digg

Join DiggAbout

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

MSNBC poll: Should President Bush Be Impeached?

msnbc.msn.com — Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ShorXrorE, on 06/10/2008, -27/+671half a million votes so far, 89% say yes he should be impeached

    let's get a lot more votes up there!
    • greenleave5, on 06/11/2008, -8/+16Yes!
      • jayobear, on 06/11/2008, -35/+2Get back in your cage.
      • Dracker, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2Honestly, what good does poll bombing do? Flooding an MSNBC poll with traffic from a very opinionated community like Digg's will make it so the poll reflects Digg's views, not the majority's. The poll maintainers at MSNBC will obviously know about this and no one there will draw the conclusion that they are legitimate.

        I'd be a lot more interested in knowing the results of an unbiased, unbombed poll; how many Americans really do think Bush deserves to be impeached. While it doesn't matter in the long run -- Congress will just sit indefinitely on the impeachment articles Kucinich submitted -- knowing the opinions of the masses would be interesting, especially given Bush's low approval rating.
        • GeneralFault, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Bombing the poll is not about listening... it is about speaking.
        • Nerys, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2I do not care what you think of the poll 89% of 700,000 people is NOT something that should be shirked off as insignificant.
    • seldon452, on 06/11/2008, -4/+313Um, not to steal thunder or anything but this poll is from Dec. 21, 2005.
      • ch33sehead, on 06/11/2008, -2/+31Thank you for that, seldon. I would've never bothered to check the related story.
      • apackofmonkeys, on 06/11/2008, -7/+63Does anyone think submitter should be banned from the internet for posting a 2-1/2 year-old poll? Vote now!
        • CannedMango, on 06/11/2008, -2/+34Someone needs to teach the administrators of MSNBC how to put time limits on their polls.
        • isaactwito, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2At least they can say they called it first... kind of, they might try anyways.
        • Mast3rDigg3r, on 06/11/2008, -3/+11submitter stole it from reddit, who posted the 2-1/2 year-old poll. both should be banned imo
      • happyseamonster, on 06/11/2008, -2/+10It's on-going. We wanted him in jail then and we want him shot into space now. No statute of limitations for being a mass murderer!
        • dafunkmonster, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1I love how you collected all of your evidence for impeachment from the very same news source that's holding the poll. Good Job. You've been manipulated.
        • Lousansano, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Elaine is it statue or statute...
      • FecalHurler, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3To be fair, this is on MSNBC... What did the think the results would be? Let's see this poll on Fox News...
        • dafunkmonster, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Nobody on digg would ever look at a poll on "Faux News", like, omg, they're so biased. MSNBC is the only fair and balanced news outlet around these days. //sarcasm
    • jayobear, on 06/11/2008, -3/+31MSNBC was smart enough to not have a comments section.
    • xtinamo, on 06/11/2008, -7/+11Because this poll will be taken seriously by our lawmakers? I'm all for impeachment, but it's obvious that most of our elected officials no longer follow the will of the people.
      • jayobear, on 06/11/2008, -2/+12It's obviously a poll directed towards it's viewers...sorta like a testing ground for how intense they should be pushing the impeachment stories.
    • FutureGuy, on 06/11/2008, -8/+64.8% think that man has done nothing wrong, that can be ignored since only sane people should be allowed to vote.
      • apackofmonkeys, on 06/11/2008, -4/+9Yes, yes, because we should discriminate based on perceived intelligence; how very progessive of you...
        • sabach, on 06/11/2008, -1/+5He said nothing about intelligence, but since you brought it up, neither the insane or the stupid should vote or serve.
        • FutureGuy, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2I was only pointing out how ignorent some people are, not everything has to be taken literally. Ohh and by the way if one is really insane, I don't think they should vote or drive for that matter till they get better.
          Insane 1
          Definition: Exhibiting unsoundness or disorded of mind; not sane; mad; deranged in mind; delirious; distracted.
          http://ardictionary.com/Insane/4793
        • apackofmonkeys, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1@both of you: Oppressive governments have historically labeled their enemies mentally unfit and insane, and then use that as an excuse to further oppress them, because obviously, "neither the insane or the stupid should vote". I'm not hearing any different rhetoric from either of you.
    • pilot101, on 06/11/2008, -6/+21***** the 4.8% saying Bush did no wrong
      • ZenMojo, on 06/11/2008, -7/+6Clearly, by their criteria (he's a Republican) he has done absolutely nothing wrong.
      • OswaldKenobi, on 06/11/2008, -2/+3Sure, the people that disagree with the mainstream should be silenced and have no say. How hypocritical.
      • rald84, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1i'd take that over the 20% to 25% that still approve of him
      • mwilkinson, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2No sir, ***** you....
      • dafunkmonster, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1We can't ALL be lifetime members of the ACLU.
      • gwolf, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Do most of the American People believe that Bush and company manufactured a war so their corporate masters could profit from it. Undeterred by the prospect of the deaths of our soldiers and innocent civilians, profiteering was all that moved them. What got us here was not the result of miscalculations or misjudgments but a callous disregard for the constitution, the laws of the land and common decency. Those among us who can still turn a blind eye to the acts of treason of this administration should come out of the closet and embrace their true name, “Fascist”.
        Let’s face it, some of us talk the talk of democracy but walk the walk of dictatorship.
    • dfsjdkflasjk, on 06/11/2008, -10/+3I'm sure this poll is extremely unbiased. They don't have several sites full of idiots rushing over to vote the alarmist view.
      • blackula01, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3I agree with the outcome of the poll, but unfortunately you are right. Take this poll with a grain of salt.
      • Gutterpunk, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2I agree with you, all those sites full of idiots might explain why the poll is not at 100% as well.

        Damn freepers!
    • dhaugen, on 06/11/2008, -1/+12when has the peoples voice actually mattered in america
    • xpower125, on 06/11/2008, -0/+4i said yes. its still at 89% though. its sad to be bush right now
    • smnirven, on 06/11/2008, -3/+5Contact your representatives in the house and tell them to support the impeachment. It's a longshot but the only way this will get any traction is if you let your representatives know your feelings. The house website has a handy feature to find your representative by entering your zipcode, if you don't know who your representative is.

      http://www.house.gov/
    • soulpiercer7, on 06/11/2008, -7/+9this was done in 2005. 2.5 years ago. we need to move on
    • cdahlkvist, on 06/11/2008, -10/+5Problem 1: Article from 2005

      Problem 2: He is almost out of office...let it go and he will disappear silently rather than dealing with another 5+ years of trials listening to his *****

      Problem 3: Shut up, Hippy. He won. You can say he lied, cheated, stole...but he still won

      Problem 4: Congress approved the war...including your fellow hippy liberals.

      Answer: Let it go. He is as good as gone.

      Just let it die already, dammit.

      Now we take you to your regularly scheduled program of "Obama Is The Best", "LOL Cat makes extra cute quote with baby" and "Ron Paul should still run" stories....all lame and inaccurate.

      Oh, BTW....this comment is a DUPE!
      • Ansible, on 06/11/2008, -1/+4In this country people should get held accountable for their actions under the law, no matter who they are. Why should bush be an exception? Why should we make a special accomodation for him? To save ourselves some hassle? ***** that.

        I want all the dirty laundry out on the lawn. Lets not let Bush slink out of office pretending he did a good job as president, that this hasn't been a presidency of corruption, warmongering, and profiteering. I want a message sent to all the pandering criminals currently in office that we the people aren't willing to ignore their crap anymore, that there are consequences for ***** over the american people.
      • nycmac247, on 06/11/2008, -2/+3WRONG

        http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/excerpt1p1.php
        • cdahlkvist, on 06/11/2008, -4/+2DOUBLE WRONG

          www.hippieswillbuyintoconspiracy.com

          Please, FSM, make him STFU!
      • Tryptomine, on 06/11/2008, -2/+3"Problem 1: Article from 2005"
        Yeah, I don't get it either. (bothering to post a 2005 poll now, I mean, all the previous voters may have changed their opinion)

        "Problem 2: He is almost out of office...let it go and he will disappear silently rather than dealing with another 5+ years of trials listening to his *****."
        Saddam was removed from his office too, does that mean he shouldn't have been held accountable for his crimes any more?

        "Problem 3: Shut up, Hippy. He won. You can say he lied, cheated, stole...but he still won"
        Oh, yes, well, as long as he won. That's all that matters right? Who needs real democracy anyways when we have important people who can decide for us.

