digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Bush's Impeachment Is On The Table -- But Not Up For Vote

thenation.com — Impeachment is on the table. But Congress is not allowed to bite. The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on one of Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment against Bush. But Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders in the chamber have signaled that they do not want the committee -- let alone the full House -- to take a vote on impeachment.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • crxvfr, on 07/17/2008, -6/+104They are all rotten
    • DooM, on 07/18/2008, -1/+11This is the equivalent of legislative masturbation - it'll feel good to rant and tell the truth in committee but you know up front that you're not going to get to do the deed.

      What a bunch of worthless maggots.
      • DyceFreak, on 07/18/2008, -0/+9when checks and balances fail
        America fails
        EPIC FAIL
    • InetRoadkill, on 07/18/2008, -0/+25Dog and pony show for the masses to make it look like they are doing something. The reality is that Pelosi and other top dems were involved in the approval of the illegal wiretaps and torture and she doesn't want their role exposed on the house floor during an impeachment debate.

      //Install new congress. This one sucks.
      • cutchyacokov, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4I tried to install "new congress" but it doesn't seem to be in apt or portage.
      • pyry, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3Sadly, Congress isn't open source anymore either.
    • Thuktun, on 07/18/2008, -3/+3I don't really think so, not in this case.

      It was suggested in the media a couple years ago that, should President Bush be impeached, he might *pardon himself*.

      With the record number of signing statements, the "I'm the decider", the vast power he's tried to acquire for the Executive branch, you have to admit that at least sounds plausible. (That he would try it, not that it would be legal.)
      • haydesigner, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2What if he's in the process of being indicted when he leaves office in January… he can't pardon himself then, right?
      • compdude32, on 07/18/2008, -1/+0Thuktun you have to be the stupidest person on Digg. Congratulations there are many strong contenders for that award, but you won.
    • InetRoadkill, on 07/18/2008, -0/+5For all the good these hearing are going to do, they may as well get Karl Rove to be the committee chair. Conyers is as big a piece of ***** as Pelosi.
    • RayDude, on 07/18/2008, -2/+3My biggest problem with Bush's impeachment is that Cheney will be President if they do it. Talk about out of the frying pan into the fire.

      Its too late now, what's the point?

      I have this feeling they are trying to make him a sacrificial lamb. Trying to lay the blame on him when honestly, it was everyone's fault. From the greedy political manipulators to the weak minded sheepish people of the US who failed to police their government. We all have some responsibility in this debacle and unless we admit it, and learn from it, we are doomed to repeat it again.
  • Antaries, on 07/17/2008, -11/+113Why is this taking so long? Clinton was impeached in no time flat and compared to Bush, Clinton didn't do anything wrong.
    • crxvfr, on 07/17/2008, -5/+40Pelosi made it so bush will not be investigated for crimes, which is what impeachment is for. Instead the will spend tons of money investigating 'abuses' which is not so much punishable by law. Democrats, republicans, theres no difference. They all work for the new world order.
      • drlha, on 07/18/2008, -4/+21The difference betweeen Democrats and Republicans is that if Bush was a Democrat, we'd be in impeachment proceedings right now. The Republicans actions against Clinton and the Democrats inaction against Bush prove that.
      • InetRoadkill, on 07/18/2008, -3/+16More like if bush were a democrat, he'd been impeached 4 years ago.
      • RadioFreeOpium, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1I've said it before and I'll say it again; the two party system gives us the illusion of choice. They're all the same. Liars, thieves, parasites.
    • SuperVepr308, on 07/18/2008, -18/+10Unless you count perjury, no he didn't do anything wrong.
      • douggmc, on 07/18/2008, -8/+5Of the many things he could/should be impeached for ... I know of none that would include perjury. Please advise/provide the details on when this occurred?

        ... or should my assumption that you just made ***** up to post on digg hold? People like you don't help the cause.
      • stevetrojanman, on 07/18/2008, -5/+13@doug...

        Perjury was what Clinton was impeached for. He lied in testimony given to the grand jury during his investigation. It is the same reason that he was disbarred...

        Did you miss that?
      • nevetssav, on 07/18/2008, -3/+9Obstruction of justice, for one.
      • chicofaraby, on 07/18/2008, -7/+7"Perjury was what Clinton was impeached for. "

        And found not guilty, remember?

        "the same reason that he was disbarred"

        President Clinton wasn't disbarred. He voluntarily accepted a temporary suspension of his license, a suspension which has since expired.

        You listen to Fox "News" don't you?
      • stevetrojanman, on 07/18/2008, -4/+4@chico

        He was impeached for perjury by the House. The Arkansas bar suspended his license for making intentionally false statements during the grand jury investigation. He "voluntarily" gave up his license for 5 years because if he chose to fight it, he risked losing the license entirely. What does that tell you?

        The senators knew from the start that Clinton wasn't going to be removed from office for perjury. They weren't going to vote to do it. They didn't think it was worth removing him from office for.

        I'm wondering who you think killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman since OJ didn't do it...

        For reference on his disbarrment from the supreme court (yes, that's a disbarrment):
        http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/News/Cl ...

        I'm still waiting for you to justify your previous stance that DrudgeReport isn't "news", despite it being at the top of every major list of internet traffic to "news" sites

        You're such a knee-jerk liberal that your perception on reality has become distorted.
      • Shoebox639, on 07/18/2008, -2/+7Bill Clinton perjured about a blowjob. The Republican party who hated Clinton and his smarts and charisma sought any chance to oust him.

        He didn't LIE a nation into war.
        He didn't LIE about illegal wiretaps.
        He didn't LIE about the military commission's act, which basically ended Habeas Corpus in the US.
        He didn't LIE about outing a covert CIA agent.
        He didn't LIE about impending attacks on the US during elections to get Republicans more street cred.

        Most of all Bill Clinton at least TRIED to get Bin Laden. In the 8 months that Bush took office before 9/11, he did absolutely NOTHING to try to get Bin Laden.
      • chicofaraby, on 07/18/2008, -2/+4Don't get mad at me because the Clinton impeachment failed. You nuts shouldn't have tried impeaching him over a BJ.


