digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Bush impeachment polls more like Nixon than Clinton

professorsmartass.blogspot.com — Last year, the Wall Street Journal was surprised that support for impeaching President Bush was nearly double peak support for impeaching Clinton. Polls from the Watergate investigation leading up to Nixon's resignation show a closer parallel to Bush's numbers. charts & source articles included.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 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/ ...
    • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -46/+10Yeah, because committing a documented impeachable offense can be overlooked if the president is popular.
      • 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.
        • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -14/+3Exactly.... the reason Bill was impeached was due to the documented offense.... At least Bush hasn't been THAT stupid.

          As a side note... its amazing to be dug down for stating the obvious.
          • 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.
          • chase001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Cheney, Rumsfeld and the others did learn their lesson during their involvement in Watergate... Don't leave a paper trail.
          • ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6True. That's why the Republicans don't want a paper trail on the voting records.
          • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1FYI folks, thcobbs is NOT being sarcastic.

            Of course, he totally ignores DOCUMENTED violations of the constitution, e.g. the administration's legal declaration that they don't need to follow the fifth amendment (Jose Padilla) or the use of signing statements as an effective line-item-veto, FISA violations, etc.
      • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -21/+2You're gay for Bill, admit it.
        • uraliar, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6Your gay for your dad, admit it.
        • Godlike, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5So what exactly does it mean to be "gay for" someone?
          • Eleo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Well, you see...

            The kids, they listen to the rap, which gives them the brain damage
            Ya see?!
            With their hippin and the hoppin and the bippin and the boppin - so they don't know what the jazz is all about!
            Ya see?!
            Jazz is like, Jello pudding...
            No.
            Actually it's more like Kodak film
            NO - Actually jazz, is like the new Coke -- it'll be around forever.
            Aheh heh heh
    • 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.
      • random19, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5read names better if you're goign to keep using them. It was Sheila not Shella, thcobbs not thecobbs. I wouldn't have bothered correcting you if you hadn't said them each more than once.
        • chase001, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5What would digg do without it's Spellcheck Queens?
        • swrlyhrly, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Is there an ignore function on digg?
      • 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.
        • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -14/+2No, but lying about it under oath by a SITTING president IS of national concern. Digg is always screaming about the checks and balances, but always overlooks the SLAP in the FACE that Clinton gave to the judicial branch by lying under oath.
          • gak001, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3And, of course, the judicial system does not look at circumstances and context at all. That's why if you kill someone then you are guilty of murder regardless of how it happened. That's why there's no such thing as mitigating circumstances, self-defense, varying degrees of homicide and manslaughter, etc.... Oh, wait a sec...
          • elnerdo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3There's no varying degree of perjury, though.
          • chase001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And since Bush refuses to testify to Congress under oath about anything and needs Cheney to go hold his hand when he talks to them they can't really nail him for perjury.
          • repete, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5B...B...But Clinton!
          • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1thcobbs: No, but VIOLATING THE FIFTH AMENDMENT BY IMPRISONING US CITIZENS WITHOUT TRIAL ... IS... of national concern!

            And you think CLINTON gave the judicial branch a slap in the face? Good god.
        • chase001, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I also don't think the country had to hear intimate details about Clinton's penis. That whole thing was meant to embarrass him, break him financially and make him go away.
    • 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.
    • sangjmoon, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4The closest thing to an impeachment against Bush died in Vermont not too long ago. That's the problem with those on the left. They concentrate their attention in fantasy. When is the left going to concentrate on the greatest real danger to the USA when the bulk of the baby boomers retire and blow government spending even higher than the debt to GDP ratio after WWII? You can't tax the people enough when that happens. Put it simply for those of you who need things spelled out, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security will cost more than we can pay for in as soon as the next few years. If you lefties think ahead, we may be able to phase the pain slowly in by gradually cutting these programs. If you lefties continue to do what you do which is ignore it, this economic armageddon will hit us like a mack truck. These programs, today, take up half of our federal tax dollars making everything else including the Iraq War look small by comparison, and while the Iraq War is relatively temporary, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are the growing gorillas on our backs year after year.
      • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Sure, dude. Americans biggest problem is TEH EVILZ SOCIALIZM.

        Sober up.
        • sangjmoon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Typical of the clueless and priority-challenged. I bet you don't even realize that the economic armageddon is on the way when the bulk of the baby boomers retire or are you one of the ones who know but are in a state of denial? After reading this, don't say you didn't know it was coming when it hits the fan.
          • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I'm one of the ones who realizes that it's only a problem that needs to be solved. It's not "armageddon," you freaking drama queen.
          • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Riddle me this: What did the government do with all the money that is being held in trust for those baby boomers? Those boomers who ALREADY PAID IN? They shuffled it around and squandered it! Don't blame the boomers for actually expecting a return on the investment they already paid.
    • dankenstein, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1FTL:

      "At the same time, the number of Americans with an unfavorable view of the Republican Party has jumped 10 points; less than a third of the country now has a favorable view of the GOP."

      Ahh the good old days.
  • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -12/+307Lying about a BJ is not important. Killing a million people for no good reason is important.

    Indict George Bush for war crimes.
    • texxmexx, on 10/10/2007, -10/+41***** indicting. Show him some blackwater justice he's so eager to dish out. DOWN WITH HITLER.
      • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11Ummm, Hitler's dead.
        • ElbridgeGerry, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13Shh, just let them Godwin themselves.
        • chase001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5But his dream lives on since Prescott Bush's grandson is President.
      • cherwilco, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Im in favor of good ole fashioned tar and feathering! (boiling hot tar cannot be good for the complexion!)
      • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'd love to see Bush impeached, but for the good of the cause, could you tone down the crazy?
    • 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.
      • Racerx52, on 10/10/2007, -3/+31Gladly
      • 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.
        • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3"The Congressmen, while complicit, didn't oust CIA analysts who didn't toe the line."
          You don't know the executive did either, you simply suspect as such. You couldn't even get an impeachment for that.

