digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Kucinich video asks if 'you think it's time' to impeach Bush

rawstory.com — 2008 Democratic presidential candidate posts video on YouTube asking public if it's time to begin impeachment process which he is "prepared" to start in order to prevent threat of military action against Iran.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • NoCatharsis, on 10/12/2007, -19/+25Will this really ever happen? Especially in the next 20 months? I definitely don't take Bush's side, but I don't see this becoming reality.
    • Clogs, on 10/12/2007, -29/+90You’re probably right, but it’s still worth pushing for
    • mickeyknoxxx, on 10/12/2007, -25/+12It's defenitely worth a shot.

      I'm all for the attemp to do it. Because I really feel that Bush and his adminastration are no more than criminals.

      Although, I would have loved that video more if he had a couple of hot blondes standing around him in swim suits.

      Just some advice for the next politician who uses youtube. ;-)
    • KDX200rider, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13If his effort here goes as well as his last Presidential campaign, Bush has nothing to worry about.
    • SavageBlackCat, on 10/12/2007, -7/+77Not happening. The Democratic party doesn't have the balls to see it through - if they did, they would have started it already.
    • AntBing, on 10/12/2007, -25/+14Maybe if they impeach him, his wife can run for President in a few terms. There is simply not enough support to impeach him at this point. I don't support an impeachment and am willing to bet that a majority of citizens, while they may dislike and disapprove of Bush, are not calling for his removal from office. There are no legal grounds to support an impeachment and too little time left to get it done.
    • husker6294, on 10/12/2007, -27/+8Link to the the Youtube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_ckfdlrja8

      On another note, Kucinich is a pansy ass! Not because he is advocating impeachment, but because he is asking the American people what they think before he takes a stand one way or another. You don't lead by asking for opinion polls.
    • lickmygiggle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25@antbing

      Impeachment is NOT removal from office. That could be the result, but they are not the same thing.
    • Markpdotcom, on 10/12/2007, -15/+48The short answer is yes, if you ever want your country to be taken seriously again in world politics.
    • berwiki, on 10/12/2007, -35/+14Oh please, democrats are just mad their beloved Bill Clinton was impeached and want to do the same to republicans.

      Although Bush is not well-liked, he has not knowingly broken the law that I am aware of.
    • rhettnyedotorg, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4Al Gore talks to congress tomorow March 21st about global climate change.
    • the6thReplicant, on 10/12/2007, -15/+14@Markpdotcom
      is right. America has united their enemies and most of the rest of the world just can't believe how stupid this administration is.
      We did the old rub-both-eyes-vigorously-and-say-Waaaaa? look when you went into Iraq: "you guys need help in finding Afghanistan?"

    • Warpstone, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6You guys realize that if we remove Bush from office, Cheney steps in right?

      At this point I'm willing to live with the dumber of the two evils.
    • sponeil, on 10/12/2007, -10/+37@berwiki

      Google "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".

      He hasn't broken the law? Hmm, let me see. Torture? Gitmo? Illegal wire-tapping? Lying to public about Iraq to start a war? Ignoring the Freedom of Information Act? I can't even remember how many times he's claimed that what he did wasn't breaking the law, and then tried to get a law passed that makes what he's already done legal (which doesn't change the fact that it was illegal when he started). The Supreme Court smacked down his arguments about keeping detainees at Gitmo, and Bush is still ignoring that one.

      Almost every bill Bush signs into law, he adds an addendum stating that he won't enforce the law where he feels it would impact national security. While the president has this power (it may be a war-time power, I'm not sure), it is supposed to be used very rarely because it affects the checks and balances. I believe all other presidents have used this power 0, 1, or 2 times total. Bush has used it over 90 times, which is more than all the other presidents combined. In short, he feels that he is above the law. He should be impeached for that alone, if nothing else.

      Even if he hasn't technically broken any serious laws (which I believe he has), all of these should count as high crimes, and should be enough to get him impeached. I have no love for Bill Clinton, and I can't stand Hillary, but Bush and Cheney are a complete disgrace. The only problem with impeaching Bush is that Cheney is even worse. We can't afford to impeach Bush until Cheney is impeached.
    • immrlizard, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3I think that there is too little time left to actually get them impeached. There are adequate grounds to start the process. There is already a couple states that are passing the resolution asking for it. There is also talk of a war crimes tribunal being started by Germany if no action is taken by the US.

      It really doesn't matter though, the way things are here in the us we will just put another incompetent idiot in to take his place. I think a public hanging on pay per view would be too good for this group in DC now. Just remember this at election time. All of those lap dog republicans that are up for reelection need to be put out of office. They are also the problem for being an enabler.

      @ antbing

      Why would you think that the us citizens would elect the horse faced wife of an idiot to the highest office of the US? Hillary is a senator and I don't see them electing her.

    • mrfoos, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5I ask whether or not you supposedly "pro democracy" bozos realize that in less than 2 years you can vote for whom ever you want to. That's how it works. We vote. The winner serves for 4 years. Losers bitch and moan the whole time. We vote. The winner serves for 4 years. Losers bitch and moan the whole time. That's the American way. Suck it up. Moveon.org or something.
    • jake8689, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18it's so sad that he may never tried for his crimes
    • moiremusic, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4OK, I can't stand the guy, or his administration...

      But IF we impeach him, and IF he leaves office because of it, we're left with Cheney as president. Is that really any better? And we've wasted time, money and resources to do it. I say let Bush finish his 20 months. He's already eliminated any chance of a republican being elected president in 2008.
    • mrhaines, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4As much as I support the democrats, this is obviously just a ploy of this individual to increase his profile as a presidential candidate. He know full well that impeachment will not happen in the 20 months left in Bush's term, so he feels comfortable fighting for it. You can't impeach someone for something they haven't done. If he was serious about impeaching then he would be talking about it based on the Iraq war or illegal wire tapping. This guy is obviously an opportunist.
    • xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7So we're supposed to vote for this guy because he wants to impeach Bush?
      Um, I think I need more than that to go on.
    • mdhauke, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Savage :"Not happening. The Democratic party doesn't have the balls to see it through - if they did, they would have started it already."