        BTW, I don't care about Drudge's gossip column. WTF does a gossip site have to do with anything?

      • stevetrojanman, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4@chico

        I'm not mad that the Clinton impeachment failed...I thought the premise of it was pretty stupid. He did commit perjury though...that's what I'm mad about. If he had told the truth from the beginning and said, "yeah, I did it" then this discussion would be over. I don't particularly care about his sexual exploits, though I think his attempt to pretend he's a decent, honest guy is pretty lame. However, he committed perjury.

        Not sure what you're talking about with reference to some Drudge gossip column? I posted a news article regarding Clinton's Supreme Court disbarment that you have insisted didn't happen.
      • stevetrojanman, on 07/18/2008, -4/+3@Shoebox

        With regards to Clinton "trying" to get Bin Laden...it is well documented that we knew of Bin Laden's whereabouts, but refused to blow up the camp he was in because there was a playground with children nearby. Instead, they missed the opportunity to end the life of Bin Laden, and then lost track of him ever since.

        So with regards to Clinton "trying" - that's ***** - he failed when the opportunity presented itself and then 3000+ Americans died on 9/11.

        And with regards to him not "lying" to lead a nation into war...wasn't it funny that as soon as some of the news was coming out about Paula Jones and Monica that we all of a sudden had to fire a few airstrikes into Bosnia? I'm sure the threat from them was imminent right at that point in time...
    • fuhcough, on 07/18/2008, -3/+43duh... that's cause Clinton ***** an intern in the Oval Office.

      Bush ***** the country FROM the Oval Office.
    • SuperVepr308, on 07/18/2008, -11/+3Hey Doug, this took my about 7 seconds to find. You might try a basic search next time. For fun, I chose the one from his favorite network...
      http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/19/ ...
      • ProgressBar, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1You might try to find the reply link next time...
    • Thuktun, on 07/18/2008, -4/+10Maybe this time they actually want to see charges stick rather than be pardoned, like Nixon?

      If he's impeached, that puts Cheney in charge. You can bet money that Cheney would pardon him.
      • squeevey, on 07/18/2008, -0/+16Uh...I'm not sure if you understand the meaning of IMPEACH. It means to formally accuse. Once the person in question is impeached there then begins a process, whereby the accussed may or may not be removed from office.
    • crispytown, on 07/18/2008, -2/+5Clinton in his second term he was impeached by the U.S. House for perjury and obstruction of justice, but was subsequently acquitted by the United States Senate and completed his term. (Src Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

      So basically he wasn't impeached at all... the acquittal from the US Senate changed that. Anyways there is no reason to even start the process on George W Bush... his term end within 8 months.
      • stubear, on 07/18/2008, -4/+1Unless we have another 9/11 scale event and Bush decides to stay in office indefinitely; until the problem's solved anyway.
      • FlagrantDrugUse, on 07/18/2008, -2/+4Just because the statute of limitations is coming up on a crime, doesn't mean you don't prosecute a criminal.
      • Shoebox639, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3Actually being impeached means being charged with a crime. He was convicted, but the aquittal doesn't erase the fact that he was charged and therefore impeached.
      • compdude32, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Clinton was Impeached, he wasn't removed from office, US House decides on impeachment, the Congress decides on punishment.
    • compdude32, on 07/18/2008, -7/+2Simple, Clinton actually committed a crime, Bush hasn't.
      • Stormflux, on 07/18/2008, -0/+6So lying about a blowjob is worse than murdering a million people? You sir are an idiot.
      • compdude32, on 07/18/2008, -5/+0Storm,

        Lying under oath is illegal

        Starting a war with congressional approval isn't

        now sir who is the idiot?
      • DoTheFandango, on 07/18/2008, -2/+4the idiot is the one starting a war under false pretenses, and not having UN support
        and invading a sovereign country. ashjfasfhkasf.
      • kufu91, on 07/18/2008, -1/+4the constitution is law you idiot. because the right to declare war is delegated to congress, starting a war without declaring it is illegal.
      • RadioFreeOpium, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1compdude32: if you can't see anything wrong with what george bush has done to our country in the last 8 years then.....


        you know what, nevermind. lost cause.
      • compdude32, on 07/21/2008, -0/+0Radio wrong and illegal are two completely different things.

        kufu91, Congress approved the military action in Iraq, as they did in Vietnam and In Korea, and many other times. The term War is a subjective one, no doubt Iraq is a War in most senses, but offically it is simply a military action and not a war, and it is an Action congress approved, and continues to approve, don't forget congress solely has the power to end it, but they won't.

        DoTheFandango, there is no law that says we need to UN support to engage in Military actions. So again, no law has been broken.

        As for starting it under false pretenses, falty intelligence isn't false pretenses.
    • djholybolt, on 07/18/2008, -2/+1If Bush is impeached then cheney then becomes president and he'll have fun for a month or two.
    • calon9, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2Sadly, it seems that the portion of the US population that is enraged by a blowjob can be more easily whipped up into a frenzied unified front by media and politicians (who can also use that same frenzy for their own re-election), than the portion of the population that is enraged by everything Bush and company has done.

      In other words religious hypocritical outrage (the reaction to the blowjob) is more effectively channeled into a result than intelligent, informed, semi-passive outrage (the reaction to Bush). It is sad.

  • tykwondingo, on 07/17/2008, -6/+41so corrupt. how sad when you look back at all the great accomplishments of this (once) great republic and to see all that's been built being squandered away so those in power can make a buck and keep control of the masses. sad *****...
    • AchaIemoipas, on 07/18/2008, -0/+15It's always been the same (since the early 1900's), the only difference is that the secret is out now and people are more educated, which means they actually understand why such things are wrong.

      It's actually a progression.

      All you have to do is look at what's been done in the past. Nobody blinked an eye when the Federal Reserve was established, simply because they were told it was a good thing.

      In the McCarthy era they burned books. Anyone suspected of "communism" lost their rights.

