digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at crooksandliars.com

Countdown: The Impeachment Of George W. Bush

crooksandliars.com — Jonathan Turley joined Keith to commend Kucinich and his impeachment bill, which is now co-sponsored by Rep. Robert Wexler. While Turley says there are numerous crimes for which Bush could easily be impeached, the President ’s greatest ally has been the Democratic Congress who have skirted their constitutional duties and consistently give him a pass

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • danfive555, on 06/11/2008, -45/+4So finally someone on the boob tube talks about this. And Olberman's conclusion is that the Dem party is in collusion to protect Bush. Because idiot-proof presidencies are the wave of the future....Please......I guess if that's so we can get all kinds of minorities and women into the White House.....now that anyone can be president....we already had the mentally challenged fratboy demographic.
    • danfive555, on 06/11/2008, -13/+1Well I misread it was the Constitutional Law professor who made the conclusion above not Olberman.
    • Diderotten, on 06/12/2008, -0/+5I think you're being dugg down because people don't see how creating an idiot-proof presidency will let "all kinds of minorities and women" into the white house. Your comment needs further explanation
      • Caffeinate, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1I half believe he is trying to create support for Kucinich via reverse psychology. There is only so much stupid a person can pack into a sentence without doing it purposefully...isn't there?
  • danfive555, on 06/11/2008, -13/+41Here's part two of Olberman on the subject with another correspondent Howard Fineman. http://youtube.com/watch?v=MqyJ901kfwg
    • chrismag1979, on 06/12/2008, -1/+5Americans, tsk tsk tsk. You should've impeach bush half a decade ago. You Americans are so late.
  • yellowcakewalk, on 06/11/2008, -17/+86Articles of Impeachment, spread far and wide pleeza
    http://yellowcakewalk.net/articles_of_impeachment_ ...
    • TritonX, on 06/11/2008, -12/+2Ain't it a joke at that point ?
    • JettaMan, on 06/11/2008, -14/+1This idea of impeachment now just seems pointless and vindictive to me. The problem is a 50 year history of foreign interventionism by the US, not one particular president. I'm with Ron Paul: it's more productive to focus on the future than hurting people you don't like.We should be going after the CFR if we really want to make the world a better place.
      • yodaj007, on 06/12/2008, -1/+19By impeaching Bush it sends a statement to future presidents that "we won't put up with this *****." It's not about punishment. It's about the future.
    • supertamsf, on 06/12/2008, -5/+7I beg to differ. This isn't a petty or small issue. It's as big as it gets. It's about obeying the rule of law, upholding the Constitution and holding leaders accountable. Our silence validates their actions. The founders of this country would be horrified that such a gross abuse of power took place while We The People sat back in abject silence and defeated indifference. It is out duty to speak up.


    • sgtpppr, on 06/12/2008, -2/+5Everyone needs to keep track of the vote tonight because there's about a 99% chance it won't pass and we'll have a giant list of congressmen who choose to vote down the impeachment. Make sure you vote in future congressional elections based on this. The democrats who were elected and took over congress promised they would end the war and would protect our civil rights. Instead, we have a bunch of sell outs who immediately changed sides once they were elected. I understand they want to keep their jobs, but their real job is to serve the interests of the American people. Right now they're only serving their own.
      • Naieve, on 06/12/2008, -2/+3Who is actually going to hold Congressmen and Senators accountable for their actions?

        I mean, without them none of this would ever have happened.

        And yes both Republicans AND DEMOCRATS also had all the information that Bush had to go on.

        Maybe we should start impeaching every Senator on the Intelligence Committee at the time?

        And everyone they told about any conflicting information?

        Bush makes a nice fall guy, but without both sides of the aisle this would not have happened.

        And no, saying you were against it but didn't want to look unpatriotic IS NOT AN EXCUSE.

        There is alot more wrong in Washington then Bush, open your eyes.

        This is a political grandstand that has absolutely no chance of happening, there is a reason Democrats will also vote it down.

        NONE OF THEM WANT THE INVESTIGATION. DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ALIKE.
    • nwaites01, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1I hope you all realize that if bush is impeached, cheney becomes pres.

      • carguy84, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2wrong
      • Raphae1, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1I wouldn't worry about that. *IF* the congress would impeach Bush, they surely wouldn't stop before Cheney is impeached as well.
  • tellahoohooo, on 06/11/2008, -13/+6o happy day!
  • bmdubya, on 06/11/2008, -18/+120Olbermann is the only person in the MSM that has the balls to talk about what is really going on in politics. Even if you don't agree with what he says, you have to give him props for at least presenting the issues.
    • pjpark, on 06/12/2008, -12/+4See, I told you not all of Keith Olbermann's friends are imaginary--just the ones that talk to him.
    • bigjimslade, on 06/12/2008, -14/+3
      Actually, Olbermann is the only one stupid enough.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 06/12/2008, -13/+2That's like saying your have to give Rush Limbaugh props. They're both partisan maniacs that present one side of every issue.
    • desertDenizen, on 06/12/2008, -0/+10I wish I could articulate things as well as this constitutional attorney when I'm trying to explain to my simple-minded Fox-viewing (though non rabidly so) relatives at family get-togethers why impeachment is, in light of the facts, the *responsibility* of this leadership-bankrupt Congress that has utterly sold its soul and sold out the country.

      For the record, I am a former Republican, voted for GWB in 2000, with deep regret and apologies to our country, our children, and the world.
      • Naieve, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1If you went over the record and had an investigation, the questions asked of Congress, who had all the information, would probably bring some very bad PR to both sides of the aisle.

        Saying you only voted for the war so you wouldn't appear unpatriotic IS NOT AN EXCUSE.

