColonic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Let's do it! Let's impeach Bush!

      http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/05/24/lets-do-it-lets-impeach-bush/
  • jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -14/+13These people who say that Clinton got impeached over a consentual affair are ***** morons, or just outright liars, and just need to shut the ***** up already
    • HamiltonFamily, 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.
    • jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7Well actually he was under oath in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. This Lewinsky thing was very relevant.... This had nothing to do with Whitewater.

      There is no proof that Bush committed a crime. There is proof that Clinton did.
    • HamiltonFamily, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Let me rephrase this please.

      From Wiki:

      "The charges arose from an investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Originally dealing with the failed land deal years earlier known as Whitewater, Starr, with the approval of Attorney General Janet Reno, expanded his investigation into Clinton's conduct during the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former Arkansas government employee, Paula Jones."

      EXPANDED would be a good key word.

      Regardless of how this story is told it is nowhere as bad as anything that Bush has done while in office.
  • spamfiltertest, on 10/11/2007, -6/+27Clinton wasn't impeached consensual affair, he was impeached for lying under oath. (perjury)
    • 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...

    • 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.
    • jcm267, 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...)?
    • ishwarchand, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7Edit to the last post
      'lies that are NOT hurting a nation are not justifiable for impeaching a person'
    • 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.
    • jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -8/+6I defend Bush because I don't think he lied when he said that Saddam was an immediate threat who was trying to obtain WMDs. Clinton felt the same way about Bush in 1998 when he gave his televised address to the nation about Operation Desert Fox, and he felt the same way in 2003 when we were about to invade. As a former President, he had access to the intelligence. What Bush was saying in 2003 and what Clinton was saying in 1998 was pretty damn similar. I think the real problem is that Bush didn't plan for the occupation, but even then when you look at previous wars this one is a cakewalk. We've only lost 3,500, compare that to some of the other wars our country has gotten into.

      Clinton wasn't convicted because enough Republicans had the sense to avert a constitutional crisis (and well, the Democrats had the majority anyways), and maybe some of them were concerned about giving Al Gore the incumbancy for the 2000 election.
    • ishwarchand, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6@jcm267
      You did not just ***** say that this war is a cakewalk because only 3500 people lost their lives. Dude I dont know where you are from but where I live we value life and not think of people in term of was casualties or collateral damage. and just a fact for you, 3500 is the number of AMERICANS that have died. You are an insensitive ***** also since you obviously dont think that the Iraqi casualties dont count for much, cos they are just Muslims, isent it.
    • 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.
    • jcm267, 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.
    • bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Meanwhile Newt Gringrich was sitting there looking all smug, because he was having an affair too.
    • 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.
    • crimson117, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@spamfiltertest "Clinton wasn't impeached consensual affair, he was impeached for lying under oath. (perjury)"

      I dug you up because you're correct, but the only thing he lied about was that consensual affair. He may as well have been impeached for lying about what he had for breakfast that morning.

      If lying about a consensual affair is an impeachable offense, then surely lying about justification for war is, too.
    • 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/
    • macfan76, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1How dare you not repeat the democrat mantra of a "vast right wing conspiracy"??? It was for perjury people, not for getting head by a fatty in the oval office!
    • bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Can't handle the facts, so you dig them down? My overly simple summaries of conversations are dead on accurate.
  • Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4 Of course, it won't matter. The American politicians will continue to screw the American people, because the American people are not worthy of worry... No one will do anything to them, so there is no reason for them to stop.


    Sorry - but if any of you were worth 10% of what you have claimed through history this couldn't have happened. The politicians and powers that be, dangled bright shiny objects in front of you and in return you have sold not only yourself, not only your country, but your children and grandchildren as well. At least until some grow a set and decide to be fight for themself's, their family and their country - all have been sold.

    • sponeil, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1@waiting2awake

      That first paragraph was useless, but that second paragraph was priceless. America will remain f'ed up until people stop voting for short-sighted selfishness and start nailing politicians to the wall for selling their children and grandchildren down the river (via national government debt, state government debt, city government debt, etc.)

      Just one of many very good examples of this:
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18396534/
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1@Sponeil

      Thanks for the response. I tend to come off as "anti-american", which isn't true. I love American's - the people. Every time I have been to the States I have been treated well and had some awesome times. Love my American brothers.