      Nor the legal ground.
    • thepompano, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@berwiki, mdhauke, etc.
      http://www.digg.com/politics/14_Articles_of_Impeachment_for_Bush_Cheney
      These may clear a couple of points up. I think there's definitely enough legal accusations there to at the very least, demand a hearing on them.

      Also, @savageblackcat:
      http://www.digg.com/politics/BREAKING_Congresswoman_McKinney_Files_Articles_of_Impeachment_for_Bush
      The link is a little dated, but it shows that one Democrat at least tried.
    • xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yea, but the problem with McKinney is that she is a pyscho racist bitch.
    • CJWright, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2About the Bush lies: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007495
      The stupid Republicans we so disdain: http://jewishmediaresources.com/article/906/

      How the lies caused us to enter into an illegal war (starting on p.6 from: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/usr_doc/Iraq_Failure_of_Containment_2.pdf )

      "As the history of the biological weapons program demonstrates, Saddam spurned every “last chance” because he had no intention of relinquishing his WMD capabilities and ambitions. Iraq had numerous “last chances” to comply. . . The U.N. failed because of a combination of two factors, Iraqi deception and a lack of genuine U.N. will to unravel the Iraqi programs. Unknown to the U.N., Saddam had constructed a WMD system designed to beat the inspection system. There was also an extent to which the U.N. simply did not look, at least according to U.S. monitoring of the U.N. inspectors. . . The U.N. missed the Iraqi “strategic intention,” a vital part of the threat. Although Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was largely dormant after 1991, Iraqi nuclear scientist Mahdi Obeidi has written that “our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam Hussein’s fingers… Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jumpstart the program if necessary.”56 Yet the U.N. wanted to give Saddam a clean bill of health. In fact, the ISG reports that on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Iraq still had a chemical weapons capability and could have produced signifi cant volumes of mustard gas within three to six months and large volumes of nerve agents within two years if it could acquire the necessary precursors.59 The U.N. resolutions preserving the sanctions to keep Iraq in check until it verifiably disarmed also provided for a remedy if these obligations were evaded: force. Time and again, Saddam demonstrated that force alone could in some way hold him back.

      The right to take military action was entrenched in UNSCR 687/1991 which suspended, but did not end, the war to liberate Kuwait.61 UNSCR 687/1991 linked the Gulf War ceasefire to Iraqi compliance with disarmament and the renunciation of terrorism, drawing upon the right to use force in UNSCR 678/1990.62 There was no doubt that military action could be used to enforce UNSCR 687/1991. Britain and the U.S. had threatened and used force in 1998 on that basis.63 U N S C R 1 4 4 1 / 2 0 0 2 , a d o p t e d unanimously by the U.N. Security Council, including Syria, reminded Iraq that it faced “serious consequences” for non-compliance. UNSCR 1441/2002 found Iraq in “material breach” of 16 previous U.N. resolutions passed under Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter.64 Although UNSCR 1441/2002 called for the U.N. inspectors to report violations to the council, it did not, as per the French interpretation, prohibit “any automaticity in the use of force.”65

      Saddam’s regime nonetheless challenged the U.S. and Britain repeatedly, firing on allied aircraft and conducting terrorist attacks in Iraqi Kurdistan. As Michael Walzer pointed out in March 2003, the U.S. was already engaged in a “little war” with Iraq.68 . . .Iraq under the Ba’ath party had been a promiscuous state sponsor of terrorism, backing groups of different, and sometimes inconsistent ideological proclivities.71 Before 9/11 there was credible evidence available that Saddam had been in contact with al Qaeda, as noted by the 9/11 Commission.72 Military pressure on Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003 was, therefore, a final and strategically necessary action, a threat to execute the suspended sentence passed by the U.N. Security Council in 1991. Saddam’s regime had to choose to comply or die. . . The war of 2003 was not a U.S. war of choice, nor a U.S. war of prevention, but a war of Saddam’s choosing. Conflict was not inevitable. Iraq was offered repeated concessions, whether through serial “last chances” or relaxation of sanctions and the inspections regime. Justice for the Iraqis was certainly delayed by the decision not to topple Saddam in 1991, whether with U.S. force or by assisting the Iraqis then rebelling against him. The legal right to enforce the sentence passed upon his regime had never lapsed. After 1991, the reasons to do so accumulated rather than diminished. War was the option that Saddam chose. The Iraqi regime was afforded the opportunity to comply with its U.N. obligations, a genuine “last chance” that it chose not to take.

      History in the making back in 2003: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=155245&attrib_id=7511
      Iraqi war: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/usr_doc/Iraq_Failure_of_Containment_2.pdf
      More random articles from 2003 & 2004 : http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-01-25-1.html
      http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=155245&attrib_id=7511

      SO (MORE INTERESTINGLY!) let's just ask ourselves - is this who we are digging up? http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD150807

      Bottomline - Senator Joe Lieberman's summation (from http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017019.php) : "There is something profoundly wrong when opposition to the war in Iraq seems to inspire greater passion than opposition to Islamist extremism"
    • tpimpeach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Impeach Them - It's Time!
      and
      It's not too late. Find out why and what you can do. It's as simple as calling the Cap Hill Switchboard (202) 224-3121 and asking your rep. to support Cheney Impeach Bill H.Res. 333.
      more info:
      impeachthem.wordpress.com
  • joeyjesus, on 10/12/2007, -27/+71i think the groundswell of grassroots support & demand for impeachment is getting closer to exploding. Impeachment is the right and patriotic thing to do.
    • Andysan, on 10/12/2007, -53/+14You may hate Bush but you are really going to hate Shira law. Hello!
    • knomevol, on 10/12/2007, -16/+19andysan - "separation of church and state"? i believe this overlaps "mosque and state" as well.

      if YOU think it's such an issue YOU sign up for a tour.

    • IslandDog, on 10/12/2007, -38/+16The problem democrats have is there is no real grounds for impeachment. No matter what the liberals say, they have nothing to impeach him for.

    • syowr, on 10/12/2007, -13/+26@andysan I give you a 1/10 for effort. If you are gonna troll try to at least be creative and on topic.

