What is Digg?289 Comments
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -12/+306Lying about a BJ is not important. Killing a million people for no good reason is important.
Indict George Bush for war crimes. - SheilaNoya, on 10/10/2007, -6/+177Bill Clinton had a 73% approval rating while the Republicans were busy impeaching him.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/ ... - insllvn, on 10/10/2007, -3/+74We need to get this done before he attacks Iran. His time is running out, but not fast enough.
- BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -1/+72I supported an investigation into Clinton's business affairs, but I became dismayed when it turned into an investigation of his sexual affairs. Frankly, I was upset that those were the reasons used for his impeachment. Today, I feel that enough information has come out about this entire administration that warrants impeachment hearings, yet again I am disappointed because no one on Capitol Hill is really looking into the issues that need to be scrutinized. We're all told it's a waste of time because George & Co. will be out of office in little over a year. So I ask: What can happen in a year?
- OutThisLife, on 10/10/2007, -3/+62So why did people vote for him again?
- pintomp3, on 10/15/2007, -2/+53because teh gayz might get married. if that happens, the terrorists win.
- 404NF, on 10/10/2007, -4/+52Jan 20, 2009 won't come soon enough
- Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+45I cannot fathom why Bush, Cheney and the lot of them are not under investigation. This is the most corrupt, licentious administration we have had in memory. You would think that by now, some Republicans would be angry about all of the money that has "disappeared" and the sex scandals that continue to plague the Republican party, but so far, no one has done anything. They just sit back, "support the president", and let them continue to ruin their party.
I do not want to hear a single "conservative" ever gripe about "liberals" not being accountable, because between the Republican controlled Congress, the Republican controlled DOJ and the Republican controlled White House, it is the "conservatives" that have destroyed our economy, our standing with the world, and increased the size of our government to outrageous levels. The "special interests" Republicans support are worse, because they ARE the "special interests". When are we going to hear a hue and cry about cost-plus contracts, pedophiles in government, and the housing market crash?
The answer: Only when someone starts holding them accountable for it, and enforces the idea that the laws do apply to them. Arrogance and corruption defines our government. - texxmexx, on 10/10/2007, -10/+41***** indicting. Show him some blackwater justice he's so eager to dish out. DOWN WITH HITLER.
- Racerx52, on 10/10/2007, -3/+31Gladly
- iburl, on 10/10/2007, -2/+28If we had a party that gave a damn about the constitution, instead of the posturing, posing, inactive, wimps that run the Democratic party now, Bush would have already been impeached.
- EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -4/+30The Congressmen, while complicit, didn't oust CIA analysts who didn't toe the line. They didn't falsify intelligence or promote bad intelligence into official reports. They simply played along, much more getaway drivers than the murdering bank robbers themselves.
And in fact many of them played along because the Republicans have mastered the art of painting anyone who disagrees with them as a coward and a traitor. It takes a lot of balls to stand up and say no. So the biggest failing of Congress is that they're spineless.
That said, I'd be happy ousting them all, with the exception of Paul, Feingold and a few others. - DrunkChimp, on 10/10/2007, -5/+27Impeach the Chimp and Dickless Chenie for war crimes and crimes against the American people. This two pieces of ***** deserve to be sitting in a jail cell. They've already ruined our Armed Forces and reputation around the world.
- dagamer34, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21What I find the funniest is that Republicans say they are the party of "Christian Conservative Values" and yet we always hear scandals about THEM, not Democrats. Honestly now, what's with the blatant lying? If you ignore what comes out of their mouths and look at their actions, no Republican supporter alive would actually support the Republican party in its current state.
Summary? Republicans are total *****. - johnlandes, on 10/10/2007, -6/+24Bush will not be impeached. It is too late and the dem's are pussies.
The only hope is a war crimes trial after his term is up (Unless, of course he has already immunized himself against such things...oh wait) - drunkclam, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20he stole both elections
- EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Yes, unfortunately. That's the only reason Bush hasn't been impeached. If his popularity among Republicans in Republican districts was low enough, you'd have enough votes to convict in the Senate and he'd be gone in a heartbeat.
