digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Why Not Impeachment?

huffingtonpost.com — So a judge has ruled that not only is Bush's warrantless wiretapping program illegal, it's also unconstitutional. President Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a civil case, a case that had no bearing on the public as a whole. How would you square impeaching Clinton and not impeaching Bush?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • stinknugget, on 10/12/2007, -28/+11Bad PR, why else. Oh and influence.

    INACTION is just another form of SUPPORT.

    So stop supporting him.
    • MasterChi, on 10/12/2007, -18/+10I hate shameless Digg Story plugging but this needs to get to the front page. Also, why read someone's blog on why you should impeach Bush instead of taking action and actually taking steps to impeach Bush.

      http://digg.com/political_opinion/How_To_Get_Back_Our_Rights_From_Bush
    • szelij, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12You can't impeach Bush now because there's not much support for it. Maybe if the Dems win back Congress. Thats a big if.
    • metsfan489, on 10/12/2007, -41/+7"President Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a civil case, a case that had no bearing on the public as a whole."

      Clinton wasn't impeached.....
    • kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+33Yes he was, he was acquitted, but he was in fact impeached.
    • ryhalt, on 10/12/2007, -15/+24impeachment != removal from office
    • DrunkenPirate34, on 10/12/2007, -27/+2@metsfan489: Thank you. Many people think that clinton was impeached. He wasen't. He just finished hes term shortly after he had his affair.
    • turpenine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22impeach means put on trial while in office, not necessarily removed
    • ViktorVaughn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Never mind. They beat me to the punch.
    • HankHill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20metsfan...

      "Clinton wasn't impeached....."

      Uh...Yes he was.

      ?????
    • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Ugh Bill Clinton was INDEED IMPEACHED.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
      Thank you. Like Andrew Jackson (the only other president to be impeached) he was allowed to serve out the rest of his term.
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=impeach&x=0&y=0
      For those silly enough to think Clinton wasn't impeached.
    • ascharf85, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I dont post much...but I swear Digg has becoming to political...
      I think that many READERS (not posters mind you) would agree with me...

      Seriously its obvious that Digg tends to have more leftist comments (which is by all means fine), but if other people wanted to post something, they will most likely not due to noticing those with comments leaning to the right are modded down (wheter factual of not).

      I'm done with having Diggs RSS feed on my Google homepage, cause the polticaly news annoys me worse and worse.
      And of course I could care less if I get modded down....atleast I spoke my mind.
    • jeffbailey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ascharf85,

      "I dont post much...but I swear Digg has becoming to political..."

      I don't post much either but if you don't like the political news then try filtering out the "Political Opinion" category.

      http://digg.com/profileedit/ascharf85/topics
  • stinknugget, on 10/12/2007, -31/+11If everybody stopped paying their taxes. They cant put EVERYBODY in jail :) I think that would hit home, the would have to liquidate more gold, awwww. But no, you still support him by FUNDING the war.

    What we learn from this is Americans are nothing but loud mouths and inaction.
    • gabrielwalker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11You idiot, taxes have nothing to do with this. We pay taxes to fund all sorts of government programs, from paying for road work, to paying for school books. To, yes, even funding the police force, and the military. Ultimately, paying taxes does NOT equal making decisions of what to do with the money we, as US citizens provide under law.

      Get a grip.
  • falstaff, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11"So let's just say for the sake of argument that the Supreme Court upholds this decision and says Bush broke the law and violated the Constitution."

    For the sake of argument, law violations have legal remedies, including impeachment, although that's really up to Congress, not any random person on the street.

    But also for the sake of argument, if this judgement is overturned on every single point, should the judge be impeached?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment
    "Article III of the Constitution states that judges remain in office "during good behavior," implying that Congress may remove a judge for bad behavior."

    For the sake of argument, if that judge tossed out every legal precident, every judicial standard, and decided simply to hand down judgment based entirely on ideology instead of law, is that "good behavior?"

    All that speculation is rather pointless anyway. No matter the ultimate ruling, nobody's getting impeached over it. Not gonna happen.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Um... what's the term for the logical fallacy falstaff is making? Is this what is referred to as a "strawman"?

      The judge has nothing to do with it. Congress can impeach Bush if they feel like.

      Will they do it? Who knows? It likely won't happen not because there was no crime committed, but because many of the Democrats will be implicated alongside Bush.

