digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Bush Fears War Crimes Prosecution and Impeachment

alternet.org — As the election season rolls around, Bush is doing everything he can to avoid a Dem sweep in the House of Congress - or else he might be impeached.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • appleann1, on 10/12/2007, -113/+24Typical Dem strategy. Tie up the country for two years in the middle of a war, while the terrorist are laughing their asses off. So much for their war on radical Islamist. Surrender!
    • mikesherov, on 10/12/2007, -15/+68Like when the republicans tied up the country over a BJ. Stop with the partisan BS. Every politician in this country is a crook and will "tie up the country" if they think it's good for them.
    • bonesaw, on 10/12/2007, -48/+14I love how an advocacy group's editorial story is tagged as legitimate news.... Sounds like the liberals on this site can't think critically about their news sources. I would think this is unbelievable...but I've been on Digg for too long.
    • Shabadoo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+33Got news for you: they're already laughing their asses off at how this administration's been handling this "war".
    • mikesherov, on 10/12/2007, -13/+28For the record, I'm a liberal, and I've marked this as inaccurate.

      It is pure speculation. The title is misleading. It even makes an unfair assumptions based solely on what the submitter thinks is logical.

      I've marker it inaccurate, because it paints liberals as definitely going to impeach Bush if they "win" the house and senate. The president "should" only be "scared" that he will lose his political pull if that happens. He has no reason to fear impeachment, even if the dems "win".
    • boonesfarm, on 10/12/2007, -27/+13@mikesherov

      The "BJ" indicates that his own wife can't trust him, but I could care less about his infidelity. Clinton perjured himself and obstructed justice during his grand jury testimony. If you want to yell "IT WAS JUST A BLOWJOB!!!", knock yourself out. That's not the point.
    • Shabadoo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23This is marked as "Political OPINION". No need to mark as inaccurate.
    • DigiDave, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25I suggest a new rule. If someone puts something in the political OPINION section, it shouldn't be buried as inaccurate if you disagree with it.

      How does this sound to you. "Sorry, but your opinion is wrong."

      How can an opinion be wrong?
      If this were in the Political News section, sure... why not. But it's opinion people, we need tougher skin.
    • Bakkhai42, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14@boonesfarm

      Clinton did not purger himself. He misled under oath, but since that line of questioning had nothing to do with the central case (Paula Jones). That's not purgery, and the impeachment was a political, not legal process... and everyone knows it was a sham - even the people who took part it in.

      On the other hand, Bush lied under oath too (he swore to protect this country). And 9/11, Katrina and many others damaged us on his watch, and now Iran and Korea are dangerously more powerful.

      Republicans/Conservatives would rather hold a thread than admit the emporer has no clothes.
    • mikesherov, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12About the political opinion section: My bad. Perhaps I should have looked at the section it was in first. My "marked as inaccurate" burying is wrong.

      @boonesfarm: Sorry. I stand corrected. The president wasn't impeached for a BJ. He was impeached for lying under oath about a BJ. Same *****, sorry excuse for an impeachment. The real obstruction of justice was the spending of tax money on the investigation of the BJ, not the lying about the BJ, nor the BJ itself. The BJ itself should never have been investigated, and the president should never have been brought in front of a grand jury to be given the opportunity to lie about said BJ.

      If you can explain to me how lying about a BJ is obstruction of justice, and further more, an obstruction of justice in a serious enough manner to lay charges that would be grounds for removal, then I concede my argument.

      But lying about a BJ should not be an impeachable offense, IMHO.
      Lying about yellowcake should.
    • Y2JCrisis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Bonesaw, look at the topic. Filed under "political opinion". Get your head out of your ass.
    • deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12If Bill Clinton could have been impeached over a blow job (which was personal matter), then George W. Bush could certainly be impeached over all the crap that he has done to this country up to date. By far!

      And it's not really about trying to get an eye for an eye in this case. It's about poor innocent soldiers dying everyday in Iraq. Which we all now know was started based on a lie. Even Bush admitted to it - "What does Iraq have to do with 9/11 - Nothing."

      So I would rather see him get impeached and put a stop to this ***** war in Iraq. And have the soldiers go after the real enemy and that's Al-Qaeda. It's time to stop pussy footing around. We need to squash the Taliban and Al-Qaeda for good. This ***** perpetual war needs to stop. We have the funds and resources to do it. So let's forget about this distraction called Iraq and really get the job done.

      And btw, if the Iraqis want to have a civil war. Then let them. Let them kill each other without the lost of one single American soldier. And when the victor of the war is left standing. Either they are with us, or if not; then they are now the only target (which will be a much easier job to handle - in addition you could have their enemies support you on the inside). And this mess will go away.

      So spread the word and it's time George W. Bush goes back to his Texas ranch to milk the horses (per Laura).
      http://www.democratgiftshop.com/cgi-bin/store/store.cgi/1585028665/aroseisarose/1257052
    • headswine, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11The interesting part about this article, false or not, is that it again represents what many Americans feel about this loser Bush. Worst president ever. And I'm a republican! He's gone against every conservative ideology I know of except for tax cuts, and those were lame and ineffectual.
    • plutarch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@headswine

      THANK YOU. It's about damn time conservatives realized that Bush is in no way a "conservative."