          "They didn't falsify intelligence or promote bad intelligence into official reports."
          They didn't? Might want to check that. Heard of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence? Yeah...kind of a big deal.

          "They simply played along, much more getaway drivers than the murdering bank robbers themselves."
          No. They are equally, if not more, responsible than the President is for the Iraq War.

          "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."
          True. But then again, that's the job of the President, and arguably its primary purpose—persuasion.
          • chicofaraby, 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?
          • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Really. They authorized Bush to use force. H.J.Res. 114. When? From the Wiki:
            "The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114 (Public Law 107–243), it passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133,[2] and the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23.[3] It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002."

            The invasion didn't start until March '03.
          • Grimee, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3It's quite obvious these idiots only spew what they hear on TV. Why don't you ***** anti-Bush ***** read the actual documents that were voted on by 423 Senators? Why don't you just get off your lazy finger pointing asses and dig up what happened instead of having someone with an agenda tell you? Are you that god damn lazy? Or do you just like doing what everyone else is doing...and are afraid to figure it out for yourselves? Pussies.
          • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Why? Because pointing fingers is fun. What actually goes on in Washington is very draconian and boring.
          • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5"They authorized Bush to use force. H.J.Res. 114."

            How many troops were ordered into Iraq by the Congress in HJ 114?
          • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4"How many troops were ordered into Iraq by the Congress in HJ 114?"
            I don't believe the bill specified a number, but subsequently, about 100,000.
          • EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2We do know that CIA analysts were sidelined and forced out. We know that even more of them feared for their careers and toed the line. Read a newspaper (not a Murdoch owned paper, preferably). There were plenty of stories of people leaving the CIA. Not only that, but generals who testified to certain obvious truths before Congress were also sidelined and retired.

            The Select Committee on Intelligence relies on CIA reports. They don't have their own clandestine and analytical service. Your point is nonsense.

            Congress is more responsible? More nonsense.

            Look, if you go actually read the "authorization" for force in Iraq, section 3.1.a clearly shows that the President had to demonstrate (in writing) that he'd done everything in his power to avoid war before going to war. He had to exhaust every avenue for diplomacy and sanctions. And this President clearly had made up his mind to go to war well before this authorization. In other words, he LIED to congress, which is a felony, and an impeachable offense, not to mention the fact that he violated this very law, among others.
          • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"I don't believe the bill specified a number, but subsequently, about 100,000."

            So Congress ordered 100,000 troops into Iraq. That's some news. Can you quote the part of HJR 114 that mobilized them? Or are you just lying, trying to evade the fact that Congress didn't order a single soldier anywhere because they can't? I'm simply curious.
      • 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.
        • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2They didn't support the war out of false information though, that's the thing. They supported the war because of 9/11 and Afghanistan just wasn't "enough". If you want to claim that you supported the war originally because you were "lied to", then you truly are just willfully ignorant.

          Now, as far as accountability...well, in normal cases you are right—someone does need to be held accountable. However, in the federal government NO one is accountable. It does not work like a business. It was engineered in such a way that no one can be held accountable and no one can take credit for anything that happens because it's all based on distributed powers and compromises between branches.
          • 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.
          • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1There is no accountability in Washington. Period. That's how the system works. That's our republic. If you don't like it, I'm sorry.

            Now, I didn't say no one tries to take credit for anything. I said no one can take credit. That is, if someone good happens no one can truly be credited with that. They all try to take credit, and all try to shift blame, but in the end you just can't.
          • bitspace, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6No, a large number of us were wondering why we were diverting resources to Iraq when we hadn't found Osama yet. A large number of the people who did support the Iraq invasion supported it out of the belief that there was compelling evidence that Saddam had nuclear/bio/chem aspirations and/or capability. The data "supporting" these allegations was horribly inaccurate at best, outright fabricated at worst. (see comment above about yellowcake from Niger - completely fabricated information.)
      • 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.
        • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Logistically, it is a problem.

          No, President Bush himself did not deliberately falsify intelligence. You have zero evidence to support that claim.
          • Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7How do you know there is zero evidence to support that claim? It certainly seems like there is plenty of evidence and a hasty scramble to hide records and destroy email. Or are you going to claim those things didn't happen either? If he isn't guilty, he is grossly incompetent which is called malfeasance of office and IS an impeachable offense. The disappearing billions is plenty of evidence.

            Or is gross incompetence acceptable in your book,too? If so, whatever business you are in, is one I don't want anything to do with.
          • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Where is the evidence? If it was there, someone would have found it by now because doing so would make you rich beyond your wildest dreams. The same way that someone would have found evidence that Bush stole the '00 election, had that actually been the case. Just look at Woodward and Bernstein with Watergate. Notice, I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm just saying there's no compelling evidence—because there isn't.

            Also, the only thing that IS an impeachable offense is "high crimes and misdemeanors." What that actually means is very ambiguous.
          • Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Malfeasance of office IS a crime, and is the purpose FOR impeachment. I think any time 9 billion bucks, and pallets of money go missing, there was a group of very poor decisions made. Any time you get caught torturing people, that is also the result of a poor decision, and a criminal act. Surveillance of the public secretly and hiding that fact, when it was found unconstitutional is a poor decision (possibly criminal).

