What is Digg?333 Comments
- matimus2012, on 10/12/2007, -23/+199bush lied under oath too, he swore to uphold the constitution and failed.
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -20/+125@thcobbs
Lying to congress to get authorization for prosecuting a war is impeachable. Invading a sovereign nation for no reason is a war crime. - JackBurden, on 10/12/2007, -8/+95Impeachment is essentially just a trial. So if he's done nothing wrong, then he has nothing to fear. Right?
Isn't that how the authoritarian argument goes? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+81thcobbs:
>Do you have evidence that Bush KNOWINGLY misled the congress?
How about this classic, where he said when advocating the Patriot Act:
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
How about this classic, from the Iraq War Resolution:
"Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;"
There was zero evidence for this -- Bush even said later that "we HAD no evidence." Lying to congress is a felony.
How about the whole "oops, we got caught torturing thing?" Remember his statement "We don't torture?"
Anyway, not to worry cobs, the Democrats are spineless -- the most deserving guy ever of being impeached (and hung) and the Democrats will probably let him walk. - RadiatedAnt, on 10/12/2007, -16/+81I some how feel its 42% and thats just a 3% margin error
- rebrane, on 10/12/2007, -15/+78IM IN UR WHITE HOUZZZ
BANKRUPTIN UR NATION - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+46Clinton was found "not guilty."
Remember? - meltingrobot, on 10/12/2007, -32/+70Way to spam your Digg submissions in another article. I went ahead and modded your articles as Lame for ya. K, thx, bye!!!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+47"Lying to congress to get authorization for prosecuting a war is impeachable. Invading a sovereign nation for no reason is a war crime."
The problem those most of you don't recognize, especially our Diggsters from other countries - is that you have to prove he INTENDED to mislead Congress into going to war with Iraq, knowing that there were no WMD's.
There hasn't been any substantial proof - and therefore, cannot be impeached on those grounds.
Now, I for one didn't understand why Clinton was impeached until several years later when I grew up and actually realized what he'd done wrong. He wasn't removed from office, he was brought up on charges for perjury and convicted. Anything ever happen to him? Nope.
Simply because you impeach Bush doesn't mean that he's leaving office anytime soon. - bsmang, on 10/12/2007, -6/+37Perfect example of a real life Freudian slip:
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
-George W. Bush
Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+381021:
>Leading to an almost identical percentage of people wanting Bush and Clinton impeached.
Not identical at all -- more people want Bush impeached than even did under Clinton. And Clinton had the impeachment vote. So where's the vote? Yes yes, I know, it's not popular opinion -- but we expect that our process should reflect, and our representatives should reflect the will of the people. That's how this is supposed to work.
And it's not like there's a shortage of stuff to impeach him on -- personally I'd go with lying to congress (a felony) since he admitted after lying that "we HAD no evidence" that Saddam was involved in 9/11, although that's what the Iraq war resolution said. Or perhaps ordering wiretapping against the law (also a felony). You pick yer felonies! He's a real prize, Bush is. Apparently his adventure vacation presidency hasn't killed enough people yet for some southerners. - rebrane, on 10/12/2007, -8/+32The war in Iraq has cost $500 billion to date. That would be more than enough to guarantee universal single-payer health care for all Americans. That would be more than enough to ensure that Social Security continued to pay out well past 2040. That would be enough money to eliminate world hunger for decades. That would be enough money to fix our public schools.
Instead, Bush pissed it away on slaughtering 600,000 innocent Iraqis, destroying the readiness of our military, and as conservatives are always eager to tell us, now Iraq is much more of a threat to America than it ever was before.
This is the worst blunder in American history. It has the potential to shake this country from its foundations. Rebuking its architect is possibly the only way the country as we know it can survive. - Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25@baker551 (#6613702)
Breaking the written law and being impeached and removed from office are not a single circle on a Venn diagram. They intersect, yes, but they are not the same. Meaning, a president can break a written law and not be removed from office. Also, a president can have broken no written law and still be removed from office.