      That said though, I am horribly disappointed in all of you. You have been given the golden chance of having(at one point in time) the most free and open society. Where truly the will of the people were paramount. However, times have changed and that once free society is now a parasite on the world.

      The powers that be, those that held down humanity in chains of slavery because - as they claimed - the masses were unable to govern themselves. For a time, America was proof positive that those people were wrong - the masses when left to tehir own devices are completely capable for self-governship. Yet today, if we are to be honest with ourself's, the reverse seems true. Which is why I get angry about it.

      What took hundreds of years, and millions of lives, for the average person to fight for a "free" society, has been swept away because of what? Paris Hilton? American Idol? Tabloid TV and Jerry Springer.....

      How is a human not supposed to be angry at Americans knowing we are now looking at having to regain, refight for, what America has willingly gave up?

  • LooseCannon1, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7Of course, if our previous president had actually been impeached for having a consensual affair, this argument might better sense. But he wasn't. Why do leftist liberals have a hard time comprehending PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? Some of them are lawyers, so you'd think they would comprehend this, but they don't.

    Or perhaps they are playing to their base, some of who can't comprehend how to use a butterfly ballot correctly. That would explain the comparison to the consensual affair.
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6 reposted from above... just because this tripe has to stop..


      *in regards to the purjury thing*

      Over questioning on his relationship with an intern which is....... *tada* None of your F'n business!!! But that was merely a political 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...
    • 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.
    • 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...

    • Sucat, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3@WAITING2WAKE

      Yes and No. Also a judge wouldn't allow that question to be asked over a parking ticket.

      Wasn't he on trial over a case that involved sexual harrassment? So his sexual life was on trial and they were asking questions about it. The trial wasn't about "the running of the nations business."

      If my masturbation history was on trial you could ask me what I masturbate about (which is not Bob Dole but Elizabeth Dole)
    • 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, -2/+1@sucat

      Really? I never saw Liz Dole, is she doable? ;-) I wonder if she talks in the third person like Bob did? *thinks: mmmm "lizabeth Dole is getting hot, Liz Dole is taking off her closthes..Liz dole is being penetrated...*

      You may be right, I was under the impression that the Lewinsky thing came out during the trails over the land deal or the lawyering scandal. That said, it is hard to keep up with all the presidential scandals.



    • 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?
  • GruntboyX, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2The Senate Intelligence commitie chairmen ..............

    I was like what the hell does computers have to do with impeachment?
  • MonsterChaOS, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4Yes, we know he was impeached for perjury. I guess he should have just kept saying :"I don't recall remembering that" or just claim executive privilege. At least Clinton had enough balls to stand up and say something.
  • 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.
    • HamiltonFamily, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3This failure of the no confidence vote on Gonzales shows that despite republicans claiming to not support Bush and the war is a big crock of *****. The republicans are still a tight knit group that can do no wrong.

      I had a discussion with a republican die hard the first year Bush was running and do you know what he told me? He said that having a republican that would run this country into the ground, start wars and ruin the economy would be preferred over a democrat president that would allow the U.S to prosper and keep peace in the world. He got what he wanted.
  • 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.
  • 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.
    • 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.
    • ishwarchand, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Excellent post. True I am a huge Bush hater, but I never put things in that prospective. Thanks
    • rr12, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I don't know. I think the impeachment of Clinton probably put Bush in office. In the current scenario, however, an attempted impeachment probably would hurt the democrats.
  • techytim, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If he get's impeached i'll give a $1 to every single Digg user.
    I'm that sure he won't, we get so many people her in the U.K saying there going to file a law suit against Blair for the Iraq war, it never comes to anything, never does.
    Even had top lawyers in the newspapers saying they are going to make sure he's behind bars if it's the last thing they do. Won't happen, can you imagine how long the trial would last?
  • spartyzik, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1So, the senator's statement was less true before?
  • chicofaraby, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3Impeachment is not enough. After the GOP impeached Bill Clinton for lying about consensual sex, impeachment means nothing. It is merely political. George Bush and his band of criminals need to be indicted in a criminal case. Torture, murder, war crimes, domestic spying, fraud, there are several crimes from which to choose. These people need to serve hard time. Simply removing them from office is not enough.
  • hasslinthehoff, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1We got exactly what we deserve... a pointless conflict that diverted our money and resources away from the real threat by getting suckered by a myopic privileged rich businessman who should no more be leading a country than running an ice cream stand. Impeaching him would only serve to spend millions of dollars that could go to making sure that the vermin and mold at Walter Reed doesn't get out of control. We're in this situation, and we should at least try to come up with half-decent plan to get out of it. I don't know who I'm madder at... us, for going along with it like the cattle we are, or Congress, for turning in their spines when they should have been acting like they had a scrap of budgetary authority.