        "Problem 4: Congress approved the war...including your fellow hippy liberals."
        Based on false and fabricated information and lies, yes.
        • cdahlkvist, on 06/11/2008, -6/+2You missed, as a a typical hippy, the point being made. Let me get my crayon and explain:

          1) Old article - We already knew people wanted to impeach him, it's just that the backing has died. Look at any president in the last 30 years. Groups begged for impeachment. I'm not saying they are wrong but it typically doesn't happen.

          2) He is almost out of office. Wrong. Saddam was STILL IN OFFICE when we attacked. Are you seriously that idiotic? I am not saying, by any means, that we went to war over Saddam (Other than Bush's Oedipus complex) but Saddam still ruled when we went in (both times). Go back to school if you can't see that.

          3) I was making a point of how the liberals always say "the election was stolen". It has not been proven and until it has I am getting sick of that conspiracy excuse as are most people.

          4) Please show me how this is fabricated. Congress, both Dem and Rep approved the attack on Iraq. You may be thinking of the U.N. who did not approve but the U.S. Congress did. Please show me otherwise....majority dissent from the start. You can't.
        • cdahlkvist, on 06/11/2008, -5/+2And again I repeat:

          Jeebus.

          I just want to point out to anyone buying into the ***** these guys spew out, please check their profile and history. These are crazy people.

          Everything is a conspiracy, everything is eveil and it is all a "Jew Plan".

          These people are kooks that have no grasp of reason or reality.

          Damn their parents for not beating them...or at least aborting.
    • rayzha, on 06/11/2008, -4/+3I dunno. I'm not saying that I want Bush to stay in office, but when you think about it, Cheney's gonna be the next one to step up if Bush is impeached. Who wants Cheney in office?!
    • SquigglyP, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2I'd like to point out that at the moment I'm typing this, 2% of people are voting "I don't know". Apparently, 13,000 people just thought the world would love to know that they are unable to answer a simple yes/no question. Why do they even bother putting that choice on polls? Why would people even bother voting if they were unsure?
    • DemiRonin, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Hell ***** Yes
    • OftEccentricity, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2Hey guys! It's not like we're biasing the vote or anything by getting the poll the attention of one of the most liberal web sites on the internet. But hey, it's all good. Vent those angry feelings on the Texan.
    • Nohpex, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3Even if this is from 2005, i say absolutely not. Not because i support him... I'm totally against him; but because there's no point. He's out in November anyway. We've put up with his bs for almost 8 years now, what's a couple more months? All trying to impeach him will do is waste taxpayers' money.
    • misguidedmonkey, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Don't impeach Bush. He is a wonderful president and I love him. It is through his good deeds that my family could come here and work for cheap. 3 of my brothers have documentation. Two others are in the process. We are hard working people.
      • neocognitism, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2Hence the name, "misguided monkey."
    • SilverStandard, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2If you impeach bush he would declare a national emergency, institute martial law, attack Iran from the air and call off the 2008 elections.
  • Conspiracy20, on 06/10/2008, -11/+108Done! and shared!
    • HotSaucePanCake, on 06/11/2008, -6/+0Too Bad it is just a buncha foreigners and bots
    • rogueace, on 06/11/2008, -4/+2Congrats, another overrun poll that misrepresents true popular opinion based on a biased representation.. whoopdie doo
    • jeremyduffy, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2Blogged it, spreading the word. Let's keep this ball rolling.
    • squaredUP, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2While your voting for things...

      www.lettertogop.com

      That is if your a Paul supporter and/or against McCain.
  • americangoy, on 06/10/2008, -13/+406Is this a rhetorical question?
    • Checkerd, on 06/11/2008, -2/+38Was that a rhetorical question?
      • jayobear, on 06/11/2008, -1/+18I'll think about it.
      • str1fe, on 06/11/2008, -4/+1Is anything rhetorical?
      • Reaper2806, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Curse you! I had the exact same thought. Now I just look like a cheap imitation...
        • jayobear, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1"Curse you!"?
          Really dude?
        • Reaper2806, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Well cursing is probably extreme, yes. I'll let him off with a meaningful look.
    • raysaagar, on 06/11/2008, -3/+6there should be no question.
      just: impeach bush or go hide in the corner
    • enantiodromia, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2yes, and i used rhetoric in my answer. =)
    • PunkRockGeoff, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2Definitely a rhetorical question. Supposing you're one of the few up there on Capitol Hill, unless you're a moron, you're going to need to impeach Cheney first, lest he become president. This will mostly likely take 2-3 months. Only then, is it time to impeach Bush. Another 2-3 months for the impeachment itself perhaps complicated and another 1-2 months before this to deal with the appointment of a new president. By now, the election has happened and it doesn't really matter. Remember all an impeachment does is remove the president so he can be prosecuted. Theoretically, a president is not above the law but can't be prosecuted in office, hence the mechanism of impeachment removes the President from office to answer for his crimes without leaving the country headless.
  • stienster, on 06/10/2008, -31/+42Bush?- why?-
    • Jo9100, on 06/11/2008, -8/+9Please tag better your sarcasm next time.
    • fjwjr, on 06/11/2008, -9/+7For what? Found this in the Washington Post the other day.

      'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.

      By Fred Hiatt
      Monday, June 9, 2008; Page A17

      Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.

      Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

      "In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.

      There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

      But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

      On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

      On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

      On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

      On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

      As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

      But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

      In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

      After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

      Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

      Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in "Bush Lied" mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the "Bush Lied" bumper sticker off his or her car.

      But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

      And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.

      For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more.
      • jhart3, on 06/11/2008, -0/+5You make good, albeit wrong (insofar that the government knew exactly what Iraq had, and only wanted war. Hint: warcrime), points. You should really do your research on the past history of the Rockefeller family in how they are one of the, if not THE, most politically powerful families in the WORLD that have influenced government decisions since John D. Rockefeller made his oil fortune (when I say fortune, I mean trillions by todays standards, a wealth they allegedly still possess). For example, see how Rockefeller introduced lobbied for a central bank and the implementation of taxes during WWI. The Rockefellers family motto is this, and I quote John IV "Take care of yourself and you family and thats it." So if you don't mind, never quote a Rockefeller when they are the bottomline. And they are no exception to the power corrupts rule, they are the example.
        • fjwjr, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Sorry, dude. I didn't write it. I just found it. Thanks for your view, but telling me won't do the writer any good.
      • Sverre, on 06/11/2008, -0/+4Maybe a link would be better than posting an entire article as a comment..? Just a thought...
      • starkruzr, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2You know, impeachment is a political process, not a criminal justice process. A government official can be impeached for ANY REASON, not just "high crimes and misdemeanors." It can be for incompetence just as easily as criminal action.
        • fjwjr, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Pretty hard to make that fly, though. If they didn't impeach Jimmy Carter............
    • zdiddy85, on 06/11/2008, -3/+6You all fail for not catching the most OBVIOUS sarcasm ever.

      And you people get mad when people DO add /sarcasm to their posts.

      Ugh the internets and their ways.
  • neocognitism, on 06/10/2008, -25/+55Lessee, what rhymes with "Mess," begins with a "Y," and indicates an answer in the affirmative?
    • TheWorm, on 06/11/2008, -1/+34It's a bad sign that I had to think about that one for a few seconds.
    • MxM111, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2Mess - Yess!
    • banmaster, on 06/11/2008, -0/+5Peanutty??
      • jaydoj, on 06/11/2008, -3/+1rhyming, you're doing it wrong
        can't you see it's been that way all along
        your rhyming is so bad, it makes me want to write a song
        a song about all your rhymes
        I've waited a long long time
        to write a song
        to sing along
        about your sad attempt to rhyme =]

        /just kidding
        • Zebceponaf, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2dude that was phat!!!!!





          /just kidding
        • jaydoj, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1damn! Well I guess I won't be the next American Idol.


          /sigh
    • Samohtneas, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3Fruitista Freeze?

      Yes please!
    • beerncheese, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Must you answer every question with another question?
      • neocognitism, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2Do I even need to justify that with a response?
  • pmctosh, on 06/10/2008, -24/+41I'd have to say yes.But of course the chances of this happening are nil.
    • Spuy767, on 06/11/2008, -1/+5Yeah the illuminati is protecting him anyway.
    • banmaster, on 06/11/2008, -1/+7Bush must be paying Pelosi a metric ***** TON to keep him from impeachment.
    • joeanon, on 06/11/2008, -0/+4Nah, Pelosi knows it will be much easier to get Bush once out of office.

