digg

Join DiggAbout

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

14 Articles of Impeachment for Bush & Cheney

dailykos.com — Excellent! Sites violations and laws - several Constitutional violations. Take a poll - at this time 97% agree.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • TheLastProphet, on 10/12/2007, -10/+78"cites" violations. Sorry. Silly mistake.
    • rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -10/+66I'm surprised only 97% of the dailykos think Bush should be impeached considering the clientele.
    • Mootabolife, on 10/12/2007, -29/+16I'm surprised they got that 3%, old republicans don't know how to push the mouse buttons...
    • hoppdawg, on 10/12/2007, -39/+17Get over it. He'll be gone in two years. The democrats control congress now. Besides, if he's impeached, Cheney will be president.
    • xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -38/+18It's the Daily Kos, the most liberal wesbite on the web!
      This isn't news, this is just obvious coming from them.

      You all realize that Kos supported Ned Lamont right? He lost in a landslide to Joe Leiberman.
    • vexter, on 10/12/2007, -53/+8If you want Bush impeached, I suggest you sell your car, and stop heating your home, because THAT is what this is about. You cant have both and not be a hipocrit. For the less intellegent Ill spell it out: Iraq = 16% of the worlds oil = $$$$ = owned by terrorist(saddam) = Ability blow up World Trade Center and kill 5000 American Civilians = BAD = best defense is good OFFENSE...
    • flernk, on 10/12/2007, -12/+13@xGORDOx

      Kos also supported Webb and Allen, who were crucial in re-establishing a Democratic Congress.
    • baugles, on 10/12/2007, -20/+9"Besides, if he's impeached, Cheney will be president."

      If Bush was impeached, his administration would go with him since the acting executive branch is more or less one single unit of people rather than one person solo.

      It would more likely be the President, and all those involved. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice would be in that boat.
    • dylanrush, on 10/12/2007, -26/+15"7. Bombing Iraq without Congressional Approval.

      George Bush and Dick Cheney authorized over 21,000 bombing missions on Iraq without Congressional approval before passage of the Iraq War Resolution in October 11th, 2002.

      Law violated:

      Article I, US Constitution.

      "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;""
      ...
      Just because both Congress and the President have the power to declare war, doesn't mean they both need each others' permission. The war in Iraq is completely lawful, like every war before it. The President is, after all, the Commander in Chief, and we elected him.
    • xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Flernk -

      Allen was the Republican, I'm pretty sure Kos didn't suppport him.
      Webb is a true Democrat? really?
      Put his views on paper and place them next to any random Republican, they are virtually the same.
      Kos supported Webb because Allen, prior to "Maccacagate", had a chance at the Whitehouse. Kos would have supported Trent Lott in that race if Lott was running as a Dem.
    • Dakana, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9@hoppdawg: Hence George Bush and Dick Cheney _simultaneously_.
    • flernk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10You're right, I'm an idiot. What I meant to say was, Kos supprted Webb and TESTER.

      The rest of your comment is meaningless nonsense.
    • quandrum, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19dylanrush -

      The power to declare war, as defined by the US Constitution lies solely with the Congress. I believe it was refined during Vietnam to allow the President to respond to military situtations for 90 days before the President needs the Congress' permission, but the President does not, and has never had, the power to declare war.

      And since Iraq posed no immediate threat, there is on reason Bush shouldn't have gotten that permission besides his obvious problems with limits on his authority.
    • wvdavis, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1@ Mootabolife - Yeah, but for some reason they have found out how to click the thumbs down icon. Weird... isn't it?

      @ quandrum - You took the word right out of my mouth... Thanks
    • tmm3k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@quandrum

      That was called the War Powers Act, and Nixon vetoed it. 2/3 of both houses then ratified it, but its constitutionality is in question.
    • wburglett, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11@everything that vexter has ever or will ever say

      lets analyze your post from an educated centrist's standpoint:

      If you want Bush impeached, I suggest you sell your car, and stop heating your home || Being cold and unable to drive is NOT going to help our cause very much

      because THAT is what this is about. || Do you really think so?

      You cant have both and not be a hipocrit. || Brilliant spelling, and do explain

      For the less intellegent || And that wouldn't happen to include... yourself? And please if you are going to make a statement, spell intelligent right

      ill spell it out: Iraq = 16% of the worlds oil = $$$$ = owned by terrorist(saddam) || Whoa have you been living under a large, irregularly shaped rock for the last 4 years? We have long since disproved the relation between Saddam and terrorism. In addition shouldn't we be trying to cure our addiction to oil instead of invading territories

      = Ability blow up World Trade Center and kill 5000 American Civilians = BAD = best defense is good OFFENSE... || MY UNCLE DIED IN THE 9/11 TERRORIST ATTACKS AND HE WOULD BE ASHAMED TO KNOW THAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE MISUNDERSTANDING WHO KILLED HIM, EVEN THOUGH THE REAL MURDERER IS STARING YOU IN THE FACE. HE NEVER HAD THE ABILITY, HE NEVER DID IT. HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. I AM SCARED THAT THERE ARE STILL PEOPLE OUT THERE WITH YOUR LOGIC. ARE THEY AFRAID OF SUNLIGHT AND SILVER BULLETS TOO?

      OK, thats it gentlemen. From this post I have concluded that said vexter has been living the deep dungeons of the Internet for some time, I say we bring him out. I have also compulsively proved his relation to a vampire. Using that as evidence I have decided to go to war with UIRAQ (Under a rock). Sounds familiar?