      So we're back to the real root of the problem: the corrupt two-party system that has *evolved* in this country out of the semi-legitimate multi-party competition of the past.

      These days, they control 100% of our policy, rather than, say, 70%. "They" being the private financial interests that now own the US.
    • NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Its pretty clear why Bush has not been impeached. Its because the congress is controlled by Republicans. Why was Clinton impeached for a BJ? Because the congress was controlled by Republicans.

      I think we have all had enough now, though, and impeachment can begin next year.
    • ChuyMatt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Let's leave Fallstaf alone. He is just a sad drunk who thinks he is funny.

    • Jaymoon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"...Why was Clinton impeached for a BJ? Because the congress was controlled by Republicans. "

      Ahhh, and all this time I thought the lying under oath had something to do with it...
    • mddleNameIsEarl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Ahhh, and all this time I thought the lying under oath had something to do with it..."

      I think many here are failing to separate the decision to seek impeachment from the actual impeachment here. The former is wholly political and (as has been stated many times above) is the reason why no one will be seeking the impeachment of our current president. The latter has to do with attempting to match facts to a crime. Indeed, Clinton lied under oath. Indeed, if the wiretapping case passes the Supreme Court muster, Bush would be guilty of an impeachable offense. A question I don't know the answer to- can the Independent Counsel follow up with prosecution of the wiretapping case?
  • helix400, on 10/12/2007, -22/+5Why not submit Huffington Post articles under Political Opinion?
  • helix400, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4How about this scenario:

    The case is appealed to a higher court. During that time, Bush is impeached. After, this higher court overturns this previous ruling. Do you then unimpeach Bush because what was illegal is now legal again?

    Also, perhaps a more knowledable Digger in legal matters can help. Do these kind of judicial cases simply require the action stop? Or does it retroactively make any past infractions felonies? And if so, does a later ruling undo those felonies?
    • FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7The past infractions are felonies because of previously existing laws. Judges don't create felonies.
    • helix400, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I was right. From an AP article on the ruling: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/15296522.htm

      "[Judge] Taylor ordered an immediate halt to the program, but the government said it would ask for a stay of that order pending appeal. The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit, said it would oppose a stay but agreed to delay enforcement of the injunction until Taylor hears arguments Sept. 7."

      So all parties (including the ACLU) agreed that the wiretapping can continue up until Sept 7. At that date, the judge will decide whether the program should be halted or if it can continue pending appeal.

      So this court decision definitely does not suddenly and retroactively turn past instances into felonies.
  • NoAccounting4me, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32Why not impeach Bush? Two words:

    President Cheney.
    • bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Thats a pitiful argument...

      Cheney won't last, and an impeachment of Bush would set a precedent for the impeachment of Cheney.

      Impeach Bush & Cheney will topple.
    • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What? Bitcloud, you're obviously not a law student. Thats a hopeful fantasy you've got there.
    • whisk3rs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Just the fact of impeachment alone might undermine Bush Administration's influence over the sheep. Let's get the wheels rolling this fall by going out and voting for seemingly sensible senators.
    • nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4Impeach Bush & Cheney will topple.

      YEAH!! You libs are soo crazy you don't know what THAT means.


      Bush gone.....check!
      Cheney gone...check!


      Oh yeah, time for president John Dennis Hastert!!


      I am all for that baby! A REAL CONSERVATIVE...that would make you loonly leftists piss your pants.



      I bet all you liberal bush-hating retards on here don't even know that the speaker of the house of reps is 3rd in line.



      Man, you people crack me up....when the Bush term is done just imagine the psychitic perscriptions that are going to be written by doctors to treat the depression that will sit in after these KOOK's don't have anything to hate anymore.


    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Wait.. I thought Cheney running the show anyway. Nothing would change.
    • xlocust, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
      Oh yeah, time for president John Dennis Hastert!!


      I am all for that baby! A REAL CONSERVATIVE...that would make you loonly leftists piss your pants.


      Well, If my local representative, and current speaker of the house, Hassert ever does becomes president and continues to do what he is doing now, then the USA wont be in such bad shape because he is doing about about exactly NOTHING for his constituents. I don't know why this poster is so estatic about Hassert. That guy would never go anyware in a National election.

