What is Digg?178 Comments
- phnx0221, on 11/12/2007, -10/+114Dennis Kucinich is one of very few in Congress who actually cares about the issues of public interest. He cares about them, not to get votes, but because they are his interests as well. These issues should be in the interest, or at least in the mindset of everyone, not because of politics, but because we are all fellow human beings living on this planet, living in this country, and sharing the air, food, resources, wealth, and common respects of every other individual. He cares for abolishing the Patriot Act, for implementing universal health care for all citizens regardless of income, race, or class. He wants to work on the Social Security system, to ensure that all of us who have been paying into it, will be taken care of when we hit the age of retirement. Hell, even his wife has a Bachelor's degree in Religious Studies and Theology and a Master's degree in International Conflict Analysis.
Instead of being marginalized by ridiculously sensational media claims, we really should be looking carefully into one of the very few people in our government, much less running for PRESIDENT, and see what he has to offer. This legitimate attempt at impeaching the Vice President, is certainly something that has gotten him into the public consciousness, in a way that he never was before, as someone to be taken seriously. - phnx0221, on 11/12/2007, -6/+83Someone said in another thread (I think it was greenback1) that we should look at the list of yeas and nays in the motion to table the impeachment bill, and use that list to vote the people who misrepresented and misinformed us in order to get elected, out of office. I think that's a great idea. So, I'm going to post this in every impeachment thread I can find. :) Here is the recorded list of votes on H RES 799, motion to table H RES 333 (Kucinich's impeachment bill):
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1037.xml
Here is the roll call for the motion to refer the bill to Judiciary, effectively killing it, and stopping any congressional debate on impeachable offenses that would have occurred:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1039.xml - geddon, on 11/12/2007, -7/+57Dennis Kucinich is one of the few Presidential candidates who are running on principle. While the other candidates are on the campaign trail promoting their biographies and battling for sound bytes, Kucinich is actively working for the betterment of our Nation.
- MikaelMN, on 11/12/2007, -16/+62Kucinich shows that there is hope for our nation's governance.
- Buckro, on 11/12/2007, -6/+52I'm gonna get majorly dugg down but, doesn't the congress decide who goes to war?
- senorcool, on 11/11/2007, -3/+26OOPS! The war you are looking for is not here!
- inactive, on 11/12/2007, -5/+26Wow, he told you that? Or are you just making up crap and putting on Congressman Kucinich?
- insinuate, on 11/11/2007, -7/+26The US was "founded on Christian beliefs"? What the ***** are you smoking?
- Beatmiser, on 11/12/2007, -5/+22"criminal pervert Clinton"
If you wish to be taken seriously on any level, I'd suggest leaving out statements like this in the future. I'm saying this to be kind. - mathmanjeffy, on 11/11/2007, -3/+20Name a country that has never had a "bad", "stupid" or "foolish" leader. Go on... I'll wait.
- inhaler, on 11/12/2007, -2/+19Shoo troll, back under the bridge with you.
- DirtyBurger, on 11/12/2007, -6/+21Name a country other than the U.S. that has been DUMB enough to RE-ELECT a proven war-monger and fool. Go on...i'll wait...
- phnx0221, on 11/11/2007, -2/+16:) I understand, here's the funny thing though. I'm an atheist, and I still think that's a great quality for her to have. Dennis has a consistently sound foreign policy record, as well as foreign policy ideas (abolishing nuclear weapons, withdrawing from NAFTA, reinstating our placement in the International World Court, and of course, immediate with drawl and payment of reparations). His wife, by having a Bachelor's degree in Religious Studies and Theocracy, means that there would be a dynamic team of intelligent people in office, who have a well based knowledge in the fundamentals of the religions and politics in which we are currently dealing with in the middle east. There would hardly be an misconceived notions on their regard, which is far better than I can say for our current administration, in constantly referring to everything as "Islamo-fascists", Radical Islam, Radical Muslim, etc, cementing (or at least, not clarifying) an idea to the mass public that Islam is something to be afraid of.
- gjscds, on 11/12/2007, -1/+15This is utterly false. Congress can ALWAYS vote to kill any wartime funding.
- ZenMojo, on 11/14/2007, -4/+18Freedom of religion, freedom to practice, freedom of speech, no clauses for sexuality, gender position. The only thing that would hint at Christianity was the ambivalence toward slavery.
God nor Jesus appear anywhere in the Constitution nor in the Star-Spangled Banner, nor in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1953, nor on our money until the 1860's. You can mention that there is the term "Creator," in our Declaration of Independence, but the founders consisted of Christians, Deists, and Agnostics as well as one or two possible Atheists, so that's a fairly ambiguous term. - Parkinsons, on 11/12/2007, -1/+15America never declared war on Iraq...