      That's just the state of US government. The Executive branch, especially the President has been gaining power of the decades and congress has been losing power.

      As it stands, the President is running his office beyond the oversight of Congress. However, Bush will be powerless in a few months and he will no longer be able to influence people.

      Right now, he can still tell the CIA to come to your door and take you away AND when you're talking about Bush, that's actually a realistic fear since he tortures and spies on people.

      You must realize, people, including government workers haven't seen anything like this in their life times other than perhaps the McCarthyism, which was bad, but was not at the Presidential level.

      Try to imagine McCarthy as President, throwing people in prison without due process and torturing them.

      When we look back to this, it might be the darkest time for the US since the Civil War. In our own perspectives and changing landscapes of the nation we cannot accurately percieve just how bad things really are. Just like it's hard to tell you're getting fat and going bald until you look back to a picture for 10 years ago.



    • newbis, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2I'm actually going to have to disagree with you. I'm not voting because they don't give the correct answer.

      Yes he should be, but it isn't worth the time and money to run the proceedings. So no...
    • wtfpwned98, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1The House Republicans benefited very little from impeaching Clinton. There was actually more of a backlash, if anything. Sure, some conservatives bring up the fact that he was impeached as a talking point, but the typical response is a rolling of the eyes.
    • rexcom, on 06/11/2008, -0/+0Can we just get over it? Dems have been throwing the impeachment word around any chance they get cause they are upset that Clinton's impeachment process went as far as it did. While there is enough disapproval of the current Bush, and deservedly so, there isn't any real way to make it happen. So just let it go.
  • RomanThommassen, on 06/10/2008, -8/+32yes.
    • jcannonb, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2Hell ***** Yes!!!
    • sagesoup, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Please agree that 9-11 was not his fault. Now think to the the days that followed..... did you think there was a chance in hell that we would go several years without more loss of life on American soil from terrorists or aggressors . I didn't. I thought it was inevitable. But we are still all here. Was that luck or aggressive vigilance. I think the latter. So know, what no credit to our leaders? I know it is popular to jump on the bandwagon of anti- Bush haters and to look for a lynching, but we are here and alive. I am surprised and grateful. Iraq is a tough thought process. But L.A., Chicago, Las Vegas, etc unchanged. I am floored that we haven't been more assaulted in the past Bush years.
      • RomanThommassen, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1i stopped reading after 9/11 not his fault.
        • AnotherBrian, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Damn it, stop blaming him for 9/11!
          I want to see Bush hanged for war crimes but 9/11 was NOT his fault.
          (That's not to say that he and his administration didn't exploit it at every opportunity to advance their personal power agenda).
  • elonkytroot, on 06/10/2008, -8/+31Of course he should.
  • rzxc, on 06/10/2008, -16/+411WHAT?! Only 89% for impeachment?! Come on people!
    • Mootabolife, on 06/11/2008, -2/+162The other 11% think impeachment means giving him free peaches for life.
      • Reaktor5, on 06/11/2008, -0/+33Millions of peaches?
      • AngryBacon, on 06/11/2008, -0/+31Peaches for me?
        • bsonline, on 06/11/2008, -3/+17Peaches for free?
        • bsonline, on 06/11/2008, -9/+3Sadly enough, I get diggs here for a silly song quote. Meanwhile, my meaningful post about actual impeachment goes ignored. Such is the nature of Digg.
        • carrett, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3You didn't get that many diggs for your song quote, if it makes you feel better.
      • dafragsta, on 06/11/2008, -0/+8LOOKOUT!
      • gurm, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2*fights ninjas*
    • linagee, on 06/11/2008, -0/+19+/- 11% error factor.
    • d03boy, on 06/11/2008, -2/+4"I don't know" because I really don't know. I don't trust anything I hear from the media anymore and I haven't done my own investigation so... yeah :)
    • SilverStandard, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Come on Diggers! The only way we bring change is by digging or voting for something online!
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 06/11/2008, -8/+30Voted ,dugg, and will share with rest of the world.
  • squaat, on 06/11/2008, -11/+154why are they twice as many no options as yes options? To be fair shouldn't they have had a moderate and an extreme yes response as well?
    • krnldmp, on 06/11/2008, -3/+12Alright, Daffy. Add up all the no's.
      • sealhands, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1there are two no answers and one yes. that means the nos are twice that of the yes answers, daffy.
        • ghostoftomjoad, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1it means everyone who leans yes ends up in yes and the no people get split in half. so put the no's back together... er, daffy
    • talkingwires, on 06/11/2008, -1/+27What are you proposing? A "Yes, he kicked my puppy" option? An "Impeach him, but just a little bit" option?
      • Amadeus2490, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Impeaching people a little bit always makes me laugh.
      • sealhands, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3if you think having two no answer options is ok than why is not ok to have two yes options. i think the logical assumption is that squatt wanted an equal amount of each. the easiest way to do that is by making one yes and one no. this shouldnt be hard to understand
        • NJank, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1the problem is, what would your two yes options be? there are logical splits on the no options. (i'm not saying there shouldn't be two yes's, but what would you have them say?)
    • FTWmovin2canada, on 06/11/2008, -0/+12The extreme yes = impeach + extradite for war crimes trial
    • bono4u, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3moderate yes=impeach
      extrem yes=first send him for questioning to Guantanamo , then impeach
    • Firehed, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1And shouldn't it have been just "Yes, No, and Undecided" as the choices rather than the description-filled push poll responses?
  • theNazz, on 06/11/2008, -21/+218Where's the "No because I think he should be hung just like Saddam was for his part in Iraq war crimes"?

    I mean, if Bush can have Saddam hung for allowing his troops to torture prisoners in Iraq then why can't the USA hang Bush for allowing his troops to do the same thing?
    • KSUdesigner, on 06/11/2008, -5/+9Bush didn't hang him, the Iraqi people did. That still doesn't excuse Bush's other faults.
      • sacdesh, on 06/11/2008, -1/+6you mean the 'Iraqi people' elected by bush?
      • hmunkey, on 06/11/2008, -2/+7Bush did hang him indirectly.
    • Nichael, on 06/11/2008, -5/+15I'm very much against capital punishment, but honestly, I don't think I'd object to that.
      • apackofmonkeys, on 06/11/2008, -10/+7Ah, the old liberal standby: the "I have principles but I'm willing to lower them just one time if I get my way" deal.
        • Nichael, on 06/11/2008, -1/+8I knew this comment would be coming, and you know what? You're right. I don't feel comfortable saying that I'd let my principles go just once like that, but then again I'm a flawed human just like every other human on Earth. I dugg up your comment because it's true.

          If push came to shove, and someone approached me and actually gave me a chance to execute someone like him, I know for a fact I'd never be able to do it. Killing someone (even an ***** like him), would haunt me for the rest of my life.
        • SlimFastForYou, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3Conservatives have maintained that imprisonment and the death penalty serve as an example to everyone that if you break the rules, you will have consequences. As the "leader of the free world" and former governor who had record death row execution rates, perhaps there are things we "liberals" (moderates, really) can learn from George Bush. Such as, what goes around comes around?
    • Cuchanu, on 06/11/2008, -2/+9I say put him in an Iranian prison.
    • FSUTech, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2That's right KSUdesigner. The Iraqi people tried, convicted, and hung his sorry butt. Oh, theNazz .. you need a history lesson. Saddam committed crimes against humanity of an unspeakable nature. He got off easy.
      • theNazz, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Is that why he was only formally charged with 153 civillian deaths instead of 'hundreds of thousands' of civillians?

        Who provided Saddam with those WMDs back then? Rumsfeld.

        My history is fine. You are another story.
    • mattlohkamp, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2I really hope you're joking - the reason we can't do it because then we're no better then they are, and "they started it," or "he did it first," are not a valid way to justify your actions.
    • ridingtime, on 06/12/2008, -1/+0Wow, you're an idiot. Saddam tortured citizens, killed and lynched them, along with prisoners. To have the audacity to compare that to Bush-who, what, authorized waterboarding (OMG!) to Iraqi prisoners who would love to destroy US civilians, and in doing so to the prisoners can perhaps yield us information to kill out terrorism in the world-you must be one effing retard.

