Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Majority believe Bush has committeed impeachable offenses.
thinkprogress.org — A new American Research Group poll finds that 55 percent of voters believe President Bush has “abused his powers” in a manner that rises “to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution,” yet just 34 percent believe he should actually be impeached.
populist- 2889 diggs
- digg it
- wishninja, on 11/15/2007, -23/+198Well republicans set the bar kind of low with the Bill Clinton Trial. If that is the standard of the minor offense then I would think bush should be tried for treason and if found guilty given the death penalty.
- martinjd, on 11/15/2007, -43/+17Bill Clinton lied under oath... so we impeached him. That's setting the bar low? If we can just let the president himself off the hook for perjury, the implications are staggering...
- Waiting2awake, on 11/15/2007, -7/+62Martin - true he did lie under oath, under charges that were completely trumped up(Where have we seen that before?) and a line of questioning where he was going to have to reveal personal, private, family information which had NOTHING to do with the running of the country.
Bush, on the other(under?) hand, his lies have cost your Nation how much? For known lies?- martinjd, on 11/15/2007, -44/+7The president of our nation needs to be a person of firm convictions. When he makes a vow to his wife, he needs to be able to keep it. When he says that "I did not have sex with that woman"... under oath... he should be able to have a clear conscience. How on earth can you say that the charges were "trumped up". Bill was getting freakin' nookie in the oval office. If you're going to be president and are going to make serious moral and ethical miscalculations the way he did, you better believe it has EVERYTHING to do with your country. Integrity and character should be at the top of our list of what we want in any politician.
- pintomp3, on 11/15/2007, -5/+26the sex lives of your politicians are your primary concern? you must hate the GOP then.
- objectcode, on 11/15/2007, -3/+30didn't bush swear to uphold the constitution?
- cababika799, on 11/15/2007, -7/+2In the land of innocent until proven guilty, just please put the man on trial already. I honestly think that all of you libs are going to spend millions starting an impeachment trial when he's almost out the door and they will find nothing except weak coincidence and conspiracy THEORY!
Then what?!? What will you say then, if he is absolved of the crimes you so passionately pin him with?!? I tell you what won't happen. You won't shut up about it. You never just shut the hell up. You won't just say "hey guys, we were wrong."
I have never met a more whiny and complaining, Cup-half-empty group of people in my entire life. - PURPLEDRINK, on 11/15/2007, -0/+7while you are way up there on your high horse of republican moral values ( I hope we can see the light from WAY up there)... take a look at this list of 46 republican pedophiles and get back to us when you can explain that: http://utah.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/16092.php
- andburn1, on 11/14/2007, -0/+7Hahahahahahahahahah, integrity and character? In a President? Bush is a Christian and a murderer. He does not love any ***** neighbors and he does not forgive those who commit trespasses against him. Firm moral convictions? Maybe pigs should ***** gold. That being said, you cannot impeach a President for a moral offense. He lied under oath, THAT is why he was impeached. He committed no crime beyond that. Bush has committed crimes o' plenty, not the least of which is trying to undo the division of power upon which the country is founded.
- martinjd, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1PURPLEDRINK: To start off... I'm not a republican. Secondly, I strongly believe that Bush has been a disaster on many fronts. Thirdly, I'm not part of the blanket-statement, accusation shoveling digg populous, so that must make me a republican, trust funded, brain washed kid glorifying my upper-class party from my "high horse", right? And finally, my comment was about Bill "I don't recall" Clinton.
- CourtesyFlush, on 11/14/2007, -9/+1And once again, we have idiot diggers advocating lying under oath as long as they personally approve of the lie.
Gray area for some, none for others.
Obviously, certain people can ignore the law as long as they're one of the gang.- Terr01, on 11/14/2007, -0/+6Once again, we have an idiot digger who doesn't seem to grasp the basic difference between the importance of the President's sex life versus his official conduct.
- fnaqzna, on 11/14/2007, -1/+6I hope you realize that Clinton was acquitted.
He was accused of lying under oath. He was not convicted of it. - martinjd, on 11/15/2007, -2/+1if it's in the oval office it's official enough for me...
- martinjd, on 11/15/2007, -44/+7The president of our nation needs to be a person of firm convictions. When he makes a vow to his wife, he needs to be able to keep it. When he says that "I did not have sex with that woman"... under oath... he should be able to have a clear conscience. How on earth can you say that the charges were "trumped up". Bill was getting freakin' nookie in the oval office. If you're going to be president and are going to make serious moral and ethical miscalculations the way he did, you better believe it has EVERYTHING to do with your country. Integrity and character should be at the top of our list of what we want in any politician.
- fractalman, on 11/15/2007, -6/+35Bush swore an oath to uphold the constitution. On those grounds alone, he deserves to be impeached. He conspired with Britten to start a war in Iraq based on false information. He commuted part of Libby's sentence, that is a direct violation of office per the constitution. Here are 25 reasons to impeach Bush. http://www.counterpunch.org/corseri06062005.html Congress should be able to make at least a few of these stick. It only takes one.
- OwdenBowden, on 11/15/2007, -1/+4Enough with the back and forth - Someone give him a blow job so we can get rid of his ass!
So - who's ready to take one for the team? - hmunkey, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2Britten?
- OwdenBowden, on 11/15/2007, -1/+4Enough with the back and forth - Someone give him a blow job so we can get rid of his ass!
- Chuck.NYC, on 11/15/2007, -10/+8Clinton wasn't actually impeached, he was acquitted by the Senate on Feb. 12 1999. End of story.
- Neiby, on 11/15/2007, -3/+15Wrong. He was impeached, but he was not removed from office by the Senate. Impeachment does not, in this case, mean removal from office.
- Chuck.NYC, on 11/15/2007, -10/+5The way I read it, The House voted to impeach, the Senate said no. So no impeachment.
- martinjd, on 11/15/2007, -2/+6How are people digging this comment? I can hardly comprehend the ignorance...
- leahcim, on 11/15/2007, -0/+7The way you read it, is wrong. He was legally impeached. "Impeached" is just a formal vote, if it passes, the president is impeached. Then Congress decides to do next, kick him our ignore it.
- fnaqzna, on 11/15/2007, -1/+3Articles of impeachment provided by the House are similar to an indictment. The impeachment proceedings by the Senate is the trial.
Clinton was acquitted.- martinjd, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Not quite. An impeachment is like a big huge governmental slap on the hand. A conviction is when you are decided unfit for office. Ordinarily they coincide... but in Bill Clinton's case they decided that it didn't compromise his leadership.
- ehalasey, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4Okay, hows about we start at the VERY beginning.
"In the constitutions of several countries, impeachment is the first of two stages in a specific process for a legislative body to remove a government official without that official's agreement. The second stage is called conviction."
Found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach
Clinton _was_ impeached. He just wasn't convicted.
- schroeder, on 11/15/2007, -0/+10Well, it all depends on what your definition of "is" is.
- martinjd, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2lol... i was waiting...
- Waiting2awake, on 11/15/2007, -7/+62Martin - true he did lie under oath, under charges that were completely trumped up(Where have we seen that before?) and a line of questioning where he was going to have to reveal personal, private, family information which had NOTHING to do with the running of the country.
- Napoleone, on 11/15/2007, -3/+45I think, overall, Bill Clinton was a decent president; even though he did usher in globalism in a reckless fashion. That he likes blow-jobs is fine with me, but lying under oath IS a big deal. It's not at all a small matter, especially when you take an office which has the duty of protecting the rule of law.
George W. Bush has violated the law in a far more flagrant manner, for sure, but that doesn't excuse Clinton. It merely shines a light on the hypocrisy of most in the Republican party.- dlsspy, on 11/15/2007, -0/+4People keep bringing up lying under oath to contradict the ``minor offense'' issue. That's sort of like all of these people who are arrested and charged with resisting arrest.
- cababika799, on 11/15/2007, -1/+3How is it that we are so hypocritical?!? Which republican citizens are keeping Bush from being impeached?!? You tell me, in a Democrat controlled government, how is it that Republicans are blocking impeachment hearings?
How is it that Republicans are the bad guys here when your own public officials aren't doing a thing you want them to?
Conservatives (for the most part) support the war effort, and therefore, Republican politicians are supporting the war (again, for the most part)
If what you say is true, then Liberals far outweight Conservatives in America and as such, they should have more power and more representation to make things happen.
But the opposite continues to happen! The war goes one, reinforcements are sent out and up untila little bit ago, we funded the war with everything we had.
After four years all the liberal polls came out saying that the majority of America hates Bush and they want him out...but what happened?!? He won by an even bigger margin than he did the first election!!!
So what did we all learn from this?!? Can you admit, when confronted by these facts that you are not the majority??? Can you accept that because you are so fired up about your cause that the media outlets spin the polls to work in your favor? Can we all finally admit that you are all just very loud???
No, I know we can't, because your polotics has become more of a religion to you than it has an idea.
- SuperWinner, on 11/15/2007, -5/+12Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations...", how many young people even consider oral sex to be anything other than "Hello" these days?
- FloppyLlamaDigg, on 11/15/2007, -0/+12Get off my lawn!
- undy242, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Hmm, guess I'm getting old then...
- UNL1M1T3D, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1I never thought of it that way.
- manchu2, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1"how many young people..."?
What's that got to do with Clinton's lie?
- zeromancer, on 11/14/2007, -13/+4***** the death penalty. i want public torture/execution. OMG! we should hang him so him and saddam can hang next to each other from Hell's Giant Gallows.
- sniperhare, on 11/15/2007, -34/+4What a bunch of crap, he's hasn't done anything wrong. Bush is a great president.
- pastanoose, on 11/15/2007, -4/+15Wow, you are one delusional SOB. Bush has crapped on the constitution so much you can't even read it anymore!
- dethl, on 11/14/2007, -3/+14That kool-aid must be really damn tasty.
- dethl, on 11/14/2007, -7/+3That kool-aid must be really damn tasty.
- objectcode, on 11/15/2007, -4/+6you may want to add /sarcasm to the end of your post next time you say bush is a great president
- rossnyc, on 11/14/2007, -2/+1Leveling?
- pault107, on 11/14/2007, -1/+9sniperhare is a troll. Check his comments, the vast majority are dugg down heavily:
http://www.zuubu.com?username=sniperhare&selectedt ...