- phnx0221, on 11/12/2007, -2/+14Which is why we need to get them out of there. They got elected under false pretenses. They lied to us. They told us that the priority was to get us out of Iraq, and to hold the Bush administration accountable. Neither of which has been accomplished. Therefor, we vote them out. Otherwise, we are complicit along with them, if we keep the incumbents in, hoping for a change that will not come. This is the only direct power that we have, aside from collectively voicing dissent, organizing, and protesting. I suggest we use it.
- doskir, on 11/12/2007, -3/+15please kill yourself
- Dumbledorito, on 11/11/2007, -1/+13Another victim of Digg's "edit comment" button?
- sockpuppets, on 11/12/2007, -3/+13sockpuppistan. where beer is subsidized and ladies get in free. Also, installing comcast is a felony.
- nickiank, on 11/12/2007, -3/+13"Kook" is just a word neoconservatives use to describe people who make them feel uncomfortable in their assertions. If they didn't feel threatened, they'd have little reason to go so far as to raise an epithet in the first place.
- annonimality, on 11/12/2007, -3/+12"Vice President Cheney is a good man" - Right, because a good man profits financially off an illegal war that he orchestrated.
- GRTWHT, on 11/11/2007, -1/+10I was planning to post the same, but since you said it first, I'll just give you a digg to show that not all of us are missing that important point.
- pintomp3, on 11/11/2007, -2/+10funny how many idiots keep trying that line. must be a talking point.
- toxicshok, on 11/12/2007, -2/+103.5/5 on the troll scale. You can do better.
- lazyfisherman, on 11/11/2007, -3/+11I would rather have a "kook" like Kucinich than liars and criminals and war profiteers in the White House.
- SouthsideIrish, on 11/11/2007, -1/+9The last time Congress declared war was right after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The Constitution no longer means what it says because we have let the Supreme Court, the Congress and the President change it's meaning. We are all to blame,. and we won't do the things we need to do to take it back. Shame on all of us.
- krnldmp, on 11/11/2007, -3/+11Because of LIES. Saddam had no WMD. The UN inspection team was CORRECT. We did not go in to Save the Iraqi people. That was an excuse made up after the fact. WAKE UP.
- ZenMojo, on 11/11/2007, -3/+10*****, man, Lloyd Dogget (D-TX) still representing (literally) up in this piece! We need more Democrats like him....
- inactive, on 11/11/2007, -3/+10A broken link declared war?
- Dabellah, on 11/11/2007, -4/+11I'm surprised by the sheer lack of intelligence on bangor's part. To claim an entire country of people to be "stupid as *****" because their leader is an idiot is just nonsensical... The only reason Bush is still in office is because the very people who dictate and run this country have shot down every attempt by its citizens to do something about it. For crying out loud bangor, did you even read the title? People have been trying to do something about Bush and Cheney since they were elected. Right now, the majority of US citizens do NOT approve what the Bush administration has done and continues to do while remaining in office. We need the next election to happen soon; with it, we need someone who will fix our nation's problems by pulling out the very roots its citizens are bound by. Ron Paul is the man.
- phnx0221, on 11/11/2007, -1/+8Really?! Would you allow this to happen again without doing everything in your power, and then some to defy it? I wouldn't.
- phnx0221, on 11/11/2007, -2/+9No, it wasn't Bush alone. Congress was certainly complicit, but for the most part, it was Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz, and everyone else who started drafting legitimate reasoning to go into war with Iraq in order to "stabilize" American interests there, as well as in the Middle East. The Executive Branch has been expanded much further than ever before, which is what Cheney and Rumsfeld have been working on since the Nixon era. They declared preventative military action in Iraq, effectively going to war, without actually having to "declare" war, at least until we were already there. We have POW's in Guantanamo and elsewhere who aren't classified as such so that we don't have to face the additional responsibilities such official declarations would entail.
We wouldn't have to declare war in order to take military action. - MacEnvy, on 11/11/2007, -1/+8From *cough* Liberty University *gag*.
- mindframe, on 11/11/2007, -1/+7George W Bush wasn't elected in 2000 remember, he was INSTALLED by the Supreme Court. Remember when we didn't know who our President was for like 3 months? Bush was never elected to begin with. And in 2004 John Kerry didn't challenge any of the obvious voting fraud and conceded a day after the results. Him running assured Bush another 4 years.
