What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
This Game Sucks view!
threadless.com - Grab this epic gaming tee for only $12 during the Threadless Holiday Sale!
36 Comments
- staxofmax, on 06/27/2008, -0/+10McCain refuses to impeach Bush?! Stop the presses!!!
Is anyone really surprised? It would be political suicide for McCain to do so, pure and simple. Can't we just file this under "no *****" and move on? - inactive, on 06/27/2008, -1/+7but but but.....
Congress didn't give a ***** this entire time, so you should ask yourself why they care all of a sudden.
It's just a game they're playing in an attempt to get Obama a few more votes. - inactive, on 06/28/2008, -2/+6Show me the lies. Please provide quotes and the evidence that Bush lied.
(Not defending Bush...just making the accusers do something more than simply accusing.) - doctechnical, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4"Well, Clinton DID lie about having sex with a woman."
In front a a grand jury. Under oath. - inactive, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4You're right, Clinton committed perjury.
- ImperialRome, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5When Justin Volpe abused Abner Louima after taking him into custody, did the DA prosecute Rudy Guiliani or the police commissioner for approving of it? No, because the overzealous subordinate is acting in excess of his authority.
When guards at Gitmo abuse prisoners there, was it because Bush told them to do so? Rumsfeld? No, it was because the lawyers at DOJ and DOD approved of procedures that the SC did not agree with. That is not a crime, in and of itself.
The Holding of prisoners without "due process" is a bogus argument. It was unclear from the very start what due process they were entitled to. If they are covered under Article 3 of Geneva Conventions, then they can be held for the duration of the war, without trial. Period.
If they are covered under Article 4, then they are civilians, and can be tried for crimes against US forces for illegally engaging with US troops in combat. Therefore, a review board needed to be established, and that review board had to establish what did, or did not happen, in each case. Since they have processed and released most of the Gitmo detainees, that process was WORKING.
The remaining Gitmo detainees are those who were most likely actual enemy combatants, who could and should be tried, but the evidence against them had to be reviewed, and trials scheduled; and then the SC decided that the procedures weren't enough, and threw the whole thing out again.
Now, the Gitmo trials will not go forward until a new Congress comes into office, and a rewrite of the MCA is completed. So instead of giving them trials, and releasing them or sentencing them, they will remain in limbo for another two years.
Finally, it is wholly unreasonable to impeach the President when no crime was committed. Even if I take at face value your assertion that he lied to get us into a war, which I don't accept, but even if I did accept that, the war was duly and legally authorized by the Congress.
That means your entire case of "he lied" / "he misled" / "caused the deaths of " is based on the gullibility of your representatives in Congress. Since they authorized the use of force and military means to removed Saddam Hussein, does it not also taint them? Did they do so with the intent of causing the deaths of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians? Aren't they just as responsible for those deaths? So, if they are just as culpable and responsible for the deaths caused by this war, shouldn't they also be impeached on the same basis?
If it follows that they reviewed the same intel, which they did, and came to a false conclusion, which you assert, and they authorized the use of force, aren't they just as guilty?
So how can a guilty party to the same crime put another party on trial, legally? They cannot.
Case closed. - inactive, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4@waiting2awake
You do realize he'll be long gone from office by the time any outcome is reached. That's like sentencing a dead man to 50 years in prison. So, other than disqualifying Bush from receiving what is essentially a pittance of a pension (which makes no financial difference to him), and keep him from running for future office (which is highly unlikely for him to do anyhow), where it the payoff? Is it worth all the time and effort that could be better put to use correcting some glaring problems we have?
@ slowmo
It really took you this long to realize that? I hope you still don't think that the Persian Gulf war was about keeping the people of Kuwait safe from big bad Saddam. - doctechnical, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3You are wrong.
