digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at salon.com

Would Obama Prosecute the Bush Administration?

salon.com — The answer better be hell yeah! But sadly it sounds like they would push it back to a 2nd term. This is worse than FISA.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ObamAmerican48, on 08/07/2008, -42/+19I'd love nothing more than to prosecute those sons of bitches, but I think we have more urgent needs than getting revenge at this point in time. We have an economy in the dumpster and a couple of wars to address before we go after Bush.
    • SmokedL, on 08/08/2008, -3/+22It's no more about revenge than prosecuting any other criminal is about revenge.
      It's about the rule of law.
      It's about demonstrating that you are not above the law because you are rich and powerful.
      • Gerz1219, on 08/08/2008, -12/+5That's all well and good in fantasy land.

        In the real world, first term presidents come into a office with a finite amount of political capital.

        Obama can come into office and spend his first term handing out subpoenas and indictments. He'll make a lot of bitter enemies in Congress and the Republicans will make a personal vendetta out of blocking every major piece of legislation. We can have four more years of gridlock and an unsuccessful Obama presidency.

        Or he can make a moral compromise, and use his political capital to help pass much needed reforms to our health care system and energy policy.
      • SmokedL, on 08/08/2008, -0/+8Moral compromise?
        Really?

        This man and his cronies lied the US into a war designed to further their interests.
        A war that has killed, by even the lowest estimates, hundreds of thousands of innocents.

        And that's just the worst of what they have done. The list of crimes goes on and on.
        Torture.
        Illegal imprisonment.
        Illegal wiretapping.
        War profiteering.
        Corruption.
        Spreading scripted propaganda via supposedly independent news organizations.
        Criminal negligence in regards to fully investigating 9/11.
        Hell, there's plenty more that I can't list off the top of my head.

        Letting these people off scot-free is not compromising. It's either total and utter capitulation, or it's complicity.
      • StopTheLie, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4...ya, I guess the way our system of "justice" currently operates, it's better to be a "bitter enemy" of the Constitution, Bill of Rights (rule of law) than your fellow criminals who hold power. Let's make sure we reinforce that message as often as possible. (That you can violate any law you like, just so long as you have some "goody" to hang in front of your would-be prosecutors.) Maybe it will embolden the next batch of tyrants enough to openly suspend the Constitution and establish a dictatorship. (Maybe they'll promise "health care reform" to quell opposition...)

      • Gerz1219, on 08/08/2008, -4/+2I hate what Bush has done to this country more than anyone. But I don't think you realize how divisive and harmful it would be for this country if Obama immediately opened up a comprehensive array of prosecutions against former Bush administration officials. I guarantee you that if he makes that the focus of his first term, there won't be a second, and he'll be voted out of office without any major legislative accomplishments.

        The problems we face are too urgent to spend the next four years arguing over the last eight. What's important is that Obama successfully passes many of his initiatives, so that voters are less inclined to vote for Bushist candidates in the future. And considering that McCain is running a Bushist campaign, it is doubly important that Obama defeats Bushism now, lest it become an established winning formula in our political culture.
      • SmokedL, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3@Gerz1219

        I suggest you tell the families of the dead american soldiers that Obama can't be bothered with the inconvenience of going after the people that caused the death of their loved ones.

        I suggest you tell the families of the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis that Obama is to busy to bring the war criminals to justice.

        I suggest you tell every Iraqi that you're very sorry their country is now hell. That it may be incomparably worse than under Hussein, but Obama is really too busy to bring the warmongers that did this to them to justice. You're sorry, but they're not really important.

        I suggest you try explaining to the people of the US why they should obey the law, when the powerful get away mass murder in full view of the worlds cameras.

        I suggest you tell the people of the US how they can have anything but contempt for a supposed leader that would act this way.

        I suggest you explain to the US people how Obama could possibly claim to uphold the constitution and let these war criminals off scot-free.
    • Eivo, on 08/08/2008, -4/+9Why can we do them all at once? There are more then enough people in Washington to get all this done and more.

      And it's not revenge, it's justice.
    • Brownds, on 08/08/2008, -16/+3@ObamAmerican48
      How can you be so stupid at your age? I am in no way a Bush supporter but what laws has he broken? Being a total ***** up is not a crime. You would also have to prosecute the entire democrat lead congress for aiding and abetting this douche bag too. I think the time for ignorant bitterness is over.
      • publiclurker, on 08/08/2008, -2/+9*****. You are nothing but but Bush supporter trying to disguise the shame of your past by trying to claim that no laws were violated.

        well, either that or someone who is soo ignorant that he couldn't survive by themselves, and I didn't see anything in your post indicating that you had to have your keeper type it for you.
      • Fafnir43, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5*cough* Warrantless wiretapping *cough* War crimes *cough* Half a dozen other things *cough*
      • jameskong15, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4"what laws has he broken?"

        You've got a lot of reading to do - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ...
      • DontGiveADamn, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2Crimes against humanity. The U.S. government doesn't need to handle this. Just turn him over to an international tribunal.
      • Brownds, on 08/08/2008, -1/+0@publiclurker
        You sure can assume a lot for a total douche bag.

        @jameskong15
        I have read that and Kucinich has no grounds I am sure Bush has broken laws but so has most of the dirt bags on Capital Hill What can Kucinich do if the congress that is run by his party wont take him seriously. I just don't blame Bush for everything that went wrong in his administration D.C. is full of crooks in both parties that need to be voted out of power. Take your blame and broaden the scope.
      • quaxon, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1No this guy is right, bush made sure to go in and change all the laws so all the ***** he did/does wont be considered illegal!
      • GrogInOhio, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Well... where to start? How 'bout torture? How 'bout starting a war of aggression, the crime the Nazis were charged with? How 'bout falsifying evidence if this Suskind CIA charge has legs? How 'bout exposing a CIA covert asset?

        Somehow I suspect that logic and FACTS won't sway you though.

