digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

(Read All About It) The Democrats May Actually Do It -- Impeach Bush

presstv.ir — A top US congressional Democrat has raised the possibility of George Bush's impeachment in a bid to force him to withdraw troops from Iraq.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • jsmucker, on 10/12/2007, -102/+29It would take longer to impeach him than he will be in office. So chill the hell out people.
    • eriksanerd, on 10/12/2007, -91/+17Not only that, but there's the fact that we wouldn't get much better for it.
      Cheney? Yeah, we really want him with the reigns of power.
      Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi? That woman frightens the hell out of me, and would only have a few months to be in office after impeaching both Bush and Cheney anyways.

      It's best to just wait it out and hope the American people pick someone smarter next time around.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -23/+126jsmucker:

      >It would take longer to impeach him than he will be in office. So chill the hell out people.

      False. The Clinton impeachment lasted not even two years. This one would probably be a lot faster since there doesn't really need to be an investigation since his lies to congress are already on video and the documentation about lying to congress (a felony) is already released by the government. Let's say it tops out at six months, that might save a lot of our guy's lives.
    • AllnightChemist, on 10/12/2007, -8/+48@ Mr. j. smuckles

      We won't know that until we try, now will we?
    • chrono13, on 10/12/2007, -11/+96"It would take longer to impeach him than he will be in office. So chill the hell out people."

      Regardless of who the next president is, do we want to send the message that at the end of your term(s) that you can do ANYTHING, including federal offenses up to and including war at the cost of thousands of our soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths?

      How can you simply say to chill out or let it slide?

      And it is more than just sending a message that breaking the law will not be tolerated just because your are president, it is about *attempting* to fairly apply to the law to all who break it. Regardless of how flawed the system is, or how unevenly laws may apply, if we simply give up then it has failed completely.

      I would argue that he should be tried for murder in the third, but that is a bit of a stretch. He knowingly lied and time and again foisted it upon congress and the American public as truth. The last president that *stretched* the truth was almost impeached - and would have been if he wasn't walking a fine line between truth and definition of words. This time there is no mistake, he lied and misled every one of us. The result of which is unbelieable finaical loss and hundreds of thousands dead.

      He broke the law when he lied. How long he has remaining in his term should have no relevance to if he should be held accountable.
    • jsmucker, on 10/12/2007, -59/+12Just a question for the people who want him impeached. do you disagree that getting Saddam out of there was a bad idea? I'm am not a fan of bush. Just curious. And also was Bush not voted for TWICE.I for one did not. and a side note. Some of you are just F-ing crazy.
    • throwingks, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30Murtha never said that they were going to impeach Bush. He said it is 1 of the 4 ways to send him a message.
    • masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31If we really do impeach Bush, I sincerely hope we impeach Cheney, as well. Because "President Bush" may be a nightmare, but "President Cheney" would be a large magnitude worse.
    • razor150, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8@chrono13

      I assume you were referring to Clinton and he was Impeached. Being Impeached doesn't mean removed from office. The Senate after Impeachment can then vote to remove the President from office, and the Republicans didn't have the votes to remove Clinton from office.

      I believe the Democrats in the House have the votes to Impeach Bush, but they don't have the votes to remove him from office. Considering how Bush has ignored everything else I doubt it would do any good to Impeach him, and it would probably just enrage the Republican base,
    • pbaehr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@masamunecyrus:

      Impeaching someone doesn't mean they are removed from office. Clinton was impeached and finished his term.
    • fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@throwingks

      So he kind of "raised the possibility"?
    • tcquad, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5> Murtha never said that they were going to impeach Bush. He said it is 1 of the 4 ways to send him a message.

      And that's why this is a terrible idea. They now want to use the lack of impeachment as a carrot rather than using impeachment as a stick. I realize that the Republicans used impeachment in a childish political stunt against a guy they just didn't like, but that doesn't mean that impeachment should be used as a political stunt (granted, with presumably more pure motivations). It should be used when an impeachable offense has occurred and there are no other options. It is a measure of last resort, not a bargaining chip.
    • floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10Why don't they just cut the funding....oh right....there pussy's
    • marmanukem, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17@jsmucker

      Whether or not Saddam was deposed/executed is IRRELEVANT. Bush brought us to war through manipulated intelligence and false pretenses, and declared success at least 4 years too early. He is a failure as a president and a criminal, and he should be impeached.
    • TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6""""False. The Clinton impeachment lasted not even two years. This one would probably be a lot faster since there doesn't really need to be an investigation since his lies to congress are already on video and the documentation about lying to congress (a felony) is already released by the government. Let's say it tops out at six months, that might save a lot of our guy's lives."""""

      You have proof that he lied? POSSIBLY some bad intelligence, but there is no proof that he lied to congress.