  • Sell, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7I just wish terrorists would stop targeting civilians and go after bush and his entourage. Then there would be balance in the universe again.
  • mkoby, on 10/12/2007, -15/+11Easy Clinton commited a CRIME. All Bush did was sign an unconstitutional bill into law, something that a lot of presidents have done, and in most cases, just like in this case, the law was found to be unconstitutional. Lying under oath is a federal offense, there is a law against it, you go to jail for it. Signing a bill into law is part of the president's job.

    Signing a bill into law is NOT a crime, no matter how unconstitutional it is. That's why the Supreme Court exists, it's a check/balance to the president's bill signing. That's why when the president vetos a bill the Senate can vote to enact it anyway.
    • eddyc, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Does passing laws that are unconstitutional not amount to treason?
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7he broke a law signed by a president before him.. he is not in trouble for making new unconstitutional laws
    • bloqmon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5PowerCow has it right, you are looking at only one of the reasons behind this necessary impeachment.
    • Verros, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@mkoby
      No the President didn't sign any bill into law, that would require Congress to pass the bill first and that for sure never happened. What the President did was instruct the NSA to enact a wiretapping program that violated FISA which is based on the constitution, and thus makes the program unconstitutional.

      This all means that the President violated his oath of office to uphold the constitution, which is certainly an impeachable offense. However that would require Congress to actually do something like be check against executive power.
    • helix400, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Does passing laws that are unconstitutional not amount to treason?"

      No. That's what the Supreme Court is for. They overturn bills signed by presidents if they feel they are unconstitutional.
    • helix400, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"This all means that the President violated his oath of office to uphold the constitution, which is certainly an impeachable offense"

      No. That most certainly is not an impeachable offense.

      As I stated elsewhere... The judge made the decision, but all parties agreed the wiretaps can continue until Sept 7. At that date, the judge will decide if the the wiretaps should be halted pending appeal.

      So Bush still has full legal authority (and the ACLU even agreed), to continue these wiretaps fort the next couple of weeks. To claim this is grounds for impeachment shows a reckless abandon for the law and the judicial process.
    • vinny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The president swears an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Clearly, the president has not fulfilled his oath.
  • humanaut, on 10/12/2007, -15/+22More Bush bashing by the "I surrender" liberals. Man, why can't you guys relax and just enjoy the good life as an American? For example, I like to get myself a nice cigar and some scotch, put on my visor and gold chains, sit back on my sunlounge listening to "Let the Eagle Soar" on loop while throwing pocket change at a small mexican man who gets paid to slap himself in the face and fall down, for my amusement. It's in the bible, folks.
    • Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I was actually confused by what you said at first, but then it finally came to me. Pretty funny stuff, I like you ;)
  • Atlantics, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hmm the other story got taken off the front page...
  • tonicrigid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0That laugh track makes me cry :-
  • Pic0, on 10/12/2007, -14/+1GIVE IT A BREAK.

    Everyone has a ***** opinion these days... sheesh
    • MobbyG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3And it's my God given right to express it thank you...

      If the rulings are upheld.. I say impeach.
  • bamassippi, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6Seriously. Stop with the 15-posts-per-day Bush bashing.
  • rshaan, on 10/12/2007, -15/+0well bush is spreading democracy.... clinton didnt spread democracy, did he?

    stay the course.
    • Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The course is trying to get the terrorists who attacked us, not spreading the democracy...what the hell are you smoking?
    • Legionnaire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, can we just end this "Freedom's On The March" *****? Seriously, how about ensuring some freedom on our soil before acting as the world police and telling other countries what they should do. Staying the course might be giving our citizens better education, healthcare, etc. but it's definately not spending billions of dollars on a war which has done nothing but end lives and waste money. You think Iraq is in better shape now than before? please.
    • vinny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You really think Bush is spreading Democracy? Like in Palestine (where Hamass was elected), or in Lebanon (where Hezbollah has been elected), or in Iraq (where the countries elections have lead to civil war)? If this is how democracy is spread, I wish he would stop it.
  • Starskey, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2Inaccurate
  • franksmith, on 10/12/2007, -23/+3The guy is trying to keep us from GETTING KILLED

    Or do you think that he really just wants to hear you talk about your weekend?

    Impeach him for trying to protect us... sheer genius. Gee, no political passion behind that at all... :-/ Digg users really scare me most times.

