digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Judge rules Bush can’t block presidential records.

thinkprogress.org — Today, a federal judge “invalided part of a 2001 order by President Bush allowing former presidents to review executive documents before they can be released under open records laws.”

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • SheilaNoya, on 10/10/2007, -11/+220I love this! Bush tried to illegally change the rules to ensure he could keep all of his secrets hidden after he leaves office. Now that the courts have decided he can't do this, you just know that the paper shredders are busy working overtime in the White House basement. I can't wait to see how many more of his lies and crimes are exposed after he's out of office. At the very least, Bush will be spending the rest of his miserable life hiding from angry American citizens. No more fake crowds of carefully selected fans, no more staged photo-ops with the military. All he'll have left is hiding on his ranch and peeking through the curtains to see if anyone is coming for him.
    • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -6/+59Don't we wish...Nothing will happen to this thug and he will live out his life in posh elegance.
      • Shorties, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Just like what T.S. Elliot wrote in his masterpiece "The Hollow Men"

        This is the way the world ends
        This is the way the world ends
        This is the way the world ends
        Not with a bang but a whimper.
      • DavidBGie, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1Dream on libs! Bush will go down as one of the greatest presidents of the US. Security is always higher during wars so what he did was smart for the country. The judge has no experience in security and made a stupid decision without all the facts. One that is bad for you ... not Bush. Remember, they did all this crap to Reagan but now we know it was all BS. He wasn't EVIL either.
        • terminal157, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Is there anything you Bush apologists can't come up with a far-fetched answer for? There comes a time where a reasonable person must look at the big picture, the overwhelming number of signs of wrongdoing and incompetence in this administration, and realize that something is seriously rotten. You can't blame everything on "the liberal media".
          • DavidBGie, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1If there's so much "wrongdoing" then why won't the Democrats shut up and impeach him! Because they know it's BS propaganda for the loony left.
        • DavidBGie, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Fox News - Center right
          CBS,MSNBC,ABC,NBC,PBS,NY TIMES,LA TIMES,,,,, Left. All bashing Bush.
          Believe it or not people can be brainwashed. Most reporters confess to being liberal.
        • Hypersapien, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Fox news is fair and balanced. They always show both sides of the issue: The far right, and the extreme far right.

          Seriously. What have you been smoking?
          • lateralus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Or, they are fair and balanced and show both sides of the story, the presidents and the vice presidents. -Colbert
        • 98percentcogdis, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1I happen to be a conservative, with the same opinion as terminal157, and I say you are a TROLL.
    • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+45seriously, just based on the ***** that he hasnt been able to cover up while in office, i can only imagine the horrid ***** that he and his administration have been up too that hasnt been uncovered yet. im gonna love it when the neocons try to stick up for this *****.
      • SolitarySoviet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5it wont be that easy... if the ***** that HAS leaked out smells this bad, think of all the things he made DAMN sure got completely destroyed. it will be the people not the papers that eventually show the big evil.
    • mrgreenjeans, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Article: http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/01/996834-fo ...
    • davewalden, on 10/10/2007, -41/+3yeah... sounds just like a Clinton Administration repeat.... this sounds very familiar
      • TheRealAlzabo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+33What sounds familiar is the tepid shaven wingnut sheep bleating out "But.....Clinton.....buhbuhbuht Clinton" every time their Savior of all Things NEO gets busted out, as thought that had a damn thing to do with it....
        • Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -24/+4Notice though that you don't deny that Clinton did similar things.
          • mightydavefish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Like what?
            C'mon rightards! Make an effort!
            If you claim "bbbbbut Clinton did it too" there should be ample evidence of that. In case you didn't notice the GOP was at Clinton's throat his entire time in office, so ANYTHING he did that the GOP did not agree with was recorded and pushed to the media.
            Get off your lazy rightard ass and find a link to ANY evidence to support your claims.
            But you won't, because it's easier to talk crap than do the research.
          • bitcloud, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4@mightydavefish (diggs "session has expired" bug won't let me reply directly)
            Lowering to namecalling doesn't help.