        165 days till the end of the Bush administration.

      • Brownds, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0@GrogInOhio
        Then why has the Elected Democratic Congress or any law maker done absolutely NOTHING to prosecute? Please take your facts and logic and submit them to the courts so we can secure a conviction. I don't think Huffpo articles count as facts though...
    • ciaran036, on 08/08/2008, -4/+4Don't be stupid. A couple of wars to address? What's that supposed to mean? We allow Bush to go and attack Iran, kill a few million more people and THEN we go after Bush??!!
    • RAGEdemon, on 08/08/2008, -8/+6Don't be so ***** naive. Going after bush at such an early stage would be political suicide.

      Obama needs to get into power, find out what internal damage has been done, put his people in place of bush's people, and when - and only when - the pieces are in place, can he go after bush himself.

      Check mate.

      It's not simple. And you are an idiot if you think it is.

      It is a very complex game chess.
    • OwdenBowden, on 08/08/2008, -11/+3WOW - you are talking like Obama is the President of the United States. Well, it is kind of hard to claim the White House when you haven't had the election nor did you win the election.

      As for a military strike on Iran - I 100% favor this but with the full might of the strongest non nuclear bombs we have. Why allow them to Pray to Allah when we can just send them there to meet him in person.
      • RAGEdemon, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3commendations on a fantastic troll ;-)
    • Jexie, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5Maybe if the US saw a president and vice president hanging from the end of a rope for their war crimes the next batch of greedy politicians might think twice about trampling all over the constitution when they get into power.
    • quaxon, on 08/08/2008, -2/+3I just raped some chick last week but there is this other guy who murdered his wife and kids, two young girls who were kidnapped and another serial killer on the loose so instead of wasting time with me, the rapist, they should just let me roam free for a couple years while they do whatever else.

      You obama apologists make me ***** sick. Are you willfully ignorant for not seeing past the fact that he is a bought and paid for candidate and is exactly the ***** same as mccain or are you guys really just stupid? If you wanted real change you would have voted for Kucinich, you guys wanted the bandwagon and you got it.
      • Jexie, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2It's called strategic voting, there is a difference between the two candidates and pretending there is absolutely none because this difference is just not radical enough for your liking is ignorant.
        Swearing at everyone and calling them stupid just doesn't change any minds strangely enough (I've tried it plenty).
  • nonsequitor, on 08/07/2008, -20/+9I know, lets get them to answer their Congressional Subpoenas once Bush is out of Office. Once there's a new President, we can have him order them to testify.

    However, I think we need to wait to truly investigate. This administration isn't very smart, so we need to stop asking them to supply the evidence of their crimes. It just tells them what to destroy before leaving office. If we wait until after they go, THEN box it all up and examine it, we'll have all the evidence we need to imprison them for a long long time.
    • OffPiste, on 08/08/2008, -3/+16"Once there's a new President, we can have him order them to testify. "

      I don't recall
      I can't remember
      I don't know how to answer that question
      I'm not sure
      I'd have to think about that
      I'm not prepared to answer that question
      My lawyer suggests I not answer that question
      I respectfully invoke my right to not answer that question
      ***** you


      Yeah sounds like a very productive tract to take. I'm sure we'll get a lot of information.
      • thejenigma, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4OffPiste,
        We could always just send Bush to Guantanamo.
      • hugolp, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4@thejenigma I think it would be more fair, to dress Bush as a arab guy, send him to Irak, have him take care of his life alone there, and if he manages to get adapted and doesnt get killed, arrest him and send him to Guantanamo. Yeah, that would be quite fair.
      • OffPiste, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4@hugolp

        "I think it would be more fair, to dress Bush as a arab guy, send him to Irak"

        Bush could live a good life in northern Iraq, he and his father are rock stars to the Kurds. Probably wouldn't recommend dressing like an arab though. Bush would look good in MC Hammer pants.
  • flogistan, on 08/07/2008, -24/+7You, he would continue to prosecute the policies of the bush administration because that's what their bosses tell them to do.
    • supermanred, on 08/08/2008, -0/+10What?
      • flogistan, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1That was supposed to be a yes instead of a you to start the sentence. I used prosecute in an ambiguous way to make a point. My bad with you/yes thing at the beginning of the sentence.
    • CrazedLeper, on 08/08/2008, -6/+3Correct. The U.S. is NOT an independent, sovereign nation. *True* independence from Great Britain was never attained. You are still a colony doing the bidding of the queen only thinking that you're not.
  • sportsstar67, on 08/07/2008, -39/+28Prosecute them for what ?? How many damn investigations do you want..First the ***** was supposed to hit the fan when Gonzo testified..Then jackass McClellan was going to destroy Bush...it's not happening, get over it and move on
    • Vespa299, on 08/08/2008, -11/+3Some Americans just love to see money spent, look at the money spent on Clinton's investigation and impeachment for getting a BJ. And that was really none of our business.
      • silveravnt, on 08/08/2008, -2/+9It wasnt about the BJ
      • dan222555, on 08/08/2008, -0/+9He was investigated for perjury....get a ***** clue.
      • pyronik, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5im sick of people trying to twist the perjury to him getting in trouble for have sex, most people don't even know it was about perjury just because of that twisting of it
      • hellsing47, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5You can't get impeached for receiving a blow job.
      • senseinobaka, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Clinton was impeached for perjuring himself in front of a grand jury for the specific purpose of defrauding a women, whom he assaulted, out of her rights to access federal courts to seek justice.
    • oldhick, on 08/08/2008, -6/+2McClellan wasn't supposed to destroy Bush. He just told the truth about what he saw. Its neither meant to build up or tear down, rather to simply inform.
  • kemp34, on 08/08/2008, -23/+125When are people going to realize that Obama has not made any stand against the Bush madness one bit? Are you people hypnotized or something?
    • supermanred, on 08/08/2008, -11/+17Hasn't made a stand?

      Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law."
      • apackofmonkeys, on 08/08/2008, -4/+15Wow, that procedure sounds about the same as the UN's. And we all know how effective they are.
      • dafragsta, on 08/08/2008, -3/+22Sounds like a politician's MO. Always find a politically correct reason to not do the thing you don't want to do, even if their constituents are ***** SCREAMING FOR IT. People who vote for Obama without knowing his history or policies (and I don't mean any of that muslim right wing *****) are just as guilty as the people who voted for Bush because they'd like to have a beer with that guy.

        Obama didn't even hold a senate spot until 2004. He's a freshmen senator and he doesn't take questions from the audience. I've never seen a single journalist or person in the crowd ask him about his lobbyist money. I certainly don't support McCain, but I resign from this idiotic notion that the only worthy presidents must come from a party in which they must PANDER TO rather than use their own common sense. Barack Obama is smart. That's how he got this far, but he doesn't speak with the fire and specifics on every issue Ron Paul did. (I don't give a ***** if you are tired of hearing about him.)

        People pick presidents the same way they pick American Idols. Whoever makes them feel the warmest and fuzziest on the inside while gathering the most mainstream media attention gets the prize. That being said, it's hopeless. The mainstream media lost all of their remaining credibility somewhere around September of 2001.
      • AchaIemoipas, on 08/08/2008, -0/+11How the hell do you call that taking a stand?

        Here's what taking a stand sounds like:
        "If I'm elected, Bush goes on trial".
      • SouthsideIrish, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3He is just giving himself the opportunity to flop around like a fish out of water. The man has no principals, and until we elect somebody that does we are screwed.
      • wtfbatman, on 08/08/2008, -3/+2***** Ron Paul. That is all I have to say.
      • Iztikeit, on 08/10/2008, -0/+1Obama "said"? Do you know how many things Bush has "said"?
    • naner, on 08/08/2008, -8/+18ALL GLORY TO HYPNOBAMA!

      Wow, did I really just type that?
    • ciaran036, on 08/08/2008, -5/+8Hypnotised indeed. Literally. When stage hypnotists are at work, victims can't tell they are hypnotised. It's the same thing here only on a bigger scale!
      • Digger1123, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1I can tell that all the obamabots are here spewing their trash.
    • Jareth86, on 08/08/2008, -10/+13Its called projection, Digg does it all the time. They find a candidate that they know nothing about, and immediately assume that he believes what they believe. It seems to have happened the most with Ron Paul and Barak Obama. The only difference is that Barak Obama is in the spotlight more, and thus they are disillusioned about him more often.

      Don't believe me? There are actually people here who believe that Ron Paul runs Ubuntu Linux on his PC!
      • Razed, on 08/08/2008, -4/+6Okay first of all I'd like for you to name a few times when Ron Paul did something that disillusioned his supporters. Maybe something along the lines of passing FISA or continuing funding for the invasion. Second at least Paul knows basically how to browse the web unlike some senior citizens running for high office. Last I'll just say we've been reduced to voting for a douche or a turd sandwich yet again.
      • sodade, on 08/08/2008, -3/+7Gee, what about his ***** wackjob legislation that would make every woman who had an abortion a murderer?
      • AchaIemoipas, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Citation needed*
      • sodade, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

        You couldn't look that up yourself?
      • jerrycurley, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1OK, *****...you just destroyed your own credibility.

        Show me where in that link that it says htat it would be applied retroactcely.

        Your stupid ***** comment said HAD an abortion. So your claim was that if that bill passed that they would round up every woman who has had an aboriton for hte last 35 years and charge them with murder.

        You are a 40 year old man who has wasted his entire life. How sad.
      • Jareth86, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/McCain_Admits_He ...
    • sysop073, on 08/08/2008, -5/+4Is it possible for one Obama article to go by on Digg without somebody using the word "hypnotized" in a comment and getting dugg up 30 times? We get it, Obama fans are hypnotized
    • richbleak, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3Oh.. Ok.. So Obama hasn't pushed back enough, so I should what? Vote for McCain? What is your point here? Yeah, it sucks that mainstream politicians aren't calling for this guy to be tarred-and-feathered, but I'm sure as ***** not going to do anything that props up the guy that not only doesn't make a stand against Bush, but also supports him in most things. We realize that he isn't making a significant stand, but no one else is either. Are you suggesting we not vote at all? What will that accomplish other than letting that psycho McCain into the White House and continuing this *****? Exactly what actions on our part are you suggesting?
      • WiseWeasel, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Voting for a 3rd party maybe. You can be sure the Libertarians or the Constitution party would string this administration up for the crap they've pulled. You only THINK you have two choices because you've been conditioned to. That's not going to change until enough people actually go ahead and vote differently.
    • ,,|,_, on 08/08/2008, -3/+6Give me a ***** break. If he starts talking about prosecuting Bush now, he's going to turn off a huge segment of the population that he needs to win the election in November.

      Would you rather have a democrat in the office who can pursue this late first term or early second term or a republican who will continue the same ***** policies as Bush for another 4-8 years?
      • richbleak, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Very well said. It is unfortunate that people who are against McCain but now despise Obama because of some of these decisions aren't savvy enough to understand what must be done to obtain the power that will allow for justice to prevail.
      • quaxon, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2You idiots act like obama is any different than bush or mccain. He is bought and paid for, he is strongly in favor of israel, he panders to the same exact lobbyists, he will expand our empire into pakistan, keep the war going in iraq, go into iran. HE IS THE ***** SAME. you people make me so sick, go and actually research a person instead of just jumping on the new hip trend! If you really wanted change you had a chance during the primaries to vote for Kucinich or Gravel, you failed.
      • kigcoopa84, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1@ richbleak
        You are not "savvy" enough to understand anything. People despise Obama because he is a far left lunatic who is out of touch with moderate democrats. He is trying to play a more moderate democrat by flip flopping on important issues such as Iraq, the economy, offshore drilling and gun control. Is the change you guys are looking for? Saying anything you think will get you elected is not exactly a new practice.
        @ quaxon
        No hope for you...
  • nontoxyc, on 08/08/2008, -26/+31No one in washington DC has the balls to stand up to these fascists.
    • supermanred, on 08/08/2008, -4/+25No one in America has the balls to stand up for freedom.