Plus, get this, he joined Digg 1st August and since then he hasn't dugg a single article but he has made lots ***** comments. Sad really. - pault107, on 11/15/2007, -3/+3sniperhare is a troll. Check his comments, the vast majority are dugg down heavily:
http://www.zuubu.com?username=sniperhare&selectedt ...
Plus, get this, he joined Digg 1st August and since then he hasn't dugg a single article but he has made lots ***** comments. Sad really.- pault107, on 11/14/2007, -1/+3Oops, sorry for the double post...it was bound to happen one day.
- chrismgtis, on 11/15/2007, -3/+3I suggest you step out of your hole and find out what is happening in this world you live in, before you directly feel the effects of what our president has done.
- kolobcreek, on 11/14/2007, -1/+3I suggest the do a survey to see how many people actually know what an impeachment is. Then see if what percent of the people that want an impeachment actually know how the process works.
I bet its less that 20% know what they're talking about.- WaltDismal, on 11/15/2007, -0/+4If Americans spent as much time studying the Constitution and talking about political issues as they do watching 'Lost', we'd be a proud free nation instead of a bunch of scurrying rabbits running away from Dick Cheney's shotgun. Encourage your friends by talking a little about things that really matter. If we each did that, we might have a hope of escaping nuclear war and an impending police state.
- kolobcreek, on 11/14/2007, -1/+3I suggest the do a survey to see how many people actually know what an impeachment is. Then see if what percent of the people that want an impeachment actually know how the process works.
- nphase, on 11/15/2007, -0/+18No, see we live in the US. We don't believe in equal and proportional justice.
Remember: possession of Marijuana can keep you in jail longer than murder. - isaactwito, on 11/15/2007, -3/+19Are people just figuring out that Bush should be impeached, tried, and executed? He's orchestrated the deaths of countless more Americans and others than 9/11 ever did. He's wholy ***** our economy. He's the one who has made the world hate the US and screwed us unimagineably. He is the biggest terrorist in the ***** world.
- MyocyteX, on 11/15/2007, -1/+10Your words are so true, it just sucks, because when you say it like that, people think you are a crazy radical. I wish he would be tried for treason and executed, but it wont happen. He will for sure be judged as the worst president in American history....that seems to be one thing that we can count on.
- Waterrat, on 11/14/2007, -1/+3Amen to that.
- manchu2, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Worst President in American history? No, I'm pretty sure Jimmy Carter locked that one up tightly.
- SeethisPass, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2What you refer to as crazy, radical is actually commentary that is commensurate with the importance of the points he made
Bush is, at best now, a loose cannon. What should be done? - manchu2, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Quick notes on your post:
1. You clearly don't understand that term "treason"
2. Your use of the phrase "orchestrated the deaths of countless more Americans and others than 9/11 ever did" shows you have a tenuous grip on reality and are given to hyperbole
3. If you think anything Bush has done has "made the world hate the US", you have a very bad sense of history.
4. You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word "terrorist".
Other than being completely off-base on all points...great post
- MyocyteX, on 11/15/2007, -1/+10Your words are so true, it just sucks, because when you say it like that, people think you are a crazy radical. I wish he would be tried for treason and executed, but it wont happen. He will for sure be judged as the worst president in American history....that seems to be one thing that we can count on.
- wedgemartin, on 11/14/2007, -1/+2Yeah I can see Bush now. "I did not have relations with those American people. I simply bent them over the side of the bed and ***** them silly." I'm in Brasil currently, where I come every year around November/December to visit the in-laws. In the local grocery store here in Sao Paulo, they used to have a great collection of Napa Valley wines. They've pulled them all off the shelf, even though the real is a lot stronger now compared to the dollar than it has been in the ~8 years I've been coming here. When I asked the wine guy what the deal was, he said that people stopped looking for it, so they stopped carrying it. Which is sad, because California violently opposed Bush in both elections.
- aadyss, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1Been to Sao Paulo many times. It pretty much sucks, thank you.
- manchu2, on 11/16/2007, -1/+1Screw Brazil
- cougar222, on 11/17/2007, -0/+0We in Canada could have sent them Canadian wine but then we elected Bush's buddy Harper so that won't work
- x083, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1Money is the root of all evil. , Actions speak louder than words, Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
google video search ' the money masters '........................... figure it out.- manchu2, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Three bumper stickers for the price of one....well done!
- manchu2, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1"tried for treason..."?
Do you even know what the definition of "treason" is (and by this I mean the legal definition, not the Moonbat Left definition)?
- martinjd, on 11/15/2007, -43/+17Bill Clinton lied under oath... so we impeached him. That's setting the bar low? If we can just let the president himself off the hook for perjury, the implications are staggering...
- martinjd, on 11/15/2007, -21/+79I want a poll on what percentage of Americans know what's constitutionally impeachable. This is like polling junior-highers on global warming... the sample group isn't a reliable source....
- Waiting2awake, on 11/15/2007, -13/+10Because they don't agree with you and the other 20%ers? Sounds like they are more reliable than what was originally passed of as news in regards to Bush..
- martinjd, on 11/15/2007, -10/+7It's got nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with anyone's personal opinions... I'm not disputing that the given percentage of Americans are dissatisfied, I'm just proposing that they don't understand what is constitutionally impeachable. If 55% of the voting population was actually confident that they knew what was impeachable (and that Bush had committed said crimes), then the percentage who believed he should actually be impeached would be greater than 34. I'll be the first to admit that Bush had made several serious miscalculations, and that they will be costly for our nation for a long time, but I don't think that he has done anything impeachable, so I'm not going to join a lynch mob just because I'm not satisfied.
- ScornedPatriot, on 11/15/2007, -4/+19You can be impeached for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". Nixon was going to be impeached for illegal wiretapping of the democrats. President Bush has illegally wiretapped the entire country. You can't say that he didn't, otherwise the telecoms wouldn't be asking for immunity now. Bush is the most impeachable President we have ever had. I'm pretty sure illegal wiretapping is at least a misdemeanor, since even stealing a candy bar is. For no other reason alone he should be impeached, you don't even need to bring Iraq and all the other bad decisions into it.
- atheinostic, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2Violating FISA is a felony, and violations are punishable by up to 5 years in prison.
- manchu2, on 11/16/2007, -1/+1Please read, "In Re Sealed Case 02-001" . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Re_Sealed_Case_No. ...
Your knowledge of FISA and FISA-related case history must be truly pathetic. - ScornedPatriot, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1@manchu2
Hey moron... from your own link...
"The Court also noted (but made no judgment regarding) "the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance" which relates to part of the government justification in the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy."
They are listening to EVERYONE, domestic and international. They are breaking the law, period.
- coleelectric, on 11/14/2007, -1/+3Aren't they trying to figure out how they can use the "Patriot Act" as their defense in this - you know, the one we all rushed to support and sign into law after our declaration of "war" on "terror?" Yea. I don't think they can get him on illegal wiretapping if it was done in a time of war, and protected under a Congressional Act. He covered his bases. History alone will grant us the time away from this horrible period in order to fully measure the acts of his presidency, and find they come up completely lacking.
- cababika799, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2You know people were just as angry about Lincoln as President? You should really go back and read what they said about him. It makes what was said about Bush look like compliments. So don't assume that history will side with you.
- Terr01, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4Yeah, and Nixon is not a crook, right?
- manchu2, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1LOL. Terr01, did you say "Ole!" as you posted that? You completely side-stepped cababika799's point.
- illegalcortex, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3The funny thing is, the constitution does not specify what is impeachable conduct, other than the vague "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." It also gives neither the Executive or Judicial branches any control or recourse over the proceedings. So the truth is that what is impeachable (and convictable) is WHATEVER CONGRESS WANTS IT TO BE. Like it or not, that's how the paper is written.
- Terr01, on 11/14/2007, -1/+2"I'll be the first to admit that Bush had made several serious miscalculations, and that they will be costly for our nation for a long time, but I don't think that he has done anything impeachable"
Allow me to help you with one of my favorite examples.
First, read the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the US constitution, the supreme law of the land. Okay?
Now please explain how abducting people and holding them YEARS without lawyer, without trial, without even *charges*, in solitary confinement... Is IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM Constitutional?
And yes, Bush HAS done that, and even with US citizens taken from US soil held on US soil (although there is no actual legal difference versus non-citizens, etc.)- martinjd, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2sources?
- Terr01, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/10/bush-ad ...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1019/p01s11-usju.htm ...
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3510
When you've even got the CATO institute agreeing, you know it's not just something you can brush off with cries of "truther nuts", etc. You can also find a lot of this stuff in major papers. - manchu2, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Terr01, you might want to actually READ the articles you posted. They are full of talk of gray areas, "unlawful combatant" designations, etc. You make it all sound so clear. ""It will make it a lot harder for plaintiffs [like Padilla] to win a lawsuit because there is a much better argument that the relevant laws aren't clearly established" . Did you even READ this?
I'm not saying that the way Padilla's case was handled suits my preferences, but the same could be said in regard to the precedent cited in the Cato article, Ex Parte Quirin.
- ScornedPatriot, on 11/15/2007, -4/+19You can be impeached for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". Nixon was going to be impeached for illegal wiretapping of the democrats. President Bush has illegally wiretapped the entire country. You can't say that he didn't, otherwise the telecoms wouldn't be asking for immunity now. Bush is the most impeachable President we have ever had. I'm pretty sure illegal wiretapping is at least a misdemeanor, since even stealing a candy bar is. For no other reason alone he should be impeached, you don't even need to bring Iraq and all the other bad decisions into it.
- martinjd, on 11/15/2007, -10/+7It's got nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with anyone's personal opinions... I'm not disputing that the given percentage of Americans are dissatisfied, I'm just proposing that they don't understand what is constitutionally impeachable. If 55% of the voting population was actually confident that they knew what was impeachable (and that Bush had committed said crimes), then the percentage who believed he should actually be impeached would be greater than 34. I'll be the first to admit that Bush had made several serious miscalculations, and that they will be costly for our nation for a long time, but I don't think that he has done anything impeachable, so I'm not going to join a lynch mob just because I'm not satisfied.
- slashbot, on 11/15/2007, -19/+8This poll was conducted on the dailykos website
- vat0r, on 11/14/2007, -0/+5Almost, nice try, not quite...