        Without BOTH SIDES this would not have happened.
        • desertDenizen, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2Agreed, and a very apt response to at least 1 of Kucinich's 35 articles. Congress did not authorize all of Bush's impeachable actions.
        • desertDenizen, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2Oops, make that ~7 of the 35. I just read the actual list.
    • andrewdundee, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1too bad he doesn't even try to appear by-partisan, pretty foolish way to argue. where are the appeals to logic! The only requirement of being a journalist should be also being a Vulcan.
      • Caffeinate, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1While I agree that a requirement of being a journalist should be being a Vulcan, I am glad that KO doesn't attempt to hide his bias. We have enough "news" on TV that tries to say it is "Fair and Balanced" while being anything BUT that. It is refreshing when someone is honest, for a change, and is desperately needed in the landscape of liars and two-faced apologists that populate TV land in general.
    • megamod, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1he has a very hypnotizing voice.it's like my brain agrees with anything he says. I think if he told me to kill the president over the TV I wouldn't resist...it's what would happen if Pinky and the Brain ever succeeded =)
  • OffPiste, on 06/11/2008, -33/+9Fauxberman is delusional and his math skills are non-existent. How many Dems are in the Senate?

    Yeah thought so.
    • swrostmore, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1449, why?
    • tracer9, on 06/11/2008, -2/+13uh, "Fauxberman" ? eesh, you're doing it wrong.
    • Simonft, on 06/11/2008, -3/+749, plus Independents, Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders caucasing with the Democrats.
      • swrostmore, on 06/11/2008, -2/+9minus Ted Kennedy, who is recuperating from brain surgery
        • keymanjim2, on 06/11/2008, -9/+5That reminds me, did they manage to get it out of his ass?
      • bjornski, on 06/12/2008, -4/+8You really can't count LIEberman with the Democrats.

        He's an Independent in name only. He's GOP through and though.
    • br0ck, on 06/11/2008, -3/+6I think OffPiste has a point here (for once) because impeachment would just send the trial to the senate and there's no way in hell the 67 votes required to remove Bush from office are going to happen with the 50 always-vote-the-way-Bush-wants Republicans in office.
      • sagien, on 06/12/2008, -0/+4While it is almost assured that impeachment will not happen, what Kucinich has done will be noted in history:

        Not everyone sat idly by as Bush committed his crimes.
  • d1donly, on 06/11/2008, -17/+8Not at all surprised, NBC had a Poll yesterday and by the time I had voted around 8pm, 85% of all voters said he should be Impeached. It wasn't even 11pm I hear the ball was rolling.
    I think we can thank NBC for the Poll which let the country be heard. Funny, how we have to vote on NBC... Does the government even care what the people want anymore?
    • diggstown, on 06/11/2008, -12/+17So you believe that Internet polls are statistically meaningful huh?

      Me too. The Easter Bunny told me so.
    • Carl306, on 06/11/2008, -5/+9As long as you write a check once a year for your taxes, no not really...
    • toxicityj, on 06/11/2008, -2/+10if you're referencing the same poll I voted in, that one was from 2005. it only took 3 years to get that ball rolling.
    • pajeff2, on 06/11/2008, -2/+5If you are refering to the MSNBC poll, it is over two years old..it's irrelevant
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 06/12/2008, -0/+5"it's irrelevant"

        MSNBC or the poll? Nah, that's a trick question. They're both irrelevant.
    • Xander512, on 06/12/2008, -2/+3if you think those internet voters represent "the people" you really need to get out more

      the majority of internet users' radical beliefs are actually minority opinions
      • Caffeinate, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1It is a "radical" idea to want public officials to actually uphold the oaths they took when being sworn into office? If that is radical, then it seems odd to me that most of the Americans I work with, talk to, and do business with also support impeachment because Bush has not done so.

        I thought radical meant that it was a minority opinion, and it is FAR from a minority opinion that the Bush Administration has lied to the nation and committed crimes that warrant his removal from office. His approval rating is as dismal as that of Congress, whose approval rating is also in the toilet because they refuse to their duty and remove him.
  • swrostmore, on 06/11/2008, -10/+23they are voting to send this to committee right now
    • bjornski, on 06/12/2008, -5/+6It's not going anywhere. It will be killed, just like revoking the tax breaks for the most profitable companies in the world just was the other day.
      • overtoke, on 06/12/2008, -5/+2the vote passed. maybe people like you should go somewhere, if you know what i mean.
        • Hangly, on 06/12/2008, -1/+6They voted to send it to committee? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a death sentence?
        • rottencod, on 06/12/2008, -0/+4They sent it to Committee, where it will be filed away and promptly buried.
        • bjornski, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2overtoke doesn't understand that.

          Maybe he should "under-toke" for a while.
      • rficwizard, on 06/12/2008, -2/+2Here we go again: are we talking RATE of profit, or ABSOLUTE profit? The latter is not meaningful as a measure of how much "extra" an industry or company is bringing in, it is only meaningful as a measure of how large a company is. To tell how much "extra" a company is bringing in (how much it could cut its prices without losing investment money) the RATE of profit is the relevant number.
    • Bodhinature, on 06/12/2008, -3/+3Cause the Democrats are a bunch of mother ***** dick-holes.
      • Caffeinate, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1And Bush is the main dick. Sadly, I agree with the sentiment that as long as they allow themselves to be *****, the Bush Administration will continue to rape this country, our future, and our reputation.
  • diggstown, on 06/11/2008, -27/+20Read my lips. Not gonna happen.
    • yodaj007, on 06/12/2008, -7/+1Can't. Make a YouTube video of them and then I can.
    • JackSchittt, on 06/12/2008, -3/+7I've been saying the same thing. But common sense gets buried in threads like this.

      People insist that impeachment matters at this point, and refuse to accept the fact that nothing CAN be done until after he's out of office. The procedures simply take too long.

      Can't we just focus on the best ways to repair the damage that Bush has done over the past 8 years instead of hanging on to some pipe dream of an impeachment that will accomplish absolutely NOTHING?

      • randall82, on 06/12/2008, -6/+2we can impeach him and charge him with war crimes and string his ass up like they did to Saddam. Seems fair to me...
        • mmmmmbiscuits, on 06/12/2008, -3/+3Still losing sleep over Saddam, eh? Cry about it much?
        • randall82, on 06/12/2008, -5/+2Not really, he was an *****, just tired of the double standards and americans not giving a crap about what goes on around them.
      • Bodhinature, on 06/12/2008, -3/+5The process of impeachment is important. Its parts of making those who wreaked havoc responsible. Its not enough to let them go and then spend trillions fixing things. The responsible parties, and we know who they are, need to be strung up by their toes.
        • Caffeinate, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Or even more interesting and painful body parts.