      Bush took many of your freedoms away and you stood by and saluted him while he did it.

      And then, just to prove to the world that you really don't give a ***** about the flag or freedom you re-elected the *****.
      • Rahodeb, on 08/08/2008, -0/+6Congress is complicit in this. Both the republican congress at the beginning and the Democratic congress now. Our system of checks and balances has failed, because we have two parties that realized they can get everything they want by working together.

        Until we break this two party monopoly, there is no reason for them to even worry about what "we the people" want for this country.

        Of course, the way to change this is easy, vote for someone else. Everyone who is talking about revolution, taking up arms, and crap like that has no idea of what they are asking for. We have a great governmental system, and it works, we just need to use it.
      • curtisag, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4@Rahodeb:

        Wrong, the way to change it is to change the constitution, eliminate the electoral college (winner take all) system, and replace it with a more equitable and fair system that gives 3rd parties a chance. The majority of the people in this country live in a state that is already pre-determined who will win all the electoral votes for the state. And then people wonder why only about half of the people vote, because their vote doesn't count! Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and a few other states determine who the President is. If you don't live in one of these states, you can grab your ankles and kiss your vote goodbye.
      • Joetwopointoh, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2We're overrun with fascists. They've systematically used our great system to take it from within. They're the first (and loudest) to scream liberal or leftist and their minions here happily digg you down for mentioning the obvious. They also claim to be true patriots. The dumbest of them don't even know they're fascists. Textbook stuff.

      • nontoxyc, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1I'll see you all in DC.
    • Rotzooi, on 08/08/2008, -2/+47Dennis Kucinich has.
      • Waiting2awake, on 08/08/2008, -2/+10He is the man! Him and Paul would be the best thing for America right now.
      • lajaw, on 08/08/2008, -14/+5Kucinich is a socialist/communist. He is a has been.
      • duckyinc, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3but he doesn't have the power to do anything, just balls lol
      • silveravnt, on 08/08/2008, -2/+3@lajaw
        That's true but he still has the guts to actually do what he says. I can't get with his Ideals but I can definitely admire the man. He should be the Dem nominee.
      • quaxon, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3Exactly, if all these brainwashed droids actually wanted real change and progress there is no doubt Kucinich would be our candidate, but they only want to look hip and trendy and give off the impression that they actually care. ***** them, mark my words, Obama is no different than Bush and Mccain, just you wait and see.
    • CrazedLeper, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Better hope it doesn't happen. A *true* attempt at prosecution of Bush, Inc. would trigger this:

      http://digg.com/political_opinion/Is_the_handwriti ...
    • jeremyduffy, on 08/08/2008, -0/+6Do you? Sign the petition:

      http://kucinich.us/
    • Lyk4n, on 08/08/2008, -2/+3I'm really starting to feel that the US is hopeless..
      • runCMD, on 08/08/2008, -3/+2I felt that way the day Obama became the presumptive democratic nominee. Geez what foolish star chasers we dems have become.
      • Lyk4n, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3Whatever Barack Obama is, the Clintons are a lot worse.
    • JohnFive, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2Don't forget Wexler, he has also stood up to the fascists.
      http://wexler.house.gov/
  • DeskFlyer, on 08/08/2008, -9/+34Nope.
    • jester55, on 08/08/2008, -5/+2damn it obama i knew there was no trusting him.
    • enri, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3At this point I think Obama would even pardon them if they were found guilty of war crimes or implicated in the partisan attorney firings or the Valerie Plame case. He has already gave the them retroactive immunity.
  • ryan83189, on 08/08/2008, -11/+12No, just because he is_your_candidate doesn't mean he will do everything you want. Go after the real bad guys anyway, not their puppet and fall guy.
    • Brain1, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1There needs to be an investigation, as to who the Bad Guys are. Throw the Baster's to the Wolves!!!
  • Wundur, on 08/08/2008, -20/+37Obama will do as he is told by the globalists, just like any good little sock puppet president has done for far too long.
    • BowieX, on 08/08/2008, -2/+10Unfortunately, it's hard to believe otherwise when his foreign policy advisor is none other than Zbigniew Brzezinski, both of whom I personally think truly do have good intentions, but are as meddlesome and destructive as even the most cold-hearted globalist puppeteer.
      • Iztikeit, on 08/10/2008, -0/+1At least he isn't Henry Kissinger.....But I could be wrong there.
    • Waiting2awake, on 08/08/2008, -3/+18And yet most Americans are completely blinded to this. It is really strange seeing this from outside the US. To see the venom that gets thrown at each "side" from the respective supporters, never seeing that both sides are really exactly the same other than some exceptionally superficial issues.

      But boy do they argue over those superficial issues...
      • Scalpels, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1It reminds me of religions and how they can fracture over superficial issues.
  • Regbooker, on 08/08/2008, -15/+59Sometimes it seems to me as if Obama's supporters are living inside a Limbo. Honestly guys, he is just another puppet. Watch what happened with the FISA and the Patriot Act bills.