    America... can-do attitude, no-brain approach.
  • Gblaze42, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Considering that the President doesn't have the power to declare war, only Congress does. Impeaching Bush would be foolish, this obviously has another agenda, and jumping on the tired bandwagon of Bush bashing is just one of them.
    • williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Bush went to war once without a declaration of war. He, and the Israelis would do ANYTHING, including staging the nuking of a US city, to get us into war with Iran. Impeaching him NOW is the best thing we can do to make ourselves safer.
    • bonhoeffer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Bush went to war on the authority of a Congressional war resolution.
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2 Not saying you are wrong.. but maybe someone could find this congressional support for "war"?

  • psyjoniz, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2why the government isn't controlled by a realtime network of public vocalization is beyond me. the internet is right here. use it.
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2 Thats way they are afraid of the net. It gives the power to the masses, which is obviously exceptionally bad for them.
  • techytim, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0I'll raise my offer to $10 per digg user
  • ronin691, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4"...arguing that going to war under false pretenses was a better justification than a consensual affair." Correct. And do not forget that more than 30,000 men, women and children ( Iraqis, Americans, everyone ) are dead as a result of the war in Iraq. Getting a blow job in the oval office didn't cause any deaths.
    • williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13700+ US soldiers

      600,000+ anonymous brown people who don't go to a Christian church

      An unknown number of mercenaries

      And counting...
  • americanforest, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2If Washington decides to invade Iran I swear I'm moving to Canada.
    • senorsam21, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Canada? But it's so cold there. I'd go with Panama or maybe Northern Australia.
    • williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Dubai has better tax laws. Or go for perpetual traveler status. You can write code anywhere.
  • Kewlduderules, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Correction 650,000 Iraqis have died since the beginning of the Iraq War according to a John Hopkins and British Journal study.

    Bush is a god damn war criminal!!! He lied and manipulated the American public so he can set his agenda in the Middle East. Wake up people quit being sheep!!! You have former administration officials including Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (look it up) admitting to the power of big money influencing the decision to go to war.

    And Bill Clinton being impeached for a blow job- that is really pathetic!!! At most he should have been censured. that's all.

    W has killed nearly a million people if you include 9/11, the conflicts in Afghanistan, and Iraq.

    Send him to the Hague!!!


    • bonhoeffer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Enough with this ridiculous 650,000 Iraqi war dead claim, already! The reported, known Iraqi deaths due to bombs, bullets, etc., is 65,000 - 72,000. This includes those killed by Iraqi bombs and bullets.

      The "study" that produced the 650K number is a wild-ass extrapolation of a "survey" done by medical school staff at Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad! Anyone who uses this number to represent the number of Iraqi's killed by U.S. warfare has no credibility.
    • chicofaraby, 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.
    • bonhoeffer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Do any study you like on the facts. The facts, every hostile event resulting in deaths, listed by date and number of fatalities, can be found on an on-line.

      But don't use a number from cluster sampling by non-professionals which is extrapolated by an untested formula over population and time, as if it is related to reality. Even the "study" that created the 650K number says 600K of those died from health and environmental circumstances supposedly brought about by the war. Scientific study? LOL!!
  • kwebb12, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4It shocks me to see that we still have a President in term that goes to war on unsatisfied claims. Where's the vote of no-confidence? It's been how many years now without a single discovery of WMDs? Didn't he just recently go on a veto spree?