      I hope people like you die soon.
  • inobla, on 06/11/2008, -43/+34I know a lot of folks *really* want to send a message to the rest of the world, "Hey, we're not with this *****!", but reality is ... he's got 7 months left and he's gone. I don't think impeachment at this point would be much more than a badge of dishonor and symbolic finger gesture toward Bush and his administration. Efforts, in my opinion, would be better spent focusing on who's best to help dig the U.S. out of the mess. Not just Executive - the rest of the elected positions as well.

    Oh wait.. you guys are dying to see him on trial. I almost forgot about that. :)
    • Dumbledorito, on 06/11/2008, -8/+39So the message you want to send is "if you're president and you can make it to the 7th year without anyone stopping your illegal activities, go ahead and do whatever the hell you want?"

      Go look up "precident."
      • duke, on 06/11/2008, -4/+13I would, but there's no such word. Look it up yourself
      • mithrasinvictus, on 06/11/2008, -4/+5precedent / president
      • ZenMojo, on 06/11/2008, -3/+1...The process of having killed the guy who came before you?
      • mavGuy, on 06/11/2008, -3/+7Wow, refuting an argument by picking apart an inconsequential misspelling. Very Rovian of you.
        • apackofmonkeys, on 06/11/2008, -3/+5Well it is pretty much the only thing in his whole post that MUST be spelled right in order to do what he says.
    • keymanjim2, on 06/11/2008, -11/+7Throw Bush to the wolves. The result will be dozens of democrats going down with him.
      Then maybe we can start drilling our own oil.
    • Aadain, on 06/11/2008, -2/+17I think the point is that if he leaves office without any kind of punishment for his actions, we might as well just throw the Constitution out since we obviously don't care about it. Impeachment like what happened to Clinton wouldn't be much than a symbolic gesture. I think we need to add jail time (like 20+ years jail time) for the punishment to fit the crime.
      • keymanjim2, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3You don't mind if he gets a fair trial first, do you?
        What am I thinking? Of course you do.
        • letherial, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2Id like to see him on a fair trial, very carefully selected jury to try and give him a fair chance. I dont understand how he couldn't at least have one crime on him, but if not then he shouldn't go to jail.

          what i want...what i realy realy realy want, is for HIM to be treated like i would if i committed a crime, or was perceived to commit a crime. Sadly, that wont happen.

          This country is so full to quickly demonize many many people, but our president...its ok for him to question what is and isnt torture, to manipulate intelligence that leads to a war he wanted, destroys our economy, while he argues what the constitution says or doesnt say on what he can do. Thats ok, but if i smoke a little pot... DCFS is here to take my kid and the police are here to put me in jail

          ya....thats ***** america for you.
        • cupanoodles, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Impeachment trials are not conducted with a trial jury, they are presided over by the Senate as a whole and chaired by the Chief Justice (in the case of Presidential impeachment). Unfortunately a 2/3 majority of Senators must enter a 'guilty' vote for the President to be convicted. Only after such a conviction is the accused (guilty party?) subject to criminal proceedings.
        • Aadain, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Of course he should get a fair trial, just like everyone has the right too in the US. The reason I and most everyone else is already talking about jail time for him is because there is a LOT of information being public that show convincingly that he has committed crimes.
          This isn't a knee-jerk reaction "he's a Republican, he's a criminal!!!111!". It's based on information related to how he manipulated/withheld pre-war intelligence in order to convince Congress to let him wage ware in Iraq. How does that not make him responsible, legally and morally, for all the deaths from said war? He didn't make a bad decision, he intentionally lied. And if you follow the money spent during this war, you find a lot of it ending up in the pockets of former business associates of his and VP Dick Chenny. That in itself shows what his intent was in committing this crime.
          He has committed many crimes. This isn't based on politics but facts that the public is being made aware of. He should be tried for these actions and held accountable. If not, we should just throw out all semblance that his is a country ruled by law and not by a rich aristocracy.
    • ZEROCOOLIV, on 06/11/2008, -3/+21Actually it's about establishing a tiny ounce of credibility back to our country to the rest of the world... It's about sending a message to future presidents, that you can't turn the world to ***** and after 8 years sit pretty with the millions you profited. It's about being an American and having a f'n voice, to express what I forefather's died to give us... That's all! It's to prove that our government can fix what's broken... Why do people sit back and shrug their shoulder's and say... "Oh well... 7 more months and it's over..." F that...
      • gmiley, on 06/11/2008, -2/+6That's exactly right. I don't care if it's not until his last day in office that he is convicted of criminal charges. He should still be held accountable for the ***** he has created for not only our country, but the world as a whole. I would be even more happy if we got both him and Cheney, but I would at least be satisfied to see the HMFIC take all of the blame and receive a punishment that fits the crimes. He has done nothing but create problems since he got into office.

        It used to amuse me when they would mock his speech habits and body language on various television and radio programs (Daily Show, Colbert Report, etc). These days, however, it just makes me feel embarrassed to be a citizen of a country that voted him into office, not once, but twice despite how much of an idiot and douchebag he is, even though I didn't vote for him either time. Even with all the shady ***** he has done, our government and people can't muster up the stones to remove him from office. ***** pitiful!
      • keymanjim2, on 06/11/2008, -8/+4I've said this before and I'll say it again.
        ***** THE REST OF THE WORLD. When are they going to try to restore what little credibility they had with us? We are far more important on the world stage than all of them combined. They owe us 1000X over. If they have a problem with us then that's just what it is, THEIR PROBLEM.
        • buckrogers1965, on 06/11/2008, -3/+1And this is why they hate us.
        • keymanjim2, on 06/11/2008, -2/+3Honestly, deep down inside, I could give a ***** less what they think of us.
          If you're so shallow as to need the approval of "the rest of the world" then I suggest you get help.
        • mglueckert, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2America...***** Yeah!
        • AnotherBrian, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2Re: keymanjim2
          It's not that we need the approval.
          We just don't want to be seen as a huge selfish *****.
    • karan1003, on 06/11/2008, -6/+2We want to send him to jail - but we didn't want Cheney to take over for him.
    • Mardala, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2They both can be charged as criminals. There is more than impeachment.
    • loveandrockets, on 06/11/2008, -5/+4Bush and all his neocon friends are in a LOT of trouble. You can't just ignore the Constittution. They tortured people, lied to us, spied on us illegally, released classified info, etc.....(And while right-wingers will say they only tortured terrorists, torture has been shown time and time again that it isn't reliable. And, I was brought up with the notion that America doesn't torture people.)

      They really need to get McCain in office so they can all get pardons, or pressure from sympathetic judges to acquit them. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an "October Surprise" so they can get the more war-like McCain in office. I'm not normally a conspiracy nut, but I think Bush will bomb Iran--and then the ***** will really hit the fan.)
    • pagno, on 06/11/2008, -2/+7Look at it this way: With impeachment proceedings taking up his time, maybe he wont have a chance to bomb Iran.
      • hazer, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1I'm sorry to say but my gut feeling is that Bush WILL attack Iran before the end of his term. And like sheep, the majority of ignorant Americans will then back another war president - McCain.

        If you miss this opportunity to get the warmongers out, it's your own fault. Be active! Do something to make a change.
    • aussieNickuss, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Why would you want to jail Bush? Isn't he just a hand-puppet that's controlled by the neo-cons hidden away in the back rooms of the white house?

      Think about it.....the guy can barely tie his own shoe laces. How on earth could he have masterminded the Iraq war and everything else he has "accomplished" over the last 8 years?
      • Swateke, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2He didn't. He was used. I thought this much was obvious...

        But in any way, he wasn't smart enough to stand up and say no. Hell, he probably started 8 years ago, already knowing he had to pleasure some rich people. But point is, he was an accomplice. You can't possibly jail everybody involved in the regime, atleast not now, but if we could atleast get him down, it'll be a nice kicker in the balls towards McCain.
      • SquigglyP, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2it might make the next puppet think about the consequences of their actions?