            Have you ever heard of malfeasance of office? Criminal negligence? That could be proved. Again, if you believe that our Administration acted in a responsible, and competent manner, please tell me what you do for a living so that I can avoid working with you.
          • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1The only impeachable offenses for the President are "high crimes and misdemeanors", as dictated by the Constitution. Is malfeasance a high crime? I don't know. That's up to the House to decide. So far, it seems not.
          • gak001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3@Eisenheim No, you're completely and unequivocally wrong. That's pretty much the equivalent of saying "breaking the law" and that's NOT the only impeachable offense. Perhaps you should take a look at the Constitution again. Article II Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

            If you're an American, is it too much to ask that you have a basic understanding of your own Constitution? You have Google, quite literally, at your fingertips; it took me less than thirty seconds to look up that section. No wonder the rest of the world thinks we're lazy and stupid. Stop confirming their prejudices!!!
      • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6They were lied to, that hardly makes them complicit. I'm not saying they're blameless, but it's hardly the same thing.
        • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1No they weren't. The Senate has it's own committee for intelligence. Did they lie to themselves?
          • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Are you claiming the Senate has the same access to intelligence that the executive branch does?
          • Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6And some of them, are finally out from under the gag order and beginning to talk. You do recall that they were not able to speak about the intelligence, don't you? Even if they did disagree with the decisions and evidence (which they did), they could say nothing about it. Now they can. Impeachment may not be as impossible as some think.
          • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1"Are you claiming the Senate has the same access to intelligence that the executive branch does?"
            In terms of general CIA/NSA information, believe it or not, yes. Life is not like the movies where only the President gets magical level 5 whatever clearance to the alien spaceships.
          • forgiste, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3uhm. yeah it is
      • christor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Though HerrEisenheim seems to believe that more evidence is needed, impeachment need not be subject to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Personally, I'd like to the hold the president, ie, nation's most critical decisionmaker, more accountable than that. If there's reason to believe that more likely than not Bush deliberately, or recklessly, misused intelligence in order to secure authorization for war, then that, especially when viewed in light of his utterly inept prosecution of the war, is enough for me. That's not even considering the President's assertion * and use* of the power to spy on Americans without a warrant and to be able to detain American without charge, without access to counsel, and for whatever period he determines necessary - and to torture them while in custody. He has acted like a king and behaved like the village idiot. Whatever standard you believe ought to govern the decision in the Senate whether to remove him from office, there is an overflowing abundance of evidence sufficient to begin impeachment hearings. Even if he's removed on his last day in office, it's our duty to cleanse ourselves as best we can of the stains of this man and his cabal.
      • Acewrap, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Commander in Chief. The Decider. Commander Guy.
    • purdueAl, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5I agree with what you said, but lets not make Clinton seem innocent. US/UK sanctions on Iraq killed an estimated 1.5 million Iraqis, 500,000 of those being children.
      • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Funny thing is, he should have been impeached for that, not for a freaking blowjob. But the right wing agrees with killing brown people for no good reason.
        • uraliar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3No, not really. If you remember correctly, and that does not seem to be the case, Sodomy Insane took the money meant for food for his people and built palaces. So the whole "sanctions" and "food for oil" got raped via sodomy, not Clinton. Nice try, jackass.
      • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No one cares about Iraqis...and that's the reality. At least, not enough to do anything about it. The only thing we care about here in America is Americans, and that's fresh.
      • gak001, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Sanctions is the key word. Those sanctions would have been lifted had the leadership complied so the blame is as much, if not more on Saddam. There is a big difference between placing sanctions and dropping bombs.
        • commernie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2In that case, he should have been impeached for bombing the crap out of Yugoslavia for weeks.

          (Not that your stupid-ass comment deserves a response).
          • gak001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wow, that was completely uncalled for and if anyone has made a "stupid-ass" comment it's you. Thanks for the grade school BS.

            Here's the part where you start looking like an idiot: You completely overlook the fact that Clinton did not initiate the bombing of Yugoslavia, it was NATO. That's why it's called the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Your analogy is predicated on the idea that the bombing campaign was solely Clinton's and not part of an international treaty organization. Furthermore, we're not even talking about NATO with respect to Iraq; Bush violated international law when he disregarded the United Nations in his decision to push for an act of aggression in invading Iraq. Article Six of the Constitution states that treaties are the to be considered part of the supreme law of the land, which Bush has a constitutional obligation to uphold and, in this case, did not.
      • Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3And our economy was suffering as greatly during that time, we had mercenary companies gunning people down with no accountability, the housing market sucked, and billions had gone missing in Iraq, too? Uh, no, that happened under Bush. Determining culpability needs to start with the worst of the criminals, and I'll leave you to figure out where we need to start.

        Are you better off since Bush got into office? Are our foreign relations better? Do you feel safer? Is the economy better? These are facts. I realize that Clinton was not innocent, but another person is not justified in committing a crime just because someone else did. Under that reasoning, I'd be justified in stealing billions in tax dollars because someone else took home a pencil from work.

        I'm more than willing to prosecute everyone of the guilty parties, so let's start where our direct problem is right now. That would be the ones currently committing crimes.
    • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -25/+4Perjury is OK to ignore because you like the president?

      And what "War Crimes" are Bush guilty of? Or, do you just spew ***** for no apparent reason?
      • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3People like to categorize the war in Iraq as a "war crime" because it was a war of aggression. The reality is there are no war crimes the US can commit, because the US wrote the laws. Moreover, it's not like this is the first time we fought a war of aggression.

        Usually the "war crimes" thing is just willful ignorance. Even if you could document these so called crimes, you couldn't charge the President with them because the President isn't accountable, almost by design.
        • 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.
      • chicofaraby, 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
        • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Was he truly found "not guilty"? And do you have evidence to back that up?
          • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yes he was and yes I do.

            http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...