      Real quote:
      "It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet."
      -- Not sure what he's driving at here, but it sounds sufficiently scary, Arlington Heights, Illinois, Oct. 24, 2000
    • deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Impeach both Bush and Cheney. That means 3rd in line would House Speaker elect, Nancy Pelosi. She would be the first female President in U.S. history. And she would most likely do a better job than our current option. Plus, she would only hold office for less than 2 years. Then major election in 2008. I think it would be a good test run for a woman president in the United States.

      Let's do it. Impeach Bush and Cheney today!
      http://www.democratgiftshop.com/cgi-bin/store/store.cgi/1585028665/left/842507
    • wimax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3couldn't find the original digg post so heres a reprint: http://digg.com/political_opinion/Mr_Frodo_George_Bush_Has_the_Ring via viral marketing army. PS. not for texans who love bush... =)
    • Keach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2HEY ... YOU ... MASTERS OF WAR ...

      WE see through your masks ...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdvTN1PI-sM

  • TheLastProphet, on 10/12/2007, -121/+11Also check out my many articles at:
    http://digg.com/users/TheLastProphet/myone

    • Referendum on Globalism
    • 911 for Dummies (you decide)
    • A Brief History of Conspiracy (quotes from historical figures)
    or take my
    • Global Politics Starter Course (media propaganda, false-flags, 911, foreign policy)

    or visit my website:
    http://www.ealchemy.org
  • ramaz, on 10/12/2007, -16/+29I support impeachment, but I don't necessarily agree with each of the 14 accusations. A number of these "violations of law" will remain mired in the ambiguity of whether or not we are in a real war, or a war in any sense.

    However, the use of torture as an interrogation method is a violation of human rights by any measure, wartime or no.

    I wish the poster of this webpage had used a little more common sense in the wording of the poll. I voted "no" just for accuracy, and to make my point: don't trap people into voting all or none.
    • paintist, on 10/12/2007, -7/+38The article unfortunately follows the form "allegation and specific law violated" (for the most part) instead of the more important form of "allegation, evidence to support allegation, and specific law violated."
    • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+34It's not a trap.

      If you violate the law in office, you should be brought before impeachment. If you are guilty, then you should be removed from office. If you believe they are guilty of ANY of the accusations cited, then you should vote "Yes," whether or not you agree with all of them. If you can sit there and say, "I think they're guilty of the torture thing and the extradition thing, but not the other 12, so I guess 10 out of 12 is a pretty good job," then you're sorely confused. Any one of these crimes is impeachable, 2 of them is painful and 14 is disgusting.
    • CoachZed, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19Huge second. I oppose basically everything this administration has done, but I don't see the grounds for impeachment in those allegations. Some are just legally without basis, *if* everything on that list were true, maybe half of the allegations would be grounds for impeachment (a violation of the Army Field Manual, are you kidding me?). For the remaining allegations, it would almost certainly be impossible to prove the requisite knowledge or intent necessary to even state a claim. Any executive branch must be entitled to rely on intelligence reports that they receive. If they fear personal liability for relying on intelligence presented to them, the ability of the executive to act on his powers would essentially be destroyed.

      Now, commence digging this comment down because it could be interpreted to defend Bush.
    • Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Army Field Manual's aren't actually legal documents. They reference bigger ones, like the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions. That said, the white phosphorus things is weak and impossible to prove one way or the other. I know people who when educated on the use of the .50 cal machine gun (which you are not allowed to fire at personnel) who were told to shoot at those peoples guns and clothing, because you are allowed to fire on equipment. Unfortunetly most of the rules of engagement are enforced only by honor.
    • Benzido, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11@ CoachZed:

      I dug you down not because you're defending Bush, but because your comment is stupid. If, as you suggest, half the terms are grounds for impeachment, that would mean there were 7 impeachable crimes. SEVEN. It only takes ONE.

      Furthermore, it should be obvious that with intelligence reports, the buck stops at the top. The intelligence guys provide reports to the administration, then the administration 'cherry-picks' the evidence to support a particular case, and presents it in Congress and at the UN. If the presented evidence turns out to be mistaken, then a whole lot of soldiers and a whole lot more civilians die on false pretenses.

      Somebody needs to be made accountable for this - and it's sure as hell not the hard-working intelligence goons who provide a balanced account of the evidence to the president.
    • CoachZed, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Ben- you clearly didn't read my comment too well. I don't believe there is enough *evidence* of any impeachable crime to even state a claim and institute impeachment proceedings. If the administration has acted illegally, they have done so with a careful eye to protecting Bush and Cheney.

      Also, the model you propose for punishing the President for faulty intelligence would literally cripple the entire United States defense and intelligence system. Should Clinton have been criminally liable for ordering air strikes on the wrong targets in Kosovo and Iraq? Proving scienter with regards to selecting evidence would be practically impossible. There has to be accountability, but holding the President criminally liable for intelligence handed to him by the CIA is a ludicrous standard. It would essentially guarantee that every president would be subject to impeachment by the opposition party. A horrible and dangerous standard to set.
    • diggless, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3trial results are boolean, no shades of gray.
    • xofc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ Gtitian - The .50 cal prohibition against personnel is pure urban legend. How it started, I don't know, but I challenge you, or anyone, to find a treaty to which the United States is signatory that prohibits the employment of a .50 caliber round in an anti-personnel role. For your enlightenment:

      The principal provision relating to the legality of weapons is contained in Art. 23e of the Annex to Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 18 October 1907, which prohibits the employment of "arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury."