- ricochetsmith, on 11/14/2007, -4/+7no the poll was conducted by American research group, and looks at first glance to be reasonably legit, KOS just jumped on it first
- LukasSmith, on 11/15/2007, -4/+4Yea right on martin. how many Americans actually know the constitution? I bet those LEGAL immigrants we get every year know more. But three other notes A. 55%? If you really knew government you would know you typically need 60 votes in senate to get bills passed. And so you all know there are 100 senators so that makes 60 votes = 60%. Considering that many on digg.com dont believe that the fact that President Bush got only slightly above 50% of the vote in 2 presidential elections means anything its likely you agree that 55% means nothing. Point B. If you read farther then first sentence you see 34% support impeaching president and 40% support impeaching cheney. Hardly lynch mob time dont you agree? Actually point C. wtf is new American and why should I trust them any more then fox?
- martinjd, on 11/14/2007, -3/+3Isn't that a 2/3's majority in senate? As in 67 votes?
- LukasSmith, on 11/14/2007, -3/+3ummm 60/100 = 60%. If youve ever watched CNN senate you would note that 60 votes is the typical votes needed to end debate and pass bill without filabuster otherwise known as cloture http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/clot ... 2/3 majority is needed to overide a presidential veto http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_congress_overrid ... So basically with 67 votes they can pass thier bill regardless of presidents opinion.
- martinjd, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2But this is an impeachment... Simple majority in the House, 2/3 in the Senate (unless, I suppose.. if Bush agreed... then 60% would suffice).
- Terr01, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2Your logic is flawed and your point is irrelevant.
What is the *disposition* of those 60%? After all, in California a senator represents ~18 million people, but in Wyoming one senator represents ~0.255 million people! In the most extreme case, 60% popular support translates to an 88% vote in the Senate! - ngnboone, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2You don't need the whole village to have an effective lynch mob
- aadyss, on 11/15/2007, -0/+0I think the liberal agenda of sex education in schools trumps the teaching of the constitution, don't you?
- kaelyiesta, on 11/15/2007, -2/+9Exactly. Who gives a ***** if some idiotic 'america can do no wrong' patriot thinks bush didn't do something impeachable. The ***** Constitution, our rule of law, is what determines that, not some christian extremist nut that would never admit to bush doing wrong.
- cababika799, on 11/14/2007, -4/+1It's amazing how easily you all start throwing around the constitution as your defense. But when the Christian's do it, they must be crazy...there's no way they understand the constitution. It's not like the majority of people writing the constitution were Christians or anything. haha.
Hey Bush has done plenty wrong. If you want to say that he sent us to war with bad intel, thats fine, if you want to say that he ***** on the economy, then thats fine too. But the other crimes are all made up with loosely tied coincidence at best as your means of conviction.- Terr01, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3Are you intentionally ignorant? Look up the 4th and 5th amendments to the US constitution. Then look up Jose Padilla.
Unless everybody in the whitehouse is lying except Bush (and even then, where does the buck stop?) Bush has willfully and wantonly violated the US Constitution.- aadyss, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2Simple question then. Why doesn't your party impeach him and see where it goes? We are all waiting with breathless anticipation. Waiting.....still waiting.......yawn!
- Terr01, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1Right back at you. If the Democrats are "My Party" and I am their keeper, then first tell me why "your president" is breaking the constitution, eh?
- manchu2, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1You keep citing the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment as being "broken". Should be a slam dunk for you then.
Waiting...waiting.....
- WaltDismal, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3Illegal spying (wiretapping) on the citizens of the United States, torture of world citizens, destroying the US economy while giving your buddies lucrative no-competition contracts are NOT loosely tied coincidence.
- manchu2, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Walt, a couple of items
1. "Illegal spying (wiretapping)": please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Re_Sealed_Case_No. ...
2. "torture of world citizens". Two things here: there is no such thing as a "world citizen", and please...pretty please...describe this alleged "torture"
3. "destroying the US economy": you mean the one that just reported 3.9% growth in real GDP for 3rd Quarter of 2007? You do realize that 3% is *****-hot, smoking? Oh yeah...Dow Jones Industrial Average hit 14,000 earlier this month. Read a friggin' article or two besides "ThinkProgress" tripe once in a while, would ya?
4. "lucrative no-competition contracts"? LOL....you do realize that KBR had no-bid contracts...in Bosnia..don't you? That wasn't under Bush/Cheney...that was Clinton/Gore. The reason they get that kind of contract is there isn't a stable of companies that can reliably deliver those kind of services...in a war zone.
You are not very well informed...on any of the topics you mentioned.
- Terr01, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3Are you intentionally ignorant? Look up the 4th and 5th amendments to the US constitution. Then look up Jose Padilla.
- cababika799, on 11/14/2007, -4/+1It's amazing how easily you all start throwing around the constitution as your defense. But when the Christian's do it, they must be crazy...there's no way they understand the constitution. It's not like the majority of people writing the constitution were Christians or anything. haha.
- mugicha, on 11/14/2007, -2/+1You are missing the point. It doesn't matter if people have a constitutional lawyer's depth of understanding of the law. This is a ***** representative democracy, and there is a large percentage of the American people who think Bush is a criminal. That's more important than quibbling about what esoteric aspects of the law that people may or may not understand. Bottom line is that Bush and his administration have led us into an illegal war that has cost us thousands of American lives and billions of American dollars, and the American people feel that he should be held responsible for it. That's what this is about.
- jimmythorton, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3Actually the United States isn't a representative democracy. We are much closer to a constitutional republic. Thus, just because a majority wishes something doesn't mean what they wish is legal. A constitutional republic mitigates the fear of the so-called tyranny of the majority.
In short just because people don't like or think what bush has done is immoral does not give us the legal right to impeach him.- ChimpFlix, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1Having said that, the Bush Administration has committed numerous documented unconstitutional and illegal actions.
- cababika799, on 11/14/2007, -1/+3And by "American's" I'm assuming you mean the majority. So explain to me...if you are the majority, then why is nothing done? If the majority of the people are taking a liberal stance on this and the government is now controlled by liberls, then what is stopping the hearings? In fact, with as many people as you claim to have in support of your cause, what is stopping you from organizing the 230 million man march and just hauling him out of the White House?
You people are crazy if you think you're in the majority. The biggest conspiracy theory in American is the one where the media plays the sympathetic card to the angered American minority to enrage them and watch their rating soar.
But nobody ever talks about that. Thats a bigger cash cow than the one you guys say bush is after with the oil. But nobody wants that. Probably because you're so angry you can't see straight. You think the Patriot act is here to control you, and you'll complain about it in shackles all the way to the media's bank.- Monkeywithacold, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1Something I am finding is when people make statements like "Majority" or "Everybody" they really mean "everybody" they hang around and talk with about these issues.
- martinjd, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Mugicha - If the poll was about an approval rating, then there would be no problem. But if the poll is about whether or not he's "impeachable", something that is constitutionally defined and NOT subjective (unlike your existential take on law and policy). If all this poll was trying to accomplish was to demonstrate that people don't like Bush, we already know that. His approval rating is still somewhere down near 11%. However, this poll claims to give information on something concretely defined, even though it was carried out much more like an "opinion poll".
- manchu2, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Actually, I think the 11% is congress' approval rating. Bush is a little higher...mid-20s or so.
- martinjd, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Ya you're right... mixin' up my numbers.
- manchu2, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Actually, I think the 11% is congress' approval rating. Bush is a little higher...mid-20s or so.
- manchu2, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1"This is a ***** representative democracy, and there is a large percentage of the American people who think Bush is a criminal."
LOL...and those in the "large percentage" of the American people all have "D" after their names, right? That or they're the typically intellectually-shallow under-30 crowd ("if you're under 30 and not liberal, you have no heart; if you're over 30 and are not a conservatie, you have no brain"), or the 9/11 Truther-type, or the incredibly unsavvy business types who think that waging war in Iraq is a cost effective way of getting oil rather than just allowing the sanctions against Iraq to expire.
LOL....
- jimmythorton, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3Actually the United States isn't a representative democracy. We are much closer to a constitutional republic. Thus, just because a majority wishes something doesn't mean what they wish is legal. A constitutional republic mitigates the fear of the so-called tyranny of the majority.
- obliviousfool, on 11/15/2007, -1/+255% of Americans think Bush has committed impeachable offenses. The other 45% just haven't done much research...
- aadyss, on 11/15/2007, -2/+1The only research you people do is...bend over, hold onto the shoulders of the person in front of you, ashen faces turned down, shuffling along and chanting in a low voice, "impeach, impeach, neocon, neocon, fascist, fascist, constitution, constitution............on and on and forever, amen.
- manchu2, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Now, with 55% of the public behind the impeachment effort, I would expect to see a vigorous attempt to do something about that.
Waiting...waiting....
- Waiting2awake, on 11/15/2007, -13/+10Because they don't agree with you and the other 20%ers? Sounds like they are more reliable than what was originally passed of as news in regards to Bush..
- masterm1nd, on 11/15/2007, -50/+17Another stupid 'poll' with a stupid 'statistic'. Either find some 'facts' to actually impeach the guy with, or quit spamming digg.
- Waiting2awake, on 11/14/2007, -5/+14Lets get them under Oath...if they have nothing to hide...right?
- moin1097, on 11/14/2007, -9/+6I'm going to show up at your house at 3am because you have nothing to hide.
- Acewrap, on 11/14/2007, -2/+7Make sure you're armed if you show up at this Lefty's house @ 03:00. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
- FloppyLlamaDigg, on 11/14/2007, -1/+6Does the majority of the country back you? Do you have evidence of wrongdoing?
This impeachment idea is not a wild goose chase. Your example is.
- moin1097, on 11/14/2007, -9/+6I'm going to show up at your house at 3am because you have nothing to hide.
- masterm1nd, on 11/14/2007, -2/+2Ok, let them go under oath. Does that mean they are going to? Does that mean you can make them? You are still back at square one, acquiring facts so they actually have to go under oath.
- siszam, on 11/14/2007, -1/+5Dennis Kucinich recently presented many facts and is attempting to have Cheney impeached. Here, knock yourself out. http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/document ...
- masterm1nd, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1Ok, then I assume it will work. If it doesn't work, then Kucinich is full of *****.