            Are you going to admit that Bill Clinton didn't commit perjury?
          • gak001, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Dude, could you do us all a favor and do your freaking research before you ***** all over the comment section? This is like the fourth time you've gotten owned on this article alone.
          • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You're referencing the senate trial not the civil proceedings.
      • 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?
      • drakethegreat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Complete stupidity continues to exit thcobbs keyboard. Maybe one of these days he will give up.
      • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Lying to the American people is ok because you and the other 20% of Retarded America think Bush is Jesus II?
      • gak001, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Well, let's take a look at the four major crimes at the Nuremburg Trials: 1) Conspiracy; 2) Crimes against peace; 3) War crimes; and 4) Crimes against humanity.

        Let's pretend that Bush really is stupid and didn't realize that the intelligence was bad so there was no conspiracy, and let's hope that Bush wasn't hearing the voice of God and that this invasion had nothing to do with Muslims or Arabs. We still have items 2 and 3 to deal with. There is no question that Bush has committed a crime against the peace in initiating a war of aggression by violating the UN charter and invading Iraq - a sovereign, independent state - without the approval of the UN, which is part of the "supreme law of the land" as per the US Constitution. Guantanamo Bay and the secret CIA facilities are prime examples of War Crimes in that torture is permitted, even if they don't call it that. Then we have the bombing of civilian targets, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, the lack of oversight for organizations like Blackwater, and the list goes on and on.

        Does that help you out?
        • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2"violating the UN charter and invading Iraq"

          What about the violations of the Cease Fire from the First Gulf War?

          "without the approval of the UN, which is part of the "supreme law of the land" as per the US Constitution"
          Ummm... last I checked... the President needed the Authorization of CONGRESS to enact war... And last I checked... there hasn't been an amendment since the UN was created. Although he can initiate a conflict for ~6mo before requesting additional funding from congress.

          "Then we have the bombing of civilian targets, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, the lack of oversight for organizations like Blackwater, and the list goes on and on."
          Do you have evidence that civilian targets were TARGETED for the bombing?
          Abu Ghraib soldiers were brought to trial and punished.
          Where in the UN does it talk about oversight for Paramilitary organizations?
          • EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Which Kool Aid tastes better, Fox Yellow or Bush Red?
          • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4"What about the violations of the Cease Fire from the First Gulf War?"

            What about it? The UN didn't ask George W Bush to invade Iraq. That's why it's illegal.

            Oh, and treaties ratified by the Senate are US law. Get over it.
          • gak001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What about it? We are not the UN we are a part of it, that's why it's called the United Nations and not the United States and Those Other Countries.

            Try checking article six, which describes Federal powers - "and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" - which the President vowed to uphold when he took the oath of office.

            You just killed your own logic by calling them civilian targets. But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant civilian locations targeted. There are numerous examples of the US military dropping bombs in heavily populated areas in Iraq and Afghanistan under questionable circumstances. Here's a study from University of New Hampshire: http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm I'm sure if you actually looked, you could find a bunch on your own.

            A lot of the interrogation techniques used at Abu Ghraib were sanctioned and introduced either directly or indirectly by the Bush Administration through Rumsfeld and the generals. A military court under control by the Bush Administration doesn't exactly scream of independent investigation, more like scapegoat.

            There are so many statutes from the UN talking about paramilitary that I'm just going to let you do your own research. There's this great website - google.com - that let's you put in words and it searches for websites with those words in them. But regardless, I never said that Bush violated the UN treaty by using paramilitary organizations or not overseeing them properly - although he might have, I'm not an expert in international law. Bush does, however, have an obligation to ensure that paramilitary organizations in his employ respect treaties and do not commit war crimes.

            Anything else I can help you with today?
      • kmiller2087, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2more examples of war crimes are that, and there were digg articles onthis:: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7012889.stm
        the sniper baiting program. our president is the commander in chief and therefore the ranking officer in our military, making him responsible for atrocites like that. bush makes me sick and truly embarrassed to be an american.
        another thing to remember though is impeaching him doesnt mean getting him out of office, impeach : to accuse (a public official) before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office. not the same thing. i vote for lynching, like the iraqis did to saddam.
    • ThinkBox, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4It wasn't lying about a BJ, it was LYING IN COURT TO A JUDGE UNDER OATH TO TELL THE TRUTH. Please, its not like you are just with your buddies and you tell a lie. It's... in court... under-oath... on trial.... lying directly and consciously.

      If you want to compare this directly to Bush, then get him on the stand and wait for him to lie. The fact is, nobody has put him there, so nobody can legally impeach him.
      • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0You could still bring an impeachment, it would just fail miserably.
      • drunkclam, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2it was for a damn blow job, lying under oath is just how they made it stick legally.
        • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Incorrect. It was for lying under oath during an investigation into sexual harassment.
      • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Which should count about like a traffic infraction. Big ***** deal, it in no way compares to the atrocities of the Bush administration.
        • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1So, I'm on trial for murder and I lie "IN COURT TO A JUDGE UNDER OATH TO TELL THE TRUTH", and get off for murder.

          It should be treated like a traffic infraction? The WHOLE POINT of our justice system is that the statements that the jury bases its decision on are the "Truth, the WHOLE Truth, "
      • Baroja1898, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6He admitted publicly that he's eavesdropping on thousands of people without a warrant. That in itself is a crime against the Constitution.
        • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2No, he admitted he was listening in to INTERNATIONAL phone calls to and from suspected terrorists.
        • ThinkBox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1thcobbs is right, its all about what is legal and what is actually said. Not what we all think is happening behind the curtain. If you want legally binding results, you need legal statements and legal proceedings. Not emotional interpretation.
      • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1He was found innocent of lying under oath. Therefore, he didn't lie under oath. If you read the transcript it's obvious why. The question was something like: "'Sexual relations' is defined as having any physical contact with another person. Did you have 'sexual relations' with Monica Lewinsky?"
    • Shandooga, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Oil *is* a good reason.
      • forgiste, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Are you ***** kidding me?! Not when there are viable *renewable* and clean alternatives to fossils dug up from the earth. Besides, no amount of oil can justify the deaths of all those soldiers who thought they were protecting us from the boogeyman.
    • djmounce553, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5And i'm sure clicking the digg button will indict him. Fscking do something other than just digging. Digg me down all you want, but know that simply digging won't change this government or administration.
      • forgiste, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1and what, pray tell, do you propose?
        • djmounce553, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I expect people to think for themselves and figure out the best way to take action. I'm not egotistical enough to think that I know the best course of action to get things done. I'm just saying that people need to go out and do something. Organize an event, hold a debate, start a petition, call your congressman, whatever. Just don't hit the digg button and think that will change the world.
      • christor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I've posted this many times now - but here's one proposal:
        http://www.electionday2007.blogspot.com
    • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5However Perjury (lying about anything while under oath) is a felony.
      • forgiste, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3But did his lie kill thousands of people?