      P.S On the off chance you honestly believe the world is safer because of bush you are living in a dreamland where facts apparently don't matter. If anything Bush has done more to make the ever remote possibility of seeing Shira law in the U.S. MORE possible. Bush is the best thing to happen to terrorists in a long while.Way to support the terrorists andysan! goodbye
    • DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -12/+31@islanddog: Lies! He can be impeached simply for doing things unbecoming of the office of President, can't he? He wouldn't be charged with a crime and removed from office, but it would be a symbolic blow.

      But more importantly, there's an entire book detailing the felonies Bush committed every time he verbally renewed the warantless NSA wiretapping program -- which he did dozens of times!
    • kurtwinter, on 10/12/2007, -12/+25islandog

      I think we could start with the rampant cronyism, the incredulous lies, the voter fraud, the various crimes of the Valerie Plame affair, manipulation of intelligence in the lead up to Iraq, the incompetence in Afghanistan, the complete and utter lack of any functioning brain cells on the morning of 9/11 and perhaps the most recent Attorney General incidents. That would be a good start.

      Clinton got impeached for a blowjob.
    • cheifchuck0, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17It is Sharia law, not "Shira."
    • berwiki, on 10/12/2007, -18/+8@kurtwinter

      Clinton got impeached for LYING UNDER OATH and making a complete mockery of our judicial system.

      When the president doesn't take our country seriously, it has very serious long-term and significant ramifications.
    • IslandDog, on 10/12/2007, -20/+8"I think we could start with the rampant cronyism, the incredulous lies, the voter fraud, the various crimes of the Valerie Plame affair, manipulation of intelligence in the lead up to Iraq, the incompetence in Afghanistan, the complete and utter lack of any functioning brain cells on the morning of 9/11 and perhaps the most recent Attorney General incidents. That would be a good start."

      Most of which are just ridiculous accusations and have no basis for impeachment. It's impossible to argue with emotionally obsessed leftists.

      Voter fraud....LOL.
    • eatbeefjerky, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2"Clinton got impeached for LYING UNDER OATH"

      That was their "legal" reason. The blowjob was the real reason. Lets put Bush on the stand (under oath, of course) and have him tell us again how he's "never broken the law". Then he will have lied under oath and we can impeach him for that... since nothing else seems to work for you Bush fanboys.
    • berwiki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1lol @ your use of the word 'fanboy'. Who said I support bush??

      I'm merely stating Clinton did the country a huge disservice when he lied under oath.

      Although I do think he is a scumbag for cheating on his wife (and I feel this way about anyone who cheats on their significant other) he was impeached for Lying Under Oath, not for receiving a blow job.

      Get YOUR fanboy head out of the media's ass.
  • phillydrifter, on 10/12/2007, -20/+22Absolutely, joeyjesus. It's the patriotic thing to do. He lied to Congress, lied to the citizens of the U.S. and on top of impeachment, he needs to be tried in an international court along with Blair for crimes against humanity. I'm so tired of seeing his glib face publicly apologizing to the country while he reaps the rewards of increased oil profits, as well as more prisoners per capita than any other country in the world, yet we call this 'the land of the free.' Huh?
    • warmonger48, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So its treason then is it?
    • joeyjesus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1treason, war crimes, crimes against humanity, you name it - (As evil as I believe the Clintons are) there is not much worse in the world or even history than Bushco. Greedy opportunistic self-serving liars who have dragged this country and planet down lower and lower towards the chaos of hell.
  • death420pot, on 10/12/2007, -16/+12hell yeah its time!!!
    • ominpotent123, on 10/12/2007, -15/+7yea, and then Cheney will be interim prez! ***** brilliant idea!
    • EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13No. We can impeach Cheney too. It can be done in such a way that the GOP gets to pick suitable replacements (e.g., fire Cheney first, nominate replacement, then fire Bush), or it can be done in one fell swoop. Gonzales is also subject to impeachment if he doesn't leave soon.

      However, let's be clear, impeachment is only the indictment phase. The Senate has to vote to convict. And once officially guilty, Bush has to step down. I don't think Congress can physically force him. I can only hope the military would do the right thing by not following the orders of an impeached/convicted President.

      The problem is that the Senate will need 60 votes to convict, and I don't see that happening unless there's a smoking gun that Republicans can't pretend to ignore. The old saying is, "if you're going to try to kill* the king, make sure you succeed." That's why Pelosi isn't talking impeachment right now.

      *kill = strictly metaphor. *king = not so much metaphor anymore, ironies of King George III notwithstanding.
    • ploop, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I'd rather see Cheney as President than Bush. Cheney exudes evil to the point that he resembles Darth Vader. Fewer Republican members of Congress would be willing to hitch their wagon to his star, I'd warrant.
    • keymanjim, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5These libs truly live in their own world.
      Completely outside of the reality of law and common sense.
      Bush CAN NOT be impeached without also impeaching the majority of democrats with him. Some of which would also face charges of treason.
      Bush CAN NOT be tried in an international court that we do not recognize. There is no greater law of our land than the US Constitution. And no foreign court can hold jurisdiction over an American citizen while on American soil.
    • kurttrail, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"And no foreign court can hold jurisdiction over an American citizen while on American soil."

      Well the US did set a world precedent by renditioning terror suspects. And arguably Bush is the leading cause of terror today.

      Rendition Bush!
  • caponumen, on 10/12/2007, -40/+12The democraps aren't going to do anything to slow much less stop the war.
    This is just more loud political theater to take the attention away from the fact they are going to pour in more money and men.
    They could easily block funding and put an end to the war, but they will use the SUPPORT THE TROOPS excuse.

    Face it your votes and your protests are meaningless to the powers that be......


    • brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -18/+27So I guess that's why the republicans still control congress...








      oh wait..
  • unloud, on 10/12/2007, -15/+35If they impeach Bush, they damn well better do it to Cheney as well.