- krnldmp, on 11/11/2007, -1/+7Here's the issue: Congress was fed LIES by the Bush Administration that led to war. Now we are finding out which members of congress still want you to believe them. Saddam has dubya em dees! Remember that, was a LIE.
- IceChief, on 11/11/2007, -6/+12The senate voted 77-23 and the House voted 296-133. Of course Bush alone put us in this war.
- ZenMojo, on 11/11/2007, -2/+8Once Congress gives you permission to go to war, the only power they have is to fund it or defund it. Personally, I would put a gun to Bush's head (figuratively) on national television and say, "Get out NOW! You can pull away or we can bleed you dry. Pick one."
- Humptydank, on 11/12/2007, -3/+9Actually, sadly, the answer lies in the "signing statements" that so few Americans know about.
When George W. Bush signed the Congressional authorization to use force in Iraq, for which he received overwhelming support, he didn't even think that overwhelming support was enough and he attached a signing statement that said, in part:
"...I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the president's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution."
In other words, it's his hand grenade, he'll throw it when and where he wants. He'll follow up with a funding request after we're established enough that a denial on the part of Congress would be received as wrapping their cold hands around the throats of our fighting boys.
So the short answer to your question, isn't Congress the one that decides, is "not anymore." - Parkinsons, on 11/11/2007, -1/+7Yes
- nixfu, on 11/12/2007, -1/+6
---------------
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people." President Clinton Oval Office Address to the American People December 16, 1998
--------------
"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."
Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on eve of military strikes against Iraq
March 17, 2003
-------------
WESLEY CLARK: He does have weapons of mass destruction.
MILES O'BRIEN: And you could say that categorically?
WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.
MILES O'BRIEN: All right, well, where are, where is, they've been there a long time and thus far we've got 12 empty casings. Where are all these weapons?
WESLEY CLARK: There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this.
Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate
During an interview on CNN
January 18, 2003
---------------------------------
"It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world's cause."
Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on commencement of military strikes against Iraq
March 20, 2003
---------------------
Senator John Edwards, when asked about "Axis of Evil" countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:
"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition"
February 24, 2002
--------------------
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President.
No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."
Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Drake University in Iowa
December 16, 2003
------------------------------
John Edwards, while voting YES to the Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq:
"Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Authorization of the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq"
October 10, 2002
----------------------
"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."
Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
During a Democratic Primary Debate at the University of South Carolina
May 3, 2003
---------------------
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."
Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002
---------------------
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
------------------------
John Kerry, while voting YES to the Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq:
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
------------------------
"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.
The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Iraqi Dictator Must Go"
September 12, 2002
--------------------------
"Ten years after the Gulf War and Saddam is still there and still continues to stockpile weapons of mass destruction. Now there are suggestions he is working with al Qaeda, which means the very terrorists who attacked the United States last September may now have access to chemical and biological weapons." James P. Rubin, President Clinton's State Department spokesman
-----------------------
"Dear Mr. President: ... We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Sincerely,
Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.
Letter to President Clinton
Signed by Senators Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others
October 9, 1998
--------------------
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President
Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club
September 23, 2002 - Firehed, on 11/11/2007, -2/+7Yes, someone who understands religion and its effect is a good thing. You seem to have confused it with a Doctorate in ***** Insane Religious Zealotry.
- phnx0221, on 11/11/2007, -1/+6Before that happened, who was appearing on political talk shows toting the same party line that was given in Iraq? Cheney, Bush, and then Lieberman. I'm not saying that Congress wasn't pushing the bar unnecessarily by making that ridiculous declaration, but they certainly didn't do it by themselves.
- Dumbledorito, on 11/11/2007, -0/+5Is it in another castle?
- Twoodge, on 11/11/2007, -2/+7"his wife has a Bachelor's degree in... Theology"
That's a good thing? (I still Dugg you up, nice comment! :D) - rukkyg, on 11/11/2007, -0/+5How about how he and his administration perpetuate the lie after it has been proven false?
- unida767, on 11/11/2007, -2/+7Ask Al Gore if they all voted Bush in.
- annonimality, on 11/11/2007, -1/+5"fearmongering"? You mean like this - "So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." - George W. Bush: http://www.breitbart.tv/html/6868.html
- annonimality, on 11/11/2007, -1/+5Well Kucinich has always voted against funding the war. True, the Democrats are mostly wimps, but not Kucinich.
- Vzylexy, on 11/11/2007, -0/+4My congressman, Peter DeFazio (D-OR) voted against tabling the resolution then voted to send it to Judiciary... o_O
-
Show 51 - 100 of 178 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is