    Obama and McCain can be explained trough marketing techniques: two competing products made by the same company in order to capture a bigger share of the market. Plain and simple.
    • Drakk0n, on 08/08/2008, -0/+8In other words this campaign is like the age old question - which is the better cola? coke or pepsi?
    • richbleak, on 08/08/2008, -3/+6I am not living "inside a Limbo" (wtf?). You have said it yourself, we are picking between two evils. To use Drakkon's soda analogy: we are choosing between flat coke and pepsi that has human ***** mixed into it. I'm not a huge fan of flat coke, but I'm going to fight tooth-and-nail to not have to swallow ***** in the form of a McCain presidency.
      • WiseWeasel, on 08/09/2008, -0/+2I'll just have a glass of water, thank you very much. There are more than two choices out there.
    • pilobilus, on 08/08/2008, -0/+5Or in other words, we are ordering from a menu prepared by our enemies. By "enemies" I mean a group of people whose financial and personal interests are directly hostile to our own, and by "us" I mean anyone with less than $100 million in capital assets.

      This leaves us two options: We can be good submissive little sheeple and wring our hands and deny responsibility and "pick the lesser of two evils". Or we can organize, participate, and get a real voice and seat at the table through direct nonviolent FORCE, like they do in free countries.
  • generalalcazar, on 08/08/2008, -7/+32Why do we require an administration to do this? Why can't US citizens pursue this in court?
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 08/08/2008, -0/+17Standing.

      To sue in a U.S. court you must have standing, i.e. you must be able to demonstrate the actual harm that came to you.

      The Bush administration claims everything of importance is a state secret and thus there's no way for someone to determine if they've suffered actual harm, thus no way to establish standing, thus no way to sue.

      It sucks...
    • enri, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Sovereign immunity.
  • alphonseragusa, on 08/08/2008, -7/+32Short answer: No.

    Long Answer: No way.
  • 1337Einstein, on 08/08/2008, -5/+32Would McCain?
    • mikedoth, on 08/08/2008, -8/+8Your kidding right?
    • orangefly, on 08/08/2008, -3/+39absolutely....john mccain has shown himself to be an honest and honorable man....he would do everything in his power to bring the bush administration to-nevermind....i can't do it....
    • jeremyduffy, on 08/08/2008, -2/+7Knight Bush? Yes, I think McCain would.
  • nonrate, on 08/08/2008, -17/+39Now I'm no McCain fan, nor am I an Obama supporter, but it sure seems like the "Messiah" is sounding like he's folding to the "status quo" in Washington. I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. A vote for McCain is a vote for Obama, and a vote for Obama is a vote for McCain. Please resist the urge to get all emotionally reactive at my comment here, if I possibly offended your Lord ( whichever one of these is yours )
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 08/08/2008, -0/+10Many Dems will have buyers' remorse with Obama, just as we have with the current Dem Congress.
    • slifty, on 08/08/2008, -1/+8Right now it is Obama and McCain's job to pander to both sides, this is how it works. True colors aren't shown after the primaries, they are shown after the election.

      That doesn't mean that we shouldn't demand sincerity, but it does mean that both are trying their best not to completely alienate anyone.
      • curtisag, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Demanding sincerity from politicians... oh my that's a funny one.
  • Colindean, on 08/08/2008, -6/+9The word should be Should, not Would, and the answer to the question should be Yes.
    • silveravnt, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1"Should Obama Prosecute the Bush Administration?" is not a question as we all know he should. What voters would like to know is if he "Would".
  • justice7, on 08/08/2008, -17/+12prosecuting bush here would be extremely embarrassing for the US. Even more so, than going to war in the first place. It would be best for Obama or McCain to pick up the pieces and move on; and do things right.

    Prosecuting Bush will do nothing to correct the problems the US is facing right now. Also, if you hold the president accountable for making decisions (even bad ones) they will be more afraid to make large decisions in the future. Bush was just a bad egg, and i'm sure his intentions weren't as bad as many of you make them out to be... hindsight is 20/20 right?
    • delrin500, on 08/08/2008, -1/+13That is total *****. If you don't hold these people accountable what is there to prevent anyone in the future from taking it to the next level?? You have to set an example and it would show the world and the citizens of this country and we do have a rule or law and that we do hold our high ranking officials accountable for the crimes they commit.
    • generalalcazar, on 08/08/2008, -2/+11I am sorry, but you are wrong. Presidents cannot lie in order to gain access to the US Military and conduct wars. This is criminal, and it will always be criminal. And yes, there is a law against it. It is called fraud. Those who commit fraud are responsible for the results of their fraudulent activities. Therefore, George Bush is personally responsible for every death involved in the Iraq War. If we don't bring him to justice then we as a nation are just a bunch of pussies.
      • curtisag, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4Protip:

        The pussies are Pelosi and the Democratic leadership. There was sufficient evidence for impeachment, but they swept it under the rug so they could use Bush for a punching bag to win in 2008.
      • floorman56, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3. Presidents cannot lie in order to gain access to the US Military

        1. Presidents ALL ready have access to the military
        2. what lie? if you mean WMD's and simple google search will provide reams of quotes in the 90's before Bush of Dem's saying he had them.
        3. You are also aware there was a law that REQUIRED Bush to remove Saddam? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
    • krnldmp, on 08/08/2008, -2/+6That's a bunch of *****.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 08/08/2008, -2/+4It would be embarrassing in some ways. Cathartic in others.

      However, prosecuting Bush (or other members of the administration) for actual crimes they committed would go a long way to ensuring that FUTURE administrations don't repeat the mistakes of the Bush administration.
    • hugolp, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2Yeah, hide your rubbish under the carpet to not be ashame, and hide the head under the floor when all the rubish grows so back and you can stop it anymore.
    • jeremyduffy, on 08/08/2008, -2/+8Try again. The world knows that Bush was a mistake. If we don't publicly denounce him and his policies, we look foolish, but even worse, it makes it sound as if we agree with all the things he's done to piss off the rest of the world and then where will we be? Our only hope of redeeming any reputation we might have had at one time is to hold the creep accountable.
    • shitdick057, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Or instead of prosecuting Bush and his admin(right away), why doesn't Obama just relinquish the war time powers that was bestowed upon the office of the presidency by the Patriot Act(s). Kind of like the original GW did after the revolution.