Besides, as someone else aptly pointed out, if Bush has nothing to hide, then there shouldn't be a problem with impeachment. - rebrane, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Actually, the authoritarian argument is that we wouldn't be charging you if you weren't guilty, so you don't need a trial. And Bush has extensively used this argument, you can go back and look at him talking about how dangerous it would be to give American citizens charged with terrorism a trial before a jury of their peers
I don't know why bigW thinks that it's authoritarian to charge somebody with a crime and then try them before a jury, as the Constitution lays out. It's a very liberal system, which is probably why Bush hates it so much. Perhaps he, like so many neoconservatives, believes that if a neocon does it, it cannot be illegal.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/08/neocons/index.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19"impeachment aint enough!"
Absolutely correct. Impeachment is merely a political punishment. George Bush has committed war crimes. He needs a criminal indictment, trial, conviction and prison time. - rebrane, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22You are lying, JimSpaza. The Army cannot be deployed against American citizens. At least, it couldn't until Bush found a way to hold American citizens in military custody outside of the reach of the courts.
- DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23And Bush has definitely broken the law, particularly with regards to the warrantless wiretapping (regardless of what the Bushies say, it is NOT legal).
- john570, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23If Bush was impeached wouldn't Cheney become president? Oh wait that's not really any different from the way it is now.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+27How about, Lets go to the White House and drag George out onto the lawn and beat him senseless?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21sandfish:
>Clinton didn't get impeached for getting a blowjob, he got impeached for lying to the country about getting a blowjob.
No, he got impeached for lying to a grand jury about a blowjob during a real-estate investigation. - davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -11/+25@thcobbs
Bush had contradictory intelligence from the NSA and CIA that he withheld from congress when he was beating his war drum. He cannot blame "bad" intelligence as the reason, he chose to follow the British intelligence even though American intelligence organizations were not baking up the British claims. Bush chose the intelligence that suited his goals, and discounted everything else. He knew the intelligence he was providing congress was incomplete. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20island:
>There is no proof of him lying to Congress,
Actually there is, see the Iraq war resolution quote above, and his quote that we HAD no evidence. Notice the wording.
>and many in Congress (including democrats) made the case for war.
After they received the altered NIE's where the White House replaced "maybe has WMDs" with "has WMDs" and "might have" with "has".
>As far as your war crime nonsense, Saddam violating the Gulf War cease-fire is legalities enough.
No, it's not. As a matter of fact individual countries are prohibited from enforcing any resolutions without a vote, and we are a signatory to the UN charter. If you check the Constitution of the United States, something which I am sure you have the most profound respect for, you'll note that it says that signed treaties are the law of the land.
In other words, he fought an illegal war in violation of US law. That's a criminal act. - hplasm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Don't you mean 'beat some sense into...'
- rebrane, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14The House passes a bill of impeachment,.which is like an indictment, a formal charge. After that, the President has to go on trial before the Senate, which must vote 60% in favor of removal for office to get him out.
There were only 50 votes in the Senate to remove Clinton from office. So the impeachment effort failed. The system works! - Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20He was lying about something stupid and irrelevent, like his name....
"President Clinton, what is your name?"
"Clingon"
"OMGFF!WTF HE LIED ABOUT HIS NAME!!!!11!!11 IMPEACH NOW!!1!!! OH NOES........" Idiots - soxos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1483% of all people know that
- sandfish, on 10/12/2007, -15/+27Clinton didn't get impeached for getting a blowjob, he got impeached for lying to the country about getting a blowjob.
- jm9206755, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20The fact that a seperate "intelligence" group was created within the CIA tasked specifically with fixing the intelligence around Iraq is a pretty big clue.....
- rebrane, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16It was an illegal war. The UN Charter specifically prohibits this sort of war and the US is a signatory to that treaty, which means it's the law of the land (see: Constitution, Article VI).
If Congress didn't want that to be a law, they wouldn't have authorized the treaty, or they would have repealed it. But they haven't. The war was illegal. - sandfish, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19* NATIONZ
- strangewill, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Whats funny is Clinton's approval rating INCREASED after the impeachment...
yep. - Balthazar3n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10And it's never too late to impeach. If impeachment only comes as George Bush steps onto Marine One for the last time it would still send an enduring message to future presidents and improve our stature in the international community.
- rebrane, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Clinton was acquitted, dude. Where were you in 1998-1999?
- thewaz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12impeachment aint enough!
- mstrike, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Good idea. Have fun getting past the dozens of guards with carbine assault rifles.