    By the way, was anyone else bothered by the way this guy talks?
    • brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6his pauses are too long. It's almost painful to listen to.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9Yes. First rule of making videos. Unless you're a gifted speaker, prepare and practice your speech. And then check it over and do it again if it sucks.
    • Nocturnalis, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I'm bothered by the way he talks, walks looks and his ability to shoot someone in the face. WHAT a guy.......!
    • drxavier, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2My vote would be to impeach Cheney first. Bush would be helpless without him.
      BTW Kucinich and Ron Paul are the only candidates I would consider voting for.
  • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -25/+13All that tofu has gone to Kucinich's head!
    • coredump0x01, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7Considering that statement and the website on your profile, It's no surprise you'd want to discredit this guy. Welcome to my block list.
    • captaineuphoria, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1awww h00paj00 is just butthurt, that's all
  • insomniacal, on 10/12/2007, -10/+44If you think Bush is all that wrong, impeach him. Otherwise, shut up. Anything less than an impeachment suggests that you're quietly glad Bush is taking the heat for doing what's necessary.
    • PhantomBantam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1That's like saying bomb Iraq if you don't like what they're doing. Otherwise, shut up. Anything less than bombs implies you love Hussein.
  • insboswiz, on 10/12/2007, -17/+16Actually, you can't impeach a president just because you think he is wrong or that you disagree with him. While I agree that this whole war thing in Iraq was poorly considered and in the end the wrong thing to do, at the time, there was "evidence" supporting the decision to go to war. While a lot of folks have claimed that Bush made the whole thing up, if his opponents really felt that they had clear evidence that his administration had manufactured the evidence which he presented to Congress to justify the war, they would have already gone after him. After all, this lot had "impeach Bush now" bumper stickers on their cars the day after the Supreme Court decided in Bush's favor in the 2000 election. Keep one thing in mind - if you get rid of Bush, you get Cheney, and you can bet that he has cleaned up after himself so that he would be untouchable. Something tells me that would be worse.
    • DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20Actually, no one in their right mind would impeach Bush but not Cheney at the same time -- I've never heard anything on the news but suggestions that BOTH would be impeached at the same time. It's quite clear that Cheney is the most evil son of a bitch in recent American politics and to leave him in power would be horrendous.
    • dmjarrington, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11people who say, "there's no evidence" simply aren't paying attention. their own news reports are the smoking guns... there are many smoking guns... let's end this *****, the people are tired of these *****.
    • CatcherInTheWhy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5@dmjarrington

      I think people are mostly good, even criminals. Probably even murderers love their family members, perhaps more than some perfectly law-abiding people who abuse them, and are numb to emotion. Society likes to label people as outsiders, and i'm trying to reduce hatred of Bush to a "trend" that's essentially what it is in sociological terms. I don't think the President is the monster you'd like him to be, and I think he probably has more information about the long-term consquences of his actions than we do, or even the media. He has a better sense of what actually threatens this country on a day-to-day basis. If you could wiretap a suspected terrorist and have a 1% chance of stopping an attack, would you honestly not do it? I believe that you are a good person and you would probably do it.

      It's appalling to me that intelligent people are capable of willful ignorance when it comes to politics. Have you or anyone you've known been wire-tapped? Were wiretaps an effective means of protecting national security? The wiretapping and all the other accusations people throw at the President could never end up in impeachment because he would simply go before Congress at his trial and show all his cards, and the anyone who was pushing for impeachment would be entirely discredited. Before you worry about the absolute right to privacy, remember that if the President wasn't doing everything and attacks were successful, you would accuse him of being negligent.
    • tpimpeach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0From the Takoma Park, MD resolution to impeach bush and Cheney. The resolution was based on H.Res.333 (Cheney Impeach Bill)
      WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired with others to defraud the United States of America by intentionally misleading Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371; and

      read the rest of the resolution and find out how you can support H.Res.333 at http://impeachthem.wordpress.com/resolution/
  • precision4u, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20How about everyone in disagreement that is in Congress do the one thing they really have the power to do - CUT FUNDING. If they cannot take the heat for that, then they have no resolve to really end the situation.
    • johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14Amen. The numbers aren't there for the 2/3 vote, but I'd love the see Dems pass a funding bill with only $5 billion, with the note "To be used to get them on a boat and out of Iraq".

      Then they could pass a $50 billion bill for "requipping the troops and dropping them into Afghanistan - you know, the place where Osama bin Ladin, the guy who actually killed 3,000 Americans, is probably hiding.", then include a map with a big red arrow pointing to the Afghanistan/Pakistan border saying "Hey, morons - bin Ladin's over here!"

      Won't happen, but it would be nice.
    • AntBing, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7I have family in Iraq. If funding is cut and and my brother dies as a direct result I may go on my own jihad against the leaders who decided a funding cut was the only way to stop Bush.
    • DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7That's a nice sentiment, but they'd take a little more than "heat" if they didn't appropriate all the requested funds for the military. People would be out for their blood for not "supporting the troops," a powerful emotion that can't be taken lightly.
    • precision4u, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@Antbing

      I have a brother in Iraq as well for two years and just recently was discharged from the Air Force due to the 'downsizing' of the MP force. (WHAT??!!?? Yea, I know... funny... the military is ALREADY planning for the defunding to happen ever since the power swapped in Congress) I support the war as is is now. What I don't support is any official, elected or otherwise, taking polling data before making a decision - which is exactly what this is. IF these so called leaders - regardless of party, birth, whatever, REALLY want to do something, then they need to get off their asses and actually do it. If they aren't, then I would like them to kindly shut the ***** up.
  • johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5I'm probably low on the list of Bush supporters, but I would be curious to know what specific charge you would use to impeach him. With Clinton, it was pretty clear: perjury when he testified under oath about getting a hummer from Monica. Not nearly as bad as making up ***** about "yellow cake from Nigeria" or "We're only going to spend $2 billion dollars - honest!" and, my favorite, "We will be greeted as liberators".

    That said, I wouldn't mind seeing Bush and Cheney kicked out on their big white hineys. But while they have lied, cheated, given money to private industries to ultimately line their own pockets (that then either "lost" the money, or just did a crappy job in either Iraq, reconstructing Orleans, or attending to veterans at Walter Reed), that could just be listed as this administration being a bunch of rotten grassf***ers. I'm just not sure if being horrible, heartless human beings is an actual crime.

    What exactly could we nail them on?
    • brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -13/+17how about the hundreds of illegal things he's done while in office? The wiretapping scandal (how he said "it's legal!" then rushed a law through congress that made it legal) comes to mind.