      Huge deficits, government control/intrusion in your life (can't do drugs, can't gay marry, gov't can spy on you, etc), the curtailing of personal liberties in the interests of "security" - NONE of the aforementioned are in any way what the conservative movement once stood for.
    • floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4On the other hand, Bush lied under oath too (he swore to protect this country)

      No he swore to protect the Constitution
      I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

      If people die because he has to protect the Constitution so be it.
    • deBSefyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2just listen to this...
      http://digg.com/politics/Song_On_George_Bush_s_Lies_Clinton_s_You_Know_What
    • siszam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think the terrorists are laughing their asses off. Bush has done a better job of killing people and removing rights than the "terrorists" could ever imagine doing. Americans are more afraid of Bush and his minions than any "terrorist" threat.
  • anareric, on 10/12/2007, -5/+36VOTE!
    • Pharaoh777, on 10/12/2007, -29/+16Yeah! Then Dick Cheney can be president instead... wait...
    • zediker, on 10/12/2007, -8/+43Pharaoh777:

      Nobody said the impeachment hearings would stop at Bush. You can impeach more people than just the president.
    • drinkGreen, on 10/12/2007, -13/+16zediker:

      how far do we have to impeach to let McCain be President?
    • bgoodknight, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32 drinkGreen, McCain is AGAINST net neutrality, ***** McCain.
    • haker0, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Voting is all about choosing the lesser evil, there is no such thing as a person representing the people anymore.
    • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Anyone know when the last time was that two presidents in a row have been impeached?
    • jennybeth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@ dclowd9901
      There have only been two presidents who have been impeached: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.
      So it has never happened that two presidents have been impeached in a row. Although, presidential impeachment historically hasn't been common.
    • Danin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0SMOKE!
    • noamsml, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If we impeach Bush and Cheney, then Ted Stevens becomes president.
  • mtnxfreeride, on 10/12/2007, -50/+19no he doesnt.. ass hole

    such a dem move to post this made up crap
    • gvibe06, on 10/12/2007, -23/+17spoken like a true neocon ... (little does he know that its the religious right wing republican terrorists that are bringing this country to its knees).

      There's something Osama didn't think of --- get someone to do his dirty work from the inside of the gov't. Hmmm who could we elect to do this ... I got it BUSH!
    • Patented, on 10/12/2007, -18/+17gvibe06

      "neocon"
      "republican right-wing terrorist"

      Don't use rhetoric too often, do we?

      You want to really know what is tearing our country apart? Non-compromising values on both sides of the political spectrum. Democratic Liberals refuse to compromise, Republican Conservatives refuse to compromise, instead both sides choose the political and partisan ***** that you just pulled by name-calling and blame-gaming.

      If moderates weren't hated by their own parties (Leiberman/Democrat, McCain/Republican), then maybe we could get somewhere. Problem is, those guys just aren't "EXTREME" enough for the partys to pander to their most vocal (and usually minority) bases, i.e. yourself. As soon as we can find the candidate that is able to resolve issues without throwing words like "liberal, conservative, commie, neocon, etc" into the mix... we might just get somewhere. Until then, enjoy the rewards of what you sew.
    • Pignanelli, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Oh he fears it alright... like pancakes fear maple syrup...
    • dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I did the post. And over here in holland I vote socialist.

      I just consider the US president a danger to world peace and freedom and I want him GONE.
  • hornfinger, on 10/12/2007, -26/+15Hopefully he can get one more war in before he goes...
    • celopes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I don't know why they are modding you down. I thought that was pretty funny... In that scary way that truth usually is funny...
    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Assuming it's sarcasm, I love your comment :)

      I think you were modded down, because we are so scared of that happening.
  • oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -12/+42for bush to be afraid, wouldn't he have to understand the situation?
  • Langford, on 10/12/2007, -16/+35He should fear prosecution, he is a criminal. I'd like to see that lying coward put in jail.
  • Horseshoe, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Vote, and change people's minds with the truth that hits them locally, not national issue... but explain how local money, and resources are affected.

    Explain with bullet point phrasing, dont go crazy
    Explain with truth's and use 3 examples/samples for every truth you want folks to understand
    Explain with your sincere smile
    Explain without bashing
    Most of all explain the truth with your heart and good intentions upfront

    No evil, no hate, no stupidity
  • dustedbunny, on 10/12/2007, -20/+28This hit the front page. Lets see how long it takes those right wingers to bury this. Because we all know that they can't handle opposition from the other side. They'd rather just blind themselves with their idea of what should be happening.
    • bonesaw, on 10/12/2007, -37/+6good thinking dumbass.... as if there's any right-wingers on this anyhow...and if there are any, Digg (otherwise known as the "it's cool to be liberal" hangout) users would bury it in a second...

      Nice try...but I'll dig you down anyhow
    • dustedbunny, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14Thats cute how you tried to defend yourself and instead, just confused the hell out of me with your butchered english. You live in one of those red states, huh? ;)
    • dustedbunny, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1323 minutes and marked as innacurate.