Under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, these detainees are not entitled to POW status. In order to qualify for this status they would have to have satisfied four conditions: They would have to be part of a military hierarchy; they would have to have worn uniforms or other distinctive signs visible at a distance; they would have to have carried arms openly; and they would have to have conducted their military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
HTH. HAND. - Waiting2awake, on 06/27/2008, -4/+7Because why bother chasing criminals right? The crime is done, its over - fogetaboutit.... is that really what you are thinking?
Remember bub - eventually to keep the whole illusionary machine working they will have the political winds change and all that Bush has done to destroy America for right-wing ideologies, there will be a President that will continue to destroy America for left-wing ideologies.
Stop it - get them out of power, give them an international, transparent, trial - and if found guilty hang them. It is more than they gave the people of Iraq isn't it? - inactive, on 06/28/2008, -2/+5Bullcrap! This is all lies and made up bullcrap.
Even Thinkprogress has pulled the PDF file.
"Error 404 - Not Found"
So much for the evidence that Bush lied. - inactive, on 06/28/2008, -3/+5I'm supposed to believe the political shill Begala? Please.
Isn't Begala the one who, while working under President Clinton, said that Clinton's presidency would be an example of transparency and cooperation with Congress?
Now, all of a sudden, everything changes and Congress is suddenly in the dark? Please. - EatingPie, on 06/27/2008, -4/+6Just because he voted to Impeach Clinton, he should vote the same for Bush? Or anyone else for that matter?
That's basically all the article says: he did it once, he should do it again.
McCain said why he won't vote: he disagrees with the articles. That's a good reason not to vote for them -- assuming his disagreement is legitimate.
-Pie - inactive, on 06/27/2008, -9/+10Uh, the Democrats had access to the SAME intelligence as Bush. They voted for the war!!! Thus, no crime. Hello?!? Geez, you liberals are fanatical and illogical.
Anyway, here are the quotes from Democrats about Iraq having WMDs:
What do you say about these quotes, hypocrite liberals?
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 - SheilaNoya, on 06/27/2008, -5/+6re: "They all saw the same inteligence"
*****. The first thing Bush did right after 9/11 was to remove the security clearances from 92 Senators so they couldn't see any "classified" intelligence reports until they had first been carefully filtered by Dick Cheney's office. It was all cherry-picked information, as we all know now. Only 8 people were allowed to see everything and 7 of them were Republicans. The one Democrat was sworn to secrecy and was not legally allowed to divulge anything in the reports or discuss anything in them due to "National Security" reasons.
Did you forget about Bush removing everyone's security clearances less than a month after 9/11? Is so, then here's reminder:
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/26/bush-pulls-sec ... - inactive, on 06/27/2008, -2/+3Don't forget about doling out no-bid contracts to Halliburton and now Shell, Exxon, and BP. The war was ALWAYS about oil.
- curtisag, on 06/27/2008, -1/+2As despicable as it is to lie to the American people, it has never been illegal to do so. Politicians always lie to us. It is the congress which illegally transferred their constitutional authority to declare war to the President. He merely ran with the ball they gave him.
- sanman, on 06/27/2008, -4/+4Hmm, like the way Slick Willie lied about launching an aerial bombing campaign against Belgrade, on the pretext of "stopping war between Turkey and Greece"?
Oh wait, Clintons are in the doghouse with you now anyways, because they didn't bow to the Obama-mania. So you'll probably agree with me. - sanman, on 06/27/2008, -4/+4I wouldn't say that. Look at the hatchet-job that Libs did on Hillary. She dared to oppose the ObamaMessiah, and was instantly transmogrified into a bitch-queen by the very Libs who claimed to have adored her all these years. The Clintons went from being "the first black Presidency" to being the new poster-couple for the KKK. Now that she's been neutralized by Lib-media lynching, you're suddenly feigning sorrow for her. Ohhhhh, yeah, I'm sure you're all teary over it. You ***** were all posting your Whitewater retrospectives here on Digg, and suddenly your memory of this has evaporated, now that McCain is the new target.