            Theres 700,000 dead, torture, extraordinary rendition, wiretapping, illegal war, attempts to create unconstitutional laws, election theft, etc etc to throw at this. We don't need to call anyone "rightards" to illustrate why they're completely off base.
          • terminal157, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Notice that his point was that Clinton's actions are irrelevant, so defending Clinton wouldn't have made much sense.
        • onlynameicanget, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11^ Case in point...
          • onlynameicanget, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Whoops. This comment was supposed to be pointing at Wargalas's comment, but the comment system sorts them by latest first here.
      • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+33But-but-butttttCliiintoooon

        Whomever is in office, we need to make sure Presidents know they cannot nullify federal law with an Executive Order.
        • gak001, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Dugg, but the grammar nazi in me could not let the digg stand without a comment.
          'Who' is the subject, 'whom' is the object. The subject does the verb. Whoever is in office. Either way, it was a valiant effort trying to use 'whom', most people don't even bother.
      • vat0r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8That's what we call stretching reality.
      • Tenlow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Yes, you're right. Clinton was impeached because he lied. HE LIED. An American president blah blah blah, I've forgotten the rest of the speech the republicants used when they impeached Clinton. Had a lot to do with the fact that he lied. That's really all they had and they still went for it. Now we've got a president with some pretty well defined crimes (both locally and internationally) and we do nothing. Good going democrats. This is why I'm running for ***** congress.
      • gak001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7And how many people died as a result of lying about getting a blowjob... something that shouldn't have been under investigation in the first place?
        • DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2All that sperm he spilled on her dress, each one was a life that was extinguished.

          Now, blowing off the head of someone that is 18 is a different matter completely. There are no issues with killing them, but spilling your seed... don't these assholes know that "every sperm is sacred!"

          :)
      • GlorifiedSlave, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I read that he did it early in his first term because some documents that would be very embarrassing to George Sr. were about to be 25 years old in 2001. George Sr was Director of the CIA in 1976, so I bet it was juicy.
      • Myonosken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I dunno. He may have lied, but I congratulate him for having the balls to cheat on crazy Hillary. Did he want to be castrated?
    • 5urr3al5am, on 10/10/2007, -14/+3but we STILL dont know anything about Hillary OR Bills mysterious campaign/financial records.. sheesh.. I with that judge would get on it!
      • Rodman930, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1you mean the finance records that led to the deaths of over 3500 Americans and millions of Iraqis?
        • 5urr3al5am, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Rodman930: how can anyone take this comment seriously?
      • InfamousAtheist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2But... but... CLINTON!!!!
        But... Clinton's crimes, real or imagined, don't compare to 1/1000 of the Bush Admin's.
        • 5urr3al5am, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1you mean the sensationalized crap fed to you by the mainstream media? thats a joke! its funny how when everything actually gets shaken out you start to see the whole picture
        • 5urr3al5am, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1but thats ok.. the whole liberal mindset is to try to decieve.. and put off getting caught till a later date if ever... the whole, 'don't get caught' mindset shared by the liberal/hippie crowd, also shared by the Clintonesk generation.. you know paint a picture.. wag the dog.. all that crap
      • 5urr3al5am, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1its sad when liberal nuts do their very best to try to blame Bush for 9/11 when in reality it was Osama bin Laden.. who was basically in place to be captured by Clinton, whom didn't pull the trigger... nice try
    • floorman56, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7YES!!! ...One more weapon the congress can use against the president....AFTER Hillary gets in the white house
      • DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1A female president?! That's as preposterous as a woman outside of the kitchen WITHOUT a plate of dinner in her hand that she's bringing to her husband.
      • tehseanzor, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2booo Hillary Hooray beer!
      • biotch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You two should be proud of your impenetrable arguments against Hillary.
    • GlorifiedSlave, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10I read that he did it early in his first term because some documents that would be very embarrassing to George Sr. were about to be 25 years old in 2001. George Sr was Director of the CIA in 1976, so I bet it was juicy.
    • obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7We're just *now* getting around to negating EOs Bush signed in 2001? At this rate, we should have the constitution, and checks and balances fully restored by about ...the 12th of never.
      • biotch, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Yeah ... people should of put Dems in congress years ago.
    • Wacer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He probably shredded most of the stuff that he didn't want known anyways. Presidents like their immunity to getting in trouble when they break the law. Most people have their front door kicked in if they break a big law or sometimes tased over nothing. The president just jerks the system around knowing that it will take forever for a judge to rule the president wrong.
      • Sidzilla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe he just had an aide stuff them in his pants and socks... no... wait...
    • dtschwe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1they will have Fawn Hall at the white house any day now
    • Sidzilla, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Then we can bask in the warmth of a woman so hungry for power she overlooked her husband humiliating her by getting a skanky intern to give him slob jobs in the oval office while he talked to VIPs on the phone. Or maybe we can have Bill do a health care plan that is about 150,000 pages of regulations that will assuredly lower health care costs when Hillary is elected. I have to say, you have an unrealistic view of the world. Just for the record, I voted for Clinton twice, and I think he was a good president. Most people hate Bush because of Iraq, but I think it was generally agreed on at the time that it was the thing to do. Now Bush is guilty of wanting to finish the job. Wow, what a concept.
      • terminal157, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2People hate Bush for a whole hell of a lot more than Iraq. That's just the bloodiest and most immediately important thing he's doing wrong.
    • Myztry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Maybe he can fashion himself a dirt covered hidy hole. You know. Just like the one Saddam got found in.
    • freecon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2He will be in Paraguay hanging with Moonies and W is afraid of horses.
  • rancemo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+230How long until this judge is declared an "enemy combatant"?
    • XISUPERMANIX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+72That won't happen. More like this in the headlines: "Judge killed in car accident"
    • mrjit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20There's no oil in this judges back yard.
    • Caulfield, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I hope you mean "unlawful enemy combatant".
    • Bologner, on 10/10/2007, -1/+03....2....1...
    • Winston84, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Judges ? aren't they already liberal baby-killing terrorist-aiding Jesus hating anti-american communists ?
      oh wait .. september 11...al-qaeda...sadam..iran osama....september 11 9-11 iraq
    • weebit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Or somehow, somewhere, someone will pull this Judges skeletons out of the closet. They will make an example of what could happen to you if you don't give the president what he wants. They will be after all they dirt they can find on that judge. What a shame.
  • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -7/+103everyone in this administration should be tried for treason. violating the privacy of private citizens while operating under a cloak. democracy dies behind closed doors.
  • CPoe, on 10/10/2007, -12/+72Props to the Judicial Branch for realizing their a part of this government too...
    • jarjarjanks, on 10/10/2007, -9/+51They're
      • chrismgtis, on 10/10/2007, -18/+4It must be fun to waste your time being a smart ass.
        • w1bmw, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Absolutely! Though some consider it a calling.
        • objectcode, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0"Absolutely! Though some consider it a calling."