      Thank you righties for proving to me that you can't handle the truth.
    • Patented, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7Read the actual post Bunny...

      Unless Bush posted it himself, it is pure speculation and baseless. That is why even people who aren't "righties" are marking this post as inaccurate. The title is misleading, the content is misleading, the whole article is written from a "If I were Bush I'd be scared" perspective. It isn't even opinion, it is speculation.

      If the thread was titled "Observers believe that Bush may fear War Crimes Prosecution and Impeachement" it would not have been inaccurate.
    • dustedbunny, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@Patented

      This is in POLITICAL OPINION.
      How can an OPINION be INNACURATE? hm?
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Amazing how all the political opinion stories on Digg front page are leftist. Quit complaining. You already own Digg. What more do you want?
    • dustedbunny, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@geekee

      Really?

      http://digg.com/search?area=promoted&age=all&sort=most&search-buried=1&s=michellemalkin.com&submit=Search

      http://digg.com/search?area=promoted&age=all&sort=most&search-buried=1&s=littlegreenfootballs.com

      http://digg.com/search?area=promoted&age=all&sort=most&search-buried=1&s=hotair.com

      And yes. Almost every one of the "leftist" articles gets buried too.

      So what's you're point? Oh right. there isn't one at all.
    • warox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"You (leftists) already own Digg. What more do you want?"

      The White House.
    • Pickled_Punk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2For you asshats using the term in the pejorative:
      Proud ta be one
      Liberal:
      # broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
      # having political or social views favoring reform and progress
      # tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
      # a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
      # big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
      # a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
      # free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"
  • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -33/+6You liberals are pathetic. I've never seen a bunch of sore losers act so childish as the left.

    Keep crying, little babies, you've got 2 more years to bear.
    • brentris, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21If you want to keep giving up your civil liberties and supporting a man that supports torture, you go right along and do that. The rest of us are not going to sit around and play the "my baseball team is better than your baseball team, so IN YOUR FACE!" game anymore. This is not about supporting your damn "team," this is about caring about our country, damnit. These political "sides" don't even really exist.
    • Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6I don't understand why the right gets so upset by hack websites like DailyKOS and alternet? They're just as partisan, incorrect, and agenda-driven as yours are.

      There is no chance that Bush gets impeached if he hasn't by now. You know that right? Despite being in the bottom 10% of presidents we've ever had, he's pretty much safe from impeachment.

      Relish in that news while the rest of the country counts down the days until we get a qualified administration. It's a win-win for both sides. You have the White House for anohter 2 years -- try actually doing something with it.
    • pushmouse, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Popdmb.
      He hasn't been investigated for impeachment because the Republicans control the House of Representatives and the Senate. That might change in November.
    • sundancekid503, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17"Keep crying, little babies, you've got 2 more years to bear."

      Maybe one day soon you'll wake up and realize that you too have two more years to bear. No matter how deep you'd like to bury your head in the sand it's pretty hard to hide from the fact that Bush is pissing away your country's pride.

      Do you like being routinely lied to by your president? Did you listen to his fear mongering speech last night? Can you convince me that he didn't shamefully politicize the anniversary of 9-11 to propagate an agenda that has nothing to do with defeating terrorism?

      Bush is a grand embarassment to this nation and the world.
    • bgoodknight, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5I actually switched from the left to the right in the past year. The way the left is acting, it makes me feel sick. They WANT illegal immigration, they WANT to appease the terrorists, and the list goes on. The only thing I can agree with the left on anymore is net neutrality.

      I'm sick of the left fighting against the United States. All you people on the left, that insist America is the evil one, may I remind you of this:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ0bWEnW_WU

      Perhaps this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KN04OcgL9A

      Or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m3KvwAl_Pc

      This?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH4UuWFk5Sg

      Want more? There are plenty. I agree, Iraq wasn't a good choice at all, but so what? We should invade every country in the middle east who wishes death upon us. Iran, Iraq, Syria, all of them. Put the ***** joint down, push stop on the pink floyd CD playing, and grow some balls.
      These are the people the left fights for?
      These are the people the left are worried about and how well they are treated in the terrorist prisons?
      These are the people you demand get the benefit of the doubt and Geneva Convention rules?

      ***** you.

      /Happily converted "rightie"
    • pushmouse, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12yah right, you really sound like a new convert. please.
    • sundancekid503, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@bgoodknight
      "We should invade every country in the middle east who wishes death upon us. Iran, Iraq, Syria, all of them. Put the ***** joint down, push stop on the pink floyd CD playing, and grow some balls."

      This kind of primitive warfare died a long time ago. How many failures does it take before people like you realize that problems are not solved this way. This isn't WW2 anymore, that type of warfare has faded into history.

      Every nation makes mistakes, but when you make the same mistake over and over again you approach insanity.

      It may be fun to talk tough, but you are not taking reality into account. Do you have any clue how thin our country is stretched right now? Any clue at all?

    • sinisterkungfu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Aw, we lost one to the neocon brainswashing machine. Looks like they got you good too. You've parroted O'Reilly's weak talking points like a real champ.
    • Bakkhai42, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@sundancekid503

      Well said.