    • JrMint, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3"If we really do impeach Bush, I sincerely hope we impeach Cheney, as well. Because "President Bush" may be a nightmare, but "President Cheney" would be a large magnitude worse."
      -masa

      Not a bad idea, an interesting concept to say the least. It would certainly be unprecedented, particularly since that would make Pelosi the President. Almost seems like a Democratic coup d'état.

      Hey, it worked for Napoleon.
    • illahtech, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5They'll never do it - not only would it take a long time, but there's more at stake.

      1. Further polarization of the country.
      2. Further domonization of the Dems in the eyes of right-wingers and many moderates.
      3. It will make America look unstable and divided, making it that much harder to repair our image on the world stage (two impeachments within a decade after none in the entire history of the USA?).

      While impeachment would make some of us feel better about ourselves, it's really more trouble than it's worth. We have to pick our battles. Let's start by focusing on winning in 2008. Then lets repair our standing in the world community, and build some meaningful relationships with the Muslim world. Then lets try and do something about our energy dependence, which in turn effects our CO2 output.

      Let history be the judge of Bush.
    • bcasper1, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3@bigdavediode:
      but if bush is impeached doesn't cheney become president? or is he automatically ousted too and Pelosi becomes president.
    • phaed, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12@jsmucker (#6422680)

      No. Getting Saddam out of there was not a bad idea. It was the GOD DAMN WORST IDEA IMAGINABLE specially at the crucial time when we were chasing for Osama Bin Laden. And look what happend.


      Im curious. Do YOU think it was a good idea?
    • tgunner, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8The world is angry at us, and most people know that GW is the root of our bad choices. Get him out now before he can screw up this nation anymore.
    • chrono13, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Those responding to my post about Clinton not being impeached. He was acquitted of the impeachment.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

      "President Bill Clinton was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999 of the December 19, 1998, impeachment charge by the House of Representatives. The charges were perjury and obstruction of justice, arising from the Lewinsky scandal. After a 21-day trial, the Senate vote fell short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction and removal from office under the Constitution."

      And impeachment usually does result in removal from office: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States
      "The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate."
      History of US impeachments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Officials_impeached

      While remotely possible, there really isn't a be-impeached and serve the rest of your term.

      Why do so many believe Clinton was impeached and still got to serve the rest of his term? He was acquitted, if he had not been, he would have been removed like almost every other US politician that has ever been impeached.

      The TV lies to you. Read the newspaper or online news.
    • stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Oh boohoohoo..... disgusting.
    • shotline, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Impeachment is when the charges are brought against a politician, not the trial itself.
      It's after the trial when the politicians fate is decided. Conviction brings removal. Acquittal, as with clinton, allows him to remain in office.
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5jsmucker, deposing and then killing Hussein WAS a bad idea. Things might not have been brilliant in iraq with him in power, but its even worse now by an order of magnitude and with NO chance of things getting better for decades!!
    • mre5765, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Even if he was impeached *and* convicted, the tinfoil crowd would be left with Cheney.

      And they aren't going to impeach both Cheney and Bush because that would give us
      President Pelosi, and no way will Ted Kennedy's ego allow that.
    • HunterTV, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6"Why don't they just cut the funding....oh right....there pussy's"
      @floorman56

      there - their
      pussy's - pussies

      English *****, do you speak it?
    • MrEguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@ Eriksanerd & others:
      This bullsh*t about "we wouldn't be much better" or "he'll be out of office in a year" crap I keep hearing is nonsense. **What if I murdered your sister--? BUT I'll be leaving the country soon ... so no need to arrest & prosecute me! Yeah, right.
      Bush, Cheney and their entire regime have decimated the US Constitution with impunity, while committing a litany of high crimes and misdemeanors for which they MUST and WILL be held accountable.
    • throwingks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@HunterTV
      their = they're
      How are you going to correct people and be wrong?
    • Confuseus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2what about Kucinich? I like his style

      from wikipedia:
      Kucinich voted against the USA PATRIOT Act. His voting record is not always consistent with that of the Democratic Party. He voted for the resolution calling for an investigation into President Bill Clinton's role in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, a stance inconsistent with most of his party.[8]

      Kucinich has criticized the foreign policy of President Bush, including the 2003 invasion of Iraq and what Kucinich perceives to be building American hostility towards Iran. In 2005, Kucinich voted against the Iran Freedom and Support Act, calling it a "stepping stone to war." [9] He has since criticized the flag-burning amendment and voted against the impeachment of President Clinton. His congressional voting record has also leaned toward a pro-life stance, although he noted that he has never supported a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion altogether. In 2003, however, he began describing himself as pro-choice and said he had shifted away from his earlier position on the issue. [10] Press releases have indicated that he is pro-choice but also wants to initiate a series of reforms, such as ending the "abstinence-only" policy of sex education and increasing the use of contraception in hopes of making abortion "less necessary" over time.