      And if you think misinformation is bad now:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Is_this_tomorro ...
      http://www.rastko.org.yu/kosovo/istorija/ccsavich- ...
      http://infolab.stanford.edu/~mmorten/propaganda/ww ...
      http://www.solarnavigator.net/history/explorers_hi ...

      Not so long ago, black people weren't considered persons in large parts of the US.

      The very fact that most people realize what's going on is a huge improvement.

      • spongya77, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2Finally someone says things the way they are. I'm sick of this "the once great country" hyperbole.
      • tykwondingo, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1This is why people get turned of to the truth, you get all high an' mighty when someone (even one of your own) says something that could be misinterpreted in the slightest and here you come on your high horse to save the day.... PATHETIC. You're making us look like snotty little punks when you pull this kind of crap. Not so much @ AchaIemoipas - you assumed but whatev. Most people don't know that stuff and you weren't a little ***** about it.

        Thanks for the history lesson guys but contrary to what you may think, we have done some pretty amazing things BEFORE the 1900s and AFTER - so, stuff it esp. spongya77
    • paradexes, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Thought the site in the OP said theonion.com, took a second careful look and realized this was for real...:S
  • rmxz, on 07/17/2008, -6/+34Wonder if this gets to the front page if someone would post Nancy's contact info and perhaps enough digg readers would call her that she'd change her mind.

    [edit] Whoa - I actually wasn't too lazy to look up her contact info. She has a web page here: http://www.house.gov/pelosi/contact/contact.html that even has a form where people can leave comments. A call's probably more effective; but an online form's probably just the right level of difficulty for your average digg user's level of lazyness.

    I'd love to see some of the digg users's comments to her copied in the comments here.
    • jrcqueens, on 07/18/2008, -0/+9That page is for her constituents. Try this if you're not:

      http://www.speaker.gov/contact/
    • arjie, on 07/18/2008, -0/+5That woman is very strange. First she says that he is a total failure, then she refuses to let him be impeached. I don't get it.

      http://digg.com/politics/Pelosi_Calls_Bush_a_Total ...
      • lovek, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2Well, failure is not a reason for impeachment.

        However, theft, extortion, and abuse of power are.
    • paigeinphilly, on 07/18/2008, -1/+6Yup I will be hitting that up today!...Nancy sheehan (anti-war activist in california) wants to run against Nancy...here is her website..if u r in cali..please sign...she needs signatures to be able to compete.

      http://www.cindyforcongress.com/

      its time ole Nancy see that the online community of grass roots is numerous and plenty powerful...
      • milou, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2You have to be a residence of SF. Too bad I would vote for her.
      • Evilena, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4Silicon Valley is part of the district. She should be able to collect the rest of the signatures she needs on Digg.
      • compdude32, on 07/18/2008, -2/+0Replace one certifiably insane nut with another that is even more insane, that idea sounds just about stupid enough for California.
    • paigeinphilly, on 07/18/2008, -0/+5(Here is my comment!)

      Rumor has it that you have no interest in impeaching the worst president in history...

      why?

      what do you have to gain from this?

      there are many...many...many people in the online grass roots community who find this so puzzling.
      • pyry, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Do people in your online grass roots community find it puzzling that Bill Clinton was impeached for less?
    • moobies, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4Sending a comment to Pelosi is a good idea. It probably won't accomplish much of anything, but most of us are pretty pissed off about this whole thing. We may as well vent by writing a strongly-worded comment to the Speaker of the House.

      Here's what I sent:
      Why are you putting your foot down on the impeachment hearings? I imagine it has to do with private or unspoken agreements that you have with the executive branch. It's *****. President Bush has had this coming for a long time. Despite the fact that these hearings are about four years too late, they're STILL within the interests of your constituents and the American public. Grow a pair, or at least put some sort of action behind your rhetoric!
    • milou, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3I have contacted her my state representative (Hon. John Culberson) and H. of R. Chairman (Hon. John Conyers) by both phone and email. I basically said for them to support the impeachment immediately. The words I use, I copy from either Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich statement's. To me it appears they do not even bother with our communications. Although, I did receive a reply from my representative (Hon. John Culberson). He said "... Both resolution (H.Res. 333 and H.Res. 799) provide little evidence of actual crimes and were introduced for purely political purposes. ..." He is not supporting the impeachment. Obviously, he did not hear what I was saying. My request was for Bush not Cheney (although! he deserves it more). A total disappointment communicating with our representatives. The battle is not lost yet! I am looking for a web site that makes action happen? I though Digg my be the place but there are lots of comment and no action. I like the comments but it is action I am looking for. Doe anyone know where we can get the information we need and the action needed to flood these representatives? Thanks in advance. Regards
      • moobies, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Of course the resolution was introduced for political purposes...isn't every resolution introduced for that purpose? My understanding is that now that these resolutions are within the House Judiciary committee, the evidence can begin to be brought forth. In my mind, there's a long list of impeachable offenses that are substantiated with evidence. Congress members should be able to pick and choose from these. Resolutions can be amended within these committees and subcommittees, and this particular one SHOULD be amended before (if it can ever?) go to the floor.

        Your congressman just gave you some ***** auto-response.
      • milou, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1FYI, here is the reply to my congressman:

        "Dear Honorable John Culberson:

        Thank you for the reply on my request to support the impeachment petition from Honorable Dennis Kucinich into the House of Representatives. I read your letter and I understand that impeachment is a subject of political purpose, and of great importance, and that doing so at this time could create more difficulties for this great country. However, I am sure if we all share the efforts of impeachment it would give the citizens of the United States a renewed hope in all the members of our government. Their constitutional oath to faithfully execute their office to the best of their ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

        I can count on you to make this into a very strong political issue on your part and contact either one of my consultants on this matter, Honorable Dennis Kucinich and Mr. Ralph Nader (also supportive of impeachment). They both have the expertise and evidence of actual crimes to support the petition for impeachment. They will be glad to respond to any further questions you may have.

