What is Digg?772 Comments
- novenator, on 01/01/2009, -35/+346Justice will only be served when those people in a nation have the courage to stand up for it. Unless this happens, we are nothing more than a banana-republic.
- inactive, on 01/01/2009, -50/+235You had me at 'Bush should be tried for war crimes'.
- greenfyre, on 01/01/2009, -12/+193Dos it really require a perfect world? How about just one that is moderately rational and vaguely consistent?
- SeraphOfAsgard, on 01/02/2009, -18/+182What people fail to realize is that there are checks and balances.
Remember that it takes an act of Congress to declare war. Where were the democrats then? Even some republicans decided against the war.
Sure Bush may or may not be worthy of crimes but you have to look at the entire government. I'm more worried about Congress these days. Fat greedy bastards with big fat wallets courtesy of lobbyists. Congressmen so hyped up on the money they are getting from HMOs that the idea of initiating a nation health coverage plan disappears like the wind.
I suggest instead of worrying about the President, we worry about who we vote into the house and senate. They are the ones that "lost" our 700 billion dollars. - mikelieman, on 01/01/2009, -13/+118I'm tired of all the SOFT ON CRIME Bush Gang apologists!
If you're not going to hold Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld et. al. for their choice to violate both 18 USC 1001 and 18 USC 371, then why bother having any laws, police, prosecutors, courts, or prisons?
Either there *IS* Due Process and Equal Protection, or there is not.
You can't have the America you love and respect without them -- so you either prosecute the alleged crimes to the fullest extent of the law, or you give up the pretence the US is anything BUT a 3rd world banana republic... - dustbowl, on 01/01/2009, -29/+113Dugg for Political Terrorism.
Bush needs to be made accountable for invading the country of Iraq by making false claims they had weapons of mass destruction, when it was clear that they didn't. - jarroddowalter, on 01/02/2009, -10/+83Just Bush? The entire federal government let him get away with it, knowing what he was doing at all times.
- moxley, on 01/02/2009, -6/+75They ALWAYS use this line: "The country has been tthrough enough, and so we just need to bury this and move on.."
Which is why this ***** always keeps happening.
We can't "just move on" this time. These people NEED to be tried and NEED to face justice, because if they aren't held to account, what is to stop the next tyrant from doing worse? He'll know that he can do whatever he likes because it will just get swept under the rug when he is gone. - brucealmighty, on 12/31/2008, -105/+173In a perfect world Bush should be made to answer for his crimes. But in the disastrous wake of his 8 years of mismanagement and malfeasance most people just want him to go away so we don't have to waste any more time or energy on the past when the demands of the future are so overwhelming and immediate. Perhaps the worst punishment he could be given in a realistic view would be relegation to obscurity and ignominy.
- Waiting2awake, on 01/01/2009, -12/+70If Bush and his Admin are not held accountable for what they have done, expect it to get worse because just as Bush built on what Clinton did, and Clinton built on what Bush had done, and Bush built on ol Ronny's work, and so on and so forth , the next or the one after, will build upon the work of GW.
We punish the people that commit crimes not just as punishment to the perpetrator, and not just as revenge for the victim, but also as a warning to others that would think about doing the same...
Knowing that, I have yet to hear a valid reason why Bush and his Admin shouldn't be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. - inactive, on 01/02/2009, -13/+62Navigator, trying a liberal politician for treason for dissent to an immoral and illegal war? Can you say fascism?
As for the rest of your delusional faux snooze talking points, they aren't even worth a shred of thought. - MrMafoo, on 01/02/2009, -42/+85What crime has been made? He asked for permission for Congress for everything we did, and they said yes. He followed the rules of our Constitution.
Nothing in our Constitution says we can’t make stupid mistakes. - ramilehti, on 01/02/2009, -12/+49US is responsible for all the international treaties it has ratified.
One of these is the declaration of human rights.
Breaking that is not a stupid mistake. It is a violation of international law.
The fact that US has not been held accountable for this is irresponsible of the international community.
If the most powerful nation is not held to the same standard that is required of the lesser nations then what validity does such an agreement have? - inactive, on 01/02/2009, -14/+50Clinton has an Impeachment trial for getting a Blow Job and Bush kills tons of cilvilians, tortures and steals oil from poor countries and he's still in power. WTF
- NoLibertarians, on 01/02/2009, -33/+69Why Bush..This was the opinon of many folks, as CIC it was his job to carry out the mission..These folks thought it a good idea as well:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 - robertj15, on 12/31/2008, -50/+85If he's able to pass laws that deviate from the Constitution, what makes you think he will get charged for a war crime?