      Ralph Nader praised Kucinich as "a genuine progressive", and most Greens were friendly to Kucinich's campaign, some going so far as to indicate that they would not have run against him had he won the Democratic nomination.

      His platform[14] for 2008 includes:

      * Creating a single-payer system of universal health care that provides full coverage for all Americans.
      * The immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq and replacing them with an international security force.
      * Guaranteed quality education for all, including free pre-kindergarten and college for all who want it.
      * Immediate withdrawal from the World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
      * Repealing the USA PATRIOT Act.
      * Fostering a world of international cooperation.
      * Abolishing the death penalty.
      * Environmental renewal and clean energy.
      * Preventing the privatization of social security.
      * Providing full social security benefits at age 65.
      * Creating a cabinet-level "Department of Peace"
      * Ratifying the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.
      * Introducing reforms to bring about instant-runoff voting.
      * Protecting a woman's right to choose while decreasing the number of abortions performed in the U.S.
      * Ending the war on drugs.
      * Legalizing same-sex marriage.
      * Creating a balance between workers and corporations.
      * Ending the H1B and L1 Visa Programs
      * Restoring rural communities and family farms.
      * Banning hand guns.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich

    • drmobutu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Cheney will be impeached, right along with him.

      Ready for Predisdent Pelosi?
  • mrfoos2, on 10/12/2007, -114/+19"What I'm saying, there're four ways to influence a president ... And one of them is impeachment."

    Good luck with that. Our president was elected not once but twice and it's because he stands for something positive and gets things done. The crowd-pleasing democrats and bush-bashing neolib media have had no luck with influencing him up to this point.
    • swrostmore, on 10/12/2007, -17/+82"he stands for something positive and gets things done."

      lol, you cant be serious.
    • CrucifiedEgo, on 10/12/2007, -22/+38What's sad is, he is serious.

      Obama '08 ftw.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -19/+71Mr Confoosed gets a little confoosed sometimes.

      The Supreme Court put him into office the first time, and we "won" the second election based on fraud in Ohio.

      He has a 72% disapproval rating in his own country. 72%!

      I can't wait until our National Embarrassment over this Loser is over.
    • mb96net, on 10/12/2007, -10/+36@mrfoos2
      "The crowd-pleasing democrats and bush-bashing neolib media have had no luck with influencing him up to this point. "
      with 28% approval why isn't he being influenced by the will of the people? He should be. Why do you want a president that never listens to the people he governs? The only person he listens to is his personal "god". His god isn't my god, and it's not most people's god so why should the whole country be run by his imaginary friend that speaks to him and tells him to kill people?
    • Stormwysper, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10"Our president was elected not once but twice and it's because he stands for something positive and gets things done."


      And does Elvis talk to you?
    • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6Actually, Bush won the second time around because the Democrats couldn't find someone worthwhile to run against him. If the Dems had run a charismatic moderate instead of a non-charismatic liberal, they would have won.

      Unfortunately, the same might happen this time around. There really aren't any good Democratic candidates except for Richardson and Gravel, neither of which is likely to get the nomination.
    • kushed, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7I am surprised you were actually able to create a Digg account being that stupid and all.
    • razor150, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Bush was only elected once, he was selected the first time.

      Clinton was actually elected twice, but the Republicans still impeached him.

      Whether or not the President was elected has nothing to do with whether or not they should be Impeached. If that were the case then the only President who could have been Impeached was Ford.

      Republican apologists who make the argument you just made are morons.
    • psylemon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6people like this are why we are dealing with 4 more years of bush-dom.
    • shotline, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3And to think, the President has only two ways to influence congress.
      1) He can convene congress and keep them there until he says they can go.
      2) He can send them home until he says they can come back.
      This is legal and in the constitution.
    • nayr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5shotline: How about sending america to war? How about vetoing?
    • shotline, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The President can't maintain a war without approval from congress.
      I don't think he can veto his own impeachment.
    • Corvidae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A president doesn't get a vote concerning his own impeachment. Even if he did, the votes required to impeach are enough to override a veto.
  • Sil369, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19Could Homer Simpson run the country better?
    • AllnightChemist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+63He'd just invade Turkey looking for the drumstick.
    • STARTSOMETHING, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11at least thats a better reason then the reason we invaded Iraq
  • xniL, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12@Sil369; allnightchemist

    Or invade and annex Uraguay for its name
  • DeskFlyer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16This would be the best thing to happen. Ever.
  • kida101, on 10/12/2007, -10/+99Lying about a blowjob = Impeachment

    Lying to get us into an illegal war = No more checks and balances and nearly limitless power