      The man has used his position to commit crimes.
    • ascheinberg, on 10/12/2007, -13/+17War crimes? How about spying on citizens - which includes violations of most of the first 10 amendments to the CONSTITUTION? The fact is, he's lied to us -- CITIZENS OF THIS LAND - over and over about this "war," so about treason?
    • AntBing, on 10/12/2007, -11/+18You claim hundred of illegal things he's done in office yet you give no evidence to support these claims. If Bush really has broken the law don't you think all the liberals screaming for his head would have started the impeachment process by now? There is no point in dragging the country through an impeachment process only to have Bush end up beating the impeachment and making the liberals looks like cry babies.
    • CatcherInTheWhy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5@brshtilson & aschenberg

      Ever see 300? Think of Bush as Leonidas, and you guys are the traitors calling him a "criminal" for defending Sparta.

      If not, see it. It'll change your whole perspective on *****.
    • brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10"Ever see 300? Think of Bush as Leonidas, and you guys are the traitors calling him a "criminal" for defending Sparta."

      Please tell me you're joking. He's not defending America. His Patriot Act has eroded the constitution to the tune of the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by John Adams. It's idiots like you who think "It's called the PATRIOT act, if you don't support it, you're not a patriot!" that are ruining this country. In case your revised version of history left this out, Iraq was no threat. There were no weapons of mass destruction. The United States violated international law by invading, period.

      Bush can take away my constitution if I'm labeled terrorist. What makes a terrorist? The way the Patriot Act is vaguely worded, it defines the Boston Tea Party as a terrorist attack, and our founding fathers as terrorists.

      After all of this, our country STILL isn't any safer. Our worldwide popularity is at an all-time low. And Iraq? Ironically, Saddam's SECULAR government was helping stave off terrorists. It also provided a buffer zone between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran. Hussein was condemned as an infidel for this. He was a bloodthirsty dictator, but he was much less of a threat than, oh, i don't know NORTH KOREA, who has nukes. Terrorism is more rampant today in the world than ever.

      Bush is no Leonidas, protecting us from a terrifying enemy. There is no foreign army looking to conquer our soil. I think it's actually quite an insult to Leonidas to compare Bush to him.
    • br0ck, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3The director says that neither Leonidis nor Xerxes are representative of Bush in any way: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/movies/05spartans.html?ex=1330750800&en=7f61c958e3e026e7&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

      However, I agree with brstilson, and in fact I think Bush is closer to Xerxes... He is using the worlds strongest military to overthrow foreign governments but is stymied by small forces of stubborn locals that are willing to throw their lives away. He avoids actual fighting. He surrounds himself with yes-men and does not listen to contradictory advice. He believes that communes with God and that his actions are the direct will of God. He's filthy rich and his oil-rich family and friends are profiting from conquest.
    • jetsetgo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@CatcherInTheWhy

      Actually, your comparison is closer than you think but for different reasons. Sparta was not the bastion of freedom displayed in the movie. Hell they kept slaves, LOTS of them. They murdered unarmed farmers in neighboring countries as rights of passage. When all the children were in military school and faced dangers the future king was always sheltered and protected so that he could grow up.

      Because Sparta was a military society and all of the citizens were soldiers (which is very expensive) they had to make constant war with their neighbors to justify their expenses to themselves.

      The movie was entertainment not a history lesson or metaphor. Get it right next time.
    • CatcherInTheWhy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Obviously the movie is not historically accurate. The ephors weren't consulted as oracles and there were always two Spartan kings. If you want to argue that Spartan society was not more free than Persian society, then that is a separate debate, and a debate which you will categorically lose. Muslims all over the world (although not all Muslims, and not only Muslims) enslave their women even today, and the Spartan helots were only "slaves" in the sense that they were tied to the land and required to pay higher taxes; they were not personal property. They could and often did achieve freedom by fighting in the military or by buying it.

      Despite your clear lack of education about Ancient Greek civilizations, I am utilizing the movie as a text, to make a point about the twisted nature of propoganda throughout history. While you are clearly too biased to realize the pressing nature of the threat confronting us today, the fact remains that the PATRIOT act and the Iraq war have removed the terrorist threat from American soil in a significant way. Maybe, just maybe, YOU are on the wrong side of history, and you don't even know it yet.
    • kurttrail, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The Persians weren't Muslims, Douchebag.

      Bush is no Leonidas. If he were, his ass would be on the front lines, begging to be killed, so that his death would inspire Americans to fght off the terrorists hordes.

      But just like Vietnam, his ass is never gonna see any battle. Bush is a chickenhawk, just like you.
  • mcfriendly, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Given the time it would take to perform this trial it would only be an exercise in rhetoric. However I think the real meaning would be in sending a message that Bush has misinterpreted and abused the American Presidency.
  • rwarfield, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8Let's face it. Bush has wiped his ass with the constitution and trampled over our basic freedoms. He talks big about security but won't do anything about the sieve we call a border or allow accurate profiling of terrorists.
  • rwarfield, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7Let's face it. Bush has wiped his ass with the constitution and trampled over our basic freedoms. He talks big about security but won't do anything about the sieve we call a border or allow accurate profiling of terrorists.