          that is truly sad. yeah my calling in life is to correct people's mistakes on the Internet
        • DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5'tis better to be a smart ass than a dumb ass.
        • CannedMango, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5How is he being a smart-ass? He's pointing out a mistake and correcting it. If CPoe has any balls, he'll thank jarjarjanks (thought not for his name) and walk away a better person.
  • Bing11, on 10/10/2007, -5/+39Yay. But this is a small small victory. Now can we finally impeach him for lying to the public, wasting hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and getting thousands of US soldiers killed for no reason yet?
    • chrismgtis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Impeach? In a tyrannical government? It's about as likely as the Earth colliding with the Moon.
      • 1iProd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There is probability of that happening, you know :O
    • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Don't forget rampant Constitutional violations and soviet-style imprisonment of US citizens.
    • Wacer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No point in talking about impeachment because the Democrats already said they will not. Even the representatives in my state, both dems, said that is not an option.
      • crichton101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's sad to think that the only reason a 3rd or 4th political party will form in this country and gain any power from the people is because BOTH of the ones we have now are filled with either corrupt or incompetent pieces of *****.
      • Sidzilla, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1The reason they won't impeach is because there are no grounds to impeach. Bush is smarter than most give him credit for being. Bill Clinton got impeached for perjuring himself during an investigation of what was basically a legal, albeit embarrassing action. Bush just flips congress the bird and says "separation of powers this, *****" and continues to do what he feels he needs to do. No cover ups, no perjury, and no impeachment. The best part is that it drives the liberals bat ***** crazy.
        • DavidGX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wait... he's picking apart the constitution, ruining Americas reputation, getting thousands of US soldiers and innocent Iraqis killed for no reason, driving us so far into debt that our grandchildren will be paying it off.. etc.. etc.... and what pleases you is that he "drives liberals bat ***** crazy" ??? Wow, you right-wingers really are miserable pieces of *****.
  • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -11/+52why is this ass clown still in office? why the ***** hasnt he been forcibly removed yet? If there was ever a time to revolt against the government it would now.
    • a5tr0cr3ep, on 10/10/2007, -1/+28dont you watch the colbert report... he has not been forcibly removed b/c we are all a bunch of pussies. those ppl in burma put us to shame http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new ...
    • ricree, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3Um, while I don't particularly support the administration, it is trivial to think of situations where an open revolt would be a better choice. For one thing, this administration will be out of office fairly soon, and we have no reason to think that whoever follows will as bad as the current group. Besides this, there are still a ton of perfectly legal options left to us, and if we can't mobilize enough people to change things through that channel, what makes you think violence would have a snowball's chance in hell of working? In short to say that " If there was ever a time to revolt against the government it would now." is nothing short of idiotic.
      • onlynameicanget, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9"For one thing, this administration will be out of office fairly soon"