    Something is not right with that equation.
    • ghank, on 10/12/2007, -13/+35If being the leader of one of the worlds most powerful nations doesn't give you the right to the occasional blowjob . . .
    • venom8599, on 10/12/2007, -12/+16@ghank
      There's nothing illegal about getting a blowjob. (Though in most workplaces it would get you fired I'm sure.) Being President doesn't give you the right to lie to a grand jury however, whether it's about a blowjob or anything else.
    • Wacer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11@venom8599

      He committed perjury by lying but he should have never been brought before congress in the first place. By looking at what is going on now with no WMD, Gag order on Sibel Edmonds, Valerie Plame leak, Attorney General nightmare, Rove's emails missing, etc, it makes the whole Clinton issue look like they were just out to get him.

      The mess that this Administration had caused and not getting impeached VS. Clinton getting impeached on something he should have never went before Congress is way out of whack. To me that sends the message that it's OK to run the country into the ground with its 300+ Million people but its not OK to slip up in his marriage.
    • venom8599, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4@wacer

      I didn't say Bush shouldn't be impeached. (I'm not one of the "B-b-but Clinton!" people.) Still, perjury is a big deal, and in any instance of perjury, I think the offender should be made an example of, or else perjury shouldn't be a crime--in which case our legal system will probably break down.

      The only thing about this situation is that it might might be tricky to prove anything that's technically illegal with the arguments I've been hearing. Lying while not under oath isn't a crime, as ***** as it may be. The best chance for impeaching him is probably the NSA Domestic Spying program which violates the 4th Amendment.
  • tsoldrin, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24Someone needs to remind congress who they work for... if they continue to refuse to impeach HIM, we'll impeach THEM.
    • fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Do it already. How many more months do we have to have this discussion. 24?
  • AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -11/+18Impeachment is the only thing that could make Bush a popular president when he leaves office.
    • nickbender, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8please explain to me how that makes any sense....
    • Fieri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1People hate people with whom they disagree having power. Once Bush has no power, he is no longer a threat to those to disagree with him.
  • smitting, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7If the Iranian internets says so, it MUST be true! (TFA is on presstv.ir -> .ir stands for Iran)
    • jhnewt, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Clearly the most reliable source for American political news is Iran.
    • bjornski, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Where'd you hear that joke, Faux News?
  • texxmexx, on 10/12/2007, -23/+5I can't believe how blind everyone is!

    Impeachment papers were already filed LAST WEEK! WHAT, you didn't know about it? Thanks ABCNNBCBS!

    HR 333, you morons are behind the times!

    HR 333 - look it up!
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21That's Cheney you moron, they are not the same person.
  • psylemon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3i think an impeachment of bush would be good and bad. if he is just cheney's puppet, then cheney would be in power.. aww ***** it, impeach the lying bastard!
  • dgh1973, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13"""
    It would take longer to impeach him than he will be in office. So chill the hell out people.
    """

    Impeachment does not mean removal from office.... it means accusing someone of wrong doing.

    """
    Our president was elected not once but twice and it's because he stands for something positive and gets things done.
    """

    I agree about the getting things done bit. He will lie, cheat, misrepresent facts... he really does know how to get stuff done, doesn't he.

  • bioncinola, on 10/12/2007, -19/+8impeachment DOES NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    what they need to do is charge Bush and his cronies with MURDER and FRAUD and ***** TREASON!!!!! *****

    then sequester all their assets
    banish all their family to Siberia (except fo rthe pretty girls who can fgo to Saudi Arabia as sex slaves)
    then execute them all after 50 years of imprisonment
    • playhouse, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4im down!
    • nickbender, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9more caps plz
    • meldroc, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7One thing at a time... First we impeach, remove Bush & Cheney from office to stop the damage they're doing to our country, then we indict & incarcerate.
    • fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5See, I'm reading and thinking you're kind of out there, then: "except fo rthe pretty girls who can fgo to Saudi Arabia as sex slaves".
      You, sir, are a *****.
    • Wacer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Whoa you need to relax or something. Grab a beer out of the fridge and take a break.
    • bjornski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Can we add INCINERATE to that list, Meldroc?
  • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12Just in time to be media darlings and sweep the next elections! Way to go democrats. Prove once and for all that you are just as self serving as any other politician.

    For the record I would have supported this years ago when it wasn't a clear political PR performance. Now it is just a ***** ploy that will ensure the next people in the house won't have to do ***** to have the highest approval ratings ever.
    • soot, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Oh, for *****'s sake. Are you keeping count of the time? Do you know what day it is?

      We just had an election five months ago. If April of 2007, nearly two years before the next election is not a time when politicians and government officials can engage in policy debate and public discourse without fear of being accused of trying to score cheap points, then when they ***** is?