      Since the impeachment, I've felt like a "Stranger in a Strange Land," but clear-minded, well-conscienced, rational people give me hope.
    • bgoodknight, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2pushmouse, actually I am.
      I was raised my entire life surrounded by poor democrats, now that I am on my own, I am forming my own beliefs.
      I stand firmly against what democrats are for.
      Well, with the exception of net neutrality and the environmental issues. Other than those two things, they have nothing to offer me.

      The conversion has been going on for the last 8months or so. It would have happened sooner, but the democrat support and ideas were so well embedded into my brain, I tended to ignore the fact I disagree with almost everything the democrats stand for.

      Get ready for the grand finale....I actually like O'Reilly now, and listen almost daily.
      It feels good, I think I know what it's like for a homosexual to come out of the closet now! LOL
      Oh yea, thats another thing I could careless about, the homosexual marriage thing. I dont care who or what they marry, most republicans do though. And also, am not religious.
    • jmhacc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@bgoodknight
      "We should invade every country in the middle east who wishes death upon us. Iran, Iraq, Syria, all of them. Put the ***** joint down, push stop on the pink floyd CD playing, and grow some balls."

      I try to stay away from commenting on most of these political muddslining festivals, but I feel that nobody ever mentions one of the most important points. Whichever side WANTS to win more always wins(especially on their own turf). I remember reading in the 8th grade that there was a small, untalented, undernourished, and mal-equipped group of rebels that won a war against the British Empire the Planet's biggest super power. Anyone remember who it was? It was the United states. Why did we win? Because we beleived in this idea of democracy. We, nearly 100% of us, wanted it so bad that we were willing to give everything to obtain it including our lives.

      Remember Vietnam and Korea? We were fighting against an idea, communism, and the best we could've hoped for in a fight against an idea on foreign soil happened. An extended stalemate with no victory.

      We, in America, would be speaking Japanese right now if we hadn't been lucky enough to obtain the Atomic Bomb first. The Japanese were willing to kill themselves in order to kill Americans. You cannot compete with that if everyone in your nation is not equally commited.

      I suggest that everyone reads Sun Tzus, "The Art of War". "The Art of War" can basically be called a guerilla warfare manual. One could say that the main premisie is, in war you should use your enemies weaknesses as your strengths. For example, if they are big and you are small then you must be mobile to take advantage of their relative immobility. No matter how strong you are you can always be defeated and our collective ego in America simply cant understand that. Im going to close with some quotes from the book.

      One hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful. Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful.

      We would be wise and we would be able to win the 'war on terrorism' by chaning our behaviour and attitude towards the world. The US is such an angry teenager, we say, "We are the best we know it all. It has to be done my way or i'll freak out. You don't know how to do it my way is the best" etc

      "So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."

      I find it said to say that our ethnocentricity allows us to neither really know ourselves or our enemy.

      Peace
      Josh
    • sinisterkungfu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6"Get ready for the grand finale....I actually like O'Reilly now, and listen almost daily."

      So not only do you sit there and grin while they spoonfeed you from a pile of *****, you're actually proud of that fact? That's ***** disturbing man,
    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Impeaching a President for a blow job isn't childish?
    • jtryba, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Here's a fun drinking game:

      While listening to O'Reilley, try to look up some of his facts. If his statement turns out to be bogus, take a shot. Warning: give your keys to a trusted friend, you probably won't be in any state to drive when you are done.
  • mek6767, on 10/12/2007, -18/+12Um...maybe its just me, but that site particularly and the article for that matter...screams..."Crackpot". Can we keep so called news posts to real news sites.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4No no no. You don't understand. If you're liberal, you criticize Fox News as biased, but then have no problem reading and accepting news as truth from any nutcase conspiracy theorist with a blog, as long as he says what you want to hear.
  • Eremes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8This is probably going to sound fairly stupid of me to ask, but I am genuinely curious. What happens when one or more of these individuals are impeached? Do we just move them out of office or are they federally prosecuted and subsequently jailed or punished in some way, shape, or form?
    • chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It's basically means they bring charges against the President - like when Clinton was impeached for perjury. At that point it can go to some sort of hearing, but chances of that hearing concluding prior to 2008 are ZERO. Then whoever comes in would likely pardon any charges.
    • drjones78, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Impeachment doesnt necassarily mean thrown of out office..

      You cant indict a sitting president.. Being impeached is the equivilent of being indicted (charged) with something. It doesnt mean you will be convicted. Even if convicted, it doesnt mean you absolutely get thrown out of office (does it? Anyone verify that?).

      Clinton was impeached, he finished his term.
    • pushmouse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Impeachment does not mean he is removed from office. That comes later, if at all.
    • databasecowboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If they resign or are removed from office the successor pardons them like Ford did for Nixon. If they stay in office, they move on to getting back to work and later lucrative speaking engagements like Clinton.