        Fairly soon =/= around 500 days from now.
        • Neodeusx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2475 days according to this Firefox plugin I have.
      • bolerobell, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I disagree. If we don't condemn the actions of this government, and don't revoke the powers they have cobbled together, then the next president will utilize them. Impeachment acts as such a condemnation and revocation.
      • DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0I seriously hope you're against punishing pedophiles then, after all them raping someone's kid will be over soon.
      • WaterDragon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ricree...
        After careful consideration of your comment (or at least the first part, that I actually read), i can only, respectfully, offer this advice...and i sincerely hope you take it into consideration...
        STFU!
    • popfrogs, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1It would now what?
    • chrismgtis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Obviously because this government is bordering on tyrannical and anyone that doesn't agree with their ways is called a criminal.
      • WaterDragon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Bordering?
        That's like saying that Hitler was bordering on a 'bad attitude.'
    • codehkr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5cuz you voted for him for the second time!
    • crichton101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3because the Republicans are corrupt bastards who want power, and the Democrats are incompetent bastards who want power.
    • WaterDragon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Have you been to the US (especially middle America)?
      The people ARE revolting!
  • jollyholly, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20A bill that would overturn the order passed the House in March and has been pending in the Senate.
    • burden555, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Bush needs to be impeached. That sob cant ruin our freedoms any longer!
  • Quaterni0n, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Put that in your pipe and smoke it biatch!
  • GrabAss, on 10/10/2007, -3/+34I'm not a big fan of George Bush
    • rhylan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Eloquently put there - I couldn't have put it better myself...
    • papashawn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2For me to say the same would be the understatement of the year
  • ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+28Too bad those records are secret until AFTER he leaves office. I wonder if you can try him for crimes once he leaves....
    • JoshuaGross, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Don't think so.
    • antibastard, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6of course you can try him, as long as the crime they're prosecuting isn't subject to a statute of limitations. after he leaves office he's a private citizen again.
      • floorman56, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Please ...after the Dems take office they are going to go "Bush who? Oh you mean that guy who had the EVIL tax cuts.. Not to worry we are going to fix that."
        • antibastard, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3ahem, the question was CAN you try him.
        • DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2@floorman56
          Were you born this stupid, or did you learn by watching FOX News?
    • 2reflective, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4We're seeing a one-time only power grab before they take the money they've extracted from US tax payers (via ties to private corporations) and move to Dubai where the law can't touch them.

      By the time their many crimes surface in the MSM, the neo-cons will be long gone.
    • EndersGame, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I dunno but I wish people would wake up now, while we can certainly do more about it. Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that he would have the motive to keep everything he has done as a president secret? To me its like he put a huge sign on his forehead saying "HEY I AM UP TO BAD THINGS THAT I DON'T WANT AMERICA TO KNOW ABOUT"
  • Stryder81, on 10/10/2007, -5/+24I'd like to see Bill O Reilly Or Sean Hannity try to call this judge a left wing nut lol.
    • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17limbaugh will call him a phony judge and the senate will commend him for it.
  • JenadaeXX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Pwnd
  • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+71I'd like to see Executive Orders go away, the president has no power to create legislation.
    • AnarkeIncarnate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24but but but 9-11 changed everything..........
    • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I agree re: the power of an EO.