- Terr01, on 11/14/2007, -0/+6Fact: Bush has had US citizens taken from US soil and held for years without trial, lawyer, or even charges.
Gross violation of the bill of rights? Check. Bill of rights part of the US Constitution? Check.
- Waiting2awake, on 11/14/2007, -5/+14Lets get them under Oath...if they have nothing to hide...right?
- Napoleone, on 11/15/2007, -22/+234Provable impeachable offenses committed by George W. Bush:
1. Warrantless domestic spying - In violation of the the First, Fourth and Ninth amendments to the Constitution of the United States. In violation of the FISA Act of 1978.
Proof: Telecoms seek IMMUNITY for having spied on Americans. Definition: im·mu·ni·ty - "Law. exemption from criminal prosecution or legal liability or punishment on certain conditions." When was the last time someone was granted immunity for being innocent?
2. Unconstitutional revocation of the Right to Habeas Corpus - "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." - Constitution of the United States
Proof: We are not under invasion and, surprisingly enough, we're not in rebellion. Claims that the Right has not been revoked for U.S. Citizens are false. This so-called president has given himself the authority to detain as an "enemy combatant" any person within and without the United States. And enemy combatants do not have the Right to Habeas Corpus.
3. Deploying Military Spy Sattelites to assist local law enforcement - In violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of military personnel and or resources in the execution of domestic law enforcement activities. (No, National Guard does not count. They are not federal.)
Proof: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Aug15/0,4670,SpyS ...
4. Dereliction of Duty - Delayed and then woefully inadequate response to the Hurricane Katrina Disaster.
Proof: New Orleans; Mississippi coast- ElAssoWipo, on 11/15/2007, -11/+74Crimes against humanity: 65,000 civilians dead in Shock and awe alone.
Crimes of war: legalizing torture. - sniperhare, on 11/15/2007, -34/+6It's not his job to fix what happened to Katrina. That was LAs fault and the mayor/government of New Orleans. I don't even want to respond to the other claims, they are all justified actions in a time of war.
- falseleftright, on 11/14/2007, -2/+5Of course, Bush slashing the budget that would have been used to shore up the levees had nothing ot do with Katrina either, right?
- appleann1, on 11/14/2007, -2/+3They had the money, it disappeared into the corrupt politicians hands.
Democrats have been running LA for decades, if they're such saviors why was there so much poverty in N.O? I think we all know the answer to that.
Keep them poor and dependent and they'll keep voting for you.
Incidentally, Bill Clinton never showed up at the World Trade Center after the 93 bombing.
- appleann1, on 11/14/2007, -2/+3They had the money, it disappeared into the corrupt politicians hands.
- starkruzr, on 11/14/2007, -0/+5They're not justified actions unless he decides suspending the Constitution is necessary. He hasn't done that, therefore they are unjustified. Modus tollens is your friend.
- WaltDismal, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2Signing statements are effectively a suspension, since by these statements Bush bypassed Congress's right to make law and negated the citizenry's Constitutional rights in many ways. The excessive use of signing statements itself shows Bush's belief he is above the law and the Constitution. He did not have to formally and publically and legally try to suspend it, by his actions he was done it. He is a criminal, and I am tired of fools who defend a criminal because of their own partisan interests. Your duty as a citizen is to resist this criminal action, and overturn it.
- pault107, on 11/14/2007, -1/+12sniperhare is a troll. Check his comments, the vast majority are dugg down heavily:
http://www.zuubu.com?username=sniperhare&selectedt ...
Plus, get this, he joined Digg 1st August and since then he hasn't dugg a single article but he has made lots ***** comments. Sad really.- Monkeywithacold, on 11/15/2007, -2/+1I find it kinda sad that you had to make a post about it...
But I guess its sad that im commenting on it?
ENDLESS CYCLE?
- Monkeywithacold, on 11/15/2007, -2/+1I find it kinda sad that you had to make a post about it...
- vat0r, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1When i saw a picture of Bush flying over LA the day after Katrina it sealed the deal for me. Whether he is responsible or not it was his duty as the leader of America to stop there and at least lend a LITTLE support.
- rezonq3, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1You are quick to blame the states for being ill-prepared for something as disastrous as Katrina and say the Federal Government has no responsibility in a national crisis while your ilk complain CONSTANTLY that the Federal Government isn't banning abortion?
Priorities man! - Xondar, on 11/14/2007, -1/+5That's odd... War was never officially declared. Ergo, it is not a "time of war."
- falseleftright, on 11/14/2007, -2/+5Of course, Bush slashing the budget that would have been used to shore up the levees had nothing ot do with Katrina either, right?
- moin1097, on 11/14/2007, -9/+11WOW!!!!!!!
You should take this to congress RIGHT NOW!!!!!- coleelectric, on 11/15/2007, -0/+18They wouldn't care. Half of them are in violation of "dereliction of duties" themselves.
- ElAssoWipo, on 11/14/2007, -0/+9If congress was willing to impeach or accuse anyone, they would've done it about 4 years ago.
They choose not to. Even democrats are blocking the impeachment. But hey, let's keep pretending the system works, write a letter to someone who will never read it. - edcrosay, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2I just sent the following:
Dear Honorable Representative Walden,
As you already know, there is a fine document called the Constitution of the United States of America, which just happens to be the supreme law of this country. The Constitution is the most revered and respected piece of parchment in the world. It was written with the common man in mind. It was written to prevent tyranny and oppression from returning the the great land of America. Unfortunately, over the past few years the Constitution has been torn up and spit on by our current federal lawmakers. Please don't allow this to happen any longer. Don't vote for or write unconstitutional acts and laws and punish those who do. Please do your part for your country and its citizens by impeaching the president under the following charges:
Provable impeachable offenses committed by George W. Bush:
... What Napoleone posted...
Thank you very much for reading this.
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Sincerely,
- eryximachus, on 11/14/2007, -22/+101) The right to privacy in the form you are suggesting does not yet exist in the United States
2) Constitutional rights are granted only to citizens of the United States, and to my knowledge such a right has not been denied US citizens. In any event, many would argue (not that I agree with them) the "war on terror" would justify such an exemption.
3) I think you're analysis of the Posse Comitatus Act is a bit inaccurate. The use of spy satellites is nothing compared to something like Ruby Ridge or Waco, TX, which was true to life use of Federal military personal against US citizens. Hell, democrats put up Wesley Clark, the general who authorized military activity at Waco, for President of the United States!
4) It is not the responsibility of the President or the federal government to assist states with domestic activities such as that. You are kidding yourself if you really believe that is the duty of the president.- acidbass, on 11/14/2007, -5/+51)it always has existed, bush just changed it and not even legally.
2) this right has been violated when they spy on us citizens which is already a proven fact.
3) You didnt respond to the fact that Bush broke the law here, youre saying b/c something wesley clark did should mean that Bush is allowed also to violate the same law? youre a psycho then.
4) If you dont think the role of the govt is to protect the ppl by keeping them safe in all circumstances, no matter what, then you sir, are an idiot and need to leave america, b/c here YOUR WHOLE LIFE youve been using federal dollars to go to school, go to the hospital, use the police, roadways, fire rescue, emt, now you say that the role of Federal govt isnt to protect its citizens? i see, - Napoleone, on 11/14/2007, -4/+81. Are you reading the same Constitution the rest of us are?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution
2. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld
3. Waco and Ruby Ridge were criminal actions perpetrated by the Federal Government. Now that we're agreed on that basic fact, does one wrong make a worse wrong right?
4. National disasters fall upon the federal government, with the president being on the forefront. I've never even heard anyone deny that fact, although I have heard of those who dissaprove of it. - jftitan, on 11/14/2007, -1/+51) Then why are these telecos pushing for the bill to give them immunity from the sharing of information with NSA. (yet exist?.... or did exist?) You see Americans lost alot of their privacy when new technology was implemented. Sure, even the ***** who say "I wont give you my private information for risk of identify theft", these people fail to realize their personal information runs through the internet daily,
2) You are correct... however based on the wording of such laws that allow this spying, a US citizen could be deemed a threat and then arrested. rights are lost the moment the person is arrested, and it is left up to the loop holes of the legal system that can allow an American citizen to be deemed a terrorist, and then all rights are lost. What if said person was not a terrorist but was deemed one. The problem then because that persons life. Now said person must spend the rest of his/her life trying to convince the rest of the world he/she is not.
3) I'm not sure about this one, I'm not familiar with the use of spy satellites with domestic spying... yet.
4) Not the duty of the president, but the duty of the president to appoint a qualified director. Oh wait, its not the feds responsibility for state wide disasters.... FEMA?????? A federal organization created to assist in natural and chaotic situations that the state/local governments sometimes find themselves unable to handle. The president appointed a camel jockey director to direct a federal organization on disasters. - paranoidbrick, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1He said it a little blatantly in number 4, but essentially he's right. With Katrina it was the responsibility of the mayor of New Orleans to have an evacuation plan, and the responsibility of the mayor and governor to provide immediate relief. FEMA was never meant to provide immediate relief, nor could it ever feasibly provide it. The national government is just the easiest to blame when you don't have a grasp of its actual functions.
- Terr01, on 11/14/2007, -0/+12): Wrooooooooooooong. The bill of rights is NOT reserved only for citizens. In several areas the use of "Person" instead of "Citizen" is explicit, and this includes Amendemnets 4 and 5. Go ahead, read them.
Then look up Jose Padilla as an example of how the Bush administration has broken the constitution *even with US citizens* (although again, it's just as bad with noncitizens.)
- acidbass, on 11/14/2007, -5/+51)it always has existed, bush just changed it and not even legally.
- LukasSmith, on 11/14/2007, -15/+4wow your proof sucks. Its more theory then fact. Just keep believing the liberal medias trash.
Proof 1. Telecoms seek immunity. Well if you kept up with the outcome you would notice dem majority congress has pretty much handed them immunity. so entire government responsible for action not just Bush. hard to imagine entire government is corrupt or that you keep believing in a certain segment of them.
proof 2. absolutely rediculous. So you take a supposed terrorist into a court to be tried in a place where the most judges deal with is drugs, rape, or murder? A terrorist isnt going to get on a witness stand and be so inclined by patriotism to tell the truth the whole truth so help him God. Thats wishful thinking. Because 99.9 percent of the suspects held arent even Americans. And the supposed 3 or 4 cases ive heard of actual citizens bieng held just seem kinda fishy like some vast liberal conspiracy. I mean a guy gets on tv and say oh the government did this or that to me. When have I not heard of someone who rushes to see barbara walters after they are tortured or raped. ahaha.