      Bush had to negotiate to be free from arrest for war crimes when he made recent trips to Europe to make nice with "old Europe" over rhetoric leading to the invasion of Iraq. However previous U.S. resolutions to invade the Netherlands if U.S. citizens (Clinton and others) are brought before the war crimes tribunal at the Hague might have been taken into consideration.
    • Djerrid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4From Wikipedia: "At the Federal level, the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching the President, Vice President and all other civil officers of the United States. Officials can be impeached for: "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The United States Senate has the sole power to try all Impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate."

      It looks like "removal" is the only punitive action that Congress can do. After that all executive powers and protections are removed and criminal courts will have an easier time prosecuting him.
    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Clinton wasn't removed from office because he was not found guilty on the charges he was impeached upon. If a president is found guilty during the impeachment hearings, then they are removed from office, and the successor in the power chain assumes office til the end of term. In this case it would be Cheney.

      Now, my speculation, and this is just following this line of thinking through, no more, no less:
      If Bush were successfully impeached, and kicked out of office, Cheney would probably have the same thing happen. Making the Speaker of the House the president.
  • chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -22/+6Laughs at liberals who thinks "impeachment" means "thrown out of office."
    • pushmouse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10What makes you think a liberal asked that question?
    • slois50, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Yeah, haha. We should all know exactly what "impeachment" means after the ridiculous Republican witchhunt in the 90s. There is no excuse for this ignorance.
    • chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3>"There is no excuse for this ignorance."

      It depends what your definition of 'is' is.
  • sucka, on 10/12/2007, -25/+5I'm losing faith in Digg. Its becoming too liberalized and one-sided. This is just one example.
  • oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8we're as likely to see bush impeached or prosecuted as we are to see a duel with muskets on the whitehouse lawn.
    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'd pay damn good money to see that. Though, my money is on Cheney, we've seen how he can shoot :)
    • oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1touche.
  • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The title of the article is misleading. No where do they support the conclusion that Bush is actually in "fear" of being impeached...

    But I guess thats why its in the Political "Opinion" section...
  • noonzie, on 10/12/2007, -15/+8I find it a little hard to give credibility to a website with a story focused on a republican president who has the following ads in the left hand column of the website:
    1.Draft Gore
    2. Advertise Liberally
    And a top banner pushing the book "Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers"

    I would feel the same way about a right wing website that had the same type of article.
    Plus it was written by a contributor of the website. All politics aside, you would have to agree that the venue of this article reduces its credibility.

    Would you agree or disagree?
    • dustedbunny, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Thats why this is in POLITICAL OPINION.

      numbnut.
  • godd4242, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14ya know that bush has actually broken several laws

    Declaring war without the consent of congress
    Appropiating funds without the consent of congress
    And being complicit in the leaking the names of a CIA operative, therefore endangering national security and being able to be charged at most with treason
    • dmh11686, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2What war did the president declare without the consent of congress?
      If your talking about the Iraq war Senate 77-23 House 296-133.

      Show me how the President has appropriated funds without congress's consent.

      And I don't know if you have seen the news lately but Richard Armitage just said that he leaked Valerie Plames name. Special Counsel Pat Fitzgerald has never implied that the President had anything to do with it. And the investigation is pretty much over.
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3"Declaring war without the consent of congress": Declaring war is the sole purvue of the Congress. The President can not declare war and doing so is an impeachable offense. Due to the wondeful cold war, the president can wage war for thirty days without the consent of Congress. Congress authorized the use of force, also known as declaring war.

      "Appropiating funds without the consent of congress": Please elaborate. Which funds? Remember, Congress sets the budget and authorizes spending.

      "And being complicit in the leaking the names of a CIA operative, therefore endangering national security and being able to be charged at most with treason": No evidence has been offered to prove such a statement. Other people have been indicted of that act.
  • Eremes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Thanks for your explanation. So basically even if he is impeached for these crimes, nothing happens and basically, it is just bad publicity in the end?
    • protogenxl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6If he is found guilty of Treason there is a mandatoy minimum

      The United States Code at 18 U.S.C. ยง 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
    • protogenxl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Is it me or is the edit system not working right?

      Great now it works right.
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@protogenxl:
      The maximum penalt for conviction by the Senate is removal from office and the banning of holding any other office for life.

      For Bush to be tried for treason, the Government would have to file treason charges after he is removed from office, assuming he is not pardoned by his successor.
  • JasonPrini, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13Gas prices are going down. Coincidence?

    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Yes. It is the end of the summer driving season, so prices are going down because the oil companies have to shift away from the short term gain to long term gain.
    • night141, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@DaveV

      A comment that isn't a knee jerk reaction and/or contains a smidgeon of sense?! Digg this ***** down!
  • BufordT, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5Only in America can the Commander In Chief be accused of war-crimes for legitimately getting information (without physical harm) out of detainees who aim to kill as many civilians as is possible.
  • slusher, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8Why would the President be impeached for trying to protect this country? I think the title of this article is waaaay off topic. I wonder what would have happened if Pres Bush did not round up suspected terrorist, or implement measures to prevent future attacks?
    • Blizaine, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5well said...
      libs want him impeached for protecting us... I can't imagine what they would want if he wasn't protecting us... it is sad that they are so blinded :(
    • pushmouse, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I'll take a stab at this. For breaking the law while doing it?
    • fucknut, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The president should be impeached for starting the war on false pretenses (pretenses he KNEW to be false) thereby causing thousands of US citizens dead and 500B+ in damages. He's aided and abetted the enemy in doing so because he's wreaked havoc on the US, both domestically & abroad, far in excess of what Osama could ever hope to do.