      Art. 35, para. 2 of the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, states in part that "It is prohibited to employ weapons [and] projectiles . . . of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering."

      The Hague convention prohibits the use of open or soft tipped bullets in most cases.
    • scatfly, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0If we listed all the violations made by presidents Bush would not be the first one who "deserved" to be impeached. Lincoln, arguably our best president, ignored many constitutional boundaries. He did not get congressional backing before attacking the south, and did not both to look at minor details concerning presidential rights and privleges. Should we have impeached Lincoln practically a week into his administration?
    • schuder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ZenMojo

      So considering Clinton was guilty of lying under oath he should have been impeached? The only valid impeachment was that of Richard Nixon, Johnson and Clinton impeachments were merely political ***** as would an impeachment of Bush. If we didn't want him to win, should have run a better candidate than the douchebag Kerry (a shaky economy, unpopular war, and terrible ratings and Kerry still lost... pathetic).

      Like the old adage, are you going to justify not voting for Communism by voting for Facism? Viable third party (Libertarian *cough*) is the only answer (not that I'm implying either is a facist or a communist).
  • TheLastProphet, on 10/12/2007, -19/+9"war" on terror?

    He didn't even mention the use of Depleted Uranium.

    Poll wording can certainly be a trap however, the sentiment remains strong.

    I'm not a fan of Pelosi's foreign policy (business as usual) but these 'PNAC neo-cons' have to be ousted.
    • Daedalus17, on 10/12/2007, -14/+11What is so bad about depleted uranium? It is basically just a really heavy rock.
    • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15A really heavy poisonous rock with low levels of radiation that causes cancer. But, still, a really heavy rock.
    • lobofanina, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The US Military's M1A2 uses depleted uranium armour.
    • kcpwnsgman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Isn't depleated uranium in our tank shells?
      edit: lobofanina answered my question, looks like I had it backwards
    • dimension128, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3And the not so heavy depleted uranium oxide (dust), that is referred to as a 'bone seeker' because it replaces calcium in your bones with the uranium. And then it damages stem cells while its sitting there.
    • Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9DU or Depleted Uranium is used in our armor, and tank shells. Actually any of our large bore anti-tank vehicles can be fitted with it. The 30mm cannon on an A-10 usually fires it, the 25mm on the Bradley carries a good deal of it, and the 72mm on the M1A2 tank fires it. It's almost always fired in a salvo type round. Now some facts about DU

      -Depleted uranium comes from the process of enriching uranium. Uranium in it's natural state is not suitable for use in reactors, and so 98% of it must be removed before the remaining 2% can be used in a reactor. That 98% portion is what is used in DU ammunition.

      -While it may be considerably less radioactive than reactor grade uranium it is equally as poisonous.

      -In a battle involving any of the vehicles I mentioned above (and probably quite a few others) countless rounds of DU can be fired. Upon impact with a hard target friction causes the DU to heat up considerably, reducing it's overall structural integrity (it is a metal not unlike like lead after all) the resulting friction from penetration will cause large portions of the round to atomize into a dust which will remain on site until remove by some other force.

      -Use of DU is not prohibited by any treaty I know of, though I may be misinformed.

      Yep. It's very toxic stuff, yes our soldiers breath it. It's not terribly radioactive. It scares the hell out of me.
    • anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6When you build an armor-piercing munition, you have precisely two choices: depleted uranium and a tungsten alloy. Nothing else is hard enough to do the job.

      Both uranium and tungsten are heavy metals, and as such they're both poisonous. You wouldn't want to chown down on a delicious bowl of either of them.

      While naturally occurring tungsten is less radioactive than depleted uranium, the distinction is purely academic. Naturally occurring tungsten has a half-life of about ten-to-the-eighteenth years, but depleted uranium (that is, nearly pure U238) has a half-life of four-times-ten-to-the-ninth years. Neither one of them is radioactive enough to me harmful, and for all intents and purposes they can both be considered stable.

      But of the two metals, tungsten is more dangerous. It's more highly toxic, and it has been closely (albeit not conclusively) linked to leukemia.

      Given the choice between wandering around a battlefield filled with uranium dust and one filled with tungsten dust, I wouldn't be overjoyed with either, but I'd pick the uranium before I chose the tungsten any day.
  • cbasst, on 10/12/2007, -24/+13To impeach would take as much time as they have left in office. Just drop it. You will only end up wasting tax dollars, kicking them out of office 3 months before they actually have to leave.
    • 4Prophecy, on 10/12/2007, -19/+21Possibly. But it'll be that much easier to throw them in prison for warcrimes.
    • redmaxx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25No, to impeach him sends the message to future presidents that the American public will not tolerate these things. To not impeach him sends the message that we don't care, as long as you are fighting something that is scaring us.
    • diggless, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5it will also set a president that if you act contrary to the will of the people, the people will act. Ballot box, jury box or cartridge box. (in that order preferably)
    • HP844182, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"No, to impeach him sends the message to future presidents that the American public will not tolerate these things. To not impeach him sends the message that we don't care, as long as you are fighting something that is scaring us."

      I think that's the problem though...most American's DON'T care...
    • tmm3k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"it will also set a president that if you act contrary to the will of the people, the people will act."