        Remember, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States."
    • coryvb123, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3I just sent a comment too... it only takes 30 secs. Do it, Do it, Do it, Do it, Do it
    • KJGJ, on 07/18/2008, -0/+9You and the rest of our current administration has taken the most sacred values of freedom that our wonderful country was founded upon, and destroyed them without a blink of the eye. You are all rotten, treasonous, leaches of our society whom deserve to be impeached by the people and tried in our highest courts on charges of treason. How dare you and your colleagues run for your positions under such pretenses as stopping the war in Iraq and keeping the Bush administration under control. You have done absolutely nothing to further the American people's strife for liberty and equality. You continue to do nothing with Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment. Yet you harshly criticize Bush's presidency merely to draw attention away from your failed run as speaker. As a 16 year old young adult, I could not be more ashamed with our country and its stances. You can not be so naive to believe that the American people will blindly follow a government that so blatantly violates our constitution that they were sworn to protect. The people will regain our power and liberties, one way or another.

      God bless America and what remains of her spirit.



      My comment.
  • Izult, on 07/17/2008, -5/+40What can we do to have Pelosi removed as speaker? Is there anything? Really, i want to know because this ***** was old a long time ago. she has no business in politics let alone being the next in line after Cheney.
    • keymanjim2, on 07/18/2008, -2/+17You can impeach her. Just like any other politician.
      • Peko, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1Ok, but who runs the impeachment thingy if Pelosi is up?
    • InetRoadkill, on 07/18/2008, -1/+4Not much you can do until November. Hopefully, her district will dump her corrupt ass. If not, then in January the house will hold elections for Speaker. The best we can do is insist that a new Speaker be named.
      • Izult, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1is she even up for re-election? they stagger those remember and she was up in 2006 if i remember right... please correct me if i'm wrong cause if she's up for re-election CA better hand her walking papers.
      • InetRoadkill, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1Yes, she is up. All of the house is up for election.
      • pyry, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1That's why congress is not doing much of anything right now-- everyone's too busy running for office again to attend to actual issues. Is there an attendance record online somewhere? I bet it's hilarious.
    • Evilena, on 07/18/2008, -1/+4I had thought about that before. While Hillary Clinton was struggling to become the first woman president, Pelosi literally had the nation begging her to take the job by default and she was too weak to take it.
  • Hervard, on 07/17/2008, -6/+14Sigh. Bring on November...
    • KSUdesigner, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1Bring on January, that's when the power will actually change hands.
    • nevetssav, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3So we can start over again with a new name.
  • YouGotDugg, on 07/17/2008, -8/+27They are 7 years too late on the impeachment.
    • Kr0nyk, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3Agreed.
      • Waiting2awake, on 07/18/2008, -1/+8Better late than never. If these guys escape punishment, expect the next to build upon what they have done.

      • AmaDaden, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2They are better off waiting until Bush is out of office. The dems should have more power come November. That means Bush is far less likely to get wiggle out of an impeachment. If we put him on trial now and he gets out of it because of all the GOP and Blue dog dems in congress then it'll be far harder to try it again later.
      • malcolmlo, on 07/18/2008, -2/+3Agree with the agree comment.
    • minorthreat, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2making a remark 3-4 years ago about bush being impeached would have you buried to the ground.
  • FrankHope, on 07/18/2008, -4/+9Let's at least get some hearings on CSPAN and see what happens from there. My gut feeling is that the American public is just waiting for someone to lead the charge on impeachment.
    • statc, on 07/18/2008, -2/+4Let's just make sure that it's not on during any baseball game or reality show.
    • vexingmodstwo, on 07/18/2008, -2/+2Your gut is lying to you.
  • duke_nate, on 07/18/2008, -1/+81Can we Impeach Congress as well?
    • ExRe, on 07/18/2008, -0/+13It's called a revolution.
      • zantos420, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2no revolution without revolt
      • jzuska, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2I have enough guns for all of ya ham 'n eggers.
      • roystgnr, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2It's called an election. If you can't get enough people on your side to cast a few votes and give the right answers to pollsters, you don't have nearly enough people on your side to overthrow anything.
  • thegreenspanput, on 07/18/2008, -7/+29Pelosi is a neocon.
    • dalittle, on 07/18/2008, -1/+8Not a neocon. A group hugger, everyone needs to be happy. And a coward.
    • hellsing47, on 07/18/2008, -1/+8Neocon has become a buzzword around here.

      No longer just applying to those who hold neoconservative principles, but anybody generally "bad" in the eyes of the beholder.
      • compdude32, on 07/18/2008, -2/+0That is because the intelligence level of your average digger is slightly lower than that of a slug.
      • thegreenspanput, on 07/18/2008, -0/+0If I lived in 1940 Germany and didn't technically become a Nazi or attend Nazi rallies, but I also didn't condemn the gassing and torture of Jews would it be OK to call me a Nazi?
    • AlKo, on 07/18/2008, -1/+5She's just an accomplice and trying her best not to self-prosecute. Impeachment means an investigation. That investigation means we find out how crooked Pelosi and other folks truly are.

      And yes, perjury is a crime...
    • jzuska, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2yeah, she is a coward.
  • keymanjim2, on 07/18/2008, -4/+8For those of you that haven't noticed, this sound bite is a result of this being an election year.
    Expect to hear that if they are reelected they'll start impeachment proceedings.
  • ericjohnson0, on 07/18/2008, -8/+5And while we're looking at charging some elected officials with wrong doing, I think we also need to look at treason.

    http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2007/4/25/2904 ...