      If somebody had asked Osama 5yrs ago would he would like see done to the US, the status quo would exceed his wildest imaginations. That is why Bush is the enemy to our country and should be tried, convicted and executed for high treason.
  • davebg8r, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6The terrorists are not subject Geneva conventions. They do not qualify. They do not meet any of the criteria, nor did they sign the agreement. Therefore he did not break any laws in dealing with them. We should be using whatever methods will work on them. If that involves humiliation or making them fear their soul is in danger, then frankly I dont have a problem with it.

    Now if they want to claim they are part of a country that is fighting this war and wear their uniform, then they can have a case. Otherwise, they do not get the benefit of that protection.
    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4But they are subject to civillian law and it's protection. They are not military personel. Therefore they are subject to civillian law.
    • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1No, they are not civilians, they are terrorists. Why can't you get that through your thick head?
  • Soldan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7I would not worry about impeaching the prez... I am sure the history books in 20 years will have a plenty of bad things to say about his drug sampling and boozing ass..
  • boonesfarm, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5This site cracks me up. If you get the faintest whiff of legitimacy from this site, you are a lost cause.
  • JesseDidThis, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7I didn't know that digg was a forum for blatent propaganda. Sounds like I need to find a new community site.
    • sinisterkungfu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I hear Netscape is looking for people.
    • Pickled_Punk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Don't let the door hitcha.
  • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3The major problem I have with the article and the headline is that it presumes to know both the future and the mind of the President and does not support the headline.

    While impeachment is a possiblity, it is by no means a certainty. This is especially so if one believes the U.S. is still at war.

    As for the President and what is in his mind, one must remember that if he believes that he has not done anything wrong and has not broken any laws, he would not fear impeachment. There are a number of politically motivated reasons the President would persue these paths, many of them related to party loyalty.
  • pabster, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6Another liberal circle jerk.

    Bush fears war crimes prosecution and impeachment about as much as Slick feared a blowjob from Monica. Get over yourselves, you ***** losers.
    • Pickled_Punk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ahem, liberal: Oh, and I'm proud to be one, did I ever mention that?
      Noun

      * S: (n) liberal, liberalist, progressive (a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties)
      * S: (n) liberal (a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets)

      Adjective

      * S: (adj) broad, large-minded, liberal, tolerant (showing or characterized by broad-mindedness) "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
      * S: (adj) liberal (having political or social views favoring reform and progress)
      * S: (adj) liberal (tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition)
      * S: (adj) big, bighearted, bounteous, bountiful, freehanded, handsome, giving, liberal, openhanded (given or giving freely) "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
      * S: (adj) free, loose, liberal (not literal) "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"

  • dvfreelancer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9If Republicans weren't total hypocrites they'd impeach Bush themselves. That would go a long way to establishing their credibility. Instead we get to see that, as a group, they don't stand for anything except getting re-elected.

    Bush should not only fear a war crimes trial, he should fear be tried for trying to undermine the Constitution. He's got every right to be scared.

    Not to worry, Georgie, Uncle Karl probably has the elections rigged with the help of your buddies at Diebold. Once again there will be a wide discrepancy between the exit polls and actual results but Karl will have statistical experts ready to explain that embarrassing detail away, just like in Ohio. It's okay, have another shot of Wild Turkey and let Pappa Cheney bounce you on his knee.
  • jonathono2000, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I have no problem with people being conservative but for anybody at this point to be defending Bush is astounding.

    Having a political viewpoint is your right as an American citizen, but it is your duty as a human being to have a sense of morality.

    Can we try the idiots that voted for Bush in 2004 for war crimes? It sure would clean up this country a whole lot.
    • saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Wow... did you come from Croatia, Bosnia, or Chad?

      "It's ok to have an opinion, but if you disagree with me I will kill you and your entire idiot family and toss their bodies in a river!"

      Democrats/Liberals: The most closed-minded people I know.
    • jonathono2000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@saigumi

      My comment said "Can we try the idiots that voted for Bush in 2004 for war crimes? It sure would clean up this country a whole lot."

      If you had half a brain you would realize that "idiots" refers to both Democrats/Liberals and Republicans/Conservative. But I guess your so willing to accept that Republicans/Conservatives are the only idiots in this country you didn't even realize that.

      My point was that ANYONE that is still backing Bush is stupid enough to recieve the same punishment he deserves. If you are stupid enough to take that literally than maybe you do actually deserve the same punishment he desreves but I think most people realized that I was exaggerating to make a point.

      I swear Conservatives/Republicans are some of the dumbest people I know.