      No. Impeachment is not a means to express dissatisfaction with the president. An impeachment is not a recall. Impeachment is only to be used when the president has clearly committed acts of "treason, bribery, and other high crimes or misdemeanors."
    • ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4absst

      I agree and lets forget about other law breaking when someone is expecting to quit in a few years. Once they quit, we wont feel the effects of their lawbreaking right, right?

      .
  • jackminardi, on 10/12/2007, -35/+19I voted no because who wants Nancy running this country?
    • stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -24/+25I do
    • ekleinunt, on 10/12/2007, -20/+10Really?
    • jackminardi, on 10/12/2007, -23/+10ekleinunt

      yes, i really dont want her running this country
    • p0s3r, on 10/12/2007, -32/+6@stylerm
      fag
    • ekleinunt, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2It was meant for stylerm...
    • DocMalk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Right here. It's better than the psychopaths we have in office now! And if you still support the Shrub and Five-Deferments Dick, well, you're a real freakin' moron.
  • SpazticChips, on 10/12/2007, -24/+30They need impeachment, unless the U.S. wants to continue being the laughing stock of the world. You can't ignore these issues, I want their impeachment next to their violations in history books, not that the American people rolled over for them.
  • chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4597% of DailyKos users - this is like saying 100% of NAMBLA members think men should be able to have secual relations with boys.
    • greymarketbrain, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1please tell me you intentionally misspelled "sexual"
    • jackminardi, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7i like having sec with little boys
    • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Hold up a sex...I just need a sex to figure out what you're trying to say.
    • chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Typo, LOL.
  • molsen311, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15interesting collection of articles, but the poll is useless. most of the people who visit the link oppose the bush/cheney administration due to the description of the link....so of course they'd want to impech them.
  • u8myfoood, on 10/12/2007, -14/+8it takes 1 and a half terms to finally come up with this idea...so long... WHY?
  • diggduggjoe, on 10/12/2007, -15/+9It only takes that long, if they have no balls. Once, you understand the Constitution, it is clear Bush/Cheney would be gone. We should do it, if only to show the world our system works and we are able, willing and actively removing fascists from our government.
    • musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -22/+26ALL MOONBATS THAT THINK BUSH WILL BE IMPEACHED:
      I know in your middle school/high school classes you might not have gotten to this as of yet but 2/3 of the Senate (that is the one with 100 seats) must vote for impeachment to impeach a President. Even if you keep these two contested seats you will have at most 49, even if all of them vote for impeachment you also have to get the two independents and 16 Republicans to cross party lines. Sufficed to say, the next two years will not result in impeachment but most likely will result in governmental paralysis. Not to mention articles of impeachment being brought about would directly contradict what next Speaker of the House Pelosi has said over the past few months on the issue.

      Digg down the truth!

      P.S. Will they provide evidence of these accusations or just leave them there to float?
    • rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13musicmantrs Government paralysis is a good thing. The less the government can ***** with you the better. Considering the crazies on both sides I'm all for paralysis.
    • dicknuts, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Ugh, people that use the term 'moonbat' are the same ones that use 'secular' and 'progressive' as something negative.
    • Richjt92, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14musicmantrs...

      The Impeachment actually happens in the House of Representatives (with a Majority vote on the Article of Impeachment) and the Senate has the trial for removal on those articles with a 2/3 Majority vote for removal...

      From the Cornell Website (http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm) the process is as follows:

      The Impeachment Process in a Nutshell

      1. The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.

      2. The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote.

      3. The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry, articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a majority of the Committee.

      4. The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, "impeached" -- that is subject to trial in the Senate.

      5. The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.

      6. At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members present in the Senate is required for removal.

      7. If the President is removed, the Vice-President assumes the Presidency under the chain of succession established by Amendment XXV.

      Just to clarify...and it would be futile since the Democrats will not get 67 votes for impeachment...
    • diggduggjoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Unfortunately, the Constitution was changed to allow the Senate to be elected and not appointed by the state legislatures. This makes it hard for Senators to make a stand. They now are at the whim of those who vote based on TV ads. The original goal was to have the House represent the people, while the Senate represented the sovereign state governments. That is why the house is based on population, while the the senate is 2 per state. With such a system, smaller states have better representation than a pure democratic system where majority rules.

      People have to understand that our founding fathers were not stupid. They did not want a pure democracy. They wanted the people to be heard, but they also wanted some voice for the leaders of each of the states.

      I do not believe any impeachment will occur, for the dems do not wish to waste any momentum on it. I still think that the Bush administration is a disaster. I am not a Democrat. I am libertarian in my beliefs and feel Bush does not support human rights, be it those of foreign nationals or his own citizens. He does not believe in freedom.
  • thefutureisours, on 10/12/2007, -15/+28They are not going to get impeached. Get over it. Enough already!
  • jeffness, on 10/12/2007, -21/+12i dont think that impeachment is a great idea for alot of reasons.

    1. its political. dems just regained power, they dont want to blow their load on attacking bush (heh). it would be political suicide and would lose their newfound momentum. americans don't want in-fighting.

    2. pelosi as pres? no thanks.. i'll wait for '08 and McCain (my man! woo hoo real conservatives)

    3. 2 years left in their term, with a democrat controlled senate and house means that things will be reigned in and not allowed to free range (as they have been).