      Right? Couldn't Obama just say that anything that goes against the constitution is *****?
  • dafragsta, on 08/08/2008, -7/+3That depends. Is he or is he not a Bilderberger? Then again, I doubt they'd claim Bush and company among their own anyway.
  • nopRT, on 08/08/2008, -5/+11I don't think it's the president's job to prosecute former presidents. A better question would be whether he would give immunity to the current administration or somehow stop an investigation.

    If someone commits a crime, they should be prosecuted regardless of how many people it would disappoint. It sure didn't stop the Repubs from going after Clinton for lying about a knobjob.
  • aftern9ne, on 08/08/2008, -8/+16God forbid Obama would rather fix the mess Bush has put us in than commit (before he's even elected) to a partisan witch hunt that could wait until a full investigation is waged.
    • thanakar, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2Obama helped to put us in this mess too.
  • SDMDPM14X, on 08/08/2008, -9/+8I think a good thing to take from this article is this quote: "If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated," [Obama] said. But he quickly added, "I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems to solve."

    He's right -- let's worry about getting out of Iraq, ending torture, and giving everyone in this country decent health care first. Bush can wait his turn, but his administration will get theirs.
  • digdug135, on 08/08/2008, -5/+7They're going to be handing out pardons like candy before the end of the term. Just pretend this discussion does not exist.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4I've been thinking the same thing for a long time. I wonder, can a President pardon himself?

      However, pre-emptive pardons could be most interesting:

      Why didn't Ford make more of the 1915 Supreme Court decision in Burdick v. United States that held that accepting a pardon is tantamount to confession of guilt?

      "I still carry it around in my pocket, that statement," Ford said. "I've got it in my wallet here because anytime anybody challenges me, I pull it out. I've got it here someplace." He searched around in his wallet, and handed me a folded, dog-eared piece of paper. It was a portion of the Burdick decision.

      I began to read aloud. "Most important, the justices found that a pardon 'carries an imputation of guilt, acceptance, a confession of it.' " Ford seized on the last phrase and repeated it: " 'Acceptance, a confession of it.' " See, Nixon had confessed, he said. "That was always very reassuring to me."

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

      So, there's legal precedent for equating acceptance of a pardon as an ADMISSION OF GUILT.
  • brstilson, on 08/08/2008, -4/+8Obama is going to do no such thing. Whether or not you agree Bush should be prosecuted, there are still a lot of pro-Bushies around. A prosecution would divide the country, which is the last thing Obama wants. I'm betting Obama is going to adopt the "let the past be the past and lets all move on" approach with this.
    • Razed, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2Yes because that's how the justice system works. If you steal from somebody. Eh, forget abouddit. If you've murdered somebody. Let's just not remember that person and move on. You say there are still a lot of pro bushies around, but I'm fairly certain he's polling at ~25% which is pretty dismal. Either way even Charles Manson had fans routing for him. Should he still be in jail. I mean that past is over 25 years ago.
  • vexingmodstwo, on 08/08/2008, -7/+19Oh for *****'s sake.... the torture thing again? Of course no future President is going to go back and investigate past Presidents over torture... Are you people nuts?
  • berkough, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5The double-headed eagle is an ancient symbol that has been used in politics for centuries. Attributed to the symbol is this notion; "Two opposing forces, joined by a unified body."

    This is nothing more than theatrics.
  • delrin500, on 08/08/2008, -10/+9He ***** better!!
  • migel628, on 08/08/2008, -4/+8Short answer: NO.
  • ericjohnson0, on 08/08/2008, -17/+12I want to see Obama prosecuted for taking money from terrorists and their sympathizers (Two solid sources as Proof):

    http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2008/8/5/38253 ...

    http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/palestinian- ...

    And of course, where is the Main Stream Media reporting on this? Oh, right... Obama gets the Pass. As always.
    • aftern9ne, on 08/08/2008, -4/+5I can tell by the photoshopped picture of bin Laden and Obama that this is a credible source.
      • ericjohnson0, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1They have a 'sense of humor' which is rare these days...
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 08/08/2008, -6/+3Fine, we can then prosecute McCain for accepting illegal contributions from BIG oil:

      WASHINGTON — Alice Rocchio is an office manager at the New York headquarters of the Hess Corp., drives a 1993 Chevy Cavalier and lives in an apartment in Queens, N.Y., with her husband, Pasquale, an Amtrak foreman.

      Despite what appears to be a middle-class lifestyle, the couple has written $61,600 in checks to John McCain's presidential campaign and the Republican National Committee, most of it within days of McCain's decision to endorse offshore oil drilling.

      ...

      A former FEC official said that it's possible that the Rocchios had the means to make those hefty contributions — their first reported donations to a federal campaign. But the official, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, said that their donations also could trigger a complaint or otherwise catch the eyes of the agency's enforcement staff, tasked to ensure that companies or wealthy individuals don't illegally circumvent contribution limits by using employees or other third parties as "conduits'' for cash.

      The staff might wish to determine whether the couple is too "under-employed'' to be making donations that large, the official said.

      http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/46533.ht ...
    • aasukisuki, on 08/08/2008, -4/+7Ahh... thesaloon.net, with such hard hitting stories like "How not to catch a long football pass" http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2008/8/8/38298 ... and "Sometimes what the army does best isn't fighting..." http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2008/8/8/38298 ...
      • defwheezer, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2McCain's campaign has taken the same idea and given it an Internet-era twist. It also has taken the concept one step further.

        People who sign up for McCain's program receive reward points each time they place a “Buried- Huffington Post Spam” or “Barack Hussein Obama” or “I’m a Democrat, but I can’t vote for Obama after FISA” or “PUMA – Just Say No” or "Why Can't Obama win?" comment on one of the listed Web sites. Racially related or Muslim related comments receive double points.
  • merlin5, on 08/08/2008, -13/+10Because all the accusations against Bush are ridiculous lies? Just like all the platitudes Obama is mesmerizing the angry mob with. I like the comments from the Europeans who cant believe we are arguing over two candidates who are essentially the same with superficial differences.