- SisyphusFragmnt, on 01/02/2009, -3/+38How does a mind like this work?
- Dewhead, on 01/01/2009, -5/+39He didn't write the laws--congress did.
- KenCW, on 01/01/2009, -24/+57I can't wait til we stop digging articles about George W Bush... Unless it has something to do with him discovering Amelia Earhart's plane.
- rowjimmy, on 01/02/2009, -6/+37holy ***** navigator7. you do know that "liberalism" (meaning an economic ideology in favor of increasing free-market capitalism and globalization) and "liberal" (used incorrectly in the US to mean to the left on the political spectrum) are two completely separate things, yeah?
by and large, i would agree that economic liberalism + nepotism led to a manufactured political economy that pulled the rug out from under itself, but i don't think that was where you were going with this... - lolwaffle, on 01/02/2009, -3/+32"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot." ~ Mark Twain
- MalarkeyPN, on 01/02/2009, -7/+34I predict your profile will be deleted soon.
- brotherfigure, on 01/02/2009, -15/+41 ...and then I suppose you will want to go after the Jews and the homosexuals and anyone else that kinda sorta weirds you out. Conservatives are the worst sort of anti-intellectual, because you use your brain - but only as a weapon.
- inactive, on 01/02/2009, -0/+25Screw "perfect world" in a remotely fair world that at least attempts to conjure an image of justice he would have been impeached years ago.
What a ***** disaster.
Also, for the conservatives on here claiming Clinton was just as bad or saying such nuggets of brilliance as, "yeah, but imagine if Gore of Kerry were president, it would have been way worse!" let me ask you to take a second and remind yourselves of what Bush has done. He has started 2 foreign wars where the only win condition is the elimination of a noun. He let an American city go to ruin and left Americans stranded and dying. He sat on his hands as bad credit products were legalized and toxic loans were drafted and sold amounting in a world-wide economic collapse. He curbed civil liberties to silence dissent (free-speech zones). He made torture an official policy, something that was unthinkable a decade ago. Torture was one thing that the US had which separated it from it's enemies, giving it the moral high ground. We lost that. All of these are just a taste of the Bush presidency.
Please, please, please tell me how Gore or Kerry would have been worse. Desperate attempts to save face are hilarious. - CaptCarrot, on 01/02/2009, -2/+25Congress -- which had a lower approval rating than even GWB's abysmal numbers -- made themselves irrelevant.
- pixelguru, on 01/02/2009, -0/+23In a perfect world, millions of patriotic citizens would have surrounded the White House and dragged their criminal asses to jail years ago.
- emailowndme, on 01/02/2009, -7/+30I would argue, at this point, most Iraqi's hate Bush and America more than Saddam.
When Saddam was in power, most people had electrical power, drinkable water, indoor plumbing, television (although open satellite was illegal, many had it, now they have to deal with American companies for satellite), and many other amenities of a mostly functional infrastructure.
Now, most don't have any of those, nor functional hospitals (we blew several up), or a government that represents them (it is propped up by American power to keep functioning, and many people are not happy with it, not that Saddam was much better in that regard), nor do they have the relative stability that Saddam brought, Iraq is suffering from an ethnic cleansing at the moment, shia and sunni muslims are killing eachother in the streets, and good luck trying to find one of the Christians or Jews who lived in Iraq prior to the American "liberation" effort.
Plus, they correctly saw that the first thing we did when coming to Iraq was secure the oil fields, instead of making sure the populace had drinkable water, or restoring their electricity. It's pretty clear to Iraqi's we are there, whether correctly assumed or not (I personally think we went to Iraq to get Haliburton and Co more money), for their national Oil.
On another note, I hope Bush and company are charged, at the very least, with war profiteering, by making the supply of oil unstable he raised prices leading the oil companies he is involved with to have record profits, and Cheny/haliburton, nuff said. - ProjectGSX, on 01/02/2009, -18/+40From what I have read, which isnt everything of course, it is Cheney we should be going after for war crimes.