        I dunno if I even buy into the puppet theory. I know there are a lot of powerful people who have his ear - some of which I would prefer to be nowhere near the president at all. So i can see why there's a theory, at least. But holding an investigation and finally being able to pry some transparency out of this government would be a welcome achievement.
    • Flashypoo, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1A few other people have touched on it too, but while there isn't much time left in office for the Bush Administration, it would still be a good idea to get them out faster before they piss off Iran.
    • SquigglyP, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1There's a lot to be said for the symbolism of impeachment. Yeah, it probably won't matter much, but even the motion to impeach is meaningful. The fact that it's being debated and not just disregarded.... the fact that an overwhelming majority of people are voting FOR the impeachment... that says a lot, even if it never happens.
    • Remulos, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1This sentiment right here is exactly why our country is in such a mess right now. "Oh well, only 7 months left. Screw it. Not worth the time." Bush and his administration have gotten away with all the things they have done because we have let them do it with no repercussions. We have lost our spine and credibility as a result. It's time to stand up for what's right for once and hold these people accountable for their actions. If we don't, then that's as good as condoning those actions.
    • IamJustinM, on 06/11/2008, -0/+17 months?! ***** I thought it was less for some reason....
    • MorfiusX, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3If he is impeached, he won't receive his yearly $400k retirement from the government.
    • BobOki, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2If he is impeached then we can repeal any law he has put into effect.
      We can confiscate the 400billion him and his family have dumped into oil futures since he has been in office raising the price of fuel $3 a gallon.
  • jnguyen0819, on 06/11/2008, -22/+4My vote was 611921.
  • chronically420, on 06/11/2008, -19/+175my god at least nixon was wise enought to see that hardly anybody liked his presidency and resigned. bush is seriously the stupidest mother ***** idiot ever and those morons that voted him in not once but twice (even given the florida issue) are the reason why our country is so ***** up and now they're keeping silent about their great president. bush should have been forced out by us common people. literally FORCED out since he doesnt know when to leave. WE HATE YOU BUSH GET THE ***** HINT. now watch in the next couple days im going to get a knock on the door from the feds claiming im a terrorist. land of the free my ass, and that stupid ***** ***** still tries to promote that bull? ***** bush and his administration, the people high in his administration must be held accountable for high war crimes and murder. i say let those ***** feel what its like to sit their ass in federal prison where nobody likes them. ohhhh how i live for the day to see/hear about bush adn his cronnies getting their asses kicked on a daily basis in their jail and the guards not doing a damn thing.
    if only.....
    • iMike360, on 06/11/2008, -1/+31If I live to see the day when the Bush administration is charged with high crimes I can die happy knowing just because your rich and powerful you can't get away with murder and human rights violation.
      • dsmx, on 06/11/2008, -1/+21Murder, false imprisonment, torture, human rights abuses, illegal war, corruption, abuse of power, lying to congress, rigging elections. The list goes on and on with what you can impeach bush on.
        • sulthernao, on 06/11/2008, -1/+14Ripping apart the constitution......
      • fish42, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Sadlly you will need to live a very long time.
        Even if they are charged i bet that there are not prison terms for any higher ups. Sure a few party lackys may spend some time in jail but if bush is imprisoned i will eat the report the findings are published in.
    • dylio, on 06/11/2008, -5/+9You really think Bush is stupid? I mean c'mon he lined the pockets of MANY people in his administration, AND he's getting away with it.
      • jaymzdean, on 06/11/2008, -1/+5I'm with you, dylio. I guess it makes people comfortable to think his plan has been a failure, when in fact, all of PNAC's goals have been met.
        • ghostoftomjoad, on 06/11/2008, -0/+4i agree. People don't realize this was scripted from the beginning, which is demonstrated by the significant gains by certain people in this country by the neglect of the rest. which makes it even worse and proves that americans have no recourse against abuse of power
      • mrraven200, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2You think President Cheney is stupid...

        I corrected your post, you're welcome.
    • TheLogic, on 06/11/2008, -10/+1Really? I thought the reason our country was so ***** up was because of the people who cried through the entire first term about how they hated Bush, and then never showed up to vote in 2004. The blame goes to the entire Democratic party for failing to put together an even half-assed campaign. The Republicans knew that if you spend your money wisely instead of giving campaign advisers commissions for every feeble TV attack ad, you can easily win an election, even when your candidate is as massive a ***** as Bush. If you want to blame someone, that's where you point the finger.

      For the record, Nixon had pretty decent approval ratings up until Watergate. It wasn't until April of 73 that people really began turning on him. I don't believe 60% of the country approving of the way you're handling your presidency can be considered "hardly anybody", but I guess you don't learn that type of thing when you're getting your information from Michael Moore and Rock Against Bush CDs.
    • Jo9100, on 06/11/2008, -2/+3He's not stupid. He's just really mean.
    • apackofmonkeys, on 06/11/2008, -11/+2"now watch in the next couple days im going to get a knock on the door from the feds claiming im a terrorist. land of the free my ass"

      No. No, they're not. This is just another example of the insanity of the groupthink neo-liberal.
      • edjenkins234, on 06/11/2008, -2/+5do you understand what "neo-liberal" means?
        • apackofmonkeys, on 06/11/2008, -1/+0Yep, and I bet you don't know what neo-conservative meant before every wannabe liberal internet-addict used it incorrectly and changed its meaning. See, I can insult the other side by using your terms wrong too. Aww, I bet you still correct people for using "effect" as a verb.
    • Dr00pieS, on 06/11/2008, -7/+2Lay off the bong tokes man.
    • PolishLogic, on 06/11/2008, -5/+1"my god at least nixon was wise enought to see that hardly anybody liked his presidency and resigned"

      Yeah, eight months left on his 8 years. He's just gonna pack it on in.

      When you're ready, reality will be waiting for you to join it again.
    • rmmcclay, on 06/11/2008, -4/+5Correction: Bush wasn't voted in twice, his team stole the election twice.
    • DavidThaGnome, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Hell Yea Chronic, that is what I like to hear from my fellow citizens :D
    • quakeIII, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3Thought I was going to get Bel-Air'd the whole time.
    • Gutterpunk, on 06/11/2008, -5/+1I see that your shift key works when it come to expressing anger, but why doesn't it work at the start of sentences?

      Whhyyyyyyy!?

      Also, pressing Return once in a while is allowed.

    • ghendric, on 06/11/2008, -0/+0Actually, the whole lot of them(the government), 545 total people, should be removed by us, 300 million people, and replaced with a new government that is by the people, for the people. I think we're all sick and tired of the empty promises and corruption. It's time we got some people in there that have integrity that's not going to socialize everything. We are a capitalist country...
      • jevusrice, on 06/11/2008, -0/+0"We are a capitalist country..."
        Yeah, that's the problem.
    • sendbillmoney, on 06/11/2008, -0/+0Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment. He didn't have the votes in either the House or the Senate, and realized this. By resigning, he also retained his benefits under the Former Presidents Act (pension, office space, Secret Service, franking privilege, etc.). Had he been removed through impeachment, he'd have lost all that.
  • MattNF, on 06/11/2008, -5/+65I can't believe 8.8% of people that voted think he should stay in office...
    • potterboy, on 06/11/2008, -1/+18My Mom did. She say's I shouldn't say disrespect full things about the President and that every President has made mistakes.
      • alpha88, on 06/11/2008, -0/+25Nobody is above the law.
      • BIOHazard87, on 06/11/2008, -0/+10No president has made this many mistakes.....
      • buckrogers1965, on 06/11/2008, -0/+14A mistake is ordering the wrong toner cartridge for the office printer.

        I'm fairly certain that planning and executing a war of aggression and torturing people are crimes against humanity.

        At least that is what we charged a lot of people with when we put them on trail at the conclusion of WWII.
    • dsmx, on 06/11/2008, -2/+15I didn't know the south had the internet.
      • beingdevious, on 06/11/2008, -2/+4hey, not everyone down here is inbred and/or retarded.
        • dsmx, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2I never said they were I just said I didn't know they had the internet. Which implies that you think everyone from the south is inbred and/or retarded, which means that your not from the south and your having a joke at there expense.
        • beingdevious, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1touché
          i am IN the south though..
        • Vaelkar, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3Not everyone down here is inbred and/or retarded. There are 2-3 people per 100,000 that are stuck pretending that way so the rest don't lynch us.
    • alpha88, on 06/11/2008, -0/+13Luckily the other possible 41.2%+ of rednecks don't own computers.
  • johnlandes, on 06/11/2008, -5/+175Apparently, over 12,000 morons accidently got to this page and decided that their lack of opinion was important enough to select don't know. WTF??
    • caramba420, on 06/11/2008, -2/+18Maybe the lack of opinion is a virtue. It means you're smart enough to know what you don't know. While I would love to see Bush drawn and quatered, I doubt 1% of the people who took the poll have a firm enough grasp of Constituional Law to able to formulate a solid argument as to why his actions qualify as "High Crimes and Misdemeanors."
      • bainfu, on 06/11/2008, -5/+3I highly doubt even close to a majority of the 89% that voted for impeachment has a firm grasp on Constitutional Law.