  • lolalowlife, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2repulicans and democrats all need to take a lesson out of the great book. he who is not the brightest may as well be the dummest. Bush is what we call an A student in affairs related to self masterbation.
  • greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Bush should fear Manbearpig!
    • rohcky, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1This isn't a joke. Let's be serio here, OK? Excelsior.
  • jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10
    ========================================
    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
    ========================================

    Warning: The Content in this Article May be Accurate
    Readers have reported that this story contains information that may reveal the truth.
    But they will be attacked like sharks by ideological bullies.

    ========================================
    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
    ========================================
    • wurzelgummage, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Like with most things that get abused, nobody takes any notice of the "marked as inaccurate" on anti-Bush stories anymore.
      Hopefully they don't get kicked off the front page, though.
  • lumberjack01, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4There sure are a lot of news stories being posted up about an impeachment of Bush. Personally I think nothing is going to happen to him, he's gone this far already with no problems. He's got too many blind supporters that will never question him on anything he does. Of coarse he would make an excellent scapegoat for many politicians who are getting blamed for doing nothing on simple issues such as illegal immigration.
  • Ndiggnation, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Yeah, that's all we need, to hand Cheney the Presidency, and an even bigger spring board to actual election as the President being an incumbent.
  • JimNtexas, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2The headline asserts as fact something not in evidence, therefore it is marked 'inaccurate'.

    Liberal friends, you are getting off your approved talking points. The house Democrats are probably not going to win the house in large part because the country has no interest whatsoever in impeaching the President for defending the country. The national Democrat party is desperately trying to stop the Moonbat Nutroots left from this impeachment talk. Just ask Nancy.

    On the other hand, maybe I should stay silent. Moonbat ravings for impeachment are providing huge aid and comfort to the Republicans. It may be that the original poster and article author are either agents of Rove, or innocent victims of the Rove Mind Control Ray.
    • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Labelling your enemies as loonies sounds like a great idea! Bush is a raving nutter, 'e is!
  • jobo5432, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6Ok,

    I've buried this story, because this just isn't the place and time for this claim. Impeachment is not going to happen. Bush - no matter what you think of him is a hell of a president. Five years ago, he vowed to keep you safe from terrorism. Five years ago, he made you a promise, and his administration has kep that promise without exception.

    Bush may be headstrong, "shoot first - ask questions later", and can't pronounce nuclear, but you know what? Most of us are the shoot first, ask questions later type. You don't take ***** in your daily lives, why should the US Govt. be any different? I'm from Pittsburgh, pronounce "Monongahela River" for me. I thought not. His Texan dialect is why he pronounces int nucular, not his level of intelligence. And if you want to talk pronunciation, let's talk Clinton, who can't pronounce "I did it."

    The fact is, your life is as good or better than it was 6 years ago when Bush took over. The war in Iraq - even if you, the cubicle monkey you are - can't see it's importance, is important. I've been there. I've seen the looks on their faces as I walked through their towns and villages. I saw the envy, I saw the desire to be free. Those of you who are true Americans (I'm guessing 10-15%), need to look back at our own history. Look at what price we Americans paid for our freedom. The struggle for democracy and freedom is no different in Iraq. This is a slow process, and the US is there to aid it; move it along. It's not going to be easy, but to quote George Bush Sr. "Stay the course."

    Would I personally prefer our military was home instead of Iraq? Hell yes. I'm not a war monger. I have friends and family still over there. I want them home safe too, but those troops still in Iraq need support. They need a "United" States of America, not a "Divided" States of America. Whatever you think of the war, remember we're already in this. We might as well do it together.

    That's my rant for the day. To summarize: Bush will not be (nor should he be) impreached. Bush is a decent man, who is ALWAYS (agree with him or not) acting in the best interest of America. The war in Iraq - albeit painful - is necessary. And finally, the Red Sox suck! Go Yankees :)
    • sinisterkungfu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8"Bush - no matter what you think of him is a hell of a president."

      If by 'hell of a president' you mean 'worst president we've ever had in the entire history of this country' then I agree with you.
    • bgoodknight, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3refreshing, added as a friend...
    • headswine, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Hee Hee. He's kept us safe from terrorism???

      Here's a stat for you. We have NEVER been attacked on American soil by islamic terrorists EXCEPT under Bush's watch.

      We're safe? Really? Where? In your own backyard? You've always been safe there. How about elsewhere in the world? You feel safer traveling to Asia? Europe? Middle East? Israel?

      I love people who are such Bush lovers that they can't see reality. They just do what their republican leaders tell them like good little sheep.

      Anotehr stat. Over 2/3 of the American people think Bush is a failure as a President.
    • rohcky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@headswine: I'm guessing you were born after the 1993 WTC attacks?

      @jobo5432: Bush was the one who failed to stop the attacks on 9/11. The Clinton administration handed him the entire FBI case warning of such an attack. He and Connie Rice chose to ignore the information. Tell me how that equates to him "protecting" us. The Bush administration has terrorized the American public more than any terrorist ever could.
    • labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"his administration has kept that promise without exception."
      In theory you would be correct, but the facts show something different. The invasion of Iraq has significantly increased the threat of terrorism. One does not stop the bees by taking a bat to the beehive.

      "The fact is, your life is as good or better than it was 6 years ago when Bush took over."
      I'm not sure everyone was 6 years ago, but I was riding the .com wave making buckets of cash.