      Although insofar as an Executive Order is really a way to organize the law-enforcing parts of the executive branch, it can be renamed but can't really be replaced.
    • Smiths, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Exactly! They are backdoor way to violate explicit limitations built into the Constitution. They have been around for a long time, but have become more and more abused in the past couple of decades.
    • Stryder81, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2HOW DARE YOU look at George Bush as " just a president " YOU FOOL!

      MUAHAHAHAHAHA
  • sydseale, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20The real test of our national sanity will be what happens when it goes to the supreme court.
    • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Just depends who 'owns' the judged in the Supreme Court.
      Oh, wait....
    • TheRealAlzabo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I predict a failure of that test.
    • WaterDragon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15-4 Against...it has nothing to do with sanity!
  • synthpop, on 10/10/2007, -3/+41clearly this judge hates America and is on the Al-Queda payroll, possibly even an Iranian agent! Not to worry, we have a crack team of Fox News journalists and AM radio hosts on the case
  • moin1097, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9I can't help but think that this is some kind of rope-a-dope.
    He's making you fight to see what's in his right hand which may be nothing when he gets away with what's in the left.
    Concentrate on his record on amnesty and NAU and you'll get more supporters.
  • chrismgtis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Executive orders do nothing but overturn any balance of power the government should have.
  • Sethbacca, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Invalided?

    Invalidated you mean?
    • thewump, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9No man.. Invalided.. They knocked the legs off it.
  • TheKidd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Like Bush gives a ***** what a Judge says. "Oh, it's LAW you say? EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE........Don't like it? KARL! Oh....wait a sec....heh heh heh...."
  • davmattucci, on 10/10/2007, -1/+26Its pretty obvious to me that that Judge hates freedom and our troops...
    • antibastard, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12you didn't capitalize Freedom! it's pretty obvious to me you are an enemy combatant
  • thewump, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Slow but sure progress.
  • GrabAss, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22checks and balances: I'd hit that
  • ewagnerjr2000, on 10/10/2007, -18/+10I hope that unlocks the Clinton's records. Which are locked too,also lets not forget Hillary's. Such Irony.
    • Nanite, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11But, but, but Clinton!

      Listen to yourself.
  • architimmy, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1invalided?
    ...
    invalidated
    • byrdgang, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Invalided is a word: incapacitate physically. In this case, however, it appears the correct use should be invalidated.
    • byrdgang, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Invalided is a word: incapacitate physically. In this case, however, it appears the correct use should be invalidated.
  • abecard, on 10/10/2007, -13/+8For all you Bush haters, remember this is a doubled edge sword. Now the Clinton documents and records can be viewed without his (or Hilary's) approval.
    • Quaterni0n, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Who gives a damn? Lets view them all!
    • kreneskyp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10good. im glad EVERY president's records are fully published and available to the public. when will you republicans realizes this isnt about your party or someone elses. this is about not letting the government screw us over regardless of which party has control.

      my only fear of clintons records is if anything bad is found it will fuel even more "but but clinton" fallacies that his wrongs somehow validate republicans wrongs
    • antibastard, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10so what? if Clinton broke the law during his presidency let him answer for it as well! Bush breaking the law and Clinton breaking the law are not mutually exclusive events, but if you're going to argue that Clinton did nearly as much damage as Bush has done during his two terms then we will just wait and see my friend.
      • parithes, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Rwanda 800,000+ people dead...on Clinton's hands...pretty big if you ask me.
        • Iammpb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Darfur 400,000+ people dead...on Bush's hands...pretty big if you ask me.
        • antibastard, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Darfur + Iraq + Katrina + vetoing a bill to insure 10 million children get health insurance (about ten minutes ago)