    "There are no stars upon thars"
    Dr.Seuss
    • dswinscoe, on 08/08/2008, -5/+2keep peddling the crap, but seriously, "candidates who are the same?" Do you seriously believe 200,000 Germans would come out to listen to McCain speak? Now that's funny!
      • merlin5, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2They apparently found A.Hitler equally invigorating. Are you trying to put McCain down?
      • dswinscoe, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1Arschloch! The US was equally invigorated by the KKK, a good ol-style lynchin', Jim Crow Laws, and not to mention the internment, and slow genocide of the previous owners! America, ***** Yea! But luckily not today, right?! And the same applies to Germany, dimwit! If there was ever a culture that understood the perils of Nationalism as experienced in the US in the last eight years, the Germans fully grasp the dangers and educated their children to ensure it never occurs again. That's what draws the Germans, Europeans and the rest of the world to Obama - because frankly, with the idiots at the helm today, and the danger of
        "more of the same" McCain in the US, they're not so certain it couldn't happen here again. Damn GOP trolls!
    • jameskong15, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2I'd like to see you prove that all of these accusations are lies in order to support your claim.

      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ...

      Get to work.
    • pyronik, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4i dont care if its 200 million germans. What does this prove? Obama isn't running for the presidency of Germany
      • dswinscoe, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1no, but he could definitely help restore the Bush-wacked American brand name to its former respectable and admired position in the growing world market, which holds, by the way, a considerable financial stake in the US. Why are so many of you still living in the 1950s?! I mean, I sort of understand the grand ol party's delusional obsession with the status quo, but the game has changed dramatically, and the US is not the only key player - far from it! One would think that you'd already realized that the US can't live in a moral and economic vacuum: got foreclosure? got banks? got credit? got ***** hitting the fan? We clearly need friends, and you can bet our supporters and fellow consumers in Europe, China and increasingly Africa, will definitely be looking very closely to see how we decide in November ... and if you think they're rooting for McCain and more of the same, you might want to take a closer look:
        http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/13/Obama_favor ...
      • pyronik, on 08/10/2008, -0/+1I know they are obsessed with obama because hes a raging socialist, marxist in my opinion, but if he drives our country into the ground it doesnt matter what the germans think about us.

        Bush for whatever you don't like about him, other countries don't want to mess with him cause they know he will mess them up. Now you have Barrack oh can't we all just get along Obama and these rouge nations who are hell bent on destruction are just supposed to be like oh sweet Obama hurray lets all be friends.

        No thanks, I'll take McCain, learned my lessons about appeasement from World War 2, and I learned socialism doesn't work because of the countries who employ it sucking so badly and their programs falling apart.
  • akchrs, on 08/08/2008, -14/+10What makes them think Obama is going to get elected. LOL!!
  • JigoroKano, on 08/08/2008, -7/+11He probably won't. But no doubt McCain will pardon them, which is even worse.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 08/08/2008, -0/+5True. McCain is no longer a man of honor.
    • Swift2, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Can a president pardon somebody, including himself, who "hasn't done anything wrong"? I don't think so. If we're really interested in changing the dynamics here, we wait until after W has lost his pardon power. Remember, Bush Sr., a less toxic president, pardoned the guys who could testify against him, and they ended up forming an important part of the W conspiracy.
  • spamcrusher, on 08/08/2008, -6/+11Well this is one of the few issues Obama has not flip-flopped on. Digg's messiah is nothing but politics as usual. The real powers that be really do not care if Obama or McCain wins, they are both essentially the same.

    "I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus." - Barack Obama 7/2/07. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-28 ...
  • themamboman, on 08/08/2008, -13/+8If a former administration could be prosecuted, the whole Clinton admin would be in prison.

    Obama's not going to win without some serious vote fraud.
    • IneedaSN, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1you mean like in Florida? Or counties in Ohio where more ppl voted for Bush than lived in the county...yea
  • rossiprojects, on 08/08/2008, -8/+5Yeah, it`s time for spring cleaning.
  • fx666, on 08/08/2008, -8/+8No matter what Obama wants, there will be no prosecution because there are no laws that would allow a groundless prosecution. As a former lawyer (just kidding!), I assure you that this idea is still-born.
  • toxicityj, on 08/08/2008, -7/+6No, but he'll sure say he will if it means you'll vote for him.
    • toxicityj, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Yeah bury me like it's not the truth. Obama is just another politician that will say whatever it takes to get elected. But if you want to live in your sad world of denial, knock yourselves out.
  • philwalsh, on 08/08/2008, -2/+7I think it's naive to think that Obama would make any mention of impeaching Bush during his campaign. The guy is trying to run a positive campaign so the last thing he wants is to get into this messy situation of impeachment.
    Having said that, I can't see him pushing for impeachment once Obama is in office either...
    • forgottenhope, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2saying nothing at all is compliance. ***** you pussys
  • time4truth, on 08/08/2008, -8/+3According to Vincent Bugliosi, under the law, any prosecutor in a jurisdiction that was home to a soldier who died in Iraq could bring charges against the bush administration for murder.
  • 13373h4X0r, on 08/08/2008, -3/+10From the summary: "The answer better be hell yeah! But sadly it sounds like they would push it back to a 2nd term. This is worse than FISA."

    What's "This is worse than FISA" supposed to mean? Is that sentence intended to mean that Bush's various crimes are worse than the CEOs of a few telecommunication companies agreeing to assist the government in domestic surveillance without court orders? Or is that sentence intended to express the opinion that postponing "prosecution" of the Bush administration by four years would be worse than granting immunity to the CEOs of telecommunication companies for agreeing to assist the government in domestic surveillance without court orders? Or maybe that sentence means something else...