      When is?
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They could have done it during Bush's last term perhaps? Now they know for certain there WILL be a new president, presidential elections are coming up and they want to make damn sure that a democrat gets in.

      Kucinich, a presidential candidate, brought forth the amove to impeach Cheney, I'm sure this is done in the same spirit.
  • nickbender, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11just an fyi... this article is nothing but a very easily misguided quote... it doesn't have any sound evidence of anything.

    speculation is what this is at best.

    also, texxmexx, that was kusinich filing against cheney, and at the democratic debate not a single democratic candidate said they backed the motion.

    gg.
  • ilatimer, on 10/12/2007, -12/+11If you plan on impeaching him for lying, do you plan on charging Clinton for the same lies? You left leaning lunatics crack me up.
    • soot, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Same lies?

      No.
    • ilatimer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

      Sound familiar: President Clinton

      And it is on CNN, so you guys must know it is true:

      http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
    • bjornski, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4We can't do that.

      You see... It's impossible to get Bush to swear to ANYTHING under oath.

      He won't take one. Never will.
  • spmyke, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4As much as I'd love to see Bush get impeached, I doubt it'll ever happen. If he and his devils can manipulate the "war" in Iraq, I imagine they can find a way for him to squirm out of an impeachment.
  • dmurray14, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6OK Democrats, keep dreaming....

  • playhouse, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9this country is going to hell in a handbasket and impeachment isnt going to save it. sorry to break it to you
  • jojo77, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7Iraq needs to return the favor, invade us and get rid of our looney tyrant.
  • fast1marine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Why are they going to impeach him and don't say cause they did find any Weapons of Mass Destruction, because they have found chemical weapons on several occasions, one being in May of 2004 if you wanna check on that. Also if you completely go with the morals and values of democrat or republican you are a scumbag because there is no way you can follow either one of those you are a bad person.
  • bioncinola, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5just storm the white house, drag em all out into the street and

    LYNCH EM ALL! tar and feather and run em outta town!!!!

    also throw all their families into the lions den !! (and dont feed the lions for a week beforehand)
    • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Actually, I'd be all for clearing out the White House and both houses of Congress and starting all over again. We need some fresh perspectives and priorities in DC.
  • laserman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9This story is a red herring. Nobody is seriously thinking about impeaching Bush. Jack Mirtha mentioned 4 ways that the legislative branch can influence the president--impeachment was one of the hypothetical ways they could do it. No serious democrat is plotting impeachment.
  • mjh2901, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18As a republican all I can say is. The Democrats should do it. They ran on impeaching bush and defunding the war. They need to stop wining, blowing hot air and having temper tantrums in congress. If they don't take action then all they did was lie to get into office, which is a common practice for democrats that Democrat voters have proven acceptable by re-electing them over and over again.

    Shut up and defund the war and or impeach bush... Or shut up and let the president run the war. Stop wining about it. Congress does not have the power to manage a war, that is exclusively the job of the executive. They only have the power to fund and or not fund the war.

    A lot of people are believe that it is better to stay over there then to leave over there. The Current congress is trying to play both sides of the field. They don't want to defund the war force a troop pull out and then be Directly Responsible for what happens as a result. What they want to do is just make a lot of noise about it, do nothing so no one can really hold them responsible and hope the democratic voters are stupid enough fall for which they have in the past.
  • Cinnimod, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6What is up with all of these news websites I've never heard of reporting stories that, if they were true, would be all over Reuters, AP and the major news networks? As much as I'd like this to be true, I call shenanigans on account of an unconfirmed source.
    • bjornski, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Because the paid for shills that run the MSM have a status quo to maintain.

      They would lose profits if they pissed off the administration.
  • FLUX, on 10/12/2007, -14/+11dream on Idiots the constitution reads high crimes and misdemeanors so tell me what criminal law has he broken ?

    (your so called lying and using bad evidence is not a crime so try again )

    you tree hugging pot smoking idiots are such morons

    instead of wasting all your worthless effort on this ignorant attempt try doing something useful like with your lives
    • Shaman760, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5Have another drink, *****. I'd rather hug a tree and smoke a bowl rather than bomb a country and suck on it's distilled products; oil, whiskey or otherwise.
    • knomevol, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10lying to congress is a crime.

      if it turns out we went to war on the basis of the above crime, he is then responsible for every human being, US, Iraqi or otherwise, murdered there in the name of the above lies - and murder is a crime.

      preemptive strike of a sovereign nation is a crime.

      snorting coke is a crime. where do we stop?
    • Mercymillennium, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I'd say you don't get it. If the majority of the house voted to impeach hes impeached. There is no judge or jury just the 'majority" opinion.