        Besides, that was then, this is now. Clinton is an excuse, and the right did not even successfully impeach him.
    • christor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Perjury is not lying about anything while under oath. The subject of the lie (which by its very nature must be knowing) must be material to the matter at issue. Clinton's deposition testimony was misleading - and arguably perjury, though I have my doubts about that. His grand jury testimony was not - or even untruthful - no matter how many times people repeat over and over that it was. Face it, a nation is well on the path to tyranny or irrelevance when it is willing to become more worked up over a man who lied about a sexual affair than one who has led us into a disastrous war that has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands and who has instituted a program of spying, torture, and arbitrary detention.
  • cumbuster, on 10/10/2007, -26/+6Invasion and occupation of 2 countries is now a crime? Well, I'm not really sure about impeachment maybe an informal apology? /Sarcasm.
    • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3Considering he had congress's approval for both actions.....
      • 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.
        • Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Yes, like allowing Hussein to go into exile. Which he offered to do 42 days into things, and the Bush adminstration ignored it, and got in a hurry to bomb the country to ensure we had a war on our hands. If anyone wishes to howl for proof that this actually occurred, I can look on google, but I would think others know how to use that useful function by now.
      • cherwilco, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7@thcobbs
        you fail at basic understanding
      • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8...As a result of FALSIFYING the ***** EVIDENCE.
      • forgiste, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Man, just quit babbling and admit defeat. None of your arguements make any sense at all.
    • cherwilco, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5lying to everyone and everything that moved to invade and occupy 2 countries IS a crime though.
      • Neo31rex31, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0There were no lies at all, your opinion here is based on the liberal bias media. You want lies, check out the clinton administraton
    • ChayD, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I believe it's called "Planning and engaging in an agressive war"
    • natchiketa, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2People on Digg must be socially stunted; cumbuster's comment could have been uttered by Jon Stewart, and these same people digging you down would've laughed, and assumed he meant well.
  • insllvn, on 10/10/2007, -3/+75We need to get this done before he attacks Iran. His time is running out, but not fast enough.
    • Shandooga, 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.
    • atbnet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Bush is going to do something to make sure everyone remembers his presidency, and I believe he will attack Iran before we get him out of there.
      • Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3We won't forget his presidency. We will be paying for the very large hole in the deficit he and the free-spending cronies created for decades.
        • forgiste, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Actually all that debt allows us to print more money. The more debt we have, the more we're able to print. The money in your wallet and bank represents debt only. Abolish the federal reserve and bring back the gold/silver standard.
  • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -1/+73I 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?
    • 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?
      • rebelcommander, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The problem is that when they reappear all we'll see is what's left of freedom and democracy in this country disappear in a mushroom cloud.
      • Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Don't remind me about that. Disappearing nuclear bombs is more frightening than terrorism. I know that they showed back up, but nuclear weapons floating around in places that they should not be does not promote a feeling of safety and security.
    • 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.
    • 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.
      • Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3And the nuclear weapons, too. That was a big one I had forgotten about, and was rather relieved to have forgotten about it.

        Outdoor, so if Bush were impeached after the fact (meaning late) he could still be held accountable under the precedence of permission?
    • 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.
    • ChayD, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Three words about the Clinton investigation - "Wag The Dog"
    • ferric84, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1his impeachment was about lying while being on oath, not the sexual acts themselves
      • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I know that, and read carefully, I did not say he was impeached for sex or blowjobs, merely that while fishing (Yes, that's what they were doing, fishing for a reason to axe Bill) they got something. He lied to Congress about it, which is something that never would have happened if they had stayed on track with investigating Whitewater, or even the circumstantial evidence linking the Clintons to a very large number of dead bodies in Arkansas and the DC area. No, they couldn't be bothered with serious issues such as embezzlement and fraud, or even possible misconduct dealing with the people who later turned up dead while they were still alive. They had to go fishing for a reason, and they jumped on "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." I remember for two weeks straight, the news kept replaying "What is the meaning of the word 'is'?" At that point it became clear to anyone who has ever worked research or investigation that the whole thing turned into a big charade.