    Both Democrats and Republicans should join together to get rid of this retard.
  • rushiku, on 10/12/2007, -18/+1It's time to impeach Bush like it's time to take the dog out, after it has already relieved itself on the carpet. What's the point?
    • coredump0x01, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10It would help prevent a looming war with Iran and prevent more death of our soldiers and Iranian citizens.
    • dmjarrington, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13it also sends a message to the world that the population is made of more than spineless wimps.
    • echo2501, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6That's like saying, "Why imprison convicted criminals? The damage is already done."
    • rushiku, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1What my fans have missed is that the time to impeach "El Diablo" was 5 years ago.
  • Nocturnalis, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10The time is almost long over-due for impeachment. We need to do a pre-emptive impeachment before things get even worse.
  • DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6To all of you who say that we would have impeached him now if we had the evidence, don't forget one little important thing: Dems have only been in power for a few months. Bush still has about 2 YEARS left on his term. Isn't it easy enough to imagine that perhaps they had some important things they wanted to get out of the way before they went into the complicated impeachment process?
  • Treoinmypocket, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13Not that I am advocating war with Iran but Kucinich is not going to be taken seriously because he is overstating two things:

    1) accepting that Bush is wrong and the war in Iraq & potentially in Iran were wrong...isn't grounds for impeachment. People are so careless with these very important components of our Constitution and wield these threats that only serve to diminish the great ideals and Herculean effort put forth by our Founding Fathers. We have to be serious about these things and that means using Constitutional tools as they were intended,
    2) "There is no solid, direct evidence that Iran has the intention of attacking the United States or its allies." Well there is lots of solid evidence that the "insurgents" (lol- what a nice friendly term for terrorist instigators) are coming from and being funded and equipped by Iran. And since we went in to Iraq to Liberate it from Saddam and we are working with the Iraq government to quell the insurgents...Iraq IS our Ally. SO if Iran is our Ally and Iran is funding, equipping terrorists bent on destabilizing the Iraqi government...then that IS a cause for war and Kucinich is wrong.

    I understand where he is coming from and what he wants to do but we have got to deal with reality and truth and our Representatives in Congress need to stop treating us like idiots who can be lied to and be conned by perversions of the truth. And that goes for ALL parties.
    • hmmmok, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7I can't take him seriously either. I think his alfalfa is laced.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4"Iraq IS our Ally."

      That's a load of *****. Iraq is our property at the moment. We stole it fair and square (well, not so fair and not so square, it turns out).

      The fact is, any covert attacks by Iran against us in Iraq should have been expected before we arrived. Iran and Iraq were at war and many Shia were known to be loyal to Iran. If we knew the difference between a Shia and a Sunni, we would have predicted this. It's our own damn fault for going in there in the first place. We set up the situation. And we're crying about it now? Give me a break.

    • ErtaiWizAdept, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0there have been numerous publications of the many illegal things Bush has done as President, go buy

      "The Case For Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office" by Dave Lindorfff and Barbara Olshansky

      Bush has done so much wrong, not just stuff we disagree with but illegal acts, that the book is 248 pages long!

      Do your research.
  • anotherdiggdude, on 10/12/2007, -13/+11Impeach him? His father should've been impeached back in the 90's. Then this whole thing would've never spiraled out of control into little Georgies NWO.
    • rwarfield, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13If congress had let GW senior finish the first war we wouldn't be in this mess. Unfortunately hindsight is 20/20.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6If Congress....

      What a revisionist load of crap. Bush1 "finish the job" because Bush1 (Powell, etc..) realized it was STUPID and DOOMED to FAILURE to occupy Iraq for anything more than kicking them out of Kuwait and seriously disarming them.

      Bush1 should have been impeached well before his Presidency. Remember Iran/Contra? I still don't know how he managed to squeak out of that one. Hmm. Illegal Arms sales to Iran... I wonder if that might come back to bite us on the ass...
    • the6thReplicant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5no I think 9/11 would have still happened

      and anyway what would have Saddam be replaced with and what makes you think the problems we're having now wouldn't have happened then?

      actually, I'm really curious about this...
    • SuckMyDigg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5We should never have been over there in the FIRST place. Bush set Saddam up to take the fall as a bad guy so we could sanction the hell out of Iraq and ensure a steady oil supply. We armed him with those WMDs. We told him we'd look away if he attacked Kuwait, but then we nailed his ass for being a brutal dictator on a power march.

      And now we invade HIS country and hang his ass.

      Goddamn America has done some corrupt and ***** things. Like father like son.
  • farther, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12Somehow I thought the United States was a republican democracy, not an empire or fascist dictatorship. The example of President Bush has convinced me otherwise, misusing the powers of the executive branch with impunity.

    In a just society, the government does not lie to the legislative branch (in this case Congress and the House of Representatives) and to its people in order to start a war. Whether Saddam deserved to be hung or not (I think he did), the Bush Administration really needed to be manly about this and simply say that was the reason they were going in instead of fabricating evidence of nuclear reactants entering Iraq or fictitious ties to al'Qaeda.

    In a just society, the government does not take money that the legislative branch has granted them to help reconstruct a country they destroyed and use it to grant contracts to friendly companies (Halliburton, Cheney, you know the story) just for the company to do nothing in return for the money.

    In a just society, the government doesn't send poor and working class men and women to die for their nation when in fact it is not for the defence of the nation nor even for the defence of democracy that they die, but only for the benefit of the rich (oil profit-sharing legislation on the table in Iraq).

    In a just society, the government does not wiretap and monitor its citizens' communications without a warrant from the judicial branch. In a just society, the government does not secretly fly terrorism suspects around the world to allied nations who employ torture, nor does it detain people without informing them of their crime and giving them an opportunity to retain counsel to defend against the charges against them, nor does it do so and then torture them itself.

    The Constitution of the United States, like that of many other Western democracies, was conceived to bring about a just society where tyranny no longer was possible by separation of powers, where law was the only edict and rule and was controlled and held in check by a constitution, and where men and women would be treated with the dignity their inalienable rights as human beings and as citizens demanded.

    No excuse, no terror feared or actual, can ever justify the wholesale destruction of justice itself.
  • ramblnrose, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6Impeach Cheney/Bush!
  • dmjarrington, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4YES YES YES IT IS TIME
  • NinjaBoy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Is that a rhetorical question?
  • DrFelch, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Impeach now and try for war crimes and treason. If found guilty Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Rice, and Colin Powell as well, need to recieve the maximum penalty prescibed by law. It must happen if America is to be saved!!!!
  • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10What exactly will be the charges?
    • DrFelch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6TREASON AND WARCRIMES, Like I said, or can't you read?
  • cortlandjim, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2from wikipedia -
    "For the executive branch, only those who have allegedly committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" may be impeached. Although treason and bribery are obvious, the Constitution is silent on what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor." Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes an impeachable offense. In 1970, then-Representative Gerald R. Ford defined the criteria as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." Four years later, Ford would assume the Presidency, following a vote to approve impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon (who ultimately resigned prior to being impeached)."