    4. impeachment is something that should only be done in dire circumstances ala watergate. the clinton impeachment was a sham, as would an impeachment of bush.
    so we don't really need impeachment.

    disclaimer: i voted dem in '06 across the board.
    • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Totally with ya on that one, I like the balance of power actually.
    • dylanrush, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7I'm wondering what will happen in Iraq once we have a dem president.

      These bleeding heart SOBs wanted us out of there in the Korean War, too. We ended up drawing a line in the sand, and I'll be damned if that was a good idea. Democrat or republican, Kim Jong Il is not on your side. He is not out to protect you. He hates America and he has nuclear weapons. Withdrawal FAILED as a national security move 50 years ago, and it will FAIL again if we do the same thing.

      We need to stay the course if we want to secure our freedom and prosperity here at home. History always repeats itself.
    • HP844182, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I dugg you down because you said "stay the course"
    • gummih, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@dylanrush
      If you want to secure your freedom you should stop starting wars
  • brycebedwell, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6people who rally up for crap like this is a lost cause, and quite frankly, pathetic. sure... get nancy pelosi in there... now everything can be blamed on her.
  • thespace, on 10/12/2007, -15/+9I'm all for impeaching the pres and vice pres for doing a ***** job but none of these articles of impeachment have any facts that ABSOLUTELY lead to presidental orders. Why?!?! Because its ABSOLUTELY every Amerian's civic duty to protect the president from ANYTHING. I would do the same for Bush if elected to serve under him. As difficult as it would be this is your absolute duty as an American more than anything. So anything you throw at the president Cheney will take the bullet for it all.

    Sorry peeps, lost cause, besides the balance of power is good now.
    • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Where's this in the "Be an American" field manual? The only person whose civic duty it is to protect the President from bodily harm is a Secret Service agent, a soldier in the military, or anyone whose actual role in the government is protect the President from bodily harm.

      The only one supposed to protect the President from political harm is his Advisor and, again, the Secret Service. It's a pretty twisted world you live in where the duty of citizens is to reinforce hegemony and not the duty of elected officials to reinforce their citizens.
    • dimension128, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@thespace
      I think you have our type of government confused with a Monarchy.
    • Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6my only responsibility is the the Constitution. Which these two essentially wipe their asses with every damn day.
  • ckr4282, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6I don't care whether he violated any laws, I just want him out!
    • tmm3k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3That seems to be the typical response.
  • daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Since when does the US Army Field Manual have the force of law?


    Law violated:

    US Army Field Manual, Chapter 5, section 3.
    • WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9It doesn't.
    • Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2it represents the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or the UCMJ
    • anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Which, if the President were a member of the United States military, might mean something.

      Civilians aren't under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ.
    • WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"it represents the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or the UCMJ"

      Then shouldn't the Kosmonuts be quoting the UCMJ rather than the Army Field Manual?
    • theducks, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2anonym41414: As commander in Cheif of the US Armed Forces, I think you'll find there is a case of jurisdiction under UCMJ.
    • beejay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"US Army Field Manual, Chapter 5, section 3.

      ..It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."

      The excerpt implies that it breaks another, uncited law.

      edit: Unless I'm just unfamiliar with the UCMJ

    • floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2theducks

      As commander in chief ...that means he is a civilian ONLY a civilian can hold the CIC spot so the UCMJ doesn't apply

      If it did Clition could have been charged with adultery under the UCMJ
  • cypher303, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I agree, it's obvious (by the latest elections) that the American people aren't happy with the way Bush and Cheney have been handling things lately. We are not the people who Bush would have the world believe we are. And I think that impeaching Bush would send that message out loud and clear.
    Sure, it wont make a huge difference on how long he'll be in office since he's on his way out now, but the message that it sends to the world would be worth every one of my tax dollars.
    It could be seen as a sort of apology to the world... which I think the world deserves from us right now.
    • cypher303, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3That said though, it would be very dangerous to impeach Bush right now... As it would most probably lead into a political quagmire which we just can't afford right now.
    • LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -3/+5illegal actions must have consequences
      no men are above the law in this country
      impeach them
      and try them for war crimes

      for no greater treason has ever been perpetrated by men of high office against this great nation

      we must tell the world

      never
      again
    • gdm9000, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4And why can't we afford it? Because Junior ***** up our country! Keeping him in office longer is not the solution to our problems. I know that there is no chance that he'll be impeached, but by God I want it recorded in our history books that we at least tried!

      Oh, and this article is crap. As much as I support impeachment, there is NO evidence here at all. Some of this is simply wrong. For example, #1 - Junior and Cheney the Dick did not leak Plame's identity - Richard Armitage did.
  • WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8LOL! Only 97% of Daily Kosmonaut nutjobs want Bush & Cheney impeached? Really? Couldn't think of a more biased website for this poll? You might've gotten 100% from the Huff Post or MoveOn.
  • Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Certainly some food for thought.

    Never will happen, though.
  • carapi, on 10/12/2007, -17/+13Gee, 97 percent of the ultra left wackos that visit the ultra left dailykios agree? Shocker!