Proof 3. I can see your ass right now on google maps? so? sue me.
Proof 4. Oh no he didnt rush out to new orleans and part the water like moses.hahahh. Man did you guys expect superman? and yes I am libertarian so you can save the usual republican bashing tirade.- WileEPeyote, on 11/15/2007, -0/+6@LukasSmith
Proof 1: How does this make Bush innocent. I hate the "they did it too" defense.
Proof 2: If just 1 American is denied his rights do to this it is definitely un-constitutional. If you are a little more philosophical, you could make the leap that "all men are created equal" would include folks from other countries.
Proof 3: No you can't.
Proof 4: Yeah, don't really know what he could have done better given his mental condition.
I can't believe you can call yourself a Libertarian. I myself am not Libertarian, but know at least 2 of those should seriously burn your ass if you are. - MyocyteX, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4Luke's only offense, being a hopeless idiot.
- LukasSmith, on 11/14/2007, -5/+0Proof 1: You dont trust your entire government? Then stop VOTING for them. And before you say well I didnt, America did vote for them so America gets what they vote for.
Proof 2:Philosophy has nothing to do with law. I suppose philosophy would tell me all illegal immigrants are supposed to be treated equal? and they say only bush can misinterpret the constitution to thier own agenda.pff
Proof 3:Send me a postcard with your address on it. Ill be seeing you soon.
Proof 4.Bush has probably never even been to New Orleans before Katrina and if he did it was just to get drunk. The guy shouldnt have been expected to be some hurricane response expert. Besides ultimately the local and state governments should have stepped up and didnt. I mean who better to help the people then people who live in the state? of course thier governor and nagin barely got mentioned negatively. Not like you can trust anything in louisiana. But Bush got ripped apart by democrats. Hes like jesus seriously crucified on a cross of liberal media bs.- seanc6610, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3LMAO@ "Philosophy has nothing to do with law." Well if American law isn't a philosophy, what the ***** is it? And yes, all immigrants should be treated equally, unless I missed the part where it says "All men are created equal, except the ones that we call illegal or don't like." Personally, I don't think the title "illegal immigrant" should exist to begin with, but that's a separate issue.
- LukasSmith, on 11/15/2007, -3/+0sick
- WileEPeyote, on 11/16/2007, -0/+11. We don't vote in Kings who can do whatever they want once elected, we vote in representatives who must abide by the laws. If they are not fulfilling their duties or are flouting the law we have recourse to remove them (even without an election), which is where this whole conversation started.
2. What? Did you flunk reading comprehension?
3. Here is Bill Gates' house on google maps ( http://www.satellite-sightseer.com/id/1305/United_ ... ) see if you can find him there.
4. What exactly are you refuting here? I already said I didn't think he could have done much more.
- seanc6610, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3LMAO@ "Philosophy has nothing to do with law." Well if American law isn't a philosophy, what the ***** is it? And yes, all immigrants should be treated equally, unless I missed the part where it says "All men are created equal, except the ones that we call illegal or don't like." Personally, I don't think the title "illegal immigrant" should exist to begin with, but that's a separate issue.
- LukasSmith, on 11/14/2007, -6/+0And I forgot to mention Bush got elected twice. Apparently digg.com is not America.
- WileEPeyote, on 11/15/2007, -0/+6@LukasSmith
- mkrusz, on 11/15/2007, -2/+2regarding #2: the 'lack of invasion or rebellion' argument is not really proof. bush makes the case that the suspension clause only applies domestically, and that the Writ wouldn't even extend to prisoners at Guantanamo, outside sovereign territory. If true, stripping federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas corpus (Military Commissions Act) could arguably be legit. i'm not taking a side here, his arguments are certainly refutable, just pointing out that the argument is more complicated than you let on.look for this issue to be resolved more directly, hopefully, when the Court decides Boumediene v Bush this term.
- mkrusz, on 11/14/2007, -0/+0(of course i only mean this to apply to non-citizens...
- principle, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/us ... FISA - TITLE 50, CHAPTER 36 , SUBCHAPTER I , Sect. 1809 Criminal sanctions -- Both the subchapters covering physical searches and electronic surveillance provide for criminal and civil liability for violations of FISA. Criminal sanctions follows violations of electronic surveillance by intentionally engaging in electronic surveillance under the color of law or through disclosing information known to have been obtained through unauthorized surveillance. The penalties for either act are fines up to $10,000, up to five years in jail, or both.[14] In addition, the statute creates a cause of action for private individuals whose communications were unlawfully monitored. The statute permits actual damages of not less than $1,000 or $100 per day. In addition, that statute authorizes punitive damages and an award of attorney's fees.[15] Similar liability is found under the subchapter pertaining to physical searches. In both cases, the statute creates an affirmative defense for a law enforcement agent acting within their official duties and pursuant to a valid court order. Presumably, such a defense is not available to those operating exclusively under presidential authorization. -- It is plainly obvious is that the President and the Attorney General (Gonzales) have been engaged in a criminal conspiracy involving illegal wire-tapping. Moreover, the President knowing that it was illegal had authorized wire-tapping 45 times without FISA court, which is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in jail. The President could face up to 225 year in jail before any charges of criminal conspiracy are even considered. And he has no defense since FISA explicitly states, “a defense is not available to those operating exclusively under presidential authorization.”
- AbsurdParadox, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2"4. Dereliction of Duty - Delayed and then woefully inadequate response to the Hurricane Katrina Disaster."
Can you please show me where its outlined that the federal government has a responsibility to respond to natural disasters? - ChimpFlix, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1I had the same comment about number 4. This is a flimsy argument. Numbers 1 through 3 are just fine.
- obliviousfool, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1John Conyers, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee released an "investigative report" on the Bush administration in December of 2005 called “The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance."
Here is a list of the laws he feels the administration has broken.
Committing a Fraud Against the United States (18 U.S.C. 371)
Making False Statements to Congress (18 U.S.C. 1001)
War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148)
Misuse of Government Funds (31 U.S.C. 1301)
Anti-Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. 2340-40A)
The War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441)
Material Witness (18 U.S.C. 3144)
Obstructing Congress (18 U.S.C. 1505)
Whistleblower Protection (5 U.S.C. 2302)
The Lloyd-LaFollette Act (5 U.S.C. 7211)
Retaliating against Witnesses (18 U.S.C. 1513)
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.)
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. chapter 15)
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222)
Stored Communications Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. 2702)
Pen Registers or Trap and Trace Devices (18 U.S.C. 3121)
There are probably others.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVjM2M2N2U3Z ...
Summary of the report.
I hope this helps.- manchu2, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Quite a list there. Care to actually tie those words into an argument?
- obliviousfool, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/constitutionincr ...
Here. Click on the link which says "full report." Read it. Look at the evidence. Look at evidence which has come to light in the two years since the report. I think you'll find something resembling an argument. I think it is very clear that Bush and Cheney have broken dozens of laws.
Impeachment, however, is a whole other issue. Bush and Cheney are like a pair rabid mountain lions which have taken up residence in your house. No one wants to go in there and be the one to get mauled. At this point it may be better to just starve the creatures.
- obliviousfool, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/constitutionincr ...
- manchu2, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Quite a list there. Care to actually tie those words into an argument?
- Izult, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1you forgot to mention John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007 which actually DOES allow him to declare a 'public emergency' and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to 'suppress public disorder'!
- ElAssoWipo, on 11/15/2007, -11/+74Crimes against humanity: 65,000 civilians dead in Shock and awe alone.
- readthis, on 11/15/2007, -10/+9899% would scream for impeachment if sent the bill for their portion of these two undeclared wars. The president knows this. If you want to stop the wars, demand Congress to threaten to send out the bills now. Your $20,000 portion, amortized at 9% over 6 years is $5,407.68 per month. Now do you want to see the president and vice president impeached?
You may also want to see the staff go to jail for their role in this.- readthis, on 11/15/2007, -5/+25Correction: $360.51 per month. Sorry.
- caferrell, on 11/15/2007, -2/+17At $360 a month, 99% of Americans would send send Dick an' Dubya to the big house.
- computerfreedom, on 11/15/2007, -7/+1$5400? you are a most despicable pro terrorist leftie! Now we must watch our accounting schools and flight schools for terrorists
- computerfreedom, on 11/14/2007, -6/+0$5400? you are a most despicable pro terrorist leftie! Now we must watch our accounting schools and flight schools for terrorists
- caferrell, on 11/15/2007, -2/+17At $360 a month, 99% of Americans would send send Dick an' Dubya to the big house.
- readthis, on 11/15/2007, -5/+25Correction: $360.51 per month. Sorry.
- brentinkc, on 11/14/2007, -20/+4Thank you, pussies of the 21% that don't have any ***** balls to go forth with what needs to be done. You are the reason that everybody thinks the democratic party is full of pussies. PUSSIES!
Vote Libertarian!- soccerhulk17, on 11/14/2007, -2/+6Interesting. No support for you opinion, extreme lack of vocabulary, and obvious deficiency in education. Good job making yourself look like an imbecile.
- falseleftright, on 11/14/2007, -1/+2Stop trying to give libertarians a bad name.
- incendiarylvr, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1We get it. You hate the female anatomy.
How does it feel to be a republican homosexual? - trikstep, on 11/15/2007, -0/+0wake up.
it's time to restore the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC as it was founded over 200 years ago...do you have any idea where we're headed if we dont take the countruy back now...i mean if you really liek tyranny that much, move to china or iran.
- slashbot, on 11/15/2007, -40/+17Every poll is saying a different thing.
When the result favors impeachment, the loonies go haywire and shove it in our faces. When the result favors sanity and opposes impeachment, suddenly everyone thinks polls are meaningless.
You can't have it both ways. No picking and choosing liberals- soot, on 11/15/2007, -5/+17So... show me some reputable polls that say otherwise.
- slashbot, on 11/15/2007, -21/+6That assumes this is a reputable poll, which it is not
- soot, on 11/14/2007, -4/+7It isn't?