    AND YES metsfan, (not that it really matters) Clinton was very much impeached
    • Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Unlike you, I don't fear the terrorists. Live under that rock as long as you want.
    • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Okay, you may not fear the terrorists, but as a New Yorker who saw 9/11, lived through it, lived through the aftermath that lasted for months, watched jobs go as a result, saw the racism that ensued afterwards in my home town, I'm absolutely freakin afraid of terrorists and what they can do.
    • franksmith, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@wamzlee

      I live out in the open and enjoy life in this wonderful country because I know I have a government that is doing everything they can to prevent us from being hurt or killed by terrorists.

      Sounds like you are the paranoid worried one
    • Legionnaire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I just want to see some brave journalist at a press conference say "hey, Mr. President. You might remember several years ago a guy organized people and flew some planes into some of our buildings... how's that search for him going?"

      Really, 5 years and we haven't caught the guy? When's the last time you even saw anything about Afghanistan in the news? The media is instead clouded with distractions like the JonBenet Ramsey killer. Who gives a *****?

      You want to protect us? How about you kill the guy who you say organized and executed 9/11? Or how about you cut our ties with Israel (One of the reasons the terrorists hate us).
  • Mist0r_Wiggles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7We impeached Clinton because Al was a reasonable backup, but we don't want a Dick for a backup.
  • rekrapt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I completely disagree that Clinton's lying under oath did not affect the people of this country as a whole. It further diminished the courts in the eyes of the common man. He purjured himself before a Grand Jury in a sexual harrasment case and got away with it. That does damage to "the whole" in ways that go well beyond the "it was just sex" argument. Is Bush any better? No.
  • Perfection, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4In fact, it's not a bad idea if Bush were to be impeached. Honestly, there is no way that he'll be ousted from office, especially considering Chaney and Condi Rice are behind him in order to the throne.

    But impeachment, as it served with Clinton, ended up being a very public wrist slap and humiliation. Bush did something wrong and it should be acknowledged. When my college student body president got a DUI earlier this year, people in the senate called for an impeachment even though most of them knew they weren't going to take him out of office with less than two months left in the school year.

    Overall, it's just a form of publicly disciplining Bush for his terrible decisions...as evidenced by his approval rating that is so small you can barely see it with a magnifying glass.
    • Verros, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Actually I think the Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert is next in the line of succession after the VP
    • Legionnaire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Bush did something wrong and it should be acknowledged."

      I think it's safe to say bush has done MANY things wrong.
  • nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1

    ROFL!


    You libs have lost it........I mean reallllly way out there man....



    You are soooo far from reality its not even funny anymore.


    Seriously........you people are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there.

    • ChuyMatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5hm... yah. You must be right. Good argument for that idea.
    • wowbagger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Just block the idiots. I have about 100 on my block list now.
      I block more and more each time. It's like that game at the fair where the little gopher pops his head up and you have to smack him back into his hole.

      Each time the liberal gopher pops his head up and spouts nonsense, I smack him down with my big BLOCK hammer. I've got most of the really stupid ones now.
  • Breakdown05, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2man people don't know that impeachment just means formally indited? Bush should just have that above his head so the people can not believe everything that he says.

    If Bush was removed there is no one there that can do a better job, like it or not.
    • djpnuemo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2so, bush is the pinnacle of our political system??

      ignorance...
    • Breakdown05, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1WOW you're an idiot. you have no idea how the system works. okay so Bush is out and that is ard as it is, are you going to try and get rid of Cheney too because we all know he is SOO much more better /sarcasm

      you should be ashamed to be called an American
    • djpnuemo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2OMG. first, go back to school and learn english.

      i only commented on your last sentence, 'If Bush was removed there is no one there that can do a better job, like it or not.'. implying that there is no one else in the political system that could do a better job. every presidents has their faults. this one, has had a few more than others. and to say what you said, is ***** ignorant!

      look at my post below. i AM ashamed!!!
    • djpnuemo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1also, your comments show how childish you are. just because you disagree with what someone has to say, gives you NO right to call them names. only children call people names.
  • djpnuemo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4i'm ashamed to be an american.

    america has been on a downfall over the last 20-30 years. just a couple more decades before a full collapse or a complete rebellion. although americans are too stupid and lazy to mount such a revolution.
    • nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2The get the ***** out.....pick any of the other worthless scum infested countries in the world...I dare you.. pussie.