          Many of the children on this board do not understand the concept of personal accountability because they have never experienced it before. They have some notion that it is the same concept as when they are sent to bed at night, they don't realize that responsibility is a much larger task and takes a lot more courage.
    • Naieve, on 06/12/2008, -3/+2I agree.

      But there are political points to be scored here anyways.

      Who cares that it will cost taxpayers millions?
    • whygohome10, on 06/12/2008, -1/+2what the ***** are you getting at? Should we not at least hold accountability? There were 3 civil rights workers murdered in 1964, the trials let the Southern Baptist minister who was the mastermind off the hook. He turned 80 years old recently and still had not been held accountable when blatant evidence was stacked against him. Being 80 years old he is about to die... should we just let him off the hook because he is going to be gone soon anyway? No! The mississippi supreme court recognized this in 2005 and held him accountable for his crimes putting him in prison for the rest of his life regardless of how long he is going to live.

      This is the argument. This is why we must hold president bush accountable for his war crimes.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Ray_Killen
      • Caffeinate, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Justice costs money, and doing the right thing is always harder than doing the easy thing. If it is easy, it isn't worth the time. Impeachment is the right thing to do, because it says that the American people do not condone torture, war crimes and corruption. Doing nothing and allowing Bush to ride off heroically into the sunset ensures that it will happen again, and with even more disastrous consequences.

        Those who say it cannot be done are welcome to stand on the sidelines, because they are getting in the way of the people that are doing it.
  • johnlandes, on 06/11/2008, -9/+47As stated in the clip, the democratic leaders are not going to let this happen. Since regaining power, they have betrayed the American people as much as the Republicans have, by continually putting party interests over those of the country. They see far more benefit to their party by letting Bush remain, than if he were removed.
    • Frost9999, on 06/11/2008, -1/+17Removed? Impeachment does not mean he would be removed. he has to be impeached, then convicted. Then he will be removed. Following through with a conviction is even less likely than the impeachment which must come first.
      • 9bpm9, on 06/11/2008, -2/+10I love how everyone talks like they understand whats going on here, but they don't even know what the hell impeachment means. Which means they weren't even old enough to remember what went on with Clinton.
        • yodaj007, on 06/12/2008, -5/+4Frost is right, 9bp. You, sir, do not know what impeachment means.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment
        • ByteGuerilla, on 06/12/2008, -1/+3yodaj007, just because he was replying to Frost does not mean he was arguing with him. As far as I can see, he is supporting what Frost is saying. That he brings up the Clinton impeachment is enough to display that, as Clinton was impeached but not convicted. However, Frost is being equally presumptive, as johnlandes didn't say impeachment = removal, he just said that the Democrats wouldn't allow 'this' to happen, and then said they would rather see him stay than be removed. If anything that just clarifies 'this' as being the eventualy removal. Frost did most likely educate a few people as to what impeachment actually means, though.
        • richbleak, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1I can definitely understand the potential validity of that point, Byte. However, I would argue that john's disdain for the Democrats for not doing something that would be ineffective at best and election-damaging at worst tells me that he doesn't fully understand what an impeachment would look like in this case. Let's get into the White House and look at it then.

          As necessary as an eventual impeachment is, the "average" (READ: clueless) person will look unfavorably upon it and will vote that way if the effort looks like wasted bureaucratic minutiae. No, this is not a good thing; we should wait, win the election, then investigate from a position of power and influence. With a legislative branch packed even tighter with Democrats and a Democrat in the White House an impeachment could be effective.
        • ByteGuerilla, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Which is why (caution: grapevine knowledge coming up) they've put it into a subcommittee that doesn't meet until Bush is out of office, I'm guessing.
        • Caffeinate, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1If Bush gets to leave office gracefully, he will have the ability to pardon himself and his partners in crime. He is a traitor, and deserves no such respect, no such allowances and only deserves the same right to trial as anyone else accused of crime. Those are more rights that the people he ordered tortured and held without charges received, but it is justice and needs to be done.
    • twinklyJesus, on 06/12/2008, -6/+4No, they have betrayed YOU and those who share your opinion. But, you need to realize that YOUR opinion is not necessarily that of the majority of the population. Also, you need to take a statistics class and learn just how much of a farce TV/internet polling is. No one, but the folks whose agenda benefits really cares about the results of these polls.

      Take a tip from your own website and "moveon"
      • Caffeinate, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1They also betrayed the justice system and the Constitution they took an oath to defend. The only reason you are even allowed to voice your opinion on this matter is because of the Constitution and our justice system. If that is an agenda, sir, then so be it. I care about that, and I want my children to enjoy the benefits of our justice system and the protection of the Constitution.

        For someone busy exercising freedom, you are anxious to throw it away. You would do well to appreciate what you have and the sacrifices that were made long ago so that you have it.
  • Carl306, on 06/11/2008, -16/+7Even if he were removed, who would be next in line? Cheney? I see Bush as the lesser of two evils in this case. Not to mention the fact that he has a little more than 6 months left of his presidency, so trying to get this enacted now seems somewhat pointless. By all means, process the ***** out of him through the courts when he is out of office, but impeachment now will have little to no effect.
    • Cuchanu, on 06/11/2008, -2/+6I think it would be Nancy Pelosi actually because they are trying to impeach Cheney and Bush thank god. It doesn't do any good to only do Bush since Cheney is worse. Would that make those pissed off old white ladies for Clinton happy to see a woman be president? Maybe then they'd vote for Obama.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 06/12/2008, -1/+4Any "plan" for impeachment is nothing more than political grand standing and an attempt to distract everyone from what is going on. Just another way to waste time and tax payer money.
  • logicalnoise, on 06/11/2008, -13/+93the bill got voted into a comitee that doesn't meet until bush is out of office. ***** pelosi ***** her in her stupid mouth.
    • soccernamlak, on 06/11/2008, -6/+11I'll pass. I wouldn't touch her with a 50 foot pole.
    • ileftfark, on 06/11/2008, -4/+14I approve that message.
    • ByteGuerilla, on 06/12/2008, -3/+5That's a good thing. If you impeach Bush and convict him before he is out of office, then Cheney can just pardon him. It needs to be finished when he's out of office.
    • twinklyJesus, on 06/12/2008, -6/+1Ha ha ha ha ha!
    • Infidelcastr0, on 06/12/2008, -1/+10To hell with Nancy Pelosi, goddamn spineless moderates, I guess that's the price we pay for a majority. Kucinich should receive some kind of "only congressman with balls" award. No matter how marginalized he may be he's always there, trying to do the right thing and telling the truth.
  • FrankHope, on 06/11/2008, -18/+5For a direct link to the Olbermann video supporting impeachment and criticizing the Democratic Congress for not fulfilling their Constitutional Duty to impeach Bush see:
    http://digg.com/politics/Countdown_Olbermann_on_AR ...
    • bjornski, on 06/12/2008, -4/+4For a direct link?