    Even Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean denounce web sites like dailykos.
    • ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Ultra left? That a new one I would ask whats the litmus test for left, Far left and Ultra left but I'm guessing its just a way to dismiss the messenger
      *shrug*
      I hate it when people reference Laws and the Constitution. It lets me know they're bad for this country and cant be taken seriously, derrrrr!
    • Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2basically 97% of people that absolutely hate bush agree with this.

      yeah that is a great poll to have...

      bush will not be impeached. hell most democrats dont even seem to care let alone being able to mount enough pressure up to bring an impeachment. it will be an enermous waste of time, just like everyone trying to pretend it is gonna happen
    • theducks, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Yeah, I must say, the results of a poll on DailyKos about impeaching Bush and Cheney doesn't really surprise me. DailyKos isn't ultra-left though.. Indymedia is ultra left, DK is just left.
    • patik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What if ~70% of the population dislikes Bush? (According to his approval ratings, that's about right). Then 97% of people who dislike Bush is still a majority of the public as a whole.
    • ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ Tweeker

      Hating Bush makes you politically Ultra Left? Thats funny! I dont hate Bush and I dont think hating someone is a political stance or is the difference between Far and Ultra. lol

      I voted yes to impeachment, So I guess I hate Bush, and that means that I'm Ultra Left yeah thats the ticket rlmao
  • cavendoja, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11"1. Leaking classified information by disclosing the identity of Valerie Plame to reporters.
    ...

    Law violated:

    National Security Act of 1947."

    Not to degrade the value of this overall story--which is nicely organized--but the President has the authority to declassify information at any time for any reason. It's obviously not a good idea to leak the secret identity of a CIA operative, but the point is...the President can do it. So this article may be lost on that technicality...but there are still 13 others!
    • Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Yeah, but, is the president above the law? It's a federal offense to release the identity of a CIA agent and I don't think even the president has the power to get around a law like that one.
    • anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Let's drag this back on point: Neither the President nor the Vice President did that. We now know exactly who did that. It was Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State.

      If you want to argue that the President should be held ETHICALLY responsible for the actions of his subordinates, go right ahead. I'll agree with you. But to claim that he should be held LEGALLY responsible is pretty silly.
    • masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@Ajajadude:

      #1 -- It's just as cavendoja said, the President has the authority to declassify classified information anytime, anywhere, and for any reason. Simply put, case #1 is defunct.

      #2 -- It's entirely possible that Bush thought he was right. And even if he knew he was wrong, the CIA and British Intelligence's reports at the time would be used for evidence, both of which are would clear Bush, despite being outdated.

      #3, 4, and 5 -- Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bush got around these problems with various laws and loopholes, e.g., "enemy combatants" instead of "prisoners of war." Otherwise he'd have been impeached, already.

      I can't comment on the right because I lack the proper knowledge to agree or disagree with them, but numbers one through five are a bit sketchy, specifically so #1, and #2 would never hold up in court.
  • omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3As much as I think Bush and Cheney deserve impeachment, the Democrats should not make the same mistake the Republicans did during the Clinton years: waste time in impeachment hearings and media ***** rather than running the country and fixing things.

    If the Dems don't focus on some serious cleanup of Bush's mess, then come 2008 people will see them as useless. Impeachment would kill the Dems in '08.

    However, once the elections are over, indict the ***** out of those two and others for war crimes (but still, don't ignore other problems)!
  • msaunds83, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Even though I'm not a fan of Bush/Cheney, some of those violations, specifically ones violated as being in the Bill of Rights, only pertain to U.S. citizens, not non-U.S. citizens.
    • dylanrush, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Absolutely true. Some people can take lines out of the Constitution and make them say anything.
    • diggless, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5ALL men are created equal, not all AMERICAN men

      our bill of rights applies to how we as Americans treat other HUMANS, not other AMERICANS.

      your interpretation of the bill of rights would allow us to abuse anyone we want as long as they aren't from the United States of America, this is terrifying.
    • tmm3k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Yeah, it's always been my understanding that "we the people of the United States" meant the Constitution applied to only US citizens.

      "All men are created equal" is not part of the Constitution, whereas "we the people" is the opening line.
    • anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3That's in the Declaration of Independence, not the Bill of Rights.

      Besides, if you'd bother reading the ENTIRE amendment, you'd find that it applies to Congress, not the Executive Branch, nor to any private citizen. I can abridge your right to freedom of religion (or whatever) all I want; I can only be held criminally liable for it if along the way I violate some provision of the United States Code.

      The Bill of Rights is not a body of laws.
    • xofc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ diggless - You might want to re-read both the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. One of them is a big '***** you' to King George, and the other one is a legal document that details what the federal government may not do to its citizens. You're confusing some of the key phrases and their legal applicability.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Some of you people need to listen to yourselves.

    "Impeachment? What a waste of taxpayer money when all it will do is kick them out three months before elections."

    Translation:

    "So what if they committed war crimes and violated human rights? Impeachment costs money, I don't really care what they did, and I'm not particularly eager to hear about it. Maybe next time we'll catch the guy who inevitably will try something like this again, and if he's a lame duck when we finally figure it out, maybe I'll be in the mood to see him swing ... maybe I won't ... depends on what I had for dinner. Besides, the last time impeachment was used it was a joke, and now the very idea of impeachment, by the same party whose leader would be impeached this time, should be seen as distasteful by everybody no matter how necessary. Get over it."