    • djpnuemo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3wow. childish comments.

      trust me, once i scam this country out of every penny i can, i'll be leaving.

      i bet you haven't even left this country, just like mr. bush.

      and it's pussy, not pussie. go back to school.
    • Legionnaire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oh yeah, those other "scum infested" countries like Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, or Norway. Oh wait, those are the cleanest countries in the world, not to mention they have lower crime rates. Tell me again, where is the scum?
  • bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I still can't believe that people support him.
    • idreamincode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I have republican friends and my mom, sadly, that I try to argue with and tell them he is NOT above the law. They say, he's a the president and can do whatever he wants.

      It kills me to see them support him, and I try to see their views, but they blindly think he knows what is right for the country.
  • snakejohns, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5With reference to Bush (43) and Clinton (and I know this is a tad off the subject, but only a tad), we elect a president here in the states to govern us from the highest office in the land. The rather unfortunate (or fortunate, depending on who you ask) side effect is that this individual must essentially put their personal life on hold while they are serving in this office.

    Clinton had an affair and I agree that this under normal circumstances would be an issue for he and Hillary to work through (or not) and shouldn’t be the public’s interest. But, therein lies the rub (pun intended). An affair is something that President Clinton would not want the world at large to know about. In fact he went to some lengths to conceal that he had even had an affair. This creates a situation where the president had put himself in a position where someone with the right knowledge could blackmail the president and that is something that simply cannot stand.

    President Clinton was indeed impeached (charged with high crimes or misdemeanors) and subsequently acquitted and then later disbarred (as an attorney).

    No president has or will ever be perfect for the job, but there is a distinction to be made between a man who is doing what he feels is in the best interest of protecting the lives of the citizens of the United States and one who is primarily interested in protecting his own political life.

    If you disagree with me please comment.
    • Crispin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Snakejohns, by your precedent we should be more worried about Bush Jr's alleged DUIs and history of drug problems than his penchant for secretive wiretapping policies. I think this illustrates why so many people really just didn't care about Clinton's impeachment. We have bigger fish to fry as a country.
    • Legionnaire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, alot of people agree that Bush is a sort of "Dry Drunk."
  • brad3378, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6For the record, I'm not a Bush supporter (nor a Democratic supporter).

    ......but ask yourself one question:
    Is President Bush worse than Bin Laden?

    From the nasty bitter comments I read about Bush on Digg, I would swear Bin Laden was another victim of the Bush Administration. Maybe Bin Laden is so universally hated that it is pointless to discuss it? Maybe Bush Bashing is so popular because he still has a few supporters to attack? It's just a theory.

    To be fair, I do respect the passion behind Bush haters' beliefs. It only proves to me that they care about our country and believe we can be better.
    • ChuyMatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I don't know anyone who was against Bush who was against the US going into Afghanistan. Not one. (Ok, I thought of one, but he turned out to have schizo-affective disorder.) So, yes, Bin Laden is a no-brainer on someone to need to take out.

      That is another sore subject: why did we not finish the job there before devoting the majority of our resources toward a lie?

      So, no. It is not that bush is worse. He is just a different type of enemy of the State.
  • Rizmaster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I want to impeach Dubbya and Cheney, and keep going until you get to the third guy in line; that's right, Mr. Series of Tubes himself: Ted Stevens.

    That's right everyone, Stevens for President! It's time for that ***** to go down. I want to see the internet completely recast in larger, titanium lined tubes. It will be much faster.
    • nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Actually its Speaker of the House....Dennis Hastert.

  • dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2The obvious reason is that Clinton is a Democrat.
  • wowbagger, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Another front page political Bush bashing session, another 18 slack jawed liberal whining teenage idiots BLOCKED.

    My comment pages are actually beginning to look sane.
    When I'm done I'll post a RIP list of everyone blocked.

    FEATURE REQUEST DIGG : Give me a button or method to block everyone that diggs a particular story, like this one for example.
    • nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1
      AND THE SILENT MAJORITY ROAR!!!!!


      YES!!!!!



      YES!!!!



    • nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2>... He deserves punishment for his dirty deeds

      Who the ***** do you think you are? AC/DC?

      1) Lying... thats false, didn't do it.
      2) Ignoring laws? Nope didn't ignore any laws. Might have a disagreement on which laws apply in which cases, but never IGNORED a law.