- duckley, on 01/02/2009, -4/+25CHENEY !
He's the one. Bush is just the fall guy dumb-*****. - phlux, on 01/02/2009, -3/+24I totally agree that one builds upon another -- in a thread from four months ago I posted this:
-----------
"Tom Ridge was an original contender for the VP role under Bush, and while he didnt get it, he was given the first cabinet position created in a very very long time.
There are some interesting theories on Mr. Ridge, as he was voluntarily enlisted to go to Vietnam, twice. He is allegedly involved in the CIA death squads that helps "quell" viet cong (women and children in villages) during tet offensive.
His apparent close ties to the CIA (as run by Bush Sr. in the 70s) worked out well to put him in a position of authority as first DHS head...
IMO if it were the case that he was selected - it would point to continued strong ties to Bush and Cheney... I am sure he would continue to push for IMC like initiatives and be to McCain as Cheney is to Bush...
Brief Timeline of the Nazification of the USA
1930's: Prescott bush supports Nazi war machine
1930's: Prescott bush and others censured for attempting to overthrow the US government and install Fascist leader
1940's: GHW Bush joins the OSS. Operation Paperclip.
1960's: GHW Bush in the CIA as an operative; Tom Ridge in Vietnam alleged to be running CIA death squads against villagers.
1970's: GHW Bush heads CIA. Cheney and Rumsfeld in Carter Office
1980's: GHW Bush VP (with the assumption that he is influencing such CIA debacles as Iran/Contra and the many other OPs that CIA ran in the 80's)
1990's: Bush+Cheney prep military for privitization while Cheney is defense sec. Cheney heads halliburton and receives contracts for privatization of military functions. Clinton shrinks military making it more likely to have to rely on contractors for large scale operations.
2000's: Choice for Bush VP between Cheney and Tom Ridge. Cheney as VP is complicit creates wars which push massive amounts of no-bid contracts to contracting companies. New massive cabinet department (DHS) is created and Ridge is given the DHS position instead of VP.
All along the way - key appointee positions are setup with people beholden to this agenda, George Tenet as an example. Others who do not carry the line are removed either physically, or by character assasination.."
------------
The point of this is that where we are today is the result of a very long path towards Fascism that started with the explicit attempt by Prescott Bush and others to take over the US government.
Now, IMO we see that since the overt installation of a fascist dictator failed, a long haul covert approach was taken (and succeeded).
Make NO mistake about it - we are NOT here by accident. Every action by these folk have been very deliberate and they have one thing that simply amazes me; patience.
These folks are freaking very good at working on things for the long haul.
Its as if they all know theyll reincarnate to see the fruits of their long ass labours. - Dewhead, on 01/01/2009, -12/+33You are very niave if you believe that Bush did anything on his own. The congress gave him every power that he exercised. You would have to also tried every member of congress and the process of discovery would be a national security nightmare. I can promise that the democratically controlled congress will not do it because most of them privately supported him even while publically condemning him.
- SeraphOfAsgard, on 01/02/2009, -1/+22Seriously, do people pay attention in history class these days? As Dewhead says, only Congress can pass laws.
- elf25, on 01/02/2009, -1/+21YES! We must learn from history, not repeat it. Not bury it.
- cowie, on 01/02/2009, -6/+26Thats cool dude, because my "liberal commie fag" of a friend, who by the way has served two tours in Iraq, has more balls and brains than you and Palin combined.
- lik3ninja, on 01/02/2009, -6/+26"Liberal government ideology" didn't get 4000+ American soldiers killed for some aluminum pipes...
- oldhick, on 01/01/2009, -24/+43Did you really just say "The press and the liberal leftists have been gunning for him" and think for yourself in the same comment.
How about quit parroting Limbaugh, FOXNews, and every other conservative talking head.
Just an FYI, Bush swore an oath to defend the Constitution, not the country. You can't defend the Constitution while systematically ignoring it. - SisyphusFragmnt, on 01/02/2009, -12/+31Then of course, Nav will want us to force a nuclear war in Israel so that Jeebuz will come sooner.
- replikhant, on 01/02/2009, -1/+20in a perfect world a US president and his government would not have to "invent" wars.
- normalkid0615, on 01/02/2009, -12/+30NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN!!! EVER EVER NEVER!!!
- GVR90, on 01/02/2009, -7/+24Shut up Condi.