    If anyone watched The Daily Show last night you also heard how he called the Government of the American people... "my Government". Sh-yea, I don't think so pal.
    • 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
    • senorsam21, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html

      http://brutus1964.blogspot.com/2006/06/report-hundreds-of-wmds-found-in-iraq.html
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3 No doubt with complete bills of sale when tehy were bought from......errr......nothing to see here folks, nothing to see just some reciepts signed by Rummy and Cheney....errrr.... I mean, nothing, nothing at all to see...
    • IslandDog, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2"If anyone watched The Daily Show last night you also heard how he called the Government of the American people... "my Government". Sh-yea, I don't think so pal."

      Ah yes, the Daily Show, the liberals source for news. The fact is there is no proof Bush intentionally lied or misled anyone, investigations have backed this up. But once again liberals think trials and proof are only needed for terrorists, and not anyone else.
    • IslandDog, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1"No doubt with complete bills of sale when tehy were bought from......errr......nothing to see here folks, nothing to see just some reciepts signed by Rummy and Cheney....errrr.... I mean, nothing, nothing at all to see..."

      Ah yes, the other liberal lie that we sold Iraq WMD's.
    • Gblaze42, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0It's interesting to see that the Liberal press doesn't hype these little known facts.
    • 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.
    • 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)
    • Pfhreak, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1"Ah yes, the Daily Show, the liberals source for news."

      I am so sick of this lie. Anybody who honestly believes that people use The Daily Show, which openly and repeatedly refers to itself as a FAKE news show, as a news source needs to have their head examined. TDS is not a source for news, it is a source for laughter. The vast majority of the viewers get their news from elsewhere, and then go to TDS to laugh about the things they just found out about in the news.
    • bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/4159.html
      It's no joke: IU study finds The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to be as substantive as network news
    • bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1As a big fan of Jon Stewart, I truely believe he overplayed that line, and bush meant that as his administration. I would at least like to think that, otherwise, he really does need to be hung for treason.
  • Palquito, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath. He lied about having an affair.

    Bush has never lied under oath for the simple reason that he has never been under oath. The government has been Republican all the time he was President until January 2007 (and a brief Senate changeover back in his first term). Frankly, no one has had the power or the political will to place Bush under oath. Certainly, a corrupt former White House lawyer like our current Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, would NEVER appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate the "exaggerations" and "intelligence failures" that led to the Iraq invasion as Janet Reno appointed Fiske (who was later replaced by the famous Ken Starr). Even the special prosecutor that investigated Scooter Libby was appointed, not by Ashcroft, certainly not by Gonzales, but by deputy AG Comey after Ashcroft was forced to recuse himself. Yes, that whole investigation only occurred because during a gap between official Bush-appointed Attorney Generals a deputy with an actual shred of integrity held the position briefly.

    In all fairness, putting Bush, Cheney, etc. under oath would likely be pointless. Republicans know the art of lying under oath, and have since Reagan. You just say "I don't recall" and "I'm not sure" over and over again. See Alberto Gonzales' performance before congress a few months ago as an example. The beauty of this approach is that, while everyone KNOWS you're lying, they usually can't prove that you don't remember. They are left to guess whether you're a complete incompetent, a consummate prevaricator, or both, but they can't prove one way or another, so you're safe from a perjury charge.
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2 Not sure why you are being dugg down.....

      actually check that - I know exactly way you are being dug down. It's just said to see.

    • 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, -3/+1@Jake,

      Nope they all do know how to lie. It is just that their lies haven't cost 600 000+ lives. Their lies haven't resulted in 3000 + American deaths. Their lies haven't put you under wiretaps, or opened secret prisons, or allowed torture in your name.

      How is this difference not obvious?

    • Palquito, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Jake:

      I stand by my original statement. Of course, just about anyone who has been caught doing something illegal or immoral lies about it under oath in order to avoid the consequences. Their usual mistake is to come up with an alibi, explanation, etc. that seems plausible, makes them seem honorable, or otherwise puts them in a good light. Republicans, on the other hand, really seem to have adopted (yes, more than other political groups) the policy that looking incompetent is better than making a statement that can be shown to be demonstrably false. Thus the "I don't remember" strategy.
    • moin1097, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Still throwing out that debunked lancet report? You lose any credibility when you use that as your post leader.
      Time to wake already.
    • 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..

    • williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@waiting

      Yeah. I mean, we can TRUST the Democrats. That's why they set a deadline to end the war, like they were elected to do.