- cherwilco, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18and don't forget that a ***** ***** of his votes where all pulled from Diebold voting machines where a mass amount of those vote's paper ballots where destroyed. So to answer your question OutThisLife....MOST of us didn't vote for him (thats right the ***** majority didn't) but pastors all across the country are telling their congregation to support him because he is speeding up the end times.
please people next time we have 2 presidential candidates to vote for DON'T ***** VOTE FOR THE GUY THATS GONNA SPEED UP THE END OF THE WORLD!!!! PLEASE!!!! - ThinkBox, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19I think the point that Shella is trying to make is that Bush has made decisions that Shella thinks is impeachable, and that the approval polling reflects the fact that most people are unhappy with Bush.
thecobbs is saying that legality and approval polls are not directly linked.
Thecobbs is right in the sense in which he declares his point, but at the same time, the actions of a president are linked with the publics reactions (as in polling) so a low approval rating can be linked to impeachable offenses, but there is no factual association. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Bill Clinton was found innocent of perjury. He didn't commit perjury. You nutcases lost. Remember? And for the record, I don't like Bill Clinton. He's a right winger.
To answer your question... http://www.counterpunch.org/brecher12062005.html - jdb252, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15I really don't think that we should pay attention to the polls when we're trying to impeach this son of a bitch. Popularity need not figure in to a constitutional crisis.
- maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16In 2004, a lot of support for the Iraq war and anger over 9-11 re-elected Bush, plus John Kerry was never a really likeable guy.
The problem with Iraq is he let it go on and on and on without a decicive "win", and the American public is losing patience. Plus, now stories are coming out about FBI abuses of the Patriot Act, support of torture, Guantanamo, and just a general feeling that his administration is "stuck on stupid". Public support in America is very fickle. Either show success or the public will dump you in a second. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16There will be no impeachment. The America you thought you knew is over. Say hello to you new fascist overlords; the MilitAry-indusTRIal compleX.
- HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -13/+27If you are going to impeach Bush on the basis of "war crimes" you are going to have to do the same for the 2/3rds of the House and 4/5ths of the Senate that support(ed) the war in Iraq. The President can't be held solely accountable.
It's fun to blame Bush, but he's not the only one responsible. So are the Congressmen, and moreover, the vast majority of American people who originally supported the war. - inf0, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15it's all Bibles and Butt-Sex with the Republicans..
- gak001, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15What was in Ben Franklin said? What is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular? Of course, I don't think the President's sexual relations with an intern is any matter of national concern.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13High treason is punishable by execution.
- EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11I think your "obvious" statement read as sarcasm, which would imply you believe something else.
But I don't know why you think Bush is smart for obstructing justice and failing to hand over evidence that would tend to prove he broke the law on a number of occasions. Devious, maybe. Cynical, for sure. Criminal, almost certainly.
But "smart" suggests an endorsement of the tactic. And it's not even, because the truth will come out at some point, and perhaps we can at least convict Bush after he's out of office, if we all make it that far. - dattaway, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15"So I ask: What can happen in a year?"
Nuclear bombs can disappear and reappear in random cities? - kevisazombie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13fear
- cranium, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13You say that like it's a problem?
Seriously, it was Bush that deliberately falsified the intelligence data, so he's a lot more guilty than the people who were fooled by it. - inf0, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Bush will never be impeached. The powers in place are not going to let this happen. The only regime change that is necessary right now, in the world, is the removal of all Neocons & their Croonies from power.
With BetrayUs running his sh*tflaps again about Iran, and all the unusual articles from Fox and CNN have run on Iran, it is already a foregone conclusion that this invasion is going to happen.
The blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people are on America's hands. - atbnet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12The religious right appointed dictator Bush to another 4 years. When I used to attend church, they pretty much told you to vote for Bush or your were going to hell.
- timjim31, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10and that was in 2005
- EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Not correct. He had Congress's approval to do everything in his power to _avoid_ war before _going_ to war.