- Crazyredivan, on 01/02/2009, -1/+18Actually, there was no declaration of war. Congress authorized "the use of force", just like the Gulf of Tonkin resolution
- pathouston22, on 01/02/2009, -1/+17In the House, a majority of Dems voted against it. But in the Senate, a majority of Dems voted for it.
Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans. - Waiting2awake, on 01/01/2009, -12/+28DewHead - I am probably naive about many things, but the government isn't one of them. Of course Bush didn't do it on his own, as Obama isn't going to be doing it on his own. They are puppets the true enemy are the puppet masters, but they are the same whether we are talking Obama or Bush.
Of course Obama isn't going to go after Bush or his Admin, just not for the public reasons.
However, by bringing up Bush and his cronies on war crimes charges, especially outside of the US, then I am willing to promise you he'll sing fast and loose - But that, as you stated isn't going to happen...
The strange thing though, is that even as you say and know this - you probably still think you are "free", or that the US is "a free country". Maybe not, maybe you are aware your "elected" reps have sold you and your children out and just aren't that upset about it... - hydrodev, on 01/02/2009, -3/+18Don't feed the trolls.
And when they are that kind of troll....reported. - humptyz, on 01/02/2009, -1/+16"It's the duty of your successor to forgive you of your crimes and clean up your mess, because that successor knows that if he ***** up then he will want to be pardoned in the same way."
WTF kind of logic is that. Why not have a president that, you know, doesn't commit any crimes in the first place? Respects and listens to the people who have invested him/her with power? This idea of presidents patting each other on the back and sweeping crimes under the rug has to stop. Being the president doesn't make you a de facto dictator immune to prosecution. - CowCow, on 01/01/2009, -36/+51Why wasn't anyone touting this at the time of the crimes? You know when the ***** mattered, when the evidence was more plain to see. The year of 2001 to 2003 was that time. I would say even 2004, however, he was reelected then. This situation displays one of the many problems associated with just having a two party system, for when the time is needed for such voices to be heard, the majority will not entertain such voices because the other major voices, that are there, cannot be heard as readily.
- inactive, on 01/02/2009, -7/+21i guess then equazius mom made a stupid mistake for selecting the wrong sperm in the clinic....
Aww poor liberals, they forgot we have this thing called congress that can impeach, and pass bills and authorize the magical things that can stop the president.......
Too bad they AGREED with most of his policies, and the only reason they didn't do anything because 80% of them are busy getting ear-marks, and getting rich off fannie mae ( reid, frank , Obama *gasp* the messiah).. When u have great leaders like OBAMA - See the Audacity of Voting Present in Congress , a way to not be judged for next campaign season -...........
Aww poor writer when is he gonna write an article about prosecuting the entire congress that served during his administration?
poor liberals tend to leave out this minor things, like how government works. Easy to blame one person , it's easier on their brain to dumb things down. - CrazedLeper, on 01/02/2009, -3/+17@mikelieman said
"Either there *IS* Due Process and Equal Protection, or there is not. "
There is. The rich get their due, process it, tell everyone else that they are equal and then hire some for protection. - MaverickSmooth, on 01/02/2009, -3/+17Sorry, I forgot its only been eight years. Lets just forget how much we've been ***** and move on. I think the people of this country have a right to be angry, and part of moving on is some justice being served. You are what is wrong with this country. You are part of the problem.
- MoisturePoints, on 01/02/2009, -9/+22War crimes my ass. I'm so sick of this *****.
Why wasn't Eisenhower called a warmonger and a criminal from the loss of life from Normandy?
Why doesn't anyone discuss the immeasurable shredding of the Constitution during Lincoln's Administration?
How about during Roosevelt's internment of 250,000+ Japanese Americans.
I'm so ***** tired of listening to liberals whine about this. Learn your ***** history before you think you know what "war crimes" are.
Letting the FBI monitor terrorists the same way they monitor the mafia is not a shredding of the Constitution. Liberating 50 million people is not a war crime.
Mistakes get made in war. It happens. It's always happened. Understand it. Stop talking out of your ass. Read what NoLibertarians posted. Do you honestly think this is all under George Bush's watch? Do you understand the bag of ***** that Clinton handed him? Go read a ***** unbiased book. -
Show 51 - 100 of 776 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is