- pintomp3, on 11/15/2007, -4/+12because you say so?
- azprofessional, on 11/15/2007, -4/+13Yes because he says so and all pro-conservative polls are intrisically reputable and otherwise are not. This is just how to great flow of reality goes in *****.
- vat0r, on 11/14/2007, -0/+5Anyone else seeing the glaring irony in this ridiculous statement? That's not even counting the contradiction made. You accuse others of picking and choosing while you yourself are proliferating the practice.
- azprofessional, on 11/15/2007, -0/+5He doesnt care he's some Protest Warrior troll with a bobble-head Bush up his ass which oddly but coincidentally blocks his ears, eyes and his ability to see through the partisan barrier and come up with educated positions. He is also apprently without a life, and or his job is so unbearably boring and bitterness inducing that he sits all day long perpetuating the stereotype of right-wing pundit with nothing but cartoonish inventions to infantliize the two party system into a non-stop shoving match which is more entertaining to right wingers than actually working on domestic policies and debating even the possibility his koolaid distributing administration is yanking people's chain and sending good honorable men to die for less than achievable means at this point. Just like some nazi borg drone, discussion is not an option the mere mention of keywords including democrat, liberal, libertarian, social, withdrawal, protest, non-war spending, terrorism, idiot president, oil interests or human rights violation, sends them into an instant tizzy where they morph a shell and invent media greased methods of deflecting any real discourse, and it was WAY WAY before my time that it started.
"The last time we listened to a bush we ended up wandering around the desert for 40 years"
Sounds about right.
- azprofessional, on 11/15/2007, -0/+5He doesnt care he's some Protest Warrior troll with a bobble-head Bush up his ass which oddly but coincidentally blocks his ears, eyes and his ability to see through the partisan barrier and come up with educated positions. He is also apprently without a life, and or his job is so unbearably boring and bitterness inducing that he sits all day long perpetuating the stereotype of right-wing pundit with nothing but cartoonish inventions to infantliize the two party system into a non-stop shoving match which is more entertaining to right wingers than actually working on domestic policies and debating even the possibility his koolaid distributing administration is yanking people's chain and sending good honorable men to die for less than achievable means at this point. Just like some nazi borg drone, discussion is not an option the mere mention of keywords including democrat, liberal, libertarian, social, withdrawal, protest, non-war spending, terrorism, idiot president, oil interests or human rights violation, sends them into an instant tizzy where they morph a shell and invent media greased methods of deflecting any real discourse, and it was WAY WAY before my time that it started.
- FredFredrickson, on 11/14/2007, -4/+7Ah Slashbot... avoiding the proposal. Put your money where your mouth is and show us a reputable poll that claims otherwise... or else, get the hell outta here with your unpopular conservative *****.
- TheLoneHoot, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4read his comment history... this is typical behavior. Makes a trolling remark and waits for people to feed him.
- 10GunSalute, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4Just ignore this douchebag, he's a troll; just look at all of his other posts.
- incendiarylvr, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2I think you should change your name to spambot. it fits.
- trikstep, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1ron paul 2008.
save yourself.
- azprofessional, on 11/14/2007, -4/+21Do something already then so called 'majority' or STFU!
- nastajus, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1read carefully. only 34% would impeach.
- Asianwaste, on 11/14/2007, -17/+6If the majority was always right, women wouldn't be voting and African Americans wouldn't be pissing in adjacent urinals from a white man. Bush may be a moron, but let's face it, this is a dead-end pursuit.
- computerfreedom, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1It would be the first step to international reconciliation, something our nation desperately needs to restore any prestige we can.
- Asianwaste, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1No, the first step to international reconciliation would be to elect a president with a better foreign policy. Perhaps one that can take semi-centennial old grudges and amend them. Other countries don't give a ***** about what we do for ourselves. They only care about what we can do for them.
- computerfreedom, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1It would be the first step to international reconciliation, something our nation desperately needs to restore any prestige we can.
- nastronomical, on 11/15/2007, -17/+12A new poll wow...with not a shred of evidence! I am guessing that the marging of error is 99%?
- curunir, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2They asked the same people that think Saddam Hussein planned the 911 attacks.
- busybenj, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1I agree. These polls are BS with no stats.
- deflective, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1dude, they link to the polling data
http://americanresearchgroup.com/
- curunir, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2They asked the same people that think Saddam Hussein planned the 911 attacks.
- daxsymbiont, on 11/14/2007, -5/+20"If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged". http://www.chomsky.info/talks/1990----.htm
- obliviousfool, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2And people wonder why the US backed out of the ICC...
- dalethefarmer, on 11/14/2007, -2/+9Do it.
- slashbot, on 11/15/2007, -30/+11Apparently this was a poll of the members of dailykos (or dailykommunists)
- azprofessional, on 11/15/2007, -4/+16I think the Island of misfit Digg addicts with one line responses is calling you.
And the department of clever responses called, you're ***** fired, again. - falseleftright, on 11/15/2007, -0/+9If you are going to be a govt/corporate cheeleader (like your comment record reflects), at least come up with some good cheers.
- TheLoneHoot, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3thank you for mentioning his comment history... I was beginning to thing I was the only one.
- petewiz, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2Holy *****! Joseph McCarthy's ghost has risen from the grave and assumed the form of a retarded troll!
Just for the record, communists =/= everyone who disagrees with you.
- azprofessional, on 11/15/2007, -4/+16I think the Island of misfit Digg addicts with one line responses is calling you.
- eternal464, on 11/15/2007, -10/+15Bush has done nothing to redeem himself. There has been no semblance of forward progress in so long, it is discouraging to even call this country my home. Land of the free, yet run by our ever intelligent W and his Tarkin-like sidekick we find so many millions of people dead set on anti-government.
Personally, I think the system is broken. Democracy is broken in our country. More and more we find places where the system has failed, be the corporation run media, the national debt, elections where 51% constitutes a majority and the other 49% just have to respect it, who wants to add to the list? If i vote, it will be for Ron Paul, a candidate different from any other. No agendas, no more ridiculousness. This isn't an OMG RON PAUL comment either, but people need to step back and realize how much is actually wrong with this country right now. What happened to the greatest country in the world?- Hetman, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4wtf do you think a democracy is? the majority wins even if it is 51%. And seriously do not say RP does not have agenda's every person in the world has agenda's.
- taintedzodiac, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2Which would you rather have? A democracy where 49% of the population gets to try and elect a new leader every 4 years, or a non-elective government where you don't get to choose your leader?
- tehbishop, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1I choose C) Sweden, Denmark, or Norway. False dilemma = fail.
- taintedzodiac, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1There is no "c." It's an A-B question, not a real life choice.
- tehbishop, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1I choose C) Sweden, Denmark, or Norway. False dilemma = fail.
- JavaWarlord, on 11/14/2007, -1/+5Committeed?
- thejude, on 11/15/2007, -5/+6On the bright side there is only a year left of his shenanigans
- Dennis88, on 11/15/2007, -7/+19Am I wrong in thinking that to say that
a) President Bush has “abused his powers” in a manner that rises “to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution"
and that
b) that he should not actually be impeached
means that 21% of American voters disagree with the Constitution?
Feel free to shoot me down on this. I'm English.- slashbot, on 11/14/2007, -16/+4Thats because A is false.
Your conclusion is based on a false premise.- starkruzr, on 11/15/2007, -0/+10Here are the reasons A is true:
Provable impeachable offenses committed by George W. Bush:
1. Warrantless domestic spying - In violation of the the First, Fourth and Ninth amendments to the Constitution of the United States. In violation of the FISA Act of 1978.
Proof: Telecoms seek IMMUNITY for having spied on Americans. Definition: im·mu·ni·ty - "Law. exemption from criminal prosecution or legal liability or punishment on certain conditions." When was the last time someone was granted immunity for being innocent?
2. Unconstitutional revocation of the Right to Habeas Corpus - "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." - Constitution of the United States
Proof: We are not under invasion and, surprisingly enough, we're not in rebellion. Claims that the Right has not been revoked for U.S. Citizens are false. This so-called president has given himself the authority to detain as an "enemy combatant" any person within and without the United States. And enemy combatants do not have the Right to Habeas Corpus.
3. Deploying Military Spy Sattelites to assist local law enforcement - In violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of military personnel and or resources in the execution of domestic law enforcement activities. (No, National Guard does not count. They are not federal.)
Proof: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Aug15/0,4670,SpyS ...
4. Dereliction of Duty - Delayed and then woefully inadequate response to the Hurricane Katrina Disaster.
Proof: New Orleans; Mississippi coast
You already pretended to refute #4 and failed. Please refute the other three or you have failed to justify the existence of the worst presidency since Warren G. Harding.- leahcim, on 11/14/2007, -3/+1Bush is an idiot, but he's not getting impeached.
I don't really want to waste my time "refuting" your arguments, you know nothing about the law, or how the government actually works. Your "arguments" are absurd and on a third grade level.
For #1 the telecoms are seeking civil immunity, not criminal. Anything can happen in a civil case, its not a criminal act. They're worried about losing money not going to jail.
2. The president can suspend habeas corpus all he wants, you know the worst that can happen to him? Armed rebellion thanks to the Second amendment, but much much much more likely? Nothing. It isn't "illegal" until it goes to court. Maybe 5 years from now a Court case suing Bush for suspending their writ, which so far no American Citizen has had their writ of habeas corpus suspended, so even that isn't possible, and at best they could have the writ re issued by the Court and they'd get out of jail, that's it. It's a civil matter, not criminal. "the public safety may require it" is an extremely broad term, like it or not. An argument can be made for or against there currently being a need to do it. Until it goes to trial and the Supreme Court has its say there is no PROOF as you like to claim, all you have is an opinion, with "facts" you read off some website.
blah the rest isn't even worth it.- Terr01, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2Violations of the 4th and 5th amendments through abduction and indefinite (multiple YEARS) imprisonment of suspects without access to a lawyer, and without even charges.
And, though equally illegal, it was done to US citizens.
Look up the case of Jose Padilla for a nice well-wrapped example of how Bush has most definitely broken the Constitutional law. - WileEPeyote, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1The President cannot suspend habeas corpus "whenever he wants", look up Lincoln and his attempt to suspend habeas corpus...
