What is Digg?167 Comments
- 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.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -29/+90You’re probably right, but it’s still worth pushing for
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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. - 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. - 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? - 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! - 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.
- cheifchuck0, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17It is Sharia law, not "Shira."
- jake8689, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18it's so sad that he may never tried for his crimes
- 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 - 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. - 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.
- 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. - brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -18/+27So I guess that's why the republicans still control congress...
oh wait.. - 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.
- 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.
- dmjarrington, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13it also sends a message to the world that the population is made of more than spineless wimps.
- 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. - 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. - 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?
- 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 ***** wear a different color hat.
Makes me sick... - KDX200rider, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13If his effort here goes as well as his last Presidential campaign, Bush has nothing to worry about.
- 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. - 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. - 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.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10What exactly will be the charges?
- 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. - ropers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Heck yeah it's time.
A Clinton would have gotten impeached over Enron (the 1st act, way back in 2001), nevermind politically surviving anything that's gone on since. The only reason why Bush is still here, is that his Christian base is willing to accept anything in order so "their guy" stays at the top. Which is why I believe the US is a much more dangerous theocracy than Iran has been in a decade.
Oh, and the US are developing new nukes now. That's expressly forbidden under those treaties that are the supreme law of the land. And the US has repeatedly threatened to use these weapons. Maybe the IAEA should start investigating the US WMD programs. - 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... - inactive, 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. - 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. - FairMinded, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Do the Democrats have the backbone to impeach Bush? I seriously doubt it.
- xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yea, but the problem with McKinney is that she is a pyscho racist bitch.
- 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. - 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!
- inactive, 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. - 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. - 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 *****.
- 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.
- 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.
- Harmutt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If Kucinich can pull this off, I'll vote for the little feller.
- 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.
- 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! - 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" - ErtaiWizAdept, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3he can be impeached too there is plenty of evidence to impeach and remove both of them for office. There's plenty of evidence to convict numerous people in the Bush administration of war crimes in the Hague just like was done with other monsters of history.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 163 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is