        Impeach the President, go for it.

        However there's a problem with that, impeachment is just a trial, and to prove that the President was behind all of this is going to cost money, to ultimately fail. Committee's and investigations will happen. Our government wastes enough time chasing things like steroids in MLB. Is it really worth it, is it? You talk about torturing prisoners as a crime, I'm pretty sure our last President wasn't exactly guilt free of that either.
      • mrraven200, on 06/11/2008, -1/+4Illegal wiretaps of all Americans violate the 4th amendment and are a high crime and misdemeanor. Anything else I can help with?
    • ..eD, on 06/11/2008, -1/+9Maybe they just wanted to see the poll results.
    • Dexless, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3Realizing that you are uninformed and admitting it is much better than thinking you know what's going on when you have absolutely no idea. I seriously doubt that the vast majority of participants actually went through the grueling process of analyzing the legal aspects of Bush's presidency. It's so easy to come on digg and read a biased article and post some ***** and then think you have a grasp of what's going on in the world. It's the equivilent of a racist hic shouting OBAMA IS A MUSLIM at his his black neighbours.
      • Echosphere, on 06/11/2008, -0/+0Words of wisdom! Thanks dexless. (aww, I see what you did with your name!)
    • Echosphere, on 06/11/2008, -1/+0I picked the that third option of I Don't Know.

      I hate Bush but I also am very concerned about our economy and how impeachment reflects our image in the international arena.

      If it happened, then having the last two presidents both impeached would be a pretty sad state of affairs and I think reflect badly on the the hard working American people.

      Bush's antics and lack of leadership have already cost this country dearly. An impeachment process would only make that situation far worse as it would entangle not only our Executive branch but also DERAIL the House and Senate as it did during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

      Our dollar is weak, our gas prices are high and unemployment is on the rise. We risk much in an impeachment process on the eve of new elections and a faltering economy.

      All of us, from the farmer in the midwest to the dictator in N Korea knows he is an ineffective leader who lied to his people to invade the Middle East. We all know he lacks vision and charisma.
      Let it go and get on with the next elections. Hopefully, when the new elections are over someone will call a special council in the Senate to take legal action against Bush to make him pay for his WMD inventions.

      That is why I voted the 3rd option. It's not always black or white, right or wrong. Sometimes I have to read between the lines and think what's best for our country and economy. Take care all.
  • TheRealToma, on 06/11/2008, -8/+35Next up: He'll come out saying that overseas people voted on the poll. When questioned how he knew? "I gots a report frum Homeland security wif all the IPs logged. Thats hows I knowses."

    Also, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10561966/ original article from 2005. Looks like that went well.
    • Mejari, on 06/11/2008, -0/+5He'd have to know what an IP is.
    • banmaster, on 06/11/2008, -0/+6Does it say anywhere that only US ppl can vote?
      Well, I guess americans can't vote anyway seeing as how that ***** Bush got re-elected.
      • TheRealToma, on 06/11/2008, -2/+1Well, the question of whether Bush should be impeached is more a question for the US public. The rest of the world hates him and you dont need an internet poll to figure that out.
        • Mejari, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3You don't need an internet poll to figure out that most people in this country hate him, either, but it helps to have numbers, seeing as numbers are the only thing a lot of people listen to.
  • zakool21, on 06/11/2008, -7/+19This needs to be dugg into the next universe. The Faux news poll is getting pretty ravaged too, with most people saying Obama will probably be the next POTUS.
    • pajeff2, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Why ? Digg has no influence on anyone
    • McHoffa, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1and ron paul won the nomination thanks to digg hijacking the polls...
  • isparadiselost, on 06/11/2008, -10/+49Two word answer: ***** yes.
  • insomniacal, on 06/11/2008, -8/+19Fat chance. Democrats run Congress but don't have the guts to take a stand for justice. They'd rather play politics by giving Bush enough rope to hang himself. Is this why we gave them both houses of Congress?
    • keymanjim2, on 06/11/2008, -1/+6More like, if they hang Bush, they will be hanging from the other end of the rope.
    • phoenixshard, on 06/11/2008, -3/+0More like they don't have the votes for it anyway. It wouldn't be over with before Bush left office anyway. Its just a bunch of political posturing before an election. Just hope it doesn't come back to bite them in the ass come November.
    • JoeVet, on 06/11/2008, -6/+3Democrats don't have the votes to over ride the GOP who are still on their knees begging for that Texas teabag. Vote more democrats in if you don't like how the neo-con extremists are destroying this country.
      • keymanjim2, on 06/11/2008, -1/+5I was going to explain to you how this works in the republicans favor. But then I realized that you're a blazing idiot.
    • MxM111, on 06/11/2008, -3/+1You sound like if the congress were republican they would have done it. HA!
      • keymanjim2, on 06/11/2008, -0/+6When he tried this with Cheney the republicans voted for it. And the democrats were ***** themselves because then they would have to actually do something. It was all they could do to squash it.
    • ghostoftomjoad, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2Rove was clever in 2004--he said that if a democratic congress was elected, that they would waste all their time impeaching Bush and not doing their jobs for america, and so Nancy Pelosi promised not to impeach him and instead take legislation seriously. Unfortunately, they haven't done too much of that either
  • ahatter, on 06/11/2008, -6/+132Clinton was impeached in a blink of an eye for a much MUCH less offense. Not saying what he did was right but I think they should have left politics out of it. In the case of Bush Its exact opposite, its a huge political issue and no one gives a damn.

    • Dumbledorito, on 06/11/2008, -8/+16That's because penises and the filth that comes out of them are dirty, nasty, and an affront against God himself.
      • str1fe, on 06/11/2008, -1/+4Apparently 6 people didn't pick up on the sarcasm.
      • Soave, on 06/11/2008, -4/+2Clinton wasn't impeached for the sex acts. He was impeached for perjury.
        • CoMpUtErITGuY, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Wow. You were right and you were dugg down.
        • Soave, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1It's Digg, what do you expect? Haha.
      • ahatter, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2Did I say he was impeached for sex acts? Didn't think so.
        I said he was impeached for a less offense. The reason I said they should have left politics out because he lied under oath about SEX ACTS!

        Its like congress having hearing on steroids in the MLB.
        WTF!@!
    • frisk415, on 06/11/2008, -0/+11It's sad and pathetic. By not impeaching Bush we are the ultimate hypocrites. We went to war in the name of "spreading democracy" yet refuse to participate in our own. A true democracy would have Bush hanged. It's depressing, just depressing.
      • atchon, on 06/11/2008, -2/+1so being a bit picky here, but a true democracy wouldn't have a president.
    • PPGBM, on 06/11/2008, -2/+14"If the standard for impeachment is covering up a burglary, or getting a blowjob; if that means 'you're impeached,' then shouldn't Bush have been ***** executed at this point?" - Patton Oswalt
    • Gemfinder, on 06/11/2008, -2/+8Nixon lied — nobody died.
      Clinton lied — nobody died.
      Bush (and Cheney) lied, and hundreds of thousands died.
    • babyimreal, on 06/11/2008, -0/+10I honestly could care less if my president is getting a hummer under his desk.....just as long as he's doing a good job.

      In fact if it leads to better performance then we should bring girls in for scheduled fellatio
  • MforMike, on 06/11/2008, -20/+5impeachment does nothing unless it is followed with a resignation
    • phoenixshard, on 06/11/2008, -0/+4Yes it is, after an impeachment is done, if successful, then the trial moves to the House of Reps and a conviction trial is held and if enough votes are there, then the president is removed and the vice president becomes the president.
      • JoeVet, on 06/11/2008, -2/+1And that is why he hasn't been impeached.....the only person worse for our country would be Cheney.
        • TopherT, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2The trial would last at least as long as he is in office anyways, the idea is the further strip him of the shred of credibility he has left and will likely use to unilaterally attack another country (Iran btw)
      • bennovw, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Dick for pres., no way!
      • Intercon, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Uh... thatsounds great... President Cheney!? Put them all on trial. Make it President Pelosi... oh wait, no...*****.
      • Deanblackoak, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2Just wanted to make a correction: The House presents the articles of impeachment, the Senate holds the trail.
    • caramba420, on 06/11/2008, -2/+0No president that has been impeached ever resigned. Andrew Johnson was impeached and aquitted. Clinton was impeached and aquitted. Nixon was the only president to have resigned. He was never impeached.
      • Deanblackoak, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2True. No president that has been impeached (a formal statement of charges presented to the senate by the house) has been removed from office because they have been acquitted, however that does not mean that Bush won't be the first. And more importantly, it paves the way for criminal charges. Impeachment does not exclude criminal charges and conviction.
  • Sfenton, on 06/11/2008, -12/+18In contrast, msnbc.com's online surveys — or Live Votes — may reflect the views of more individuals, but they are not necessarily representative of the general population. And they may be even less representative of those people who are registered to vote and who do in fact vote.