    Right. This is exactly how we should treat our political leaders.
  • jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -16/+10Heh...comedy on Digg..this is silly! :)...oh wait, you're hippies...even MORE silly! :)

    The whole "He lied about WMD's" rips any credibility this whole blog had going for it.
    • KazamaSmokers, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8He DID lie about WMDs. Office of Special Plans much?
  • phogasmic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9impeach Bush! I am all for it. There are plenty of reasons to do so, the biggest reason for me is that his administration manipulated evidence and made exaggerated claims to get us into a Iraq, and he didn't even follows the rules that congress set forth by getting the Security Council to authorize it.
  • KazamaSmokers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Kos is left-wing but generally not whacko in the same way that RedState is right-wing but generally not whacko. The whacko sites are DU and Freep.
  • crosschek, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4i will willfully and continually back our president, no matter what he does, unless its personally kill humans, he is after all our president, and he does run our country, i am a die hard republican however i still supported Clinton even after his little bout with ms Lewinsky. do i agree with everything he does, now but that doesn't mean he should be impeached, as far as the articles go, most of them are bogus and what he has done has been done for generations of presidents, as for WMD argument, i believe that Saddam himself is a weapon of terror used to terror countless humans during his regime, and for the whole bombing of Iraq unlawfully without congressional permission, he doesn't need it, the president has a set number of days a total of 120 to engage in conflict and retreat, he did before the time was up, get congressional approval and a deceleration of war. so these accusations need to be researched more before you start bashing our president and potentially destabilizing our fragile society to the point of 1 civil war and or 2 more and bigger terrorist attacks
    • Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4you're correct, Saddam himself is a weapon of terror. President Bush "Weponized" him into order to "Terrify" the American People into backing a war for oil. Read 1984.
    • Dewhead, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I agree with you. I voted for Clinton the first time, but not the second and haven't voted for a single Democrat since. I also thought impeaching him was a bad idea even though there were alot of things that he did that were much more serious than lying under oath. In a Democratic society, I think that you should support the president whether you agree with him or not. Even the worst president can only be in office for 8 years. At some point, Americans need to find some common ground and quit being so damn disrepectful to our elected leaders and to each other.
  • fengfirst, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2This is a comment
  • DannyBoy7783, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Cheney most likely runs the show anyway. Impeaching Bush is a symbol to future corrupt politicians. It's not intended to really make that big of a difference. No matter what a republican would still be president anyway.

    I'm sure I'll get dugg down for this but I'm just pointing out that it's a symbolic act, nothing more.
    • Benzido, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4If it makes future presidents think twice before violating the constitution, then it has more than just a symbolic importance.
  • squeedgie4me, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Most of these accusations are completely distorted. For example, about the whole "detentions without trial" thing. The constitution was for U.S CITIZENS not for some random guy in a turban throwing grenades at our soldiers. The Geneva Convention does not protect the rights of terrorists, only POW's, which they are not.
    Also, the whole "making war with Iraq before approval by Congress" is extremely distorted. If the president had to go through Congress for every tactical mission, how could it be tactical? If I am not mistaken the president may do tactical missions without approval by Congress for up to 90 days.
    This is like only watching Al-Jazeera for news about what is happening in Iraq/Afghanistan, the news is DISTORTED and BIASED. The same goes for every news outlet, it is impossible to be completely unbiased. Multiple Sources = More truthful answers.
    • DannyBoy7783, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Well, impeach him for prisoner torture then. That's a much better reason.
    • cypher303, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7It's true that terrorist do not abide by the Geneva Conventions. But by disregarding those conventions on a technicality, we are placing ourselves in grave danger of being viewed as the same type of terrorists that we originally set out to stop.
      One day we're going to wake up and realize that the US isn't the top dog anymore... even more frightening, it's very possible that we ourselves may become occupied one day (after our economic/politiosocial infrastructure collapses after a few well placed nuclear bombs bring us to our knees as easily as it would any other country (not only possible but probable if you're honest with yourself) and I would hope that our occupiers would show us the mercy that the Geneva Conventions bring.)

      Yes, these are terrorists that America is fighting. Many of them... but even if just one of those "terrorist" is a father trying only to protect his family... does he deserve to be tortured? I think that is as legitimate of a soldier as you can be. Protecting what you've spent your entire life building. And those people will ALWAYS be caught in the cross fire. And so the Geneva Conventions should NEVER be disregarded as they are being disregarded now. I only hope your children are not the ones who pay for this mistake.
    • NtHammer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1also on #6, i would like to see more proof of that because appropriations and budgets pass through both houses of congress, along with a pres committee

      also, why does he also list dich cheney is all of these, the V.P has almost no power

      overall innacurate anti-bush propoganda
  • tonto69, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Bush and Cheney are guilty of being dumb but that is not a crime. The criminals are the likes of Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby who are traitors and criminals because they used America and our military to further the interests of a foreign nation, Israel. They should be tried for treason and hanged if found guilty, which they are.
    • lobofanina, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"Throw the Jews down the well, so my country will be free."
    • DannyBoy7783, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"We support your war of terror!"
    • tonto69, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Going to war with the Taliban in Afghanistan made sense. War with Iraq is not a war on terror but further catalyst for terror. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Sadam Hussein was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That is why we went to war with Iraq.
    • rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Isn't that the French Defense?
  • readerr0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5But if we impeach Bush, who will everyone blame everything on? This would really annoy the conspiracy theory dudes and would definitely piss off the radical Muslims!
    • cypher303, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I guess we'd have to blame it on whoever is responsible.
    • cypher303, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Errm, blame whoever is responsible for that particular situation rather (typo). You speak as if Bush *wasn't* the guy saying, "yes, do this."
      He's the guy you have to pass, and when you get passed... yes, he is responsible for that. And the next person in line for President, they too will be responsible for whatever they approve. It's called accountability. When you run for the President of the United States... you damn well better be ready to answer when you mess things up.
  • Dotnetsky, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8Yikes.Fortunately, I don't *have to* read this left wing nutcrap, I should have known better just from looking at the title.
    • DannyBoy7783, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8I wouldn't say that calling for the impeachment of a lawbreaking president is "nutcrap." Maybe you like having a criminal as president but I don't.
    • Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0you act as if this is gonna ever matter.

      bush is gonna just serve the next 2 years and be done, nothing will result. he will be completely forgotten in about 20 years.