What an Orwellian joke people like you are. - inactive, on 06/27/2008, -5/+5That IS so much worse than lying to start a war that murdered half a million Iraqis, spying on Americans, and flushing the economy down the well while rewarding his cronies for failure.
- inactive, on 06/26/2008, -6/+6Well, Clinton DID lie about having sex with a woman.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1buried for being a jackass who worries about whether someone signs their posts
- JigoroKano, on 06/27/2008, -3/+3Let's not do the right thing because it's hard and the rewards won't be great.
- curtisag, on 06/27/2008, -3/+3Pie would you quit signing your posts like a jackass. You're a very sensible person otherwise.
- CoilDCoyle, on 07/18/2008, -0/+0Vault, The reason is that we need to prevent Bush from issuing Blanket Pardons to all of the other criminals in his 8 year crime wave.
Think about it.
Coil - inactive, on 06/27/2008, -3/+2Exactly!
(I was being sarcastic earlier) - Waiting2awake, on 06/27/2008, -2/+1PolishLogic - Acutally, the anaology would be Person A, murdering Person B, and when the family go after person B legally they are told - Why bother? The crime is done? Nothing can bring him back, why make a bother?
How do you live with yourself?
Why do you punish criminals? Just to punish them? Or to serve as a warning to the next person that thinks about doing the crime? What message are you sending again? - wynja, on 06/27/2008, -3/+2hahahahaha, of course he disagrees with the ***** articles. Bush is his butt buddy. He'd never bite the hand that feeds him.
Cause he said he disagrees..... well that's good enough for me too...... wait what's his arguement again...... it just doesn't feel right. - inactive, on 06/27/2008, -5/+3“The White House is who provides the intelligence to the Congress and the notion that the Congress sees the same intelligence as the president is nonsense. I used to work in the White House and I used to work on the Congress. I can tell you, presidents and this president especially, treats Congress like a mushroom factory, keeps them in the dark and feeds them manure.” -- Paul Begala.
- wynja, on 06/27/2008, -3/+1Actually, Rumsfeld, Bush, and Cheney signed off on the Torture Handbook that was passed out to investigators. Epic fail on your part.
- vault, on 06/27/2008, -8/+6The guy is at the tail end of his presidency...what on earth would be purpose be at this point? Just some superficial feeling like something was done?
- Pstmann, on 06/26/2008, -6/+4Come on, we all know impeaching Clinton was all the rage back then. It was like a big Republican big-top revival meeting, everybody wanted in.
Impeach Bush?!? Hell, even the Democrats don't want to do that! Why would I - McCain. - InvisibleInk, on 06/26/2008, -7/+5The holding of the Guantanamo Bay detainees without due process and the "harsh interrogation tactics" (torture) unleashed there and elswhere are violations of the Geneva Conventions and federal law requiring strict adherence to treaties by elected officials. Treaties are regarded as the law of the land and it is federal crime to subvert them. These are impeachable and imprisonable offences. Kucinich is doing the right thing, but, for some unfathomable reason, the politicians of his own party ignore these crimes. At the very least, Rumsfeld is blatantly guilty for approving and encouraging the tortures and atrocities at Abu Graib, and he should be tried (due process) and imprisoned.
- wynja, on 06/27/2008, -4/+1Holy hell, McCain won't vote to impeach the man whose ass he's been licking since he started his bid for the candidacy....... say it ain't so.
- P5ycHo, on 06/27/2008, -6/+3But he still lied.
- inactive, on 06/27/2008, -4/+1The Office of Special Plans was created in the DOD, with Israeli spy Douglas Feith at the helm, to make sure the intel was spun in such a way that it would deceive the public and the congress into an attack.
Never forget the Downing Street Memos, in which it is revealed that the Bushies are "making the intel fit the policy" - qdkk, on 06/26/2008, -7/+4Yeah, why impeach Bush for having lied to the country to enter into an illegal war???
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is