    To begin with, the people who respond to online surveys choose to do so — they are not randomly selected and asked to participate, but instead make the choice to read a story about a certain topic and then vote on a related question.

    They may be highly motivated supporters of a particular candidate who are determined to show their support for him or her in any way they can.

    And while Live Votes are designed to allow only one vote per user, someone who wants to vote more than once can use another computer or another Internet account.

    Live Votes are not intended to be a scientific sample of opinion. Instead, they are part of the same dialogue that takes place in our online chat sessions: a way to share your views on the news with your fellow users and with msnbc.com writers and editors.

    Let us know what you think.
    • digitalnrg, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2"And while Live Votes are designed to allow only one vote per user, someone who wants to vote more than once can use another computer or another Internet account."

      Or just clear your cookies.
    • gamerzfuse, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Big ***** deal.
      You took a data management class and figured out the problem with Voluntary Surveys.
      It's still a survey showing that 89% of people want this to happen.
  • UltramegaOK, on 06/11/2008, -10/+33Like an MSNBC poll matters?

    Writing or e-mailing a congressman would be a more productive and effective use of time.
    • rationalbeats, on 06/11/2008, -2/+7Of course, and donating to those politicians who you believe will make a change in the Congress will help the most.

      Why not check out Act Blue and find some Democrats running in some close races against Republicans and donate to them. I have decided to get behind a little known woman named Darcey Burner, running in WA-08 against a Republican who votes lock in step with Neo-Cons. The more friends we have in Congress the better.

      This poll is a good way to rally people to get more involved.

    • MxM111, on 06/11/2008, -0/+6It does matter, if not for them, at least for us.
    • sfacets, on 06/11/2008, -0/+5Are you serious? It is quite obvious that the message is so much more potent if distributed by the media - do you think your congressman will read your email? Not a chance.
    • LenBaird, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1I e-mail my senators and representative regularly as well as call on the phone, and one of the 3 sends me canned responses which show me they don't even read what i say (Lieberman)
  • AwesomousPrime, on 06/11/2008, -17/+1mine is 614117.
    • keymanjim2, on 06/11/2008, -1/+6You also have the gayest screen name up here so far.
    • Hizeh, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2"AwesomousPrime" hahahah
  • Misinformant, on 06/11/2008, -6/+146Too bad public opinion isn't worth ***** in this country.
    • Hrodrik, on 06/11/2008, -0/+5Exactly.

      At least we have the hope that in the future he will be tried for war crimes, although the proof will probably be well buried by then.
    • pintomp3, on 06/11/2008, -0/+17so?

      /cheney
      • Jo9100, on 06/11/2008, -0/+5actually laughed out loud for this one. litterally lol.
    • speel, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2Id digg you a thousand times if i could.
    • kestrel7e7, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Someone has to do the unpopular dirty work to maintain the oil flow for greedy americans.
    • Hellfishy, on 06/11/2008, -2/+1Amen
    • hammburglar, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1and it shouldnt. it got bush in office didnt it?
      • Misinformant, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Not the 1st time. Public opinion was overwhelmingly for Gore.
  • Vigorous, on 06/11/2008, -4/+18They forgot to mention torture...
    • BradBrown, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1True, but then every president who ever existed would have been a candidate for impeachment. This "torture" didn't start with Bush. You can bet that when Obama takes office, it won't stop.
  • TheInformer, on 06/11/2008, -7/+41Bush should be forced to eat tomatoes.
    • damndj, on 06/11/2008, -1/+9Pretzels are a better option.
      • gmiley, on 06/11/2008, -0/+4These pretzels are making me THIRSTY!
      • buckrogers1965, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Pretzel was Bush's pet name for Jeff Gannon.
    • bennovw, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Soaked in vinegar...
    • MxM111, on 06/11/2008, -0/+14Do not insult tomatoes please.
    • defectDS, on 06/11/2008, -1/+9I hope the tomatoes you are referring to are the ones I'm being urged not to eat due to salmonella...
    • Modizzle, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Easy there, method man.
  • samuelmcm, on 06/11/2008, -17/+11buck fush
  • numbnuts, on 06/11/2008, -20/+7Ha ha ha ha ha ... whats the point?... he is gone in 5 months any way.



    ========
    • MxM111, on 06/11/2008, -1/+25? Problems with math?

      Signed. Math Nazi.
    • Deanblackoak, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2We need to make the statement that he has been wrong.
    • enantiodromia, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2they must love you, they count on that kind of apathy.
  • godd4242, on 06/11/2008, -5/+11Haha more than a half million votes and I doubt that there's a single senator that'll hear about this.
    • banmaster, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2Well, TELL THEM ABOUT IT then!!

      Its ***** like you that bitch from your armchairs but refuse to actually do a ***** thing about it that have made the US into the global laughing stock and most hated country on the planet at this moment!
    • barbiesnow, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Why don't you send a letter to yours?
    • Chirp08, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Look at the bright side, the results of the poll are well beyond the reaches of 4chan, digg, reddit etc., "average people" see that this man should be impeached too.
  • mazarino, on 06/11/2008, -2/+7done and done.
    • SilverStandard, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1By the way, diggers, voting on an online poll and digging something doesn't bring change.
      • mazarino, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Doesn't hurt either. Don't be a hater.
  • Kschreck, on 06/11/2008, -3/+17Voted yes. Almost a million votes and 89% says fry his ass.
    • SilverStandard, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1And all they do is vote on an online poll then they do nothing else.
  • Barackalypse, on 06/11/2008, -5/+68Its too bad we can't impeach Congress too, they're complicit in far worse crimes against the American people than the Iraq war.
    • pintomp3, on 06/11/2008, -1/+7worse than the death of thousands of america soldiers and hundreds of thousands of iraqis? worse than the trillions wasted?
      • Intercon, on 06/11/2008, -1/+4How about the 2.3 trillion that the Pentagon simply can't locate. Stealing 2.3 trillion is a pretty tough act to follow as far as crimes are concerned. Though I'm sure certain members of Congress eventually saw a decent portion of those funds in some manner or other.
      • Barackalypse, on 06/11/2008, -6/+4First, the Iraq war cost is approaching $550 million, a far cry from the "trillions" you quote and is currently costing about 12 billion per month, so lets say $150 billion per year. The 2008 budget calls for $608 billion for Social Security, $386 billion for Medicare, and $209 billion for Medicaid. The Iraq war cost is utterly dwarfed by social program spending that the federeal government has no specific mandate to provide.
        Second, I said crimes against the American people, dead Iraqi's aren't a crime against the American people. So we're left with the dead US Soldiers, which is tragic, but they volunteered for it. Is there really any difference between taking 75 years of life from 4,000 men, or taking 480 hours per year from a hundred fifty million people (thats roughly the amount of time a worker works to pay their federal income tax)?