      Now when it gets to the senate for trial the chief justice presides but you know what? If the majority of the senate votes to nail him he is still nailed. No recorse or appeals no nothing. You keep acting like these is some "legal" standard that has to be reached but your wrong. They list the charges and proven or not if they vote to get rid of him he is gone, end of story.

      Do you understand that? The charges don't have to be proven to any legal standard. The majority just have to vote him out and its over for him.
    • MisterFlaut, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Wow, how the ***** is flux getting dugg up?

      He most certainly can be tried for war crimes. And don't let his passage of immunity in the MCA of 2006 fool you. It's still a felony.

      What more evidence do you need? We could provide you with a laundry list and you'd still be in denial.

      He swore to uphold the constitution, and has pretty much abused his position and executive powers to CIRCUMVENT many of the articles in the constitution.

      Patriot Act ring a bell? Whether the government is spying on citizens or not is irrelevant. It's that he opened up the position for it to potentially happen, going against pretty much every ideal upon which this country was founded.

      Perhaps you're familiar with the abusing of signing statements... or let me guess, you don't even know what a signing statement is (quick, wiki it!)

      This current President is rather treasonous, if you ask me. Completely abusing his power and destroying the country like he is...
    • tmk40, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@MisterFlaut...let's leave the DKos talking points behind and deal in reality shall we?

      How exactly can the president be charged with war crimes under DOMESTIC law? He went into Iraq under the authorization of Congress, who had the same intelligence that he had. How can you hold him responsible for taking out a dictator who bluffed the entire world into thinking he had WMD's? (including the afforementioned congressmen). Show me the domestic law that prevents him from going into Iraq.

      Patriot Act? You mean the act that passed almost unanimously? So you think it is wrong for our agencies to coorperate together? Have you been having coffee with Jamie Gorelick?

      How is he circumventing the constitution exactly? He has wide powers at his disposal, given to him by that very document. Even Pres Clinton used warrantless searches during his tenure. The FISA Appeals court has ruled that the FISA law does NOT preclude him from protecting the nation...and that power comes from the Constitution. I am not thrilled about detaining persons for long periods of time, but I dont know if he can be impeached for such things.

      Signing statements have been used by past presidents...so what constitutes abuse and what limit dictates impeachment??? Is it better to SAY that you arent going to enforce a part of law...or is it better to secretly not enforce it?

      If you check history...you will find that the civil war was going VERY badly for the Union at first and that Pres Lincoln was under great pressure. I bet there were a lot of people telling him to give up and let the South do their own thing. Dont you wish he had listened to them and saved the country all that blood and money? Dont you wish he had listened to the man in the street and not persevered? What the Democrats are doing now is pure idiocy. Before Christmas, most of these people wanted Rumsfeld gone, a new commander, and more troops in Iraq. Now all they can talk about is raising the white flag. It is clear that all they are interested in is tearing down this administration and the nation along with it.
  • mjl5629, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8This article is crap. The actually interview was great.

    http://digg.com/politics/Video_Murtha_on_Face_the_Nation

  • Narkinbarf, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6You can't impeach the president just because you don't have 2/3rds the votes to over ride his veto. The underlining comment to this article is total BS. Dugg down for being inaccurate
  • defektiv, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2remember that impeachment is just a trial. guilty or not, the VERY questionable ethics (and that's putting it incredibly sparingly) are at LEAST worthy of a trial to get behind all the bull and finally get the truth.. especially considering this administration likes to classify every.single.document that passes through their door, including things as trivial as visitors logs. there is no other way the American public can get the truth unless we have legal means to pry all these documents out of their cold crooked hands and see what they're hiding.. that is if they haven't had (another) shredding party recently.

    and to jsmucker, with respect to removing sadaam.. sure he was an evil man, but WE helped him rise to power and he kept the region stable (albeit through much less than ethical means).. but heck, Iran was always too preoccupied in conflict with Iraq to worry about things like nuclear programs.. we remove one of Irans' only aggressing enemies from power and now look what we have.

    it still amazes me (although it shouldn't) how many people still like to speculate AGAINST truth, even when it's staring at them point-blank.
  • Shaman760, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5May want to get Cheney first, otherwise if the Shrub goes, guess who gets into power? And we cannot afford TrickyDick the 2nd to get the reins of power. From a vantage point of say, the moon, the planet would look like an applecore.

    So Cheney first, then the Shrub and guess what? The USA gets it's first woman president. Oh how interesting things will become.....I'm supposing the Illuminati, Skull & Bones, et. al. will really feel bad about not allowing women into their ranks.