      "The war in Iraq - albeit painful - is necessary."
      The only reason its necessary today is because we have destroyed that country and now need to clean up our mess.
  • wares, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2"Like when the republicans tied up the country over a BJ. Stop with the partisan BS. Every politician in this country is a crook and will "tie up the country" if they think it's good for them."

    Also untrue, Clinton was impeached for lying to federal prosecutors, same as Martha Stewart. Need to keep your facts straight and stop.. what is the word I am looking for, o yeah... lying.
    • Pickled_Punk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What most people, and I use that term loosely, fail to regognize is that he should have NEVER have been asked the question in the first place.
  • bgoodknight, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@headswine
    "Here's a stat for you. We have NEVER been attacked on American soil by islamic terrorists EXCEPT under Bush's watch. "

    Hey, remember the first WTC attacks? You know, this one: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/26/wtc.bombing/
    • 10ksnooker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Sorry, but what do you call the al-Qaida attack on the WTC in 1993? Remember that? Who was Ramzi Yousef? al-Qaida has been attacking the U.S. and U.S. interest for years before 9/11, while Clinton and Monica played hide the cigar.

      al-Qaida also attacked the US embassies in Africa, and the capital ship the USS Cole. What do you call these attacks? Hint an attack on an embassy or warship is defined as war.

      Clinton attacked Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in the Sudan the day Monica was going to testify. His speech said the aspirin factory was a WMD manufacturing plant, later proved not to be true. Did he lie then?
    • jobo5432, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Wait...you mean Clinton initiated an attack with "faulty intelligence"? Off with his head!!! Oh wait...that's only for Republican presidents.

      Thank God someone else is paying attention. Let's recall under The Demcratic God William Clinton:

      1. 1993 WTC attack (Islamic terrorist)
      2. U.S.S Cole attack (Islamic terrorist)
      3. Timothy McVeigh attack (US Grown terrorist)
      4. The BJ/Lewinsky scandal
      5. The "Oops we didn't REALLY mean to steal stuff from the Whitehouse" scandal
      6. Whitewater
      7. Let's pardon every convicted felon we can before my lame-duck term expires.

      And yet, he's the poster boy for the new Democratic party...How the hell does that happen? Oh wait...when it's Clinton, I'm to mind my own business...that stuff is all personal. But Bush says "Nucular" and it's a partisan issue, and a reason to criticize and ridicule.

      As for the .com guy up above....we were all making money...but that's the funny thing about a "bubble". Without anything substantive, there was not way to keep making money. You can't credit Clinton, or blame Bush or vice versa for the .com bust.
  • cytherea, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3The chief law enforcement officer of the United States (Clinton) was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. What the topic was is not relevant.
    • Pickled_Punk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He wasn't convicted of anything. Are you retarded? Impeached != convicted.
  • smitting, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Sincerely, thank you for your service. I do agree with you that many people want to be free, and certainly that is going to be true in a secular country like Iraq. I'm just not seeing why we needed to go to Iraq. I don't see Iraq turning into a democracy without the nation splitting into three weak countries, which won't exactly strengthen our position in the middle east. It seems that our efforts are only strengthening Terran, and their desire to be the head of an Islamic super power.

    In comparison to an Islamic super power, terrorrism will seem more like it really is: organized crime.

    We need to take our troops home. Rome was destroyed from within. If we go broke, we're not going to be safer.
  • SDE06, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3The only way he could get out of this is if the "war" is still going on at the end of his term and, as commander in chief, becomes EMPEROR of the FIRST GALACTIC EMPIRE! LOL!
  • SDE06, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2The only way he could get out of this is to make sure that the 'war' is still going on at the end of his term and, as commander in chief, takes control of the senate as EMPEROR of the FIRST GALACTIC EMPIRE! LOL!
  • ManHammer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ headswine

    1983: Beirut barracks/ Embassy bombings

    1993: World Trade Center Bombing

    1998: U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania

    2000: USS Sullivans attempted attack and USS Cole attacked

    Off the top of my head.... We have been at war with Islamic terrorist for many decades.

    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Iranian Hostage crisis.
    • labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Don't forget that President Regan declared a 'War on Terror' in the 80s.
  • Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3The weekly impeach NOW! thread falls on a Tuesday this week.
  • nobodyshero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ManHammer//Off the top of my head.... We have been at war with Islamic terrorist for many decades//

    Indeed.
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22314
  • Pignanelli, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1the E word - do I hear a 'amen'?

    pwnt...
  • chatty82, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I read the article and the lawsuit so-and-so vs. Rumsfield is not a valid one. I doubt if it will even be considered by the court. When you sue someone, the recipient of the suit must be a reponsible party who can answer the charges and also make the payments of damages if the judge awards them. Bush's father may be responsible, but "Donald Rumsfield" (who looks like Bush's "Daddy") is not aware that he is being used like this. He may not even be aware what things Bush and his pals from the Ukraine tried to make him do. "The pleasure of manipulating Da-dee" (and saving one of the cabinet-level salaries for himself) has led him to disrepute.
  •  

    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.