  • ericjohnson0, on 07/18/2008, -6/+6Also, I think lying to the American people about Iraq and what is happening there should at least result in some form of Civil Damages.

    http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67434
    • leopardflames, on 07/18/2008, -2/+1why tell the media exactly what is happening in iraq and what we are doing over there? this isn't vietnam when there was no internet with 24/7 access to all news networks. the media has already caused problems when they knew exactly what was going on and in turn put our boys in danger. we are better off not knowing until it is over or just the families of the men knowing. the media doesn't need to broadcast anything. that is endagerment to our troops. ***** that *****.
  • Paramnesia, on 07/18/2008, -12/+7http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-MfC7pw1AM (Faithless - Mass Destruction)

    "Whether long range weapon or suicide bomber,
    Wicked mind is a weapon of mass destruction
    Whether you're Soaraway Sun or BBC 1,
    Misinformation is a weapon of mass destruction
    You could be Caucasian or a poor Asian,
    Racism is a weapon of mass destruction
    Whether Halliburton, Enron or anyone,
    GREED is a weapon of mass destruction

    INACTION is a weapon of mass destruction
    INACTION is a weapon of mass destruction
    INACTION is a weapon of mass destruction "
  • eldudereno, on 07/18/2008, -4/+19The two party system is an illusion, basically they support one anougher so are really one and the same. time for a revolution me thinks
  • ninjaface, on 07/18/2008, -4/+16Gotta love self-preserving cowards (congress). I guess furthering your own career is more important than doing your job and/or protecting the constitution.
    • DCstewieG, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2The problem is when they aren't one and the same.
  • ericjohnson0, on 07/18/2008, -7/+6While we're at it, intentionally causing a bank to fail for personal gain is grounds for jail time.

    http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2008/7/14/3792 ...

    Agree, we need to deal with these crooks... NOW!
  • mogebier, on 07/18/2008, -1/+7Of course she won't bring it to a vote. There a little thing called an Election in November and she doesn't want to look like the partisan evil harpy that she is.
    • Troy64, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2It is simpler than that. They need to spend the next 3 months working on their re-election campaign, since everyone in the house is up for election.
  • CountBrass, on 07/18/2008, -2/+8Does anyone have any idea why the Democrats would be so against impeaching a blatantly corrupt Republican president? Serious reasons (besides "they're all corrupt" or "they're all neocons"?)
    • vexingmodstwo, on 07/18/2008, -8/+5I have an idea, but you're not going to like it.

      Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment don't actually have impeachable offenses in them.
      • pilobilus, on 07/18/2008, -4/+3That's funny, I thought any felony would do.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 07/18/2008, -3/+4Well, take a look at the one article they're even willing to discuss... where's the felony there? Where's the treason? Where's the bribery? Where's the high crimes and misdemeanor?

        Is it sinking in yet?
      • NJank, on 07/18/2008, -4/+5exactly. as much as people may WANT to see Bush impeached, nothing is legally defined crime with clear evidence. Clinton was impeached quickly because there was documented evidence of him lying under oath. despite the sexcapade media circus, it was all about the lying under oath, trying to wiggle around that lie, and lots of legal documentation behind the charges.

        The charges against Bush don't have specific crimes with proof of willful wrongdoing. Being mislead about WMD's isn't a crime, and whether it's true or not he can play it off as being mislead by poor intelligence. He has a fall-guy in his administration for every one of those charges that might have some weight behind it. Whether or not any of them are valid, there is nothing more than circumstantial evidence and conjecture that actually ties direct criminal implications to Bush.
      • mrraven200, on 07/18/2008, -0/+7The Red Cross just said the Bush admin has committed war crimes. I'd say that counts as treason myself:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/washington/11det ...
      • compdude32, on 07/18/2008, -3/+0Exactly, There were no laws broken, you may not like some of what Bush has done, but laws were not broken.
      • mrraven200, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2Compudude we have a law against "cruel and unusual punishment" it's the 8th amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution:

        http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amend ...

        Considering both the Red Cross and general Taguba say Bush has ordered torture I think Bush is impeachable for treason against the Constitution, dead serious here, BTW.
      • compdude32, on 07/21/2008, -0/+0cruel and unusual is open to interpretation for one.

        For two as non US Citzens not being held in the US the protections extended in the constitution don't apply.

        So once again no crime has been committed, yes you may disagree with what was done, but it wasn't illegal.
    • ChayD, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1Job security?
    • DogBotherer, on 07/18/2008, -0/+5I'd say this is as good a reason as any:

      http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/15/ ...
  • amightywind, on 07/18/2008, -9/+11President Bush and Vice President Cheney aren't going anywhere! Indeed they have the opportunity to force Pelosi and Reid to drill for oil. Bush will drink their milkshake! There are a lot of struggling democrat truck drivers to whom Nancy's San Francisco laissez faire attitude on oil is unacceptable. This nation should have a friggin' picket fence of offshore oil rigs, and Bush/Cheney (ever the friends of the working man) can make it happen.
  • Valthan, on 07/18/2008, -2/+15And Pelosi says the Bush is the useless one?! *****!
  • xsecretfiles, on 07/18/2008, -4/+8The dems will eventually get to it later, They promise

    in 6 months or so..
    • stevetrojanman, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3You have to vote for them and then it will all be better...dangling that little carrot of change right out in front of your face...

      That's how all politicians have always operated...the funny thing is when the people actually believe it and then end up shocked when it doesn't happen.
  • roddack, on 07/18/2008, -8/+3Hollow gesture 7.5 years too late
    • evo8ftw, on 07/18/2008, -3/+4wait you wanted him impeached the second he seat foot into the office? BDS is a know psychiatric disorder. Seek help.
  • rrife, on 07/18/2008, -2/+7I'm glad to see that millions of my tax dollars are going to a waste of time....I'd rather use the money to pay a homeless man to dance in the street.
  • FFandMMfan, on 07/18/2008, -8/+5This is such *****. This country is in shambles and no one is doing a ***** thing about it. You're all a bunch of ***** coward sheep for not standing up for your rights. Bitch on Digg all you want, send the congressmen as many emails as you want, it isn't gonna change a ***** thing. We need to start a revolution, because if we don't, we soon won't have the chance to.
    • stevetrojanman, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2You know, not everybody that doesn't piss and moan like you is a sheep with no thought in their head...