    Digg this down all you want.......You know it's true.
    • OffPiste, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Uh if Cheney gets impeached, convicted in the Senate then we get a new VP (I don't think there is a snow balls chance in hell Bush would appoint Pelosi) that Bush picks and confirmed by the Congress. It might be a woman but it might not. If then the Shrub gets impeached, then convicted, it will be the VP who is president. In your calculus Pelosi doesn't even enter the equation. Sorry to have to give you a basic civics lesson. I assume you go to public school?
  • pairanoyd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Please, please, please.......... Enough greed and corruption!
  • AdrenalineJunky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Keep in mind that impeachment does not necessarily have anything to do with "breaking the law". A President does not need to commit a felony to be impeached. The wording for what can lead to impeachment is intentionally very vague, and it basically allows congress to pull the President from office if they think he's doing a "really bad job", whatever that may mean.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that the word "impeach" means that the issue is officially brought up and a trial (is "trial" the right word?) occurs. It does not imply that the impeachment is ultimately successful. President Clinton was impeached, but not successfully (is the word "convicted" in this context?).

    Anyway, I'm just posting this in an attempt to short-circuit any comments about what Bush and team doing maybe being "wrong" but not "illegal". It simply does not matter. Bush and friends could still be impeached even if nothing they did was technically illegal.
  • SOULEVENT, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3@mrfoos

    'stands for something postive,'

    wow, torture is positive? deceit and murder is postive? profiteering is postive? did I mention murder? did I mention profiteering? did I mention furthering a New World Order? The Sheep (or in Bush's case Pet GOATS) will not learn until the power of the ALMIGHTY proves them wrong. Ignore the false prophets, there is EVIL stangling this world and MANY of you are part of it...on both sides. Keep up with the cherades, that is why the PUNISHMENT is so deserved.

    a material example of evil...
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=20f_1177952040

    the Spiritual Truth is coming...with the Clouds of Heaven, I hope you are all ready for it.
    • origclubsoda, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Dian Feinstein, Democrat, profited more form the war than Cheney did. Dumbass.
  • dbavaria, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4If impeachment fails we can always try Bush and Cheney for war crimes.
  • JES63, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Realize that you are being played. Like a fiddle. The purpose of this impeachment talk is to get you motivated to work and give to the campaigns. They need pre-motivated workers and givers and this, it is hoped, will attact you and get you going.

    The reality is that it won't happen. There aren't the votes for it and the Democrats need to have more than 13% of the country think they are reasonable.
    • Mercymillennium, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3No they don't. They just have to look less insane and out of touch with reality then republicans. Right now thats not to hard to do.

      Then like a few other elections you will hear everyone saything they "voted for the lesser of two evils"
  • MisterFlaut, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0"One is popular opinion; the election; third is impeachment and fourth is, and fourth is the purse."

    WTF, what happened to second?
    • Masterbaiter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3the election...
    • MisterFlaut, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I thought election was an extension of popular opinion.

      Isn't that how the public expresses said opinion, by voting?
  • cjl1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@ jsmucker:
    Why not ask all of the dead Iraqis what they would have preferred? Wait, you can't! They're dead! OK, then ask the live ones who have lost more relatives than they ever did under Hussein? What's that? Can't get 'em on the phone? Line's dead? Or are they not home 'cause they are out looking for potable water? Get real!
  • intrepidDesign, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Regardless of whether or not there is enough time before he is out of office to impeach him, it still sends a very important message to not only the rest of the GOP scumbags in office, but to the entire world, that just because our president is a psycho nut job, doesn't mean that we will allow him and his cronies to continue. If Bill Clinton can be threated with impeachment because of lying about a bj, then Bush can most certainly be for what he has done!
  • weenpiece, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4a lot of scholars would argue that the age of great presidents passed us by many scores ago...with the rise of mass media conglomerates and the daunting prospect of going public to "send messages" to other politicians seeming to grow more prevalent everyday, rather than the development of strong protocoalitions, we are truly in an era where politicians are limited not only by the very institutions which give them power, but also by the fact that most of the people who are most capable of governing are scared as hell (and wisely so) of putting their hats in the proverbial ring because they realize what a complete joke the American political scene truly is. all of the most competent people have, are, and will be in the business sectors for all of their productive years because at least there, they can dare greatly and not have to constantly worry about whether the citizens of Columbus, Ohio woke up on the right side of the bed or not.

  • heynow21, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1How about an Italian style vote of no confidence?
  • kiddcode, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I really dislike Bush a lot. But honestly people, what would the charge be? Being stupid is not a crime.
  • TheGuin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2What are those hippies smoking, do they really think that they will get another summer of love if put Cheney in office.
  • pktgrasshopper, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1even if you impeach Mr. Bush things are still FUBAR and another idot will take over
  • DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4psst...this is from an iranian website...so you're what's called either a) a traitor and/or b) a useful idiot. bush is a moron, but there's a point where you've got to put your country ahead of politics--a sentiment lost on democratic ears.
    • veersite, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Good point. I agree with you on all counts, dude.
  • veersite, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11The Dim-o-crats giggle like schoolgirls at the thoughts of impeaching Bush!