- Terr01, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2Violations of the 4th and 5th amendments through abduction and indefinite (multiple YEARS) imprisonment of suspects without access to a lawyer, and without even charges.
- leahcim, on 11/14/2007, -3/+1Bush is an idiot, but he's not getting impeached.
- alphasixtyone, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1did you even read what he said?
- starkruzr, on 11/15/2007, -0/+10Here are the reasons A is true:
- WileEPeyote, on 11/15/2007, -0/+11Both are correct, but I think it has more to do with fear. People in this country (I am an American) are driven by fear. Sorry to say it. We used to be driven by a dream, now we are driven by nightmares.
- Monkeywithacold, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2I agree, an impeachment would be pretty messy. It seems many people are content with waiting a year.
Unfortunately, it seems that many people are far more concerned with their fantasy football team than some other maybe more important matters.
- Monkeywithacold, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2I agree, an impeachment would be pretty messy. It seems many people are content with waiting a year.
- obliviousfool, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Americans tend to think that we shouldn't impeach a president "during wartime." This seems to be the case even if it happens to be a war he started! (Or even a war on an abstract noun, apparently.) I don't know if this is instinctive, or a re-enforced belief, but I think this is where the polling anomaly comes from. People feel as though we shouldn't "rock the boat" while there are "troops in harm's way."
- slashbot, on 11/14/2007, -16/+4Thats because A is false.
- EIderofzion, on 11/14/2007, -4/+4I really believe historians should be recording discussions like this for future reference ,, things said like
"The bush pushers must be watching digg closely, they get the the top of every negative story about him. I haven't been at the top of a comments section in like a year and I'm on Digg all the time."- slashbot, on 11/14/2007, -6/+2They will, and people making the comment above will be known as fair-weather patriots.
- coleelectric, on 11/14/2007, -1/+2Oh forget that. Real patriots are going to follow the constitution, not bend it in the favor of a fair-weather executive administration.
- falseleftright, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2This statement makes me wonder if you even know what a patriot is...nvm.
- WileEPeyote, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4I believe the phrase you are looking for is "Sunshine Patrioit" or perhaps "Summer Soldier". A good percentage of people in charge right now have no patriotism in them. They are not working for Democracy or the USA, they are working for Capitalism. They care little for society (that's you and me) and hate the idea of "We The People" governing ourselves.
- obliviousfool, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1They are almost globalists who happen to dwell in the United States, really.
- slashbot, on 11/14/2007, -6/+2They will, and people making the comment above will be known as fair-weather patriots.
- Monkeydew06, on 11/15/2007, -4/+35I love how these kind of "polls" state... "A NEW RESEARCH GROUP FOUND THAT". I cannot believe any of these results until I know:
1. Who conducted the study
2. Are they qualified (unbaised)
3. Where did they poll
4. Who did the poll
5. How many did they poll
Without these facts, this could all be BS
PS: Not that I disagree with the ideas, I want to see Bush out as much as the next guy.- Hetman, on 11/14/2007, -2/+2***** Frank I agree.
- UnkelJethro, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3Your cynicism is well-warranted, logical, objective, well-thought out and just plain common sense.
Please leave digg immediately.- Monkeywithacold, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1I read the first line, and was like "wtf a compliment on digg?"
Then I read the second line, and started laughing.
- Monkeywithacold, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1I read the first line, and was like "wtf a compliment on digg?"
- Terr01, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3CLICK THE DANG LINKS.
Skeptical empiricism is a virtue, being too lazy to do even the simplest research step is NOT.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/impeach/- Monkeydew06, on 11/15/2007, -0/+0Whoops! Missed that link, my bad
1. Who conducted the study: "American Research Group, Inc."
2. Are they qualified (unbaised): Unknown
3. Where did they poll: Nationwide
4. Who did the poll: Nationwide? No particular groups
5. How many did they poll: 1,100
Good find, I didn't spot that link the first time.
- Monkeydew06, on 11/15/2007, -0/+0Whoops! Missed that link, my bad
- dhVyse, on 11/14/2007, -4/+2DUH!
- vwvan, on 11/14/2007, -5/+8Dear Honorable Senator X,
Please impeach the president under the following charges:
{INSERT Napoleone's articulate response above. make sure the Fox news link remains intact}
The last line should be, thank you very much.
Sincerely,
your name.
PS. This message was sent to Mark Pryor Dem, AR, Blanche Lincoln, Dem, AR, Vic Snyder, Dem, AR - Hetman, on 11/14/2007, -11/+5***** Frank. Either way what has he done to be impeached? I do not like GWB but I thought you had to actually commit a crime to be impeached? Am I mistaken?
- Timetheos, on 11/15/2007, -3/+5Yes, you are. If you look up the historical definitions used in the Constitution, you'll find impeachment was a political process, not a criminal one.
- jazzjeff, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Correct and right Sir.
- Timetheos, on 11/15/2007, -3/+5Yes, you are. If you look up the historical definitions used in the Constitution, you'll find impeachment was a political process, not a criminal one.
- dupswapdrop, on 11/14/2007, -7/+2You know how they say your name is mud after Dr. Mud, well soon they will be saying your name is Bush after this crook we have in the whitehouse.
- jijacob, on 11/14/2007, -6/+11I'm definitely not saying I agree with what Bush has done, but just because the "Majority" think something doesn't make it correct.
The Majority is an idiot, and our founding fathers knew that.- mugicha, on 11/14/2007, -1/+0So if the majority is an idiot, why do we live in a country where the majority wins every time in a process we call an "election". Don't think you're so smart because you can confuse the phrase "tyranny of the majority" with the basic notion of democracy. If a majority of people in this country feel a certain way about something, they have every right to do something about it. Why we, the majority of people in this country who think Bush is a criminal, are being bullied into silence by the minority of people who still actually support this modern day Mussolini is beyond me. I thought that's what we put the Democrats into power for during last year's midterm elections, but apparently not....
- Monkeywithacold, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1I don't necessarily think bush is a criminal, but I also don't think he is a modern day Mussolini.
I'm tired of all the dualistic arguments.
Evolution or Creation
Liberal or Conservative
Democrat or Republican
Pepsi or Coke.
WHAT IF I LIKE THE GENERIC BRAND COLA? - jijacob, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1"why do we live in a country where the majority wins every time in a process we call an "election""
Did Bush win the majority last election?
- Monkeywithacold, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1I don't necessarily think bush is a criminal, but I also don't think he is a modern day Mussolini.
- WileEPeyote, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1@jijacob:
You are incorrect. Some of the founding fathers believed people could not govern themselves and required an elite class to lead them and other believed that people could govern themselves. The founding fathers were not in agreement on everything, I don't understand why people say "The Founding Fathers believed...blah...blah...blah...".
- mugicha, on 11/14/2007, -1/+0So if the majority is an idiot, why do we live in a country where the majority wins every time in a process we call an "election". Don't think you're so smart because you can confuse the phrase "tyranny of the majority" with the basic notion of democracy. If a majority of people in this country feel a certain way about something, they have every right to do something about it. Why we, the majority of people in this country who think Bush is a criminal, are being bullied into silence by the minority of people who still actually support this modern day Mussolini is beyond me. I thought that's what we put the Democrats into power for during last year's midterm elections, but apparently not....
- Timetheos, on 11/15/2007, -7/+10Ever wonder if the Republican agenda in the Clinton impeachment was to cause "impeachment fatigue", setting things up for later crimes?
- slashbot, on 11/14/2007, -5/+8Now that's a vast new conspiracy theory.
Keep it up. This is why we are laughing at the left- Timetheos, on 11/14/2007, -1/+7Obviously, a BJ was much more important than fixing intelligence, lying to congress, lying to the American people....
- krnldmp, on 11/14/2007, -2/+3Oh, ABSOLUTELY!
- slashbot, on 11/14/2007, -5/+8Now that's a vast new conspiracy theory.
- moin1097, on 11/15/2007, -14/+10Say a lie often enough and it will become the truth. Page right out of the liberal play book.
Written by Goebbels.- falseleftright, on 11/15/2007, -1/+12Goebbels was a facscist; thats a lot closer to the right then the left, but who's counting. Way to display your massive ignorance.
- AngryChris, on 11/15/2007, -1/+9Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction and intent to use them against the United States. Saddam Hussein was intimately connected with Al'Qaida and instrumental in the planning and execution of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I believe these things because they are lies told often enough by your Republican overlords.
Oh, and Goebbels was a fascist (read: far right).
Your comment is ***** ignorant. Digging it down. - TheLoneHoot, on 11/14/2007, -1/+2Swift boat, Al Gore said he invented the internet, Saddam and bin Laden were best buds, WMDs, heck of a job Brownie, etc.
You're right... if you say it often enough it DOES sound like the truth.
(oh, and because you seem like you'll need it...
.../sarcasm)
- acidbass, on 11/15/2007, -8/+2If its not on fox news , IT DIDNT HAPPEN!
- acidbass, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1when will i learn that sarcasm is just wasted on this forum.
- krnldmp, on 11/14/2007, -2/+1After the confirmation of Mukasey there's proof that a lot of senators are still pulling for the status quo. It was close enough, though, so obviously it's coming down to public opinion. Look out for the noise sources and current regulators on the Bush side here on digg, like that guy with the american flag icon.
- killakan, on 11/15/2007, -8/+10Buried for inaccuracy and not linking to the actual poll.
The actual poll: http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/impeach/
Stop feeding the Outrage machine and stop lying.- Timetheos, on 11/14/2007, -2/+2If you click on the Kos link, it links to the actual poll.
- killakan, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1And he STILL misrepresents the results.
- Timetheos, on 11/14/2007, -2/+2If you click on the Kos link, it links to the actual poll.
- loof, on 11/15/2007, -2/+5Who cares?
- krnldmp, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2Americans.
- acidbass, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1some americans.
- jamessavik, on 11/15/2007, -2/+1the "amerikans" that are always threatening to move to Canada.
BTW- what's keeping you assholes? - deflective, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1you are jamessavik.
some people react to assholes by becoming assholes... hey, look at me!
- jamessavik, on 11/15/2007, -2/+1the "amerikans" that are always threatening to move to Canada.
- acidbass, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1some americans.
- krnldmp, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2Americans.