  • JK1150, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4This is a major liberal website, that's why the poll is so in favor...
  • cvrti5, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Just by looking at #1 "Classified leak", is not against the law if you are the president. Any president can declassify information at any time. The rest of the article is likely BS propaganda.
  • mikecx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5This may have been pointed out earlier (I only read about 90% of the replies) but impeachment seems to be used improperly by most people. There seems to be a common idea between people that impeachment means removal from office. Impeachment is not, I repeat NOT, removal from office. Impeachment means to simply bring to trial. Next person I hear use it wrong is getting a blunt object to the back of the skull.
    • kualla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2* Bush and Cheney need to be REMOVED FROM OFFICE thru impeachment or otherwise...
  • ppeak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I agree with bombing Iraq without Congressional Approval.George Bush and Dick Cheney authorized over 21,000 bombing missions on Iraq without Congressional approval before passage of the Iraq War Resolution in October 11th, 2002.
  • Toast1185, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"at this time 97% agree."

    Yawn ... response bias
  • wbeavis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I personally believe what Bush and crew have done is beyond impeachment and treads closer to treasonous (spelling?).
    • Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2damn, you are really out there.

      i bet you are the kind of person that feels it necessary to blame bush for absolutely everything including the bad weather
    • ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ Tweekster

      Good rebuttal! /sarcasm
  • Rtaylor32, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Wow Digg is being spammed by liberals. Is this a new trend? Go go Democrats.

    I wonder how scientifically accurate a poll on the site is? Can anyone say biased?
    • Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Digg became more left wing, than fox was ever right wing.

      But they still bitch about the bias of fox while masterbating to stories like this
  • unpopulardude, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I am surprised at people who say that given what we know now, there isn't enough evidence to impeach. If you look at the Watergate hearings, the hearings themselves brought out the necessary evidence for impeachment. Nixon resigned, but he would have been tossed out due to what Sam Irvin's committee had already found. Alexander Butterfield didn't saunter over to the New York Times and tell them about the White House taping system. He had to do so under oath in front of Congress.

    I say push the power of the subpoena, and push it hard. Either impeachment or criminal prosecution will be the result. Personally, I favor putting these guys in jail for years to merely getting them fired.
    • Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1you do realize that neither is gonna happen
  • bizsumpark182, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Although I would like to see bush and cheney gone, I will say that we are probably better off with them in office until 2008.
  • lzlaxhacker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2of course 97% of the site agrees...its a liberal site...

    later
  • Coronagold, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Bart Simpson - "We need another Vietnam. That oughta thin their ranks a bit."

    For once I agree with a cartoon character. Kos Kidz crying in boot camp with Mentos music playing in the background.
  • GrizzWolf, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2You ***** idiots want to play this "impeacment" game? Comeon *****, bring it on. PISS off the Republican AND Christian Right bases and SEE what we do in the NEXT election. And even IF... IF by some MIRACLE a Democrat won the 2008 presidency... as soon as WE get back enough power, we WILL IMPEACH the ***** out of EVERY DEMOCRAT who lives, eats, ***** and BREATHES. So yeah, go ahead, start this ***** *****... you are just just plunging head first into some serious ***** that will fly back on YOUR faces for EONS. You morons got back a little bit of power and instead of using it wisely to endear the American people and DO WHAT'S RIGHT, you are ***** going NUTS with it... hahaha... morons. The Republicans who either didn't vote as a protest in this election or voted independant, etc., WILL VOTE when you assholes get done pissing us all off. You dildos CANNOT get a president elected JUST by catering to your lunatic Democrat base... (which is what this all this nutty "impeachment" ***** is) you NEED independants and SOME Republicans... but you ain't gonna get 'em if you keep this ***** up. But what the hey... I'm preaching SENSE to MORONS. Move to France, Traitors.
    • ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is productive...Vow revenge instead of investigating the law breaking which is part of the Constitution and Congresses job

      NOt to mention law breaking is law breaking no matter who does it...No one should be immune
    • wowfactor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Gosh, what intelligent comment from the right! (British irony) You made the first move by impeaching a president that represented you well on the world stage for fibbing about a BJ! and now you're wining when people want to impeach a president that the world think is a war criminal. It's fine if you don't care what the rest of the world thinks.
  • sheared, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2So I guess most everyone that voted is more interested in seeing NOTHING get done in Washington by the Democrats, and then have the moderates in 2008, after seeing two years wasted, swing back to the Republicans?

    I suggest the Democrats in Congress use these next two years promoting an agenda that will support their cause in 2008. If they spend it with the process of impeachment (and it would become all consuming, just as before, maybe even more so), all those moderates are going to be ripe for a Republican swing again -- especially if nothing comes from the proceedings.
  • ramaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@cypher303:

    "It's true that terrorist do not abide by the Geneva Conventions. But by disregarding those conventions on a technicality, we are placing ourselves in grave danger of being viewed as the same type of terrorists that we originally set out to stop. ..."

    Yes. Everything you said. Well put!
  • CARPEDATAM, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Garbage.... thumb down
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.