      So you send us to your Digg submission instead of posting the direct link?

      You're doing it wrong.

      Here's the direct link that FrankHope SHOULD have posted, instead of trying to get a few more diggs on his submission.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rojf_d289mQ

    • mmmmmbiscuits, on 06/12/2008, -3/+4Guys, guys.... No need to argue. You're BOTH raving loons.
  • wynja, on 06/11/2008, -8/+41It's still not going to happen.
    • chrismag1979, on 06/12/2008, -2/+4Americans, tsk tsk tsk. You should've impeach bush half a decade ago. You Americans are so late.
      • makeitloud, on 06/12/2008, -2/+3More than half of us who vote know this already.
      • wynja, on 06/12/2008, -0/+389% of Americans want an Impeachment hearing. There's a reason that the congressional approval rating is 23%.
        • Caffeinate, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Yes, because we know and admit he needs to be impeached, they know it but only a handful have the courage to admit it. Sadly, they are the ones that need to be screaming it from the mountain top, and instead they are trying to hide it under the rug.

          I'm am so incredibly sick of seeing politics take precedence over honor and duty. Every one of these people took an oath when they were elected and only a small percentage are actually interested in trying to uphold it. The rest are just interested in placating the American people enough so that they can continue to get rich, smile and pat themselves on the back.
  • Ciryon, on 06/11/2008, -16/+11Why the hell aren't you guys protesting more? Seems like Kucinich has enough support for impeachment (from the people) to shut down business and transport around the country until the President gets what he deserves... The apathy is sickening
    • keymanjim2, on 06/11/2008, -10/+6People have to eat. You shut down the country when people are hungry the MSM will have to take notice of the democrats shenanigans.
    • pajeff2, on 06/11/2008, -3/+7Son, it takes 67 votes to impeach and they aren't even close to that..Futile effort
      • bjornski, on 06/12/2008, -3/+2That's because the Democratic majority is so slim, no matter how many times the Republicans say "the Democratic congress did this, the Democratic congress did that.".

        Though after these elections, I could possible see a veto-proof Democratic majority in both houses.
      • duerra, on 06/12/2008, -4/+7Wrong, it takes 218 votes to impeach, and they do have those votes. It takes 67 votes to get the guy removed from office, votes which they may not have. Regardless, I want this to follow through because of the warning it serves to future officials. The fact that we are tolerating this because "it ain't worth it" is the most bitterly disgusting and self-serving thing we could possibly do.
        • pajeff2, on 06/12/2008, -3/+3The important number is 67, not 218.......I suppose if they wanted to waste their time they could give it a shot, but that would be ridiculous..Their time could be better spent consider Bush is leaving anyway
    • yojiffyskippy, on 06/12/2008, -3/+6Because nobody cares. It's pointless and a waste of time. Even the Democrats know this but their trying to use it for political advantage. For some reason, they think the election is against GW.
      • Xander512, on 06/12/2008, -2/+2FINALLY someone says something logical
  • rzxc, on 06/11/2008, -11/+32Although I support the effort to get rid of President Bush, he is only the fall guy. I believe the real criminals are the people who told President Bush what to do (Paul Wolfowitz, Tom Friedman, Bill Kristol, Otto Reich, Elliot Abrams, Rupert Murdoch, etc.). The Establishment maintains its power by controlling our leaders and having them take the blame for their idiotic policies. They convince the public to elect the dumbest person available to office. Since that person doesn't know what the hell is going on, the Establishment can easily convince that person to carry our their agenda. When that agenda fails, as it has, the Establishment then blames the elected person for their failings. President Bush is a moron. But we need to remember who the real criminals are and we need to find a way to remove them from power.
    • ballsonu2, on 06/11/2008, -8/+4True, but when my kids are in history class I would like them to think that this period of time was not a total disaster.
      • bjornski, on 06/12/2008, -6/+5So, you'd rather they were lied to?

        Are you going to teach them "abstinence only" and that an invisible sky-fairy made the world 6,000 years ago too?

        Teaching ignorance is bad, mmm'kay?
    • Cuchanu, on 06/11/2008, -5/+4Yea Bush is guilty of being a puppet.
    • beersnob, on 06/11/2008, -4/+7"I believe the real criminals are the people who told President Bush what to do (Paul Wolfowitz, Tom Friedman, Bill Kristol, Otto Reich, Elliot Abrams, Rupert Murdoch, etc.)."

      Amen brother! But they're not criminals, they're war criminals.
    • sean74, on 06/11/2008, -5/+5Take away their influence, take away their power. Bush is an enabler.
    • mmmmmbiscuits, on 06/12/2008, -4/+5I BLAME TEH JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!
    • Naieve, on 06/12/2008, -0/+4Don't forget the Senators and Congressmen, Republican AND Democrat who had access to all the information that Bush did.

      Saying you only voted for it because you would look unpatriotic is just as bad in my book.
      • WileEPeyote, on 06/12/2008, -0/+3You made two seperate statement there so I only agree with you 50% (still dugg you for the part I agree with).