If it can be shown that Bush had committed the country to go to war before he even went to the UN, that he wasn't really trying to avoid war, then he broke that "authorizing" law in spirit and to the letter. That's impeachable, as are a number of other things. - anteriororifice, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10amen
- Grumps, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9The government would rather impeach a president for scandals than to impeach the one that is killing our soldiers, greatly increasing harm of Americans, promoting terrorism by provoking them and invading 2 country (soon to the 3rd one) for no legal reason. He can ***** do nothing but to veto all the bills that benefits the public while allowing bloody mercenaries like Blackwater do share his crime in Iraq.
- Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Further ruin of our economy through theft, increased surveillance of the populace, and more legislation to cover their tracks and evade justice when they are out of office. Oh, and probably a war with Iran, mercenary groups like Blackwater gone wild without any legal restraints, worsening housing market and erosion of the dollar.
I'm probably missing a few, but that seems like enough to worry about for now. If those are not conservative issues, I don't know what you would call a conservative issue. - Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Yellow cake Uranium "evidence" brought before the UN? Weapons of mass destruction that were never found?
No one is accountable in government, since it shouldn't be run like a business, and no one takes credit for anything that happens?
And you call me willfully ignorant? Go stand in front of the mirror and see if you can say that with a straight face. I was wrong, you aren't reasonable. You are an apologist. - ElbridgeGerry, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13Shh, just let them Godwin themselves.
- Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9You seem like a reasonable person, what do you propose to do about this problem? If the vast majority of the American people who originally supported the war, based upon false information, are culpable, surely the leaders that promoted false information are even more so. At this point, *someone* needs to be held accountable, and in most businesses that would be the CEO. I'll leave you to reason out who that leaves as the accountable party here.
Usually the responsible party is the one profiting from the crime, and correct me if I am wrong that Cheney still profits from Halliburton success. That would be the approach a business person would reason out. - djmounce553, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8"Lying about a BJ is not important. Killing a million people for no good reason is important.
Indict George Bush for war crimes."
I keep hearing all this antiBush talk, which is fine. What really bothers me is the fact that everyone yells and screams and doesn't do anything but that. If you want to impeach him, DO SOMETHING. If you want him out of office, organize an event. You obviously have enough support. Stop sitting around in front of your computers getting angry and DO SOMETHING. - cranium, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9What war crimes? How about deliberately falsifying evidence in order to wage a completely unprovoked attack and occupation of a foreign country, followed by committing atrocities against its citizenry?
- purdueAl, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12It won't matter. We'll have a new face on the same system.
- EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Not correct. War crimes can be committed in any kind of war. In this case, Abu Ghraib is an example of war crimes. Bombing civilians is a war crime. Not protecting civilians against violence, when the US had taken on that responsibility by occupying the country, is also a war crime.
The crime of going to war without a proper declaration is not considered a War Crime per se, but it is impeachable if the Congress was willing to do so.
And yes, they gave him somewhat of a green light with the original resolution authorizing force as a last resort. But if it can be shown that Bush didn't follow the law, i.e., to do everything in his power to avoid war before committing to it, then he actually broke that particular law too. - christor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Sad thing is, those allegations concerning his business affairs, while possessing a veneer of merit, were proven by no less than Ken Starr himself to be groundless. Despite the years of investigation, the whisperings of the mainstream press, and the rantings of the crazies on the radio, the allegations that Clinton was, somehow, the devil all boiled down to a semen stain on a dress.
When we are more prepared to prosecute sex scandals than to avert a constitutional crisis, I fear we are becoming truly degenerate. - forgiste, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Man, just quit babbling and admit defeat. None of your arguements make any sense at all.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10"They are equally, if not more, responsible than the President is for the Iraq War."
Really? When did they order US troops to invade Iraq? - Outdoor83, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7You're missing a few: there's also "the precedence of permission" where you can break the law and get away with it. Impeachment, even late, says that you CAN'T get away with it as President, so don't try it at all.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 283 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is