      I've thought about all of this stuff for a very long time and I have my likes and dislikes, but I'm not to the dire level that you are...you sound like you're on the verge of tears...calm yourself, Atilla...we're going to be ok.
    • evo8ftw, on 07/18/2008, -2/+2forget your meds this morning?
    • eggsovereasy, on 07/18/2008, -1/+4So what are you doing about it, other than bitching on digg of course?
    • ExRe, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1Ok, you go try to start a revolution.

      Everybody else is worried about being able to feed their kids and what celebrity X is doing today (since their life sucks). If YOU can start something that forces the government to crack down even harder people may change their mind about what is most important.
  • malcolmlo, on 07/18/2008, -5/+15***** PELOSI
  • 2matrix, on 07/18/2008, -9/+6why is this daily news on digg ? I thought digg was about important topics, isn't anyone getting tried of this political crap - can't we focus on more important issues...
    • graddatadda, on 07/18/2008, -1/+6I concur, we need more news about the top 10 iphone apps
    • danibobanny, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2I would think that the fate of your country would be, ya know, kind of important.
  • kjizzle, on 07/18/2008, -5/+8So realistically it's off the table. The Democrats are nutless.
    • norman619, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2You democrats are guilty of their own dirty deeds. I think it's naive to believe a bunch of liars and cheats would make good in their words when in the past they have shown us that their word is worth nothing. The 2 party system seems to be designed more to keep the people distracted than anything else. If you step back you will see they are all alike. They and the media create these political flair ups to keep the people distracted and off balance. If the people every really started looking at their elected officials they would be demanding their resignations and their heads.
  • evo8ftw, on 07/18/2008, -5/+5This is a waste he will be out in January. Maybe everyone should stop focusing on Bush hating and actually try and solve the problems they claim he created.
  • Shao00, on 07/18/2008, -2/+4i hope pelosi loses her seat. I would really love to know why these morons are so scared to impeach. we hold criminals accountable in the country, how about doing the right thing for a change and not worrying about your own hide.
  • dcbebop, on 07/18/2008, -1/+8San Franciscans everywhere should be beaten for electing Nanci Pelosi to congress. I thought you guys were supposed to be smart. UC Berkley, Stanford; what the hell.
  • ElectricKetchup, on 07/18/2008, -11/+3Assassinate Pelosi!
  • kingygk, on 07/18/2008, -8/+8Get over it. The democrats are a bunch of incompetent weasels. There is nothing on bush that even warrants thinking about impeachment.
  • paigeinphilly, on 07/18/2008, -3/+16Help Dennis Kucinch...sign the official online petition for Dubya's impeachment....

    lets get behind this guy (apparently the one with any sense) and show support!


    http://impeachment.kucinich.us/petition/


    • norman619, on 07/18/2008, -1/+4Yes sign some online petition instead of doing something real. this is why we are in the position we are in politically. When will you guys learn online petitions don't mean *****. You might as well be pissing in the wind. you get the same result.
      • paigeinphilly, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1umm...online petitions...call..write letters...all of the above...I have called folks several times.
      • norman619, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1paigeinphilly:

        (taking a look at what has been going on for the past few decades...)

        What have those done for us so far? Not a whole lot. This means REAL action needs to be taken. Forcing the judicial branch to get off their collective asses and start investigating these bloodsuckers is the only thing that will start to address these wrongs. It's pretty clear most of the population who are of voting age couldn't be bothered. They only tend to wake up when the ***** hits the fan which is pretty damn sad.
    • musicpyrite, on 07/18/2008, -2/+1Yes, because online petitions have a proven and documented history of working. Right. Send a letter to your congressman or state representative if you really care.

      I'm willing to bed 95% of the people posting "I am outraged at this" haven't ever, no will ever, do something *meaningful* to further their political causes or beliefs (posting on Digg is useless). Stop bitching about how "the system has failed" and "we need a revolution!" when the vast majority of you have done nothing to help the system work.
      • norman619, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1WOW!!! Now THAT is what I call dedication! you are willing to bed 95% of the people posting?

        ;-P Sorry that typo was too funny to let slide.
    • rthakidn, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1Kucinich is pissed because W is covering up the UFO Kucinich saw. Let's face it people, the political atmosphere in this country is a circus. Fortunately, with the division we now have, not much is going to get accomplished, just more finger pointing (for better or worse). So get use to $4 gas, military in foreign lands, corporate bailouts a plenty, news of politicians receiving bribes, molesting boys and sleeping with hookers.
      • norman619, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Only things missing are roasted peanuts and cotton candy!
  • Renian, on 07/18/2008, -6/+4I'm surprised I haven't heard comments yet suggesting that Ron Paul be named new Speaker of the House.

    No really. I thought I'd hear it en masse, because he's not going to win the Presidency in November, but I wouldn't doubt him winning a House re-election.
  • t4m5t3r, on 07/18/2008, -4/+4why dont you guys have him impeached, lets face it most americans know this guy is scum, so national strike until he is impeached and they'll have to do it, lets face it they "know" you guys wont do anything, so bush will be laughing his way to the bank once he out of the white house,

    personaly i think he should be sent to guantanamo for life, and even thats too good for him, but lets be realistic, its all the same people so nothing will happen, simple as that, they'll just leave it until you forget or are distracted by what ever court case paris happens to have for that month!
    • malcolmlo, on 07/18/2008, -1/+4Its sad but true. Our once great nation has been reduced to caged birds and sheep. Theyve figured out all the right things to feed us, and we've become docile and complacent. But I still hold out hope that its not too late. Its very tempting for me to quit my job and join a movement and just protest full time. Unfortunately I have my own priorities in life and right now this isnt one of them, although sometimes i get so pissed off about these abuses I really feel close to making that leap.
  • HubbertWins, on 07/18/2008, -2/+6Pretty sure that perjury is a crime.
    • Midtowner, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2It certainly was for Bill Clinton.
    • rthakidn, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2It was for BJ Clinton. If they have evidence of perjury for W, you don't think they'd have used it. Realistically, W has the lowest approval rating in history, don't you think these politicians would like to make a name for themselves by kicking him out of office?? The truth is they haven't been able to touch him. And hey, just a thought, politicians lying to the American people happens all the time. No crime there.
  • pilobilus, on 07/18/2008, -2/+3So... if yer in the U.S., call your Representative's local office. Identify yourself by name and address, tell them you're a registered voter, and ask the Representative's position on impeaching Bush and Cheney. Listen calmly to the excuse, then, just as calmly, tell them you are not only a one-issue voter, but you will actively campaign in both the primary and, if necessary, the general election, to remove the trash in question from office. Tell them there is only one way to turn that around, and hang up.
  • i4ybrid, on 07/18/2008, -2/+4If you impeach Bush, Dick Cheney will be president...think about it.
    • oscenester, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2Impeach Cheney and Bush. They both commited warcrimes.