        So in a nutshell, in shorter words, the reasons used for his impeachment were what they came up with during the investigations into his sexual affairs, which is completely accurate.
  • 404NF, on 10/10/2007, -4/+53Jan 20, 2009 won't come soon enough
    • anteriororifice, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10amen
    • purdueAl, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12It won't matter. We'll have a new face on the same system.
    • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3So you can shift the blame of everything that's wrong in American from one President to the next? Yeah, I look forward to that too...
    • ledguitar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Watch out though. George Bush will probably sneak in some hidden legislation that cancels the 2008 election.
      • ferric84, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1and the dem's will be too afraid not to pass it
    • D0m0kun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Unless in the unlikely case we get a certain 6'6" Law and Order actor.. then I'm not sure things will be much different.
    • HippyInASuit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Right. Which is why we have to impeach!
  • kenvsryu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7How long do we have to wait?
    • Neo31rex31, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Ha, you wait till the President of the United States has served his term. I only wish it He could have another term
  • timjim31, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10and that was in 2005
  • OutThisLife, on 10/10/2007, -3/+63So why did people vote for him again?
    • kevisazombie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13fear
      • nicksauce, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Democracy does not work when more than half of the population is retarded.
        • Kinkistyle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2As great an argument as any for secession. The Blue states need to join up with Canada and then we all need to hook up with the EU.
    • pintomp3, on 10/15/2007, -2/+53because teh gayz might get married. if that happens, the terrorists win.
    • 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.
      • blackb0x, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4plus, i don't FEEL safer.
      • forgiste, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You know, I don't think I'm going to worry about martial law anymore. It's just not going to happen. This administration is stupid if they think we're all just gonna make way for evil. We've all heard of the 1940's.
      • Schmecky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"The problem with Iraq" isn't just that it's been going on too long. It's that it was a completely unjustified war.
    • Brian48216, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Because people were shallow enough to not like Kerry to the point that they'd rather ***** over their country then vote for the lesser of the evils.
    • drunkclam, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20he stole both elections
      • McHoffa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0but kerry let the election go that day instead of looking into it...
        • Neo31rex31, on 10/13/2007, -1/+0Not quite, thus the futile recount
      • Neo31rex31, on 10/13/2007, -2/+0Not quite, he won both fair and square. The American People wanted him in the White House so he got in.
      • Neo31rex31, on 10/14/2007, -3/+0Don't like it, move to North Korea
    • 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!!!!
      • SiNN4R, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So if its between Hillary and Guiliani ummm which one do we vote for?
      • crobathias, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2. CAPSLOCK
        are you ready to unleash the fury?
        • cherwilco, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1HELLYEAH MOFO WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Because they had to choose between fascism and socialism, so they picked the lesser of two evils.
    • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9There are a lot of people in this country that spend their lives at Nascar races and in airport bathrooms looking for ass. These people mostly vote for the candidate with the largest hatred of brown people.
    • 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.
      • Neo31rex31, on 10/14/2007, -2/+0Wow, another flat out lie by a liberal nut-job
        • HippyInASuit, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2Wow another useless post from a polarized moron.
    • citizen782, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6That's correct. A vote for Dubya was a vote for Jesus. We couldn't let the Muslim lovin' Democrats get in the way of the holy spirit. That's what drove the masses (pun intended) to the polling station. Good thing is, the pulpit's got no real champion this time.
    • bobartig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I didn't vote for him. I voted for the guys who won the election both times Bush ended up in office.
      • Neo31rex31, on 10/14/2007, -2/+0You obviously didn't, as President Bush is in the White House, he won those elections because the American people wanted a strong leader in the White House
    • biotch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1huh? ... oh I get it ... you're under the impression we voted for him
  • 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.
    • Shandooga, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13High treason is punishable by execution.
      • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6And who gets to do the honors? Pat Tillman's brother comes to mind.
    • citizen782, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Take Rice, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld with 'em.
    • Neo31rex31, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Bill Clinton did a fair job of that, not Bush
  • lazerus9, on 10/10/2007, -12/+0The poll ratings on this movie/doc about Clintons life are very high. Google video: Bill Clinton:His Life.mpg
  • johnlandes, on 10/10/2007, -6/+25Bush 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)
    • JenadaeXX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Its never to late, you do realize we still have 500 days with these people in office, correct?
  • 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.
    • gbudavid, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The Democratic party Like The Republican Party Does not Believe in the constitution It is A living Document for the D's and a Whatever we can get away with for the R's. What's your Point??
  • satanatnmtedu, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Wow! The page design is pretty crappy. It would be nice if the Democratic leaders would stand up and try to impeach. even if it wouldn't work, they would get more support from trying than from doing nothing.
  • avenu420, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6January 20th, 2009....A day that will live in infamy
  • maiku00, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6sorry, congress is only interested in oversight and complaining. acting on something? don't even THINK about it.
    • Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'd just say complaining. Utter lack of oversight is what caused the mess we are in, but that was when the Republicans controlled Congress. They are trying to do oversight, but keep getting blocked by executive privilege, the Republicans who are voting in a single block because they know they are screwed, and the President is vetoing or using executive signing to avoid it.
  • Complexium, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Oh.. I think this picture fits in perfectly http://imager.cc/page1/bushblow/
    • theWaterboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1classic! Too bad bush is so crooked he would even get away with that :/
  • 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.
  • skyz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7gwb and company should be tried for high treason ~ unfortunately due to the chaos and damage that has been done by them we have neither the time the energy nor the focus ~ so they will get away with millions of murders ~ they have brought shame and dishonor to the usa and the worst of it is that they have made all of it the new normal ~ from the bogus 'election' of 2000 to this day it is a disgrace to all humanity and the worst of the worst is that the erosion of our civil rights and their restoration is not a campaign issue as it should be
  • 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.
    • slearwig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Provoking them is right. Can you imagine if Bush was instead an undercover officer?
  • londubh, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Cheney needs to be impeached first and removed from office then Bush can appoint McCain as VP. Then Bush can be impeached and removed from office then McCain can appoint Giuliani as his VP. But since Congress pussed out on any meaningful action on holding this administration accountable it is unlikely to happen. The capitulation is working. Way to go Congress!
    • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2They should hold the removal votes back to back and just hand the job to Pelosi. Then she can pick Boxer or Fienstein for VP, lol.
  • mrjit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Presidency should be "right-to-work."
  • 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.