- burstaneurysm, on 11/15/2007, -4/+15"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
- saigumi, on 11/14/2007, -3/+1I'm not sure what you mean.. which president was impeached for getting a BJ? None that I know of..... I remember one that lied under oath during a civil suit and also tried to make it impossible to sue a sitting president in any sort of civil suit.
Man, could you imagine that kind of immunity?!?!- WileEPeyote, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3President Clinton was impeached for a blowjob, not because of the lie. Least he had the balls to go before the court. How many times has the white house denied the justice department in the last 4 years?
Just like OJ is in Jail right now because he killed his wife, not for breaking down some guys door with a couple armed toughs. If he hadn't killed his wife, this situation would have been handled like any other celebrity. - TheLoneHoot, on 11/14/2007, -1/+2Clinton was impeached for lying - officially. But he was pursued to the tune of $135million for getting a blow job. It was the best the GOP could manage. They certainly couldn't have impeached him for the budget SURPLUS, or the strongest economy in the nation's history, or for actually trying to kill bin Laden on more than one occasion, or...
He shouldn't have lied about getting a hummer, true, but don't you think the obstruction of justice shown at so many levels by this regime is worthy of a special prosecutor?
- WileEPeyote, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3President Clinton was impeached for a blowjob, not because of the lie. Least he had the balls to go before the court. How many times has the white house denied the justice department in the last 4 years?
- saigumi, on 11/14/2007, -3/+1I'm not sure what you mean.. which president was impeached for getting a BJ? None that I know of..... I remember one that lied under oath during a civil suit and also tried to make it impossible to sue a sitting president in any sort of civil suit.
- jellygraph, on 11/15/2007, -3/+9In America, it doesn't matter what American's think, only what the politicians are interested in and whether the media is happy to play game.
- Hetman, on 11/14/2007, -3/+2Can someone please explain to me what is grounds for impeachment? And what GWB has done that would be an impacheable offense?
- banq59, on 11/14/2007, -3/+2treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. It is a very loose definition to be determined by Congress, but circumventing and infringing on peoples constitutional rights (warrantless wiretaps) breaks the oath he took when becoming president to protect the constitution. By attacking the Constitution of the United States he has committed treason. You can easily come up with others.
- wramos, on 11/14/2007, -3/+1Ok Buthead give some real examples or shut the ***** up. You are a ***** liberal and an idiot. I am tired of retards like you, who never served this country as a combat soldier and you follow the comunist line sorry liberal line like sheep. If you are the majority, and you arnt then why hasnt something been done about it. YA we know sadam wasnt behind 9/11 he did thumb his nose at the UN. And you Assholes that believe the UN should be followed to the letter, well he ***** followed them to the letter. Sadam thumbed his nose at them. And your ***** retard of a celebrity president clinton was going to do the very same thing for the very same reasons.
You liberals whine and complain and bitch and moan walk up and down the streets all you want. Instead of doing something about problems, you ask why isnt anything being done instead of doing somthing about it. So join the service, if u have tha balls, or volunteer. And if you think you didnt pay enough taxes, then by all means give more and shut the ***** up.
- wramos, on 11/14/2007, -3/+1Ok Buthead give some real examples or shut the ***** up. You are a ***** liberal and an idiot. I am tired of retards like you, who never served this country as a combat soldier and you follow the comunist line sorry liberal line like sheep. If you are the majority, and you arnt then why hasnt something been done about it. YA we know sadam wasnt behind 9/11 he did thumb his nose at the UN. And you Assholes that believe the UN should be followed to the letter, well he ***** followed them to the letter. Sadam thumbed his nose at them. And your ***** retard of a celebrity president clinton was going to do the very same thing for the very same reasons.
- deflective, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1this could get you started, if you're actually curious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcwXnSVcLN4
if you're just looking for a fight most of us have gotten jaded to that over the last three years
- banq59, on 11/14/2007, -3/+2treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. It is a very loose definition to be determined by Congress, but circumventing and infringing on peoples constitutional rights (warrantless wiretaps) breaks the oath he took when becoming president to protect the constitution. By attacking the Constitution of the United States he has committed treason. You can easily come up with others.
- jamessavik, on 11/15/2007, -14/+8>>Majority believe Bush has committeed impeachable offenses.
Majority of WHO? Islamic extremeists, rabid democrats, anti-war slacker kids who might be asked to get off the sofa?- Mworthin, on 11/14/2007, -6/+5No the majority of reasonable, intelligent, honest citizens that can identify when their constitutional rights have been repeatedly and consistently trampled upon.
This is the worst prez and administration in US history...wake up for God's sake!- jamessavik, on 11/15/2007, -4/+2Oh horse *****. This is nothing more than sensing a political weakness and seeking to exploit it.
It is no different than making hay off a spoo stain on a blue dress.
- jamessavik, on 11/15/2007, -4/+2Oh horse *****. This is nothing more than sensing a political weakness and seeking to exploit it.
- acidbass, on 11/14/2007, -2/+2Lets have a draft, then i want to see if you still think this war is just or not.
- wramos, on 11/14/2007, -3/+2ya lets have i am ready to go! are you mother *****? And o i want to go, but they say 46 is to old even tho i already served. So mother *****, why arent you joining?
you are an ***** thats why!- acidbass, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1No, im not joining b/c i think the war is illegal, i will fight for my country when its ACTUALLY being threatened.
And if we had a draft, then maybe other 46 yer old mother ***** who actually GIVE A ***** ABOUT THEIR CHILDREN would protest in the streets and stop Bush's crazy war, but no, we got assholes like you cheering us the way into fascism. Good going wramos, your side is winning.
- acidbass, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1No, im not joining b/c i think the war is illegal, i will fight for my country when its ACTUALLY being threatened.
- wramos, on 11/14/2007, -3/+2ya lets have i am ready to go! are you mother *****? And o i want to go, but they say 46 is to old even tho i already served. So mother *****, why arent you joining?
- alphasixtyone, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3a random sample of 1,100 registered voters. its right there on the bottom of the poll.
- acidbass, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Youre asking a knuckle dragging neocon to read? hahahhaah,save your energy now and just tell them they are right.
- Mworthin, on 11/14/2007, -6/+5No the majority of reasonable, intelligent, honest citizens that can identify when their constitutional rights have been repeatedly and consistently trampled upon.
- ozymandias2012, on 11/14/2007, -4/+2He has abused his power. The problem is our congress is filled with a bunch of professional celebrities who pretend to be politicians. If the last congressional elections hasn't proven that to the "majority" than I'm not sure if anything will. Bush can't be impeached but they certainly could have ended the Iraq conflict on the grounds that IT'S GOING NOWHERE!
- Icanndiggit, on 11/14/2007, -5/+5I call for the whores of this country to take a stand!! Someone please blow Bush and Cheney so we can impeach them.
- jamessavik, on 11/14/2007, -3/+3Erm... republicans caught committing heterosexual acts might make them more popular.
- saigumi, on 11/14/2007, -2/+2Ok.. so, GWB gets a bj.......
Why would we impeach him for it? It isn't like he lied to a grand jury duriig a civil sexual harassment suit after trying for a year to get himself immunized for it by creating some quasi loophole where presidents can't be sued while they are presidents. - TheLoneHoot, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Jeff Gannon, can you step in?
- DerProfi, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2>>I call for the whores of this country to take a stand!! Someone please blow Bush and Cheney so we can impeach them.
As soon as yo mama finishes me off I'll suggest that to her.
- outlaw1, on 11/15/2007, -4/+15ZOMG!! 55% of Americans think Bush and Co. should be impeached!! Oh wait, it was a small sample poll of only 1100 people of which the majority was dems? This poll is hilarious.
34% (374 people) think bush should be impeached
43% (473 people) think cheney should be impeached
I can't be bothered to check wikipedia for the exact figures but I'm pretty sure that 473 people is not the majority in America. Buried as inaccurate, spam laden garbage.- daakone, on 11/14/2007, -2/+0Bzzt.
"The following results are based on nationwide telephone samples of 600 likely Democratic primary voters and 600 likely Republican primary voters..."- daakone, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1Actually upon closer inspection, you are correct. The 600-600 sample was for the study that followed it. However, based on the percentages of reps vs dems, it could be argued that dems were actually *underrepresented* by their poll, considering democrats far outnumber republicans on the basis of registered party affiliation.
- frobozz0, on 11/14/2007, -1/+2Ugh. You're way off. You don't understand polling AT ALL.
Not only was this a scientific poll (all polls deserve scrutiny as to their source for potential bias) but sample size has little to do with the accuracy of a poll. All it will do, based on the method of sampling, is increase or decrease the margin of error.
It's time to get acquainted with the concept of a "representative sample."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_sample
A poll with 1100 respondents could be representative of public opinion, and this poll seems legit on cursory examination.
It's the CNN polls and other non-scientific polls that people need to be worried about. You seem to have confused the two. While the below problems ARE NOT the case in this poll, they are LIKELY WARNING SIGNS of misinformation in online polls and why they are unscientific:
1) Only people who wanted to voice an opinion one way or the other were included in the sample. This immediately makes it unscientific.
2) Sample size can lead to large margin of error.
3) If it's on the internet, making the "Americans" response only relevant to "Internet Using Americans." Also, looking at the demographic of the visitors to the site would be the only way to quantify who really responded. Another factor are how users are driven to the poll, since it's common to have rally support from interest groups point their users to online "public opinion" polls.
4) Questions with black and white answers which clearly have grey area (limiting response choice), and/or questions that lead the respondent with a value judgment. The right questions are required to truly glean public opinion.- OswaldKenobi, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3The issue I have is not the poll itself, but the headlines on sites that link to this poll. The headline of one site clearly stated that, "55% of all voters think Bush and Cheney should be impeached. The numbers do not support the headline.
You're also off on your definition of a scientific poll. There were many more that declined to answer, yet that information is not revealed. In every poll there are undecideds.
- OswaldKenobi, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3The issue I have is not the poll itself, but the headlines on sites that link to this poll. The headline of one site clearly stated that, "55% of all voters think Bush and Cheney should be impeached. The numbers do not support the headline.
- daakone, on 11/14/2007, -2/+0Bzzt.
- phoenixshard, on 11/14/2007, -4/+4*Sigh.*
As much as I dislike Bush, I'd