    • jsmith39, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1No, it will take at least 6 months to impeach Bush, they'd both be out of office before the impeachment passed or failed.
  • bffoley, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2They're not going to do anything because they remember what happened in the 90s. They made a big deal out of impeachment, it wasted everyone's time, made them look stupid, and was unsuccessful.

    The damage from his administration is already done, he'll be out of office in 6 months anyway.
  • homerj1965, on 07/18/2008, -2/+5Pelosi is Bush's lil B!tch. Check her dress for stains.
  • exec0extreme, on 07/18/2008, -2/+7What the ***** is wrong with this country?
    • graddatadda, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2everything has gone to extremes. No one has any common sense anymore.
    • zantos420, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2greed
    • vexingmodstwo, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1Don't make the mistake of viewing the country through the Digg lens.
    • jsmith39, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Where could even start explaining all the things wrong with this country?
  • moxley, on 07/18/2008, -7/+4***** that ***** Pelosi.
  • leladax, on 07/18/2008, -4/+2americans play all innocent and try to blame it all on bush. it was them that re-elected him, it was them that were scared ***** in nine eleven and would do any ***** he would propose. they did; they supported him in 2 wars and re-elected him.

    innocent americans my ass.
  • LoveWidescreen, on 07/18/2008, -3/+9And what good will an impeachment do? You people need to start getting your facts straight. All that an impeachment does is specify the charges in the House of Representatives. That's it. It does nothing except put into the history books that George W. Bush was impeached. Big flipping deal.

    At that point it goes onto the Senate for the actual "trial". News flash - indictment requires a two thirds majority. Right now, the Dems have a one seat (by party) majority totalling far short of the necessary 2/3 vote necessary. On top of that the Chief Justice of the USSC has to preside over the case. You know, the same Chief Justice who was nominated by the guy you people want to impeach?

    What the hell good do you really think is going to happen by an impeachment and conviction? Cheney moves in, who as far as I can tell is hated even more. What then? Another impeachment? More time wasted? So, is this really to get Bush out or to get Pelosi in, the same Pelosi who wasted how much time at the start of this Congressional session with useless, symbolic resolutions that stated nothing more than what we already knew - Democrats hate Bush. Well, duh!

    Bush and Cheney are out of here in 6 months anyway! What good is an impeachment going to do except to give the Bush haters a reason to say, "Yay! We got the lame duck!" Or is Digg really so blinded by Bush hatred that they are really willing to waste so much time on the fallacy that anyone has to be better than who we have now for someone who is out of here in only a few months?

    For the record, I'm not a Bush lover by any chance. For starters, he betrayed the Republican party and I will never forgive him for that. But even I knew that the Clinton impeachment was a crock of sh*t. I knew it should never have happened; I knew it would go nowhere; I knew that it would do more harm than good; I knew that it was just a waste of time in order to make a useless, symbolic attack. It's a shame that some of you apparently haven't learned from history.
    • vexingmodstwo, on 07/18/2008, -2/+5Bingo.

      I was right there with you regarding Clinton's impeachment. He was entrapped and it was a load of ***** and I KNEW it was going to lead to this ***** now. This impeachment movement is nothing more than revenge for the 2000 election.

      There's proof even in these comments that it's all about the 2000 election. "7.5 years too late"? They've admitted that they've been looking for ANY reason to impeach the guy since he took the oath of office.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/18/2008, -3/+3"This impeachment movement is nothing more than revenge for the 2000 election." You would be funny if I didn't think you believed that garbage.

        Countless crimes, a war for profit and you compare that to a BJ? Moron.

        7.5 years would be referring to rigging the fricken' elections -- I could give a crap about "revenge for Clinton" because, while I admired his political chops, I didn't like him acting like a Republican. Again, you are a moron.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 07/18/2008, -2/+3Vitriol, you're a tool. If, in fact, there were countless crimes he would have been impeached.

        At some point you need to step away from the crack pipe and face reality. You may not like what Bush has done, you may hate him, but none of that is grounds for impeachment. Sorry.
    • jsmith39, on 07/18/2008, -4/+2I'm going to use your defense if I ever get caught breaking the law. ***** it officer I was planning on moving to a different state in 6 months anyways, why bother prosecuting me for it?
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/18/2008, -3/+4Impeachment would stop the war with Iran and pardoning a bunch of crooks. Oh, and set the record straight that America doesn't condone wars for profit.

      But I guess you think we are all so petty that we treat this like a football game. Nope. I actually believe what I am telling you and it matters to me that America has standards.
  • rjseals, on 07/18/2008, -7/+8Impeached for what?
    • bjs3171, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3I know. It IS a long list. It's hard to know where to start. I understand where you're coming from.
    • mrraven200, on 07/18/2008, -2/+3Crimes against humanity according to general Taguba and the Red Cross.
  • USNavyBlue, on 07/18/2008, -3/+6Both parties are on the SAME PAGE! WAKE UP. The flaming witch Nancy is NOT going to do squat because she would incriminate herself and most of Congress.
  • FelixA9, on 07/18/2008, -3/+4Huh. Ultra left-winger Pelosi doesn't want to want to scrutinize the claims huh? Probably afraid of taking away the lefts favorite whine when it's all shown to be exaggerated *****.
  • Egoist, on 07/18/2008, -3/+5Bush has done nothing different than past Presidents, but Diggers are so young and ignorant about the history of this country, it all seems new and novel to them.