    Given this definition and the past impeachment of Clinton for perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice for lying about a blow job in the Whitehouse. it would seem that Lying to Congress(justification to go to war), disclosing the identity of a CIA official to discredit her husband, wasting billions on nobid contracts for your friends, stealing an election(2000), and general lying, cheating and cronyism for the benfit of your RICH F"N frends would be a worth looking into.
    JMO
    • hmmmok, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Bush was lied to and Congress had the same intelligence reports. Should Congress be impeached too?
      How does one steal an election? Did Bush put on black face paint and sneak into the White House?
      Scooter got his conviction, and it was for impednig an investigation, something Clinton's gang was masterful at.

      I'm no Bushbot, but it aint happening.
    • cortlandjim, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4no doubt Congress had the same intelligence reports as the president, but the fact he and his buddies controlled and manipulated the intelligence to get what they wanted is what is at question here. Remember he is the CIC and controls the intelligence gatherers and releases the gathered info to the Congress, Congress doesn't have their own intelligence they have to rely on what is provided to them (lies). ??

      as for the election in 2000, Lawyers not votes decided that election. Bush and his GOP buddies saw an opportunity and flooded the state of Florida with lawsuits to sway the election commisions to disallow thousands of votes that would have gone in the other direction, even a third grader could count the votes better than those idiots.
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Lying to Congress(justification to go to war): Congress had the same intelligence as the President. How did the President lie to Congress when not only Congress but most of the world believed the same as the President.

      disclosing the identity of a CIA official to discredit her husband: You will need proof that Bush did this. Do you have proof it was Bush who did this?

      wasting billions on nobid contracts for your friends: Like every other President and Congress itself.

      stealing an election(2000): Bush won the Electoral College. The popular vote does not matter in the U.S. because we are a Democratic Republic and not a Direct Democracy. The reason we are a Democratic Republic and use the Electoral College is that it strengthens the voice of the smaller and less populated states and strengthens the individual vote.

      general lying, cheating and cronyism for the benfit of your RICH F"N friends: That would be pretty much every politician in the United States. Do you think that Congressmen and the other Presidents didn't do these things. That is just the way things work in DC. What about the Bridge to No Where? What about all the pork and earmarks in the budget? There is a reason the government, especially Congress, doesn't want an earmark database.
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@ cortlandjim:
      "no doubt Congress had the same intelligence reports as the president, but the fact he and his buddies controlled and manipulated the intelligence to get what they wanted is what is at question here."

      Ok, now provide some evidence. You have to have some proof to make the charge stick.

      And remember, the government can trot out the Iraqi intelligence officer who defected to France who said that Saddam had counter-intelligence people putting out information and evidence that Iraq had WMDs. A campaign of disinformation that worked well. This was reported in the news, but got very little coverage.
    • SuckMyDigg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2What the hell do you think the whole thing with Valerie Plame was all about? It was because her husband Joe was sent to check out the reports of Iraq buying materials for making WMDs, and when he came back he said it was pure BS. So they outed his wife to shut him up, and the media of course played right along... didn't ask anything about Joe but focused SOLELY upon the outing of his wife.

      That basically shut the dissenters up. It showed what the administration was willing to do to make this happen.
    • cortlandjim, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2The ***** wanted this war from the moment he took office, he started asking what he needed to do right from the start, this was admitted to under oath in congressional hearings and 9/11gave him his open door. He played everyone perfectly, link 9/11 to Iraq, supposed WMD and Iraqi nukes. all he needed to do was convince the Congress to vote for it and he had his war and his rich friends at Haliburton and the other corps.that got all those no-bid contracts can walk in make billions in taxpayer money and take control of the Iraqi Oil fields.

      how many lives and billions of dollars wasted on war do you need? before you open your eyes?
      the burden of proof falls on Congress if they have the balls.




    • CJWright, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1oh & re: impeaching based on outing a covert officer
      http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/When_And_Why_Joseph_C_Wilson_IV_Outed_Valerie_Plame & associated investigative links is quite useful
  • cortlandjim, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1is it just me or does anyone else think Condoleeza Rice need to be slapped around by someone with a strong PIMP-HAND to shut her the hell up, Lying Bitch!
  • MSSF, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6IMO Kucinich is the only Democrat worth voting for.
    • drxavier, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3And Ron Paul is the only Republican worth voting for.
    • ErtaiWizAdept, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2He's the best candidate in my mind, Barack is a good candidate and has a better chance, but Kucinich has always been one of the few members of Congress to always take tough stands at tough times, he has always been 100% against the war from the beginning because it was obvious Bush was lying about all the evidence. No Democrat who voted for the war deserves to be President. He was always 100% against the patriotic act. So on and so forth.
  • kevets, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7What a noob. Nobody knows who you are and nobody is going to be impeached. THIS IS NOT A SOLUTION! THIS IS A DISTRACTION!
  • thegreenlantern, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Is there any grounds to impeach bush? Maybe, maybe not. But was there any grounds to impeach Clinton? No, but the GOP decided to catch Clinton on some chicken ***** charge about lying about the affair. If you put Bush on the stand and make him testify, I'm sure he'll get busted for lying about all sorts of things. Then we'll see how the self-righteous republicans react this time, now that its their boss thats on the hot seat. A blow job deserves impeachment, but lying to your country about WMD, wasting trillions of dollars that could be used on health care and education, and then threatening to go into another baseless war? How ***** up is that?
    • echo2501, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Grounds to impeach Clinton? Yeah, they did, by taking advantage of the sexual harassment charges from events prior to his presidency. There was the possibility to defer legal action until after his term, but it was pushed forward and he was put on the spot and lied. Embarrassment? I'm sure. It wasn't right, but it didn't cost nearly as many lives as Iraq and Afghanistan has.