        Voting for something because you don't want to seem unpatriotic is horrible and I will not vote for anyone who did this.

        but,

        Not everyone had the same information that Bush and his advisors had; this is a talking point straight out of the news cycle, repeated ad nauseum.
        • Caffeinate, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Exactly - they did NOT have the same information that Bush and his advisors had, not to mention the fact that the people that had that information were slapped with gag orders so they couldn't share it even if they wanted to.

          Repeating the same bad information doesn't make it true, which is what you are doing right now, Naieve, and is what got us into a war in the first place. There is some irony there if you care to look for it.
    • kaskoosek, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1You my friend are an anti-Semite.
      /Sarcasm
    • tifosiuno, on 06/12/2008, -0/+3Those idiots are going to attack Iran before November.
  • m2garand, on 06/11/2008, -17/+10Don't get me Bush deserves to be impeached but so do most Democrats for supporting the war in Iraq. The majority of the Democrats voted for the war and nothing has been done to stop it. If the Democrats really wanted to end the war they could simply stop funding it. They want the war to continue because it benefits them politically. The more soldiers that die in Iraq the more likely the Democrats will win.

    In fact the Democrats are on board with the next war with Iran. When a proposal was made to make Bush come to Congress before going to war with Iran (an unnecessary proposal since the Constitution already requires that), Nancy Pelosi took the proposal off the table because Israel ordered her too. http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/070319_pelosi.htm

    Kucinich is a decent liberal but I would not trust the Democrats any more than Bush.
    • woofers07, on 06/11/2008, -9/+8When the war was being propose, the conservative a-holes had a majority and were/would have labeled anyone against the war a "terrorist." There wasn't much of a choice at the time.
      • Mothrog, on 06/12/2008, -4/+6Now there's an excuse for voting for a rediculous war: They would've called us names! If that's all you expect from your elected leaders, no wonder we have worthless clowns like Bush and Pelosi in office.
      • m2garand, on 06/12/2008, -7/+5"Oh boo-hoo, Bill O'Rielly is going to call me names so I'm going to send thousands to die in a immoral war because I'm too much of a pussy and a coward to stand up to him and his ilk".
    • yodaj007, on 06/12/2008, -5/+5November 6, 2001: "You're either with us or against us."

      -- Bush

      No one dared look like they were against the war and, by proxy, the nation. It would have been political suicide.
      • m2garand, on 06/12/2008, -5/+3That is nothing but cowardice. You are going to send thousands to their death in a war that you believe is wrong because you are concerned about your political career. Any ***** politician that did that is even worse than Bush. At least you can make the argument Bush may have genuienly believed in the war.
      • Mothrog, on 06/12/2008, -6/+2More excuses for the dickless wonders. I'm sure the families of dead soldiers are appreciative of their so-called leaders who put their family members' lives above their political career. How can you accept and excuse such cowardice?
      • anachronaut, on 06/12/2008, -3/+2"No one dared look like they were against the war and, by proxy, the nation. It would have been political suicide."

        And the people who are replying so critically to you about "cowardice" and "excuses" would likely have been right there with the neocons and their supporters, screaming for the blood of the "traitors who abandoned our troops". It was a lose-lose proposition for the Dems -- and if you think that's a coincidence, you're crazy.

        That situation was 100% engineered by Karl Rove, etc., to make the Dems look bad no matter which choice they made, so it's pretty ironic for certain Diggers to make the charge that they did it for "politics". Duh. Of course they did. They were playing a game which has been perfected by the Republicans, and that was their first mistake.

        All that being said, I think that the Dems who did fall into this trap ARE ***** cowards and traitors, and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are absolutely the worst of the bunch. Those two need to get together and die in a fire. (Bet you didn't see that coming after those first two paragraphs)
  • macabaret, on 06/11/2008, -9/+13I am not a crook!
  • KibblesnBitts, on 06/11/2008, -13/+8Wexler? I haven't been able to trust the guy since he said he admitted his fondness of both cocaine and prostitutes
    • Cuchanu, on 06/11/2008, -3/+7Don't knock it till you've tried it.
      • ninepointfive, on 06/12/2008, -3/+3no-doubt! Both sound really nice so long as its clean! :)
    • kanabiis, on 06/11/2008, -2/+6As opposed to the rest of his colleagues in congress who have the same fondness but deny it?

      At least he was being honest....
    • senatorpjt, on 06/12/2008, -3/+4Anyone who says they don't is a liar. Most people choose not to partake for various reasons, but to say that it's not a fun thing to do is a liar.
    • yossarin, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1That was just a joke for the Colbert Report.
  • Skywise, on 06/11/2008, -11/+5Bush has done nothing wrong and does not warrant impeachment. The Democrats KNOW this which is why no charges are forthcoming and going to die in committee.
    • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 06/11/2008, -4/+6How's the crack pipe, Skywise?
    • Cuchanu, on 06/11/2008, -3/+5It's amazing that people actually believe that. Look, I'll give you and Bush the benefit of the doubt and we can say he was currupted by his peers and was just WAY wrong as opposed to lying. But do you actually believe that this war was about "Iraqi Freedom" and that nobody in the White House did anything wrong?
    • pyrogyro, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1are you from the south?? I smell a bit of insest, beer, nascar, and bush = god mentality
      • Caffeinate, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1I'm from the south, and your stereotype fails.
  • Dil11, on 06/11/2008, -17/+16Bush Sucks!
    • BrendanSheehan, on 06/12/2008, -1/+7You're been dugg down for that comment!? I'll report this bug at once.
    • minnepinne, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2Well, tell us something we don't know. :P
    • Yinepuhotep, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1And this is news....exactly how?
  • randyzaia, on 06/11/2008, -25/+17How cute, little Dennis is playing pretend again.
    • Yinepuhotep, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Yeah. He's pretending the Constitution actually means something. How utterly horrible of him!
  • jp12380, on 06/11/2008, -13/+7It says countdown, but right in the article is says it is clear that actual impeachment is off the table for the remainder of his time.
    • haxorjoe, on 06/11/2008, -5/+5Countdown is the name of the show...
      • jp12380, on 06/12/2008, -4/+1Ok, so I didn't really read the article all the way :P.