    "Why, he, he dared to fight... and we hate those icky pooh-pooh fights!! He even exaggerated intelligence that everyone else seemed to think was plausible ... and no president had ever done _that_ before!"

    "We should impeach him... yes, that's what we should do! They did it to Bill for just a blowjob (pauses while he has an orgasm thinking of Bill Clinton's balls in his mouth.)

    "Yes... we can put W in jail and make him watch Hillary be Madam President on CNN every day to punish him just like Hannibal Lecter in that movie!" (pauses again while he has second orgasm imagining Hillary Clinton's balls in his mouth.)

    Yes... you must all think this... you must ... Think Progressive!

    I think you should impeach Bush, then pull out our troops from Iraq. Then, after the inevitable genocide, we can impeach your leaders for crimes against humanity ie. genocide. I think all this hot rhetoric is really good for the country right now... while we're fighting to put some fear and hesitancy into our Islamic "friends."

    Wonderful timing. But then again, a good day in Iraq is a bad day for the Democrats. Better make political hay while the sun shines... even if it costs us a war and God knows what else down the road.

    Just don't think you're fooling everyone with this "doing it for the good of America" *****. Some of us will remember.

    • MisterFlaut, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Just FYI - you're more unamerican and unpatriotic by supporting Bush and being the good little follower who doesn't question than pretty much anyone else in the country. You're actually ruining it.. sorta setting us back a few decades.

      I think the founding fathers would consider people like you a threat to freedom. It'd be interesting to see how people like you would fare in front of them back then :)

      Thought I'd point that out to ya so you can hopefully snap out of the stupor you're in.
    • tmk40, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@veersite...great post my brother:) All these liberal...oh I am truly sorry...PROGRESSIVE...persons can do is name call and be emotional about how they "feel" about the administration. So many posts that are completely devoid of points or facts.
  • blizzardice, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Wow, the dems really want the world to go to *****.
    • stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Let me guess.... you support the worst president this country has ever had to suffer. Boy you don't even know what ***** is....
    • shotline, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Why would anybody still support carter?
    • night141, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5stepn, actually pay attention to your next middle school history lesson before you make yourself look like an idiot and go along with the anti-bush crowd.
  • hdtvdust, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4litleboy..here is a bet...when it DOESN'T happen, you agree to commit suicide.

    It is NOT going to happen. Get over your worthless lack of al ife little.
    • stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6get help for yourself.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@hdtvdust

      I suggest you stop saying things like "go commit suicide" on Digg.

      In fact if this is all you have to say, get the hell off Digg altogether.

      We don't like your kind.
    • 29Victor, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@littlebylittle

      I agree that hdtvdust is out of line, but I notice a lack of "schooling" for bioncinola above who advocated killing a sitting U.S. President:

      "just storm the white house, drag em all out into the street and

      LYNCH EM ALL! tar and feather and run em outta town!!!!

      also throw all their families into the lions den !! (and dont feed the lions for a week beforehand) "

      But I'm certain that you will be telling bioncinola quite soon what kind of people are and are not welcome on Digg.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I've spoken out against this kind of talk many times on Digg.

      Calling for any violence or murder is Crazy Talk.

      This nut is talking to me directly.

      I'm talking back to him.
  • dime, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2As much as I would love to see Herr Bush and Comrade Cheney removed from office, Murtha is an absolute *****.

    Impeachment is not a tool for the Legislative to "influence" the Executive and set policy. It's for one single reason: to hold to account any public official who violates his oath to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution. To use it any other way is a blasphemy.

    And really, ***** the Iraq "lies". Democrats were just as complacent. What Bush's real crimes are (and Democrats can actually use) are illegal wiretapping in violation of FISA with a little habeas corpus on the side. Of course, they won't. Why? Because despite all their grandstanding, they love Bush's power grab - not for now, but for when they get into office.

    Absolute pussies.

    At what point do we take back our government? Just askin...

    • MisterFlaut, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"At what point do we take back our government?"

      When it's too late.

      Revolution doesn't happen BEFORE it needs to happen. It happens after. Years after. After people get sick of being treated like *****.

      We're not even close to that point. We're still at the part where people ignore politics, the obvious lies and corruption, and brush it off with "someone else will take care of it."

      We're close to the bottom, but have yet to hit. Just wait until someone gets into office who REALLY knows how to manipulate all the loopholes created by Bush.

      Sadly, it will happen soon. The american people in general are too concerned with American Idol, VTech shootings, and Anna Nicole's death to even be bothered by politics.
  • thedarkrabbit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Come on DEMS!! YOU CAN DO IT!!!!!
  • localzuk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2oops
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 75 of 75 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.