      Want to impeach Bush? Find out the statute of limitations on illegal drug use, DUI or going AWOL and put him on the spot under oath where applicable. Don't allow him to defer the appropriate legal action. The kick in the ass is that he didn't lie under oath regarding Saddam, links to al-Qaeda, or WMDs.
    • DeepDoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The difference is that none of those things were illegal. Clinton lied under oath to wriggle out of a lawsuit brought against him for sexual harassment. I am no supporter of Bush, but at least when you compare the two, get your facts straight. If Bush does something that is illegal, have at it. But that has not happened yet.
    • farther, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I already knew that international war crimes of aggression and torture weren't considered crimes in the United States if a rich American committed them. I didn't know that fraud, breach of confidence, unlawful surveillance and treason also weren't considered crimes in the US of A. I guess this explains a lot about corporate-American culture.
    • tpimpeach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0House Resolution, or H.Res. 333.
      Because of the media’s self-imposed gag order on impeachment, most Americans are unaware that articles of impeachment to indict Cheney have been submitted to the House Judiciary Committee. (H.Res. 333.)
      Takoma Park, MD's Resolution has this charge which is based on H.Res. 333:
      WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired with others to defraud the United States of America by intentionally misleading Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371; and
      For more information and ways to support H.Res. 333 and Impeachment go to http://impeachthem.wordpress.com
  • Zero123, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3well past time my fellow Americans. Well past time.
  • flink405, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Could it be that the Dems are making as much face time as possible with this anti-Bush blah, blah,blah so the press and others won´t take a serious look at the Democratic candidates for 2008 (and the lame Democrat congress)?

    Who cares about Bush? He is gone in a year and change.
    • ErtaiWizAdept, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0why one more day or one more death in Iraq? Or a war Bush wants with Iran. Impeach and remove him and cheney from office they can't do that.
  • thegreenlantern, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg
  • bluechips23, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6If President Bush attacks Iran, that will be the dumbest thing ever done by the dumbest man in the history of dumbness!
    • neuroticus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3...and what does that make conservative Americans who are letting him do that?
  • DeepDoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2that's great
    Tie up the next twenty months of legislative time with what would be a useless and ultimately fruitless impeachment instead of actually passing some meaningful laws. I guess that's as good of an excuse as any other for all the gridlock. Not to mention, Bush, while un-popular, has not done anything that I know of that falls under the constitutional rules for impeachment. The Constitution lays that out as "high crimes and misdemeanors". I do not know of anything the President has done that falls under that definition.
  • dime, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8GOD the Democrats are a bunch of idiots. Good plan, Kucinich...

    You can't impeach someone using something they may or may not do in the future as justification. What is this, thoughtcrime?

    How about the ignoring of FISA and illegal wiretapping? That *alone* is impeachable for any Congress with a pair of balls. Or our borderline criminal foreign policy? Rendition and torture? Geneva Convention? Maybe a sprinkling of this new federal attorney drama on the side?


    They all sure talked a big game trying to get elected. Now, it's business as usual again, except the new assholes wear a different color hat.

    Makes me sick...
  • Chip53, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7*****! Impeach Pelosi!
  • MaqDiggs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3hmm Yes Impeach him. With great responsibilities comes great powers.. he is obviously abusing the power.

    its really about thinking practically on this !! Do u really think that us americans will be safe in future ? Wat about the generations comming ahead of us ? His actions will result in chaos and destruction and the end of peace in the world .. he is doing nothing but provoking radical islamic extremists .. Islamic revolution is for one pure Cause, and that is to protect their religion and their ppl .. This is all leading to World War 3

    maybe einstein was right.. "i know now what weapons world war 3 will be fought, but world war 4 will be fought with stick n stones" ... think ppl Think !! wake up .. stop this idiot !
  • nonchai, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Yes. Its time.
  • bshock, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Some people should be automatically impeached at birth. George W. Bush is one of them.

    Impeach Bush. Impeach Cheney. Impeach them now!
  • Savannah7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Just found this site: www.SorryAboutOurPresident.com. Our time with George W. is winding slowly, ever so slowly, to an end. Just when we thought our hard work assured a change for the better, there he was as a second-term president. It never hurts to apologize, and that's exactly what this site lets us do. This is our chance to tell the world that we know better, we tried, and we're upset too.
  • Soldan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1the quick answer is no.... we have spent way to much money because of georgie...

    what we can let happen is for his legacy to stick with him... perhaps open a library in his honor....with only curious george books...or something

  • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Maybe if we spread a rumor that George was a Nazi camp guard Mossad will kidnap him.
    • drxavier, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1urusai: Are you sure they haven't done so already???
  • idc5, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Are you guys serious? Yea he's not the best president, but he will not be impeached. stop crying
  • ka0tic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Now I'm not pro Bush but its March now and we're getting a new president soon. If we wanted to impeach him we should've done it way earlier. Not wait until his second term and 8 months into the next presidential election.
  • digitinfinity, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3George W. Bush is clearly the worst leader this country has ever seen, there is no denying that. But remember that impeaching Bush means giving the Presidency to Dick Cheney. Sometimes it's safer to go with pure incompetence over pure evil.

    Unless Congress can oust this entire Administration, anyone of them would be just as bad or worse then Bush.
    • SurrJRS, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@digitinfinity

      If you impeach the President AND Vice President, the Speaker of the House takes over. Unless of course Cheney steps down and a new Vice President is appointed before the impeachment goes through.
  • mrlyons, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4regardless of whether or not you believe in his policies, the man has to do something ILLEGAL to be impeached. If you can point out what he has done that is outside his powers as President of the United States then by all means.

    But, starting a war is totally within the legal rights of the President. Being the commander and chief of the armed forces he can deploy troops anywhere. The only way congress can stop him is by not supplying the troops. Congress has the ability if they have the will.

    Also, I'd like to refresh all of your memories by showing you this.. http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

    For those of you who wont watch it, it is all of your Democrat heroes saying that Saddam had WMD's. Hindsight is indeed 20/20 and I agree that looking back this was probably a mistake, but as the President points out it is totally irresponsible for them to pin the entire thing on President Bush. It is also even more irresponsible of them to rewrite history into making it seem that they had nothing to do with it and that they're all saints.

  • joe122370, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2is Kucinich still alive?
  • machinegunopera, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I would go as far to say impeachment is the ONLY option, who cares how much time he has left? He has shown countless times the damage he can do in a day, let alone 20 MONTHS.
  • thepompano, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Maybe a publicity stunt from Kucinich, but at least he's acknowledging that people feel this way.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.