        Dugg up.

        Either way, the title it the Impeachment of George W. Bush but they make it quite clear in the article that isn't going to happen.
        • yojiffyskippy, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2Are you new here? The way it works on Digg is you write a title and fake title and regardless of what the article says, the title magically becomes true.
        • overtoke, on 06/12/2008, -1/+2Not the article related to this digg. They don't state it won't happen. They state that it is important to say the words even if it doesn't happen.
  • mywhitenoise, on 06/11/2008, -14/+7We have 6 months left of him in office, this is pointless and retarded. Should have impeached him years ago.
    • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 06/11/2008, -3/+7Preventing them from pardoning everyone under the sun for their crimes isn't 'pointless'
      • bjornski, on 06/12/2008, -5/+2Taking away the "pardon pen" is MORE than enough reason to impeach.
      • JackSchittt, on 06/12/2008, -2/+0You don't think he's going to do that anyway?

    • yojiffyskippy, on 06/12/2008, -1/+5Congress couldn't accomplish it in 6 months if they wanted to. They couldn't accomplish ANYTHING within 6 months...... okay other than giving themselves a raise maybe.
    • desertDenizen, on 06/12/2008, -2/+4Pointless? No. Send a loud message to future would-be tyrants. It would be remembered for a generation at the very least. Call it a pre-emptive strike, if you prefer.
  • nikkorasu, on 06/11/2008, -12/+6I have no idea why people are still moving forward with this bill with 6 months left of his presidency... it's a waste of time and money at this point. He's been the president for 7.5 years people! Everyone is going to complain about paying $4.50 a gallon for gas and not do anything about it, but they'll sure as hell try to impeach Bush... Come fricken on!!!! Obviously the people of this country have far more problems than just their president could cause them.
    • mystilon, on 06/11/2008, -3/+4Some might argue that by not punishing Bush for his actions, we send a signal to future would-be dictators that they can get away with whatever they want. Considering all that his actions have cost us, how much would not impeaching him end up costing us in the future?
      • nikkorasu, on 06/11/2008, -5/+1I get where you're coming from, however, this being the case... how many other presidents should have we impeached as well?

        I think that people really get hung on the point of putting it to this party or that party when really our country is economically out of control. And another guy above pointed out that Bush is merely the fall guy, which is fairly accurate. I could have a jaded view of the world, but it seems like folks these days have a problem with taking blame... they're always wanting to put it elsewhere. There are many other people that stood behind decisions made and those parties (no matter whom) should all fall responsible.

        • Yinepuhotep, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1How many other presidents should we have impeached as well? Well, let's start with George Washington (remember the Whiskey Tax?) and work forward from there.
  • Khadar, on 06/11/2008, -13/+5Soooo.. we impeach him.. what happens next? Pointless, it would only be symbolic if anything.
    • bjornski, on 06/12/2008, -4/+4It would prevent his wave of pardons on his way out the door.

      MORE than enough reason.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 06/12/2008, -1/+4Like Cheney wouldn't pardon anyone?
    • desertDenizen, on 06/12/2008, -2/+3And symbolic actions have no worth? You would fail at diplomacy. And not just with nations; people in general, business spouses, co-workers, employees, customers, spouses... everybody.

      Bush needs to be made into an historic example of how NOT to run a country. Let future generations learn from this disaster. Let future leaders learn that the populace will only tolerate so much. Symbolism -- a symbolic beheading, if you will -- is *exactly* what we need right now.
    • overtoke, on 06/12/2008, -2/+3First we end his Presidency, then we put him on trial for war crimes. And then we do the same thing to him that he did to Saddam.

      The only difference in this case is that the trial will not be a sham.
  • matt247, on 06/11/2008, -10/+4If Bush is impeached, does that mean Cheney takes over for the rest of his term?
    • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 06/11/2008, -6/+5they will likely impeach Cheney simultaneously to prevent that from happening too
      • Enigmocracy, on 06/12/2008, -4/+1Who would be president in that case?
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 06/12/2008, -1/+2"they will likely impeach Cheney simultaneously"

        In your wet moonbat dreams, I suppose? Wake the ***** up.
    • TBBucs, on 06/12/2008, -3/+6Impeachment != removal.
  • dboy3587, on 06/11/2008, -12/+5"Mission Accomplished"
    • tufftugg, on 06/12/2008, -6/+2 Your being dugg down...people hate reality.
  • redfred18t, on 06/11/2008, -5/+21I'm just curious, why are they starting talks about impeachment now instead of 4-5 years ago?
    • pajeff2, on 06/11/2008, -2/+9Easy, because it's an election year and each of these guys would like to be VP.......they both know they can't impeach
    • darkciti2, on 06/12/2008, -3/+1Because now it can actually be accomplished. They couldn't have done it 4 or 5 years ago, because the Repugnants controlled the Congress and the White House.

      We the Democratic People have only recently regained control of the Congress. When we have a Democratic Senate and White House, we can really fix the damage that the Republicans have afflicted upon our great nation.
      • makeitloud, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2I sure hope so. Too bad just about every one of 'em is a spineless bimbo.
  • Revolutionista, on 06/11/2008, -6/+21Impeaching Bush is only the beginning. The problem, and unavoidable blame, lies with all of us as citizens. As long as we have our American luxuries, the crimes committed of this magnitude (both stated and not stated in these articles) will continue to go unchecked and ignored.
    • twinklyJesus, on 06/12/2008, -2/+2Yeah, impeach all republicans. Then, like your hero Hitler, you can have a ... one party government. You know, a National Socialist Party...and you can call it Nazi for short! /sarcasm (for the sarcastically impaired)
      • darkciti2, on 06/12/2008, -2/+2Uhm, Hitler was a Fascist war monger.

        Hitler is most closely maligned with the Bush Family (with a Nazi family history, I might add), than anyone with a brain [aka. Liberal].

        Furthermore, Social liberalism != socialism.