          and that's just off the top of my head
    • Observant1, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2GOOD, because clinton and bush are partners in crime, hillary included!
      so is giuliani, they ALL need to be exposed
      • moin1097, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Hillery exposed?
        I just puked a little.
  • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6Clinton is so ***** now.
    • gak001, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Mind telling the rest of us how?
    • absolutroot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1pics or it didnt happen...
    • TruthforAll, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Once again.. SO WHAT? If any president has committed crimes, they should be held accountable. We need to stop electing these lying ***** because they are on our "winning team".
  • charlietuna, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5By the time the documents see the light of day the administration can turn around and claim they are old news, that times have changed, and that subsequently written memorandums (which are classified) rendered these records inaccurate and inconsequential.
  • thesoze, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2ahahha ahah a.... idiots!
  • ronaldinho, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10With all that is going on in Burma, I really wish we can even be half as active as the Burmese people. They put us to shame and they have a ***** military regime. We have much more leeway and freedom than the Burmese and we should utilize that NOW. Oh wait, Colbert tells us that we are active by blogging and digging, so nice job guys
    • moin1097, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The first step is to turn off your computer.
      • DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3but but but... how will you know what's going on then? And how will you sit there in that coffee shop dressed all in black with eyeliner covering the window to your dark, cold soul while sipping on a triple expresso latte blogging about how evil the world is while listening to Fallout Boy?
    • enamresu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, the first step is reading this sentence, the next is whatever the ***** you think will really, *really* help the part of the world that you love.

      The world is complicated. Computers are useful tools.
  • slowmode, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Lets see how long until that judge is labeled as an Enemy Combatant
  • designer, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1Who the ***** made lawyers in black robes all powerful?
  • ToxicGas, on 08/11/2008, -1/+6(excerpt from recently unclassified conversation between Dick and Bush)
    Dick: "If they so much as XXXXXX(1), I suggest we XXXX(2) them with XXXXX(3) ..... drop so many XXXX XXXXX(4) that they XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX(5)."
    1)wink
    2)caress
    3)gentleness
    4)pretty flowers
    5)join our crusade for world peace

    Bush: "Not right now XXXXX(6), I'm almost done with the first chapter of that Henry Potter book."
    6)Dick (unnecessary to censor)
  • Shandooga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Tomorrow's headline: Judge receives Anthraxgram.
  • datdamonfoo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Let me be the first to say that George Bush is not a good president.
    • DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I do believe that this was said back in January of 2001.
    • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Datdamonfoo, 2001 called they would like to speak with you about this.
  • sub420, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6nobody is getting impeached, and all of these rulings mean absolutely nothing to bush. he has always done what he wants, and he will continue to do so.

    its sad, but true.
    • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't feel sorry for the US anymore. You voted him in TWICE. To quote Bush: Theres an old saying, fool me once...to fool... but twice...ummmm...you fool someone you cant ummmmm get fooled again.......
  • Shabadoo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Well, seeing as Bush has shown complete disregard for the law in the past, I imagine this will change nothing. If he doesn't want to make anything available, he won't. And nothing will come of it because the law is very rarely enforced when the Bush Administration is involved.
  • DawidRoos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Donelson. Do you really believe you are the first?
  • h4mx0r, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I know it's not really the same, but somehow this is reminding me of Nixon...
    Only that Nixon did a bunch of great things beforehand.
  • Boilerplatee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0He's making you fight to see what's in his right hand which may be nothing when he gets away with what's in the left.
    Concentrate on his record on amnesty and NAU and you'll get more supporters.

    http://www.TidyBBS.com/
  • ashlocke, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Judge's body found later in florida swamps. Jed Bush has no comment. News at 11.
  • n8f8, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1You people are dumb.
    • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4How so?

      for hating a serial killing genocidal moron?
    • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1n8f8, you are a sheep.
  • guinnessstout, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Bush; Great President or Greatest President?
    • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Worst President EVER only because Hitler wasn't a President.
  • LeeSoong, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Spying and wiretapping on U.S. Citizens - but Secrecy, hidden records, and locked doors for the Elite?

    Bush needs some of his own medicine - If Mr. Bush & Mr. Cheney have nothing to hide, they need not fear the open inspection of all their records, financial dealings, and secret meetings.
  • jeremyc23, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0www.toneburst.ca
  • darnit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"A bill that would overturn the order is pending in the Senate."
    Great :(
  • intilli4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You can take that to the bank mr pre------ ( I just can't say it)
  • NewDirection, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nice try Bush!
  • jeep066, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1buried for B.S.......................ThinkProgress
  •  

    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.