    • theWaterboy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6nah... only like 30% of Americas hands... and that 30% should be punished as accomplices for war crimes if justice were to be served.
  • 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 *****.
    • Blueee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2"Christian Conservative Values.....?"
      Wha....?
      Didn't Jesus do some stuff with like love.... and not killing people?
      And they can go look up Leviticus for all I care. According to that chapter, we're all *****.
    • Pilot85, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3if/when Democrats come to power, you'll see the same stuff, really. I hold no hope that it will be much different.
    • Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Democrats aren't trying to regulate what people do in their bedrooms, so there isn't the hypocrisy there. Unfortunately, the Republicans try to regulate people in their bedrooms while chasing pages, prostitutes and men in the airport rest rooms. If the Republicans will stay out of people's bedrooms, they might actually find they can have sex there and with their partners instead of under aged males and anonymous screwing in toilets.
    • petewiz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The Republicans are definitely scum, but the Democrats in Congress are just as worthless. There's a Democrat majority and they still can't put a leash on Bush? This incompetence is a big part of why people in this country don't even bother to vote.
    • Neo31rex31, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0The reason you don't is because the people don't want to hear about it, when do you ever hear about a democrat getting thrashed in the media, you don't because the American People don't want to hear it. They just want to hear what fits their own agenda. So the media puts it out to get the ratings.
      • Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It doesn't fit an "agenda" to hear about Larry Craig in a men's toilet, or an "agenda" to find out we have thrown trillions away in Iraq, with most of it simply disappearing into thin air with no records. Unless you are discussing the fact that the American people are tired of being lied to by the media, lied to by the White House, and patronized by stupid comments from people like yourself who are just mad that the truth about your political party is coming out.
        • Neo31rex31, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0No one is mad about anything, the media isn't controlled by the White House, its controlled by the people who want to here ***** about Bush and his administration
  • Blueee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Come on,
    shouldn't we expect our political leaders to be scandalous with other women/men?
    It was just a simple blow job....
    He could've believed the CIA whom he had rushed to get an answer to him about the nuclear weapons and then invaded Iraq.... and forgotten about how the French government is waging wars in Africa, how people are dieing in Darfur, the Mylasian Civil War, North Korea, HIV, Malaria, H5N1, the environment... Oh wait all our political leaders do forgot about those things...

    ::shrugs::
    What do you expect? People could care less about adultery comparatively to be killed.
  • inf0, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15it's all Bibles and Butt-Sex with the Republicans..

  • heliox, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2Clinton's impeachable offense did not go through because he was popular.
    Bush is hugely unpopular. Why isn't he impeached? Because he committed no impeachable offense.
    It's time to move along...
    • lazerus9, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0You notice how they all dugg down my post above, the Clinton true story is very disturbing and none of these Dems want to believe it! Google video: Bill Clinton: His Life.mpg
  • 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.
    • bromac, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5So they should sit in behind signs and get angry?

      This is just another venue, perhaps one that's more visible than most public protests. And it's really not up to the public right now who governs, aside from the option to tear it all down and start anew. It's up to Congress to do something.

      Seriously, with the US is invading and occupying other sovereign nations there is NO greater belligerent act that a nation can do. If Congress does not reign in these actions, then they will continue. If the US people do not reign in their government, it will continue.

      And then the buck passing will begin. But you know what the rest of the world thinks, America? YOU GOT YOURSELF UP THIS CREEK AND THREW AWAY THE PADDLE.

      You deserve a few collective licks, you poor, hard-done-by Americans.
      • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1 We know this...I,for one,did not vote for the bush ...I have written my congresspeople multiple times and asked the bush and his sidekick be impeached...I was ignored...Not so much as a form letter in response.
        What else can we do?
        The powers that be stopped listening to the American people YEARS ago...they only listen to big corporations.
        Big corporations run this country,we don't.
    • McHoffa, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1except anything other than talking on the internet might get you labeled as a terrorist...
    • EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Doing something" in this case means convincing the constituents of 18+ Republican Senators to force their Senators to vote to convict if he was in fact impeached in the House. Any suggestions on how to pull that off?

      The votes are simply not there. Acquittal in the Senate would be worse than the current situation. And so there has to be a solid 67 vote block who would vote to convict before anyone will start the process.
    • sepherenia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2While I agree with the 'more action, less talk' sentiment, don't forget that not all diggers are American. Some of us can't really do a lot more than post frustrated comments.
    • Neo31rex31, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0There is absolutely no reason for an impeach. I support bush on almost everything he has done since he won the election for the presidency.
  • mclumber1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I think a lot of these diggtards don't realize that simply impeaching Bush would not remove him from office - all it does is allows the senate to have the ability for them to remove him from office. This requires a 2/3rds vote, which is just about impossible.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think a lot of people with autism spectrum disorders don't realize that when people say "Impeach," they mean go all the way to conviction and removal from office. People can understand the process and still not have to specify the full sequence of events that should follow the technically second step (the first being, draft the articles).

      In other words, I've never heard anyone arguing for impeachment claim "maybe we should hold off on that conviction and removal stuff." That would merely be equivalent to Censure, and not even because acquittal in the Senate effectively negates the charges.

  • 9Digits, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Get over it - he's not getting impeached. Aside from the lack of time it'd take, your people don't have the BALLS.

    JACKASSES!
  • yurbud, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Those here who say Congress authorized the war are essentially correct, and that is probably why they are reluctant to pursue impeachment on those grounds.

    On the other hand, there is no question that Bush knew the intelligence was cooked. Cheney was going over to the CIA to strong arm them into changing their reports to be more alarmist, the Downing Streeting Minutes of his war planning with Tony Blair said "facts were being fixed around the policy," and even the director of the CIA was forced to say that even if Saddam HAD WMD, he would be unlikely to use them except in the most dire circumstances since we would have certainly retaliated and burned Iraq of the map with a tiny fraction of our 10,000 nuclear warhead.