        Social liberalism means "I don't give a ***** what my neighbor pierces nor whom they are *****".
        Socialism means "The greatest measure of a society is how well it treats it's poorest citizens".
        Fascism means "You need to come with us citizen, because your neighbor reported that you said something anti-Jesus. We need to see your papers".
        • twinklyJesus, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2No. Hitler was a socialist. Mussolini was a fascist.
    • LenBaird, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2Don't worry, our luxuries are being looted every day. They will be gone soon enough.
      This is not the fault of the people. Yes, we should be more informed. Yes we should stop electing criminals. BUT.. We are not responsible for people running for the office seemingly with the full intention of using it to commit crimes, and enrich themselves and their cronies (who will return the favor as soon as they leave office).
  • Spliced88, on 06/11/2008, -6/+14Is there a recording of Kucinich's 290 minute speech i can download/watch?
    • yojiffyskippy, on 06/12/2008, -4/+4They already sent it to Gitmo to be used as torture.
    • mmmmmbiscuits, on 06/12/2008, -6/+3Yes, you can find it on:
      dubya-dubya-dubya.*****.com/the-kuce-meister
      • Teloe, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2Does anyone one have a mirror for that? The server is down.
  • johnnyfistfight, on 06/11/2008, -8/+15How bout recalling every person in congress for failing to stop the war, failing to stem the rising cost of fuel and food, failing to end the mortgage crisis, failing to close the border, failing to represent to people they serve by carrying on with meaningless ***** like trying to impeach the president . What a pathetic bunch of ***** losers.
    • PizzaMan99, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2Bush has set a dangerous precedent by claiming unconstitutional powers. We need to at least make some kind of stand against this, or the next president is going to be able to go even further. Most definitely, this is not meaningless.
  • pajeff2, on 06/11/2008, -20/+15Kucinich is a nut as is Wexler and all the rest of the impeach nuts...No one is going to impeach Bush or Cheney....You can sign all the damn petitions you want and call every politician in the country and it isn't happening....They do not have the votes, period.....Give it a damn rest !!
    • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 06/11/2008, -8/+5buried for being a wishy washy do nothing bitch-ass pessimist, you should be ashamed to be American
      • pajeff2, on 06/12/2008, -5/+6It takes 67 votes in the senate to impeach and they are NOT there........I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist...how damn long have clowns like Kucinich been talking this crap......This is pure election year politics...That's not optomistic or pessimistic thinking....Come join us in the REAL WORLD
        • Pillage, on 06/12/2008, -5/+4bu,bu,but you have to have HOPE!
        • overtoke, on 06/12/2008, -4/+260% of the House just voted for it in a way. Take your pessimism and make it into a noose for yourself.
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 06/12/2008, -2/+4"buried for being a wishy washy...."

        Buried for being an unrealistic douche whose impeachment wet dreams are about as likely to come true as all the other imaginary things you fap to.
    • tjl695, on 06/12/2008, -1/+2You're missing the point though. it's not the final result that's in mind because it's true, nobody is going to be impeached, it's the fact that someone has to stand up and say that these things that were done were horribly wrong and if we can't hold these people accountable for their actions, maybe the next president that makes such mistakes could be.
  • Flipperbw, on 06/11/2008, -8/+13front page of cnn:

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/11/kucinich.im ...

    it's over for now, people...but what the hell, you're going to bury this comment b/c you don't want to face that fact anyway. just figured some of the few rational people on here would care.
    • bjornski, on 06/12/2008, -9/+4Buried for your condescending attitude, not for your content.
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 06/12/2008, -2/+4Buried for being a whiny holier-than-thou priss.
  • beersnob, on 06/11/2008, -10/+3What's the point of impeaching the son-of-a-bitch now? Oh wait, l get it, let's do it to get the country pissed off enough at the democrats that McCain wins in November, plus we get the added benefit of maybe having Cheney in there just long enough to nuke Iran. Kucinich, you're just as ***** stupid as W!
  • DVmaker, on 06/11/2008, -4/+7According to the pundits, This bill probably won't go anywhere. All the big names are running from it because it's an election year.
  • username484767, on 06/11/2008, -14/+11HANG'EM!
    • Puffles, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2No, don't hang him. That's better than what he deserves.
  • shoopdawoop, on 06/11/2008, -12/+1Hooray!!! Goodbye George, hello President Cheaney!!
    • overtoke, on 06/12/2008, -1/+3Cheney's impeachment is already in committee.
  • NikoKun, on 06/11/2008, -7/+5That John guy keeps blaming the democrats... w...t...f -_-
    Republicans are just as equally to blame...
  • GunDownCCL, on 06/11/2008, -12/+5So you guys would prefer Cheney?
  • Br3ach, on 06/11/2008, -8/+7Why this wasnt looked a long time ago is what I want to know...better late than never though, these people are criminals.
  • badnewshotel, on 06/11/2008, -16/+12What a stupid stunt and waste of time and money. Go fix the economy you ***** retarded democrats.
    • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 06/12/2008, -7/+4Oh yeah, pin the bad economy on democrats... *****

      Your post is a tacit admission of who you are.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 06/12/2008, -3/+4Actually he didn't "pin" it on the democrats, he suggested that they spend their time fixing it (regardless of who broke it) instead of wasting their time and my tax money on pointless political grand standing. Maybe if you would read comments before lashing out with your liberal knee jerk comments then you wouldn't expose yourself for what you really are; a partisan liberal loony.
        • darkciti2, on 06/12/2008, -1/+3It's a sad state of affairs when a ***** Republican is begging "retarded" Democrats to fix the economy.

          It's not an overnight fix, you dolts. Your Republican fat cat money fiends have more resources available to rape you than you can ever imagine.