    Do you recall a call for impeachment of Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs invasion? Was anyone shouting "Impeach Washington" after the Northwest Indian War? There is no US law against invading a sovereign country or land, even if it's on so-called "false pretenses."

    The only possible crime he could've been convicted of is breaking the Geneva Conventions by "torturing" prisoners recognized under the Geneva Conventions. But as even your beloved Obama voted in a law to give him amnesty, you have nothing.
    • spongya77, on 07/18/2008, -3/+2Yeah, right. Past transgressions mean that the present crimes are forgiven.
      Way to go, Einstein.
      • Egoist, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3No, it means that simply because you want something to be, doesn't make it real.
      • spongya77, on 07/18/2008, -2/+2A quote -you might want to debate these.

        1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.

        2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

        3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

        4) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency.

        5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

        6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

        7) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

        8) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

        9) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."

        10) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

        11) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

        12) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

        13) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

        14) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.

        15) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

        16) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

        17) Engaging in criminal neglect in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, depriving thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi and other Gulf States of urgently needed support, causing mass suffering and unnecessary loss of life.

        18) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.

        19) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

        20) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.


      • rthakidn, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2Egoist is right on. Just because you feel something should be a crime, doesn't make it one.
      • Egoist, on 07/18/2008, -1/+21) Which powers has he seized? As I recall, the Supreme Court has reversed his decrees several times now. Without specifics, none of which you described is a high crime or misdemeanor.

        2) Lying is not a high crime or misdemeanor.

        3) A complete lie, but still not a high crime or misdemeanor.

        4) Nope, not here either.

        5) Sorry, still not illegal.

        6) You just copied and pasted this, didn't you. There is no law on the books that says the military cannot assassinate a foreign leader.

        7) Lying and propaganda are not high crimes and misdemeanors.

        8) Breaking treaties are not high crimes and misdemeanors.

        9) SCOTUS has ruled that US citizens cannot be held indefinitely, which means this point is false.

        10) Nope, still no broken law here.

        11) Examples?

        12) Secret military tribunals are not high crimes and misdemeanors.

        13) The US government has mountains of classified information. Still no crime here.

        14) As we've seen recently, all prisoners of the US are being given public trials.

        15) Where is the evidence that Bush personally ordered this? You must have evidence if you're making accusations, correct?

        16) Executive Orders are completely legal.

        17) Bush does not run FEMA. To blame him for Katrina is like blaming your boss because your secretary didn't make you coffee this morning.

        18) Profiling is not illegal, nor was it Bush who came up with this policy. You should be looking at the head of Homeland Security.

        19) George Washington himself set the precedent of Executive privilege. Still no crime committed.

        20) That is the prerogative of the Commander in Chief.

        Nothing you copy and pasted (because let's face it, you couldn't come up with something like that on your own) is a high crime or misdemeanor. 20 points of hyperbole and misguided anger and you have yet to tell us what crime Bush has committed.
    • yellowcakewalk, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2"your beloved Obama"

      LMAO.
      1) voted for the Patriot Act March 2 2006
      2) voted for FISA bill
      3) funds Bush's war crimes
      4) sucks up to AIPAC
      5) won't even talk about impeachment
      • rthakidn, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1OMG, what will we do whe "the one" is president and nothing "changes". Impeach him for lying about change!!! Guess what; same wine in a different bottle.
    • BetaRaySam, on 07/18/2008, -0/+0Also beginning extensive domestic wiretapping programs, that at the time were unconstitutional, and for which he is still prosecutable.

      Furthermore the failure of past congresses to hold the executive accountable is not a reason to continue the pattern.
      • rthakidn, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2You're still pissed about the "selected not elected" bit aren't you?
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/18/2008, -4/+5Anyone NOT for impeaching Bush, is either a fascist who LIKES him or is enough of a crook that they got some dirt on that person.

    Nancy Pelosi must have done something crooked to be acting at the whim of Karl Rove.

    I think we need to have a Truth Commission, where politicians can be forgiven crimes for putting their cards on the table. Otherwise, we have too many compromised people acting as co-conspirators.

    Let me be an adult here,... whatever embezzlement, or crazy sex act that a politico was involved in, is not NEARLY as important as stopping this country from starting a war with Iran. $500 a barrel for oil, WW III, global famine, and the crash of the US economy will be the results for STARTERS. If it looks like John McCain isn't going to take office in January, the NeoCons and their allies in the Middle East are going to start a war, and leave the next congress with the flaming bag of poop to put out. Stop playing around with impeachment and thinking "hey, we almost see daylight." You aren't going to make it. These are desperate people who would dare anything for their own comfort.

    Oh, and Oil Prices will go lower right up to the elections. I called this earlier and it is a pretty obvious prediction. The markets are manipulated and the Robber barons are trying to play on our short memories to get keep their crony capitalists in power. But, again, if McCain has no chance of winning (and IF Obama isn't a sell out -- still an IF in my mind), then gas prices will go up before the election -- you know, because why bother?

    We are in for very rough times if they don't give BushCo cronies the fair trial they deserve before it is too late.
    • rthakidn, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1VandA, you've always had some pretty coherent posts, but you're really starting to sound paranoid here. You do realize there is not a hill of beans difference between BO and JM, right? "The one", has real estate scandals, relationship issues with crooks, etc. as much as anyone else. They all serve corporate masters and they all lie, cheat and steal in order to get re-elected. It's a divided government, and that works well for them. Nothing gets done, so no one takes the heat for doing something really stupid. This war, they'd love to tie to Bush, but the truth is, Congress voted to authorize the use of force and has funded it several times since, so they are complicit in the "crimes against humanity". The posturing now is for our benefit, for the President can only serve two terms, while these career politicians can serve indefinitely. That's why they need to distance themselves for their own involvement. And last, if GW can manipulate the overwhelming majority of the 535 members of Congress, maybe they're not bright enough to be there??
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 78 of 78 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.