      Your whole tiny little laundry list is full of more holes than swiss cheese and you want to "punish" the guy? You libs are crazy.

    • bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Thats what I do too when people list fact I would rather ignore...

      I block my ears and say "na na na na na"
    • rheaume, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Block ME you &@#^&@$ piece of @*#&^@ !

      The following is what cowbanger's comments page looks like:
  • jbus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Plain and simple... He deserves punishment for his dirty deeds and Americans need to send a strong message that similar crimes by future Presidents will not be tolerated. It's time to make it clear that lying to Americans about the reasons for war and ignoring laws designed to protect our rights and keep our government in check will not ever be tolerated again.
  • xpose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Why did this story take so long to get to front page? Doesnt everyone think this?
    • nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2>Doesnt everyone think this?

      Nope.. the Bush's approval rating is going up again...more than 4 in 10 people in this country approve of the job he is doing.


      So apparently, over 119 BILLION americans DO NOT have the same opinion as you and approve of the president.




    • helix400, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2No. The judge made the decision, but all parties agreed the wiretaps can continue until Sept 7. At that date, the judge will decide if the the wiretaps should be halted pending appeal.

      So Bush still has full legal authority (and the ACLU even agreed), to continue these wiretaps fort the next couple of weeks. To claim this is grounds for impeachment shows a reckless abandon for the law and the judicial process.
    • nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2>So, to claim this is grounds for impeachment shows a reckless abandon for the law and the judicial process.

      Yeah, that sounds like typical liberal thinking.... all emotion, zero brains.

    • xlocust, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"typical liberal thinking.... all emotion, zero brains."

      You mean like your 'pansy liberal' Hassert Comment Above? Not That it wasn't a brilliant comment or anything.
    • Legionnaire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"So apparently, over 119 BILLION americans DO NOT have the same opinion as you and approve of the president."

      119 Billion, eh? I guess you do fuzzy math like our President.
  • rheaume, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2No blue dress, no impeachment
  • kokojie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1OMG read your own wiki links, Clinton was NOT impeached. The impeachment vote was successful in the house, but did not pass in the senate. If Clinton was impeached, he would've been removed from office. Nixon resigned to avoid being impeached.
    • tmach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If there's one thing this discussion proves, it's that a lot of people really have little to no idea how the American government works. However, just to clear up a couple of things for those who were snoozing during those civics classes... Impeachment does NOT mean removing someone from office. It is, in fact, merely the first step in the process. The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. Once the House has decided to impeach someone, we move on to step two. Step two is the trial, which is carried out by the Senate. If the person is convicted, they're out of office.

      So to sum it all up... impeachment is more or less a criminal proceeding. It does NOT mean removal from office any more than a criminal trial automatically means a guilty verdict.

  • AaronS2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Total impeachment tally:

    Impeachment: 1
    Neocons: 0
  • jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Statement: "Americans would rather have an unending war, killing innocent Iraqis and sacrificing American soldiers, having their rights stripped away from them, one by one, than have a president get a blow job and tell a white lie on a technicality to avoid the embarrassment."

    See, truth be told, I really don't believe this is the case, although sometimes you wonder! But really, I don't think Americans in general are that outrageously moronic. They cant be.

    But I do believe that the U.S. government holds so much power over the media, politics and popular opinion, that they sometimes realize they can say, do and think whatever they like, because so much effort is required by the American population in general to change things, that the crooks in the white house are 99% likely to get away with whatever they like. And, on the 1% chance they don't get away with it, the rest of the scum bags in the military, politics and various corporations and so forth are never held accountable.

    And that has proven to be true.

    Impeach Bush, put all the scumbags on trial and kick the rest of neocons out of the country.

    oh, and kick Pat Robertson and Bill O'Reilly out too. Send them to Cuba or Venezuela, perhaps. That'll give them some world perspective. A little bit...
  • nocountries, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Bush must go. It's a pity that if he does, the most likely replacement is a Democrat.

    You can't rely on the political system alone to bring about real change. Independent, grassroots movements are important, too.
  • nocountries, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, impeach Bush, but why is there no real opposition? The Democrats are just as closely tied to big business as the Republicans (follow the money!)
    What about these guys? http://www.sp-usa.org/

    I'm not a member, by the way - I don't do spam.
  •  

    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.