        http://zfacts.com/p/447.html
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal ...
        • Twee, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1The cost of the Iraq war is approaching $550 BILLION, not million.
    • JoeVet, on 06/11/2008, -2/+3At least the GOP half is complicit in those crimes. The Democrats just didn't have the votes and they still do not have enough votes to stop the right wingers.
      • Barackalypse, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3In terms of the lost civil rights from the Patriot Act and the wiretapping, I agree. But the financial crimes are the entitlements that drain over a TRILLION dollars per year from the federal budget, and I spend 2-3 months a year to pay my share of those taxes. The big 3 (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) were all passed when Democrats controlled both the Congress and the presidency.
      • gbates31, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2the "not enough votes" is a false argument and an excuse to make the general public feel powerless. not once have the democrats filibustered an iraq spending bill. all it takes is 40% to bury the bill, but they won't even do that. if the dems really wanted to end the war all they'd have to do is stand up and they know this.
    • nycmac247, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1WRONG

      http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/excerpt1p1.php
  • damndj, on 06/11/2008, -5/+9What shocking results!
    • MxM111, on 06/11/2008, -1/+5It is indeed shocking. I mean, who the #@$% those 11%?
  • iMike360, on 06/11/2008, -5/+20If I live to see the day when the Bush administration is charged with high crimes I can die happy knowing just because your rich and powerful you can't get away with murder and human rights violation.
    • banmaster, on 06/11/2008, -1/+4History would seem to be on their side though :(
    • becknell, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2*you're*
    • epiphonegibson, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1He's still in there isn't he... 2004 people... 2004....
    • KevinRWright, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2Yes, but the rich and powerful CAN get away with murder.
  • atbnet, on 06/11/2008, -3/+6Sitting at 89% right now. I wonder how many of them 1. Voted for Bush in 2004 or 2. Didn't vote at all because this poll won't affect anything.
    • spanglegluppet, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2How many of the 89% that voted yes didn't vote in the poll? What?
      • Twee, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2How many didn't vote in the general election is what he's getting at, I think.
    • ricepicker4000, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2our presidents dumb ass decisions effect u too
  • Rikkochet, on 06/11/2008, -15/+22This Canadian voted yes.. Which seems stupid. Why was I allowed to vote? This poll is hardly usable.
    • gmiley, on 06/11/2008, -2/+6Because it's an internet poll, and doesn't mean dick except to see very general public opinion... but that's just my guess.
    • epiphonegibson, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3I absolutely agree with you. If so many people want Bush out, why is he still president after 2004?
    • obzidian, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3You don't think Bush has effected people Worldwide? Everyone should have the chance to get him out of office.
    • nafa228, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Bush was elected in 2004 because some 48% of registered voters neglected to hit the polls.
  • Pillage, on 06/11/2008, -18/+11I believe that the President of MSNBC should be impeached.
  • computerusr, on 06/11/2008, -35/+8I voted "No."
    • alpha88, on 06/11/2008, -4/+11I voted "Thumb Down."
    • fredmv, on 06/11/2008, -6/+7You appear to be an seasoned Internet troll (based on comment history) ... at 35. Suggestion: find a job. You don't make money acting retarded on Digg, you just get buried-- a lot.
      • computerusr, on 06/11/2008, -10/+2Have you ever eclipsed +150 on a digg comment? I didn't think so. But I have. PWNT.
        • fredmv, on 06/11/2008, -3/+5Try 300+: http://digg.com/comedy/Kid_goes_absolutely_nuts_ov ...

          On that note, consider moving out of your parents basement. Best of luck.
        • computerusr, on 06/11/2008, -7/+2Now I feel sorry for you. Shouldn't you be going to sleep so you're not tired for your 9-5 job tommorow? You actually think I, or anyone cares how many diggs you got? The whole thing was a joke. I like getting a rise out of digg viewers, the same way you pride yourself in your 300+ diggs.
        • computerusr, on 06/11/2008, -7/+2BTW your name is Fred. You automatically lose.
        • TheRealToma, on 06/11/2008, -0/+5Moral of the story, dont feed the troll.
        • str1fe, on 06/11/2008, -1/+5Since apparently it means something to you, I have a comment with 600+ and I also think you're a troll and a douchebag.

          http://digg.com/comedy/Sex_Chat_Gone_Wrong?t=14807 ...
        • computerusr, on 06/11/2008, -7/+1Nobody cares what you think if you're making comments about pokemon.
        • alpha88, on 06/11/2008, -1/+4Nobody cares what you think if you're 35 and constantly trolling digg. Also, you spelt "user" wrong.

          /thread.
        • mattbeetee, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3I've never heard of that rule before.

          Thanks for your wisdom, computeruser!
  • shiv68, on 06/11/2008, -4/+11
    Something we can all agree on.
    • ciaran036, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Its just a pity that Democracy isn't working.
      30% approval rating should mean an automatic get the ***** out.
  • midriscoll09, on 06/11/2008, -7/+19People who want Bush to be impeached should realize that Cheney would become president if it happened. Now, I hate Bush, but I hate Cheney so much more.
    • karan1003, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3by starting it now, we hope that the elections will be done with by the time Bush is forced to leave office.
      • jamesLankford, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1if the elections are done with, then he already will have left office

        so impeachment wouldn't have forced him out at all

    • skio84, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2impeachment wouldn't force him out of office; Clinton was impeached and Gore didn't succeed him
      • griffinjam, on 06/11/2008, -0/+0Read up on the impeachment process at wikipedia.

        in the united states impeachment is a two stage process which basically boils down to accusation and conviction. Clinton was impeached because stage one completed, he was accused, however he was not convicted and was thus not removed from office.
    • barbiesnow, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2It would be a double deal.
  • dizilbdog, on 06/11/2008, -5/+27Can the public just get this kind of system for Congress?? I mean we don't need congress just do these kind of online votes. You want to get rid of the fed YES OR NO, You want marijuana legalized YES or NO, you want the Iraq war to stop YES or NO. I like this system much better.
    • zapwow, on 06/11/2008, -0/+6This is a fascinating idea. In the past, polling the entire population for government decisions would have been a logistical impossibility. With the advent of mass communication and the internet, perhaps our governments should be updated to allow for this kind of representation. Rep-by-pop is outdated an unnecessary.
    • kestrel7e7, on 06/11/2008, -3/+2I'd rather have professionals run my country instead of the largely ignorant and selfish population. Lesser of two evils.
      • kinggimped, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Well, exactly. If polling a population can result in Bush becoming president in the first place (albeit cheating by not counting black people. Twice.), then they clearly cannot be trusted with even the simplest decisions.
      • Gutterpunk, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2"professionals"?

        WTF
    • anchorman, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2Unfortunately, the corporations and the politicians will never have it. They want power and the money power brings. It's just that simple and that sad.
    • Nielsio, on 06/11/2008, -0/+4Instead of referendums, they should not take our money in the first place (through taxation, inflation and borrowing).

      If you give people the power to spend someone else's money, it is INEVITABLE that it will lead to disaster.

      The problem is POWER; so don't be surprised when people abuse that power.

      If this rings true to you, look up 'minarchism', or even better: 'free market anarchism' or 'voluntaryism'.
    • induren, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3The founding fathers didn't trust us with direct democracy. Trust me they considered it.
      • Gutterpunk, on 06/11/2008, -2/+1Who the ***** cares?

        I mean, I'll get dugg down to oblivion, but your Founding Father didn't trust what now? They didn't trust the population back then, not the population now.

        Those founding fathers of yours are starting to sound more and more like holy prophets or something.
        • faatbuddha, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Precisely, they couldn't see the future.
          The country has evolved. The population has evolved. Technology has evolved. The system must evolve.
    • tk0680, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3"The problem with democracy is that every stupid bastard gets a vote"

      Now imagine that the general public - retarded as the average person is (lets dun shoot those darkies!) - can simply vote on important issues in that manner.
      • Gutterpunk, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2You should give more credits to people.
      • lotu, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Right after 9-11 we probably would have voted to nuke Afghanistan or something stupid like that. Remember there was a lot of support for going into Iraq in 2003.
        • faatbuddha, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1But then... would 9/11 have happened if we had had this system in place?
    • invinciblechunk, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2It would be riddled with ballot stuffing and other sorts of fraud. (But then, that differs from our current system how...)
    • bardo77n, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3What an extraordinarily horrible idea! Haven't you ever heard the expression than democracy is "two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner."

      There are major reasons why the Founding Fathers chose to organize this country as a republic and not a democracy. Just because an idea is popular doesn't make it right. No idea, no matter how popular, should ever be made into law if it violates an individual's rights. It's ironic that Emperor Bush wants to "spread democracy" around the world while we rightfully don't even have it at home.

      What if 51% of people voted to have dizilbdog executed on national TV during halftime of the Superbowl. Would that be ok? Would it make any difference if it was 80% or even 99%?
    • ciaran036, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1It is a brilliant concept that WOULD work with few problems.

      The current system clearly does not work at all.
  • OffPiste, on 06/11/2008, -11/+4Wait how many Dems are in the Senate?

    Oh, never mind.
  • spamcrusher, on 06/11/2008, -9/+3I don't like Bush at all, really, but why b