- riverside71, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14difference.. Bush hasn't pissed Israel off.... yet.
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15@1021
So how is congress going to weigh the options when the only intelligence they are granted by Bush supports his claims?
Don't forget, Bush also signed an executive order restricting who in congress has access to intelligence. - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -40/+49@davesbrain
Do you have evidence that Bush KNOWINGLY misled the congress? Being wrong about intelligence estimates is NOT lying.
Lying is knowingly saying false things. - rebrane, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12So, impeaching a President for lying over matters totally unrelated to his conduct in office is OK, but impeaching a President for lying his way into an illegal war of aggression (I can point out a number of laws and treaties that this violates if you wish) will, like, totally erode the foundation of our forefathers and stuff.
Yeah, right. - rebrane, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@chicofaraby
Clinton was impeached by the House, and the Senate failed to obtain the two-thirds vote to impeach. If you're looking for a conviction, you're looking in the wrong place, the congress does not convict anybody of anything, this was not taking place in a court of law. There were four articles of impeachment from the House, which, in essence, convicted him of those crimes when the articles were approved. The Senate did not vote in favor of the impeachment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
@jm9206755
I have a clue. - rebrane, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I think you aren't really aware of how much money $500 billion is in terms of the annual economic output of the world.
- luther70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Didn't Bush get busted for DUI ? Just saying the score is
Busted by the Cops Bush: 1 Clinton: 0 - bsmang, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14@davesbrain: "Invading a sovereign nation for no reason is a war crime."
Oh come on, who says he had no reason? He and his handlers had their reasons.
But things like "I wanna get that bastard!" or "Maybe we can get some oil or some money from it, too!" or "Cool, we should do it!" would never have convinced congress to authorize. So they had some work to do. And even with all the total bs that led them to authorize, I still believe that most (even most of the republicans) were only trying to send a message to Saddam that "Hey, we're really serious about making sure you don't have WMD cooking over there." And of course, that did finally work. Saddam finally had to give in and decide that it's better to be frisked and exposed as 'unarmed' than be certainly and completely destroyed by a wayward George Bush. That resulted in the weapons inspectors finally being given full and unconditional access to everything. But before they could even get to any of those places where we "knew the weapons were", they were ordered out by Bush because shock and awe were coming in regardless of anything else. Of course, war _had to happen immediately_ by then because otherwise it would've been a very short time before the whole WMD train jumped the track and exploded.
Damn, I think I did a pretty good job on that for a dumb liberal democrap stoner hippie atheist computer programmer. I should save it to paste back later. - metafore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10this just in: welcome to campaign pre-season.
(that period of time where there are more important things to tend to, like fund raising) - spurtle, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Hire a special investigator. Investigate any inappropriate behavior regarding Iraq and/or any other scandal this administration has been part of. Question the President and Vice President before Congress and under oath. If they lie, then there is your grounds for impeachment. There is also a strong possibility that felonious or treasonous offenses may be uncovered during the investigation as well that would end up in impeachment.
- DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Nah, it was a bad idea then (over a private affair) and completely necessary now (leading thousands to their deaths, putting the nation into huge debts, making the rest of the world hate our guts... you know, the norm for Bush).
@irvman21: Will people like yourself PLEASE stop suggesting that Congress is stupid enough to impeach ONLY Bush? This is NOT a good reason to not impeach -- both will be impeached at once because it's obvious to anyone with any bit of intelligence that Cheney is the worse of the two. Stop suggesting ridiculous scenarios. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Look, first, Clinton is a right wing *****.
BUT, he was cited for contempt for lying about a BJ. The perjury charge in the impeachment failed. He was found "not guilty."
How many lawyers in Arkansas were cited for contempt the same year? How many of them gave up their law license as a result?
George Bush started an illegal war, ordered torture and wiretapped Americans without warrants.
The two cases aren't remotely comparable. - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Being impeached by the House is most definitely NOT the same thing as being found guilty. It's more akin to a "true bill" from a grand jury, a declaration saying there is enough evidence to go to trial.
- jm9206755, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The President NEVER gets to declare war. He can deploy troops for up to 60 days (and a possible 30 day extension) before Congress declares war. But that doesn't apply in this case because Bush lied to Congress so they would authorize the war.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 333 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is