      Oh... wait... they turned into pussies and signed up for ANOTHER ***** $100 BILLION DOLLARS for war. Yeah, that's striking a blow for peace. Uh huh.
    • 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..

    • rr12, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Bush has never lied under oath for the simple reason that he has never been under oath."

      Here is the text of his biggest lie: "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies..."

  • 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?
    • IslandDog, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3"
      Why do we post articles of former politicians trying to boost their public image?"

      Because it's against Bush, and that is all you need to make front page at Digg.


    • 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?

  • stopthepc, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1A half a million people didn't die, you dope. Do any of you knuckleheads know that ALL of congress supported and voted for the war? That means both the Rs and the Ds voted and supported AND even agreed to the claims of WMDs (which, if you actually pay attention to details instead of what the mainstream media spoonfeeds you, you would know that a plethora of WMDs and WMD ingredients have been discovered and still are). Bush needs to withdraw troops, for sure. But, get a life. This dope is out of work and is longing for the spotlight again. Here'a a better idea for congress: instead of deciding to impeach a president on false pretenses and for political expience, how about building a fence to stop illegals from enter our country? Hmmm? I am not opposed to immigrants, just the illegal ones.
    If not, maybe I'll rob a bank and propose that I figured that I would get amnesty from jail even though I broke the law. Think about it for more than the twenty-eght seconds you get it or read it in the mainstream media. People like you will be the backbone of our own destruction.
    • 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.
    • 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 *****.
  • 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.
  • PamalaLauren, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Just to say first off Congress had the same information that Clinton had in previous years and they voted the way they voted. But impeachment right now would be a waste of money and time. He's out of office next year, people need to suck it up and deal.
    • 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.

  • 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_
  • veganoob, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4throw the bums out
  • bladefist, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0this kind of story is the best way to hoard all the left-wing idiots into one group. "Former" is the keyword, also known as, "an opinion that doesn't matter," just like the rest of yours.

    Have you idiots ever wondered why he got voted back in for a second term? MAYBE because he did not commit and crimes and over half the country wants us to take care of the Iraq problem.
  • iith096, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Enough already. Impeach him and lets move on with our lives......
  • juliewishart, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2No time like the present. It would send such a positive message to the world "Impeach Bush" I like it!! Why don't we ask the American people, and take a vote. But an actual vote with a paper trail.
  • Mu99ins, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0What'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.
    The choice is there, do we oppose the terrorist's grab for power in the Middle
    East or not? 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?
    • 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.

    • therightside, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0waiting2awake- you should really wake up. You must be an idiot if you cant define a terrorist. Of course we should just argue semantics while there is a group of people that promises to "kill Americans wherever they are"
    • bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The only terrorist in Iraq before 03/03 was Saddam and he only terrorized his own people. We had more control over Iraq then than now.
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1So something so simple and no one has been able to do it...

      Come on. I'm begging you!!

      Simply stated you can't because any definition to discribe "terrorists", can equally applied to any number of nation states - not to mention one with the initials of A.S.U - I feel it is only fair to spell it that way seeing as so many seem to have your founding ideals so misunderstood..

  • feek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2If Bob Graham was chosen for VP kerry would have won the election. I said that when he initially chose Edwards, and I still say it today. He would have carried Florida.
  • peaches19771, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1there is no doubt in my mind that bush put us in the war that we had because of the 911 case was because he wanted to get back at Saddam for his father so he looked for a reason he could have prevented the war when he was sent a letter saying that it was going to happen but he did not move to protect his people his country bush still needs to learn what it is to be president and maybe go back to school and learn how to run a country and learn a thing or 2 about politics because in my point of view he knows nothing.
  • 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.
  • WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1IF there were false pretenses this would be a completely valid point.

    There was no false pretense. Bush was up-front with the nation and the world. Legitimate, consistent, logical intelligence indicated that Iraq was a threat. No false information was involved. Even today almost all of the claims made before the war hold water. Iraq's attempt to acquire yellow cake from Niger is a good example. The fact is that yes, it DID happen. The problem is that too much false propaganda *against* the Bush administration has taken hold and is badly misleading the general populace.

    Bush did not lie. He did not mislead.
  • DatuPuti, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I go for impeachment... at The Hague
  •  

    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.