    Anyone old enough to remember the Cold War knows it would be suicidal for another country to nuke us or give nukes to terrorists who did. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress knew Saddam was not a threat to us even if he had the weapons Bush lied about. If Saddam had nukes, Bush would have been foolish to attack him since that suicide attack in response might then look more sensible on the other side.
  • pkonink, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Even though I'm not sure this is the type of site I would frequent, I dugg this because it's a decent piece of journalism ... a stellar piece given it's coming from a political blog. Is it a sad comment on journalism when you have to give someone kudos because they had an original thought and actually did research on it?
  • wshwe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Bush/Cheney have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people in Iraq. The people demand the immediate unconditional resignations of Bush/Cheney!
    • Neo31rex31, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Not all people, just mindless people who have nothing to do but follow the democrat bias media like you.
  • DestroyFascism, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Cowboys at the wheel Hold on folks, its gonna be a ride....
  • S1L3N7B0B, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Duh?
  • allholy1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1how do we get bush impeached?
    • Neo31rex31, on 10/22/2007, -2/+0You don't, there is nothing to impeach him for
  • LogicAJV, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0The democrats don't want to impeach Bush and Cheney. They don't want to take Bush's blame for a failing economic policy, failing war policy, failing foreign relations policy, and a failing immigrant policy. I say it right now that our system is going to collapse really soon, and when it does the democrats don't want to catch the blame.

    I know for a fact that some of the voters will blame the democrats when we finally do pull out from Iraq and that country goes all to hell. The country is going to go all to hell, because the country needs to fight a civil war, and no amount of US help will avoid this coming war indefinitely.

    Why do you think the economy goes in cycles of 8 or so years? Every thing that happens in the first 2 or 3 years of a president's term is the fault of the previous president's failing policies.

    All we have to do is look decade to decade and see what percent of the time Republicans and Democrats held congress and the presidency, and compare it to how things are going.
    Republicans controlled the government for a long time and therefore, our failing policies should be blamed on the people the made the policies in the first place.
  • theBIGGESTsmurf, on 10/10/2007, -9/+0bush isnt that bad of a guy

    i mean how much better could anyone of us on digg do in that system in place right now?

    theres too much political red tape
  • mattsw84, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well man hes totally gonna be impeached now.
  • Dustin00, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"Cowboys at the wheel Hold on folks, its gonna be a ride...."

    More like: Cowboy's at the wheel Hold on folks, its gonna get bumpy running over Muslim children.
  • DerangedPenguin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Well DUH people Nixon was impeached by liberals and Clinton was impeached by conservatives. The article title was created by a real brain child...
  • facewarts, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Based on approval ratings the American people want to impeach the democrat controlled congress. Nancy sure did clean house !

    • JonForTheWin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Impeach all of 'em bought-and-payed-for fake-liberal and bought-and-payed-for fake-conservative alike.
      • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1 You got that right..I'm not voting for either party next time,or any times after that.
  • LilJimmyNordin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Let's be honest- Bush isn't going to be impeached. He's going to ride out his tenure and sail off into the sunset with his book deals, public speaking gigs, and - OH - all that oil money. The GOP won't let their boy go down even though they know he's a disaster. It's too late in the game to do anything. Let's just get over this impeachment pipedream and focus on the more important impending elections.
    • JonForTheWin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Your defeatism is the cancer that is killing America.
      • LilJimmyNordin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The Bush presidency is the cancer that is killing America, and you all only have yourselves to blame for it. The first term should have been enough to warn you. Had I been able to, I would have done something to help but, like the rest of we non-Americans, all we could do is watch in horror. And we've been watching in horror ever since.
        • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3 A goodly number of us Americans are watching in horror as well...i still can't believe things could ever get this bad..But here we are.
  • danarama, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Bill's impeachment was another two faced ploy to usher in Bush and the Republicans to wage war on the mideast and american freedom.
    • Neo31rex31, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0ummm ya.....where is the logic behind that one? simply put there isn't any
  • JonForTheWin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5>Last year, the Wall Street Journal was surprised
    Surprised?!
    What're they *****' STUPID?!
  • Scumbunny, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The article fails to take into account the totally different eras in which each served: the 70's cultural revolution, the 90's tech boom/good times era, and the 00's war on terror. Generational attitude changes as era's change. Clinton would not have gotten away with his 'crimes' now, just at Bush would not get a free pass in the 70's. Likewise, Nixon would have gotten a free pass today. Lincoln and Roosevelt got away with some things we consder 'impeachable' today becuase of wars, and Bush gets the same pass. Not that it's right, just that you're working against history when you do.
    • ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Except the only people letting him get away are Congress. The American people would tear Bush a new ***** but Congres is throwing up a smoke screen of "backlash" and *****. Back then, Clinton got nailed when the US didn't want him to be. Now, Bush is getting off when he US wants him strung up.
  • heresy_fnord, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Thank goodness Clinton was acquitted and not fully impeached.
  • Gimli, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2I know I'm going to get dug down but I don't care. This thread is about a bunch of liberals spouting off trying to make Hillary their leading man...err I mean woman for President in 2008. What a bunch of cry babues, I can't wait (well actually I can) in 10 years when Al-Qaeda or other fringe terrorists groups does a successful terrorist strike on U.S. soil and liberals that were spouting off about impeaching Bush start crying about it. Just remember FREEDOM ISN'T FREE, just ask as many WWII Veterans you know while you still can.
    • Neo31rex31, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Very well said, i could not have put it better myself.
  • misfit410, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's because Nixon was actually less Corrupt than Clinton.
  • LeeSoong, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The Bush Administration is doing God's Will - and of course the ungodly, unwashed sinners known as 'the people' do not approve of the LORDs Holy War of Economic Conquest.
    The uneducated masses do not understand the new Manifest Destiny of the U.S.A. - to Own the Planet.

    When Mr. Bush takes off his shirt - you can see his tatoo across his back " None But GOD Dare Judge Me! "
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 56 of 56 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.