    And what's the purpose of this speculation? To help people decide between voting for Obama versus John McCain, or some other candidate for president? If so, I think having Obama as president would represent a greater chance of eventual prosecution of Bush than if John McCain become president. Furthermore, I think it's pretty obvious at this point in the game that there are only two remaining viable candidates for president: Obama and McCain. Voting for anyone else is a conscious decision to forfeit one's chance to actually make a difference, even if one believes there is only a tiny advantage to choosing one of those two candidates over the other. Even the most cynical vote can find some tiny distinction that represents the superiority of one candidate over the other.
    • azhura, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Great post! This is all speculation anyway since Obama isn't in office.
  • catcher6250, on 08/08/2008, -6/+13Lol, this is not worse than FISA, from the words of Obama himself:

    "I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems to solve."

    You can't just go and get the ex-President and put him to jail. He is right, we have more important things to worry about. And even then, he still has prosecuting Bush on his list of things to do.
    • syncr, on 08/08/2008, -1/+7If I could digg this twice I would. Well constructed argument.
      Look the only way we are going to get past the gridlock of the past 8 years is to have a mandate election and bi-partisan unity on some key issues. The most important issues, election reform, campaign finance reform, health care, and a viable energy policy, international stability, these things take bipartisanship and consensus. I'm all for getting Bush eventually, but lets stabilize from the plunge first.
    • azhura, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2I agree. We can point fingers (rightly so) all that we want at the Bush administration. But, putting someone in jail isn't going to clean up the mess that they made.
  • delrin500, on 08/08/2008, -11/+8He is an international War Criminal... how could we possibly not? It would look terrible to ignore international concerns and not turn him over for a War Crimes trial.

    And if you don't think that he is a war criminal then u r just lying to yourself b/c you are so blinded by ur hatred of the "other side" that you will never be able to truly think for yourself. You can't believe something just because a person of this or that party says it, you have to think for yourself.
    • Joetwopointoh, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Nothing will happen because the fox is (and has long been) guarding the hen house.
    • delrin500, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2Then we must accept that we have started down the road of destruction. When you stop upholding the values and principles that made a country great you begin to tear it down. I understand that a lot of presidents and this country as a whole have done some pretty messed up stuff, but this administration brought it to a fever pitch and all it is doing is conditioning us to be able to take even more the next time a president decided that they want to go off the reservation and act is an even more lawless manner. That is why holding people accountable now is soo important, a message must be sent to the future and that this time should be looked upon as the dark time of America.
      • pinchduck, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Dude, we stepped on that train during the FDR administration, who was the first president to wholesale ignore the Constitution. It's just reaching a crescendo is all. It's like you are walking in on the Ode to Joy and announcing to everyone that there is a symphony going on. No kidding.
    • yukeake, on 08/08/2008, -1/+0All Obama would have to do is refuse to pardon him. Then let the international community bring Bush and Friends up on war crimes charges. Then comply with the investigation.

      Obama could show a clear direction of "solving problems at home", while letting the UN deal with Bush's crimes. It'd also give the UN a way to get back at Bush for giving them the finger wrt Iraq - especially since it's been proven since then that the UN was entirely correct, and Bush, Cheney, etc... *knew* it.

      Obama's correct that we should focus on cleaning up the mess here. They need to be held accountable to the *world* for what they did - so let the world handle it.
  • phocis850, on 08/08/2008, -1/+7This is going to happen with EVERY president for now on.
    • generalalcazar, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1It doesn't have to. All the presidents have to do is not break laws. Is that too much to ask?
  • Asheis, on 08/08/2008, -3/+1What makes you think he, or any other candidate, would even have the power for such a move? I'm sorry, i'm an obama fan, but based on how good bushco has been at avoidance in the past I don't really feel he'll try, or even be able to try.
    • MWeather, on 08/08/2008, -3/+2"What makes you think he, or any other candidate, would even have the power for such a move? "

      Bush seems to think he can arrest and detain anyone indefinitely for any reason. It only seems fitting that Obama use this power to arrest and detain Bush for the rest of his life.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 08/08/2008, -2/+4You guys are ***** crazy.
      • Asheis, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2And what i'm saying is that even as the next president, he wouldn't have the power to do this. Have any of our previous presidents been arrested for the crimes they've committed? (and make no mistake, the presidency wasn't spotless before bush came along) No. Hell, the worst they get is usually a slap on the hand and a push out the door.
      • MWeather, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1"And what i'm saying is that even as the next president, he wouldn't have the power to do this."

        If Bush has the power, so will Obama.
  • voodoochild461, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4As if whats going on now isn't a big enough waste of resources. Whoever the next pres is, they should spend time cleaning things up, instead of dwelling on the past.
  • soulgrnd, on 08/08/2008, -6/+3When is everyone going to realize its not just the bush administration its everyone and everything. The problem with this country is not just the fact that Bush is a blithering idiot. America needs to change or we are going down.
  • Jareth86, on 08/08/2008, -3/+3You know the sad thing; years ago, if someone were to have told me that in 2008, the candidates would be Barak Obama and John McCain, I would have thought "Finally, we get to choose between the greater of two goods!"

    What the hell happened to these two?!
  • ciaran036, on 08/08/2008, -4/+4As much as we would love that, the answer is NO. And to think Obama will listen to shouts for a war crimes trial is ridiculous. Obama is just like the rest of them.
  • baltar2008, on 08/08/2008, -3/+7In a word: no.
  • oakhilltop, on 08/08/2008, -10/+4Obama -> Democrat -> WIMP

    He's not going to do anything to rock the boat
  • tpearl, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2I dont care who gets elected. There is NOTHING anybody is going to be able to do to Bush.

    Digg me down all you want but the fact is Bush will spend the rest of his life on his ranch in Crawford and making a ***** load of money on the speech trail.
  • mogebier, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4Hell No.

    Why do people think that Obama is anything but ANOTHER POLITICIAN??

    Hello???
    Wake up, people.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 98 of 98 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.