          Furthermore, your name is dopey, skippy (or is it jiffy?).
  • Cuchanu, on 06/11/2008, -11/+5With any luck we will have a woman president soon. Impeach Bush and Cheney and Nancy Pelosi will warm up the seat for Obama.
  • TheEditor1, on 06/12/2008, -18/+11This is lame and will be marked as such. Get over it you ignorant, do nothing, diggberals. Impeachment won't happen, the Dems on the hill don't have the balls. Want proof, the head of the House is a women, see, no balls. LOL. The Dems on the hill are about as useful as the U.N., and they have proven themselves patently worthless time and again.
  • headzoo, on 06/12/2008, -9/+9The first person that should be impeached is Nancy Pelosi. If even one of Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment is reasonable, and she ignores it, then she's aiding a possible criminal. This is no different than a prosecutor refusing to take a criminal to trial, because said criminal is the prosecutor's cousin.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 06/12/2008, -5/+3Actually prosecutors are smart enough to know when they can't possibly get a conviction and they don't waste their time and taxpayer money pursuing a pointless case. Unlike congressmen wasting their time and taxpayer money with this impeachment nonsense.
  • iith096, on 06/12/2008, -12/+20Should have happened 4 years ago.
    • jaydoj, on 06/12/2008, -0/+6Shouldn't have happened four years ago, should have never been elected into office.
  • bobjr94, on 06/12/2008, -10/+1So, do they know Cheney would be up next then ? With Mccains low support this could open then door for Pres. Cheney to run for office. Not a smart idea for them dems unless there is some back ally dealings between both parties so Obama doesnt win.
  • shinelikeitdoes, on 06/12/2008, -8/+6this is one of the first replies on the actual article page and completely indicative of why it is so hard to affect change - if people cant be "active" with the click of a mouse they wont do it. and even then..apparently its this easy to turn them around..

    "My dad call the L.A Times today and complained that they had not run a single story about the impeachment in today’s paper. He told them to cancel his subscription but they talked him into a $2.00 a month for three months and if he still did not want it they would stop it."

    thats some resolve for you.
    • twinklyJesus, on 06/12/2008, -2/+1What does that tell you? The second largest liberal rag newspaper in the country isn't reporting this? And you wonder why it's not happening? It's not a real possibility. It's a tempest in a tea pot.
  • ProUSADigger, on 06/12/2008, -18/+13Please name the crime for which he can actually be charged.

    I have never received a reasonable answer to that extremely simple question. I mean, if you diagram the question and leave off the implied subject, "You", the "Please", and the "for which he can actually be charged." parts, only two words remain: the verb, "name", and the predicate nominative, "crime". It could be no simpler.

    The answer should be as simple if a truly impeachable offense was committed.

    (Disclaimer: The last grammar class that I attended was 800 years ago. I could be wrong.)
    • triad203, on 06/12/2008, -5/+11http://www.impeachbush.tv/progress/dk_aoi_bush/

      There are 35 articles of impeachment there, and several are certainly crimes. Admittedly, some of the others are dubious. Most would be tough to prove, as Bush has done an amazing job at insulating himself from the worst of it, despite authorizing or allowing others to act criminally in his name (Cheney).

      My picks for his criminal indictments: wire-tapping inside US territory without warrant (violating FISA), holding American citizens without due process (violating habeus corpus), using the military as a police force within US borders (violating posse comitatus), "leaking" the identity of a covert CIA operative (violating Intelligence Identities Protection Act), and these are just the things he did in OUR COUNTRY.
      • twinklyJesus, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1Oddly enough, even Lincoln did things like this. It is amazing what you can do during time of war. And its legal.
    • jaydoj, on 06/12/2008, -3/+9He was in violation of his oath he took when he was sworn in as President. He swore to faithfully execute the laws of this country. He violated this with the help of his elected Vice President Dick Cheney. On national television, they informed the country that Iraq was in possesion of nuclear weapons, and that they were a credible threat to our safety. In addition, they informed the public that the Iraqi Government had, and I use this term lightly 'weapons of mass destruction'. None were found. So, they are guilty of lying to the American people, and felt justified in beginning a war in Iraq that was not necessary.

      “We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” - Donald Rumsfeld

      Typically, here in America, if you can't do your job the right way, you lose it. Forcefully if need be.
    • TheTSArt, on 06/12/2008, -8/+2He's impeachable by the Democrats because he is a Republican.

      He goes to war with Democrat approval--impeach him.
      He doesn't go to war and Iraq had WMDs--impeach him.

      He wiretaps calls to foreign nationals--impeach him.
      He doesn't wiretap calls for foreign nationals and another terrorist attack occurs as a result--impeach him.

      He leaves the lights on at the White House on Earth Day--impeach him.
      He turns the lights off at the White House on Earth Day and some bad guy gets through security and kills a visiting Democrat senator--impeach him.

      He waits for a pathetically slow Louisiana government to request help from the feds as required by law--impeach him.
      He doesn't wait and the Louisiana Democrats say people died because their own people could have done a better job saving people if the feds hadn't trampled on their territory--impeach him.

      It doesn't matter what President Bush does--actions he quietly took today may have saved countless Americans lives, but still they will curse him. Nobody is perfect, and the President surely isn't, but the way liberal Democrats are behaving right now is disgusting.
      • kinggimped, on 06/12/2008, -2/+1Nah, you're wrong. He is a truly terrible president.
      • bubba9999, on 06/12/2008, -0/+3Wow - I have to admire your steadfast support for the president in the face of all of the facts and evidence that he outright intentionally lied over and over for the last eight years.

        Who knows - actions that Congress could take to impeach him could save countless American lives for the next decade. Who knows how much more damage will be done in the 6 months that are left.

        Does anyone know how to get their conscience surgically removed so this stuff doesn't bother you anymore? Dubya's supporters aren't sharing their secret.
        • triad203, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2You ought to spend more time around Washington, D.C.. The place is rife with them. Somehow, people think you have to support Bush's criminal behavior in order to be patriotic. There are hundreds of thousands of these characters working at government agencies and systems integrators (defense contractors). Don't make the mistake of thinking that we can just get rid of Dubya and the problem will go away. Did Nixon resigning make them go away? Did Reagan? Did Bush Sr.?
        • Skywise, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1Bush didn't lie.
  • RRJackson, on 06/12/2008, -9/+4Longest countdown since religious whackos started counting down to the Apocalypse.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 97 of 97 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.