digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

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

All the Evidence You Need to Impeach Bush and Cheney

democraticunderground.com — The past year has seen the public exposure of enough evidence of old, ongoing, and new crimes, abuses of power, and impeachable offenses by George Bush and Dick Cheney that in any remotely representative democracy, these two thugs would be out of office and behind bars. Here's the evidence and why we should continue to push for impeachment.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • GhostyBoy, on 01/03/2008, -9/+148The whole god-damn government needs an enema.
    • Minarchian, on 01/03/2008, -6/+20I know of a Doctor who has done a few. I bet he can clean out the crap in government.
      • chicofaraby, on 01/03/2008, -9/+21Yeah, the guy who voted with George Bush's GOP in three of four votes since 2000 is going to "clean out" the GOP corruption.

        How many times are you going to let Lucy hold the football, Charlie Brown?
        • nospinhere, on 01/04/2008, -4/+2analogy - fail
          • mightydavefish, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2Nope.
            He's dead on.
            But don't feel bad you didn't understand it.
          • gandhii, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1It is an analogy failure if you're suggesting that 3 out of 4 of these referenced votes are not legitimately conservative and adhere to the constitution... strictly because they were done by the GOP. That's like saying a Democrat in the 90's who obviously (by definition) supported most Democrat's bills is an adulterer. Which, if you didn't understand it, would be an equally stupid thing to say.
      • CatsAreGods, on 01/03/2008, -3/+9A Doctor...Who?
        • supermanred, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1A Timelord, from the planet Gallifrey in the constellation Casterberus. 903 years old. That's who.
      • pintomp3, on 01/03/2008, -1/+9the same doctor who voted against investigating impeachment of cheney?
    • InSectWar, on 01/03/2008, -3/+54hmm... An enema of the state?
    • cJw314, on 01/03/2008, -18/+2Dug down for blasphemous, uncreative language.
      • GhostyBoy, on 01/03/2008, -2/+2Same reason you are getting dugg down?
      • Psygonn, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1Did you mean to use a /sarcasm?
      • mightydavefish, on 01/04/2008, -2/+1Well God damn it, why don't you just ***** off then?
        I'm sure there are preschools where you can limit your word choice to the ones you've arbitrarily decided are OK.
    • ChaosMotor, on 01/03/2008, -2/+8Not an enema, Ghosty, a hanging. Clean house, leave no one behind. All are complicit, either by their action or inaction. It's time for a revolution. It's not a lack of evidence but a lack of will that has enabled these ongoing TREASONS. Our government has deserted our People for the almighty dollar. It's time for a change; a real change; a deep change. A fundamentally new government is in order, reflecting the evolution of society up to this point and our new technological capabilities.
      • gandhii, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1screw a new government... let's get back to the old one!
    • jsmu, on 01/03/2008, -2/+1but Ghosty, that would require the governing parties to get their heads out of their asses...
    • oakeybloke, on 01/03/2008, -1/+2No, the party-line voters do. Instead of having a gang war over piddly issues, how's about we vote for the candidate who will do the job, not just whoever is in whats-it party. The big donnybrook in Kenya these days is an uprising over gangs who didnt get their dude elected. Pretty much all of the anti-Bush poppycock is anti-repub in general, "instead, vote for my awesome democrat alternative! yay!"
      • Terr01, on 01/03/2008, -1/+1If it seems anti-Republican in general, it could be because some of the frontrunners seem creepily ready to follow Bush's footsteps when it comes to claiming dictatorial powers. (E.g. Giuliani, Romney)
      • gandhii, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1I'm an independent.. more libertarian and conservative than anything.. I resent and I am insulted that you are suggesting that I am a liberal because I thought Bush was an idiotic tool from day one. No I didn't vote for Gore either. That would have been almost as embarrassing.
  • djdavey, on 01/03/2008, -9/+46If you need more evidence, look at this chart...
    http://www.floort.com/?fid=94&ftitle=Dick+Cheney+i ...
    • Berkana, on 01/03/2008, -2/+17That's very telling. All that is blood money.
    • kaelyiesta, on 01/03/2008, -2/+6Before anyone responds with a half truth saying he doesn't get any of that money, let me point out that it goes to 4(last time I checked) institutions he has chosen. Schools he went to and other groups he was connected to in some way or another if I recall right.
      • thcobbs, on 01/03/2008, -3/+6So you're saying that he doesn't get the money?
        • highdef, on 01/03/2008, -3/+7Wikipedia: Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $34 million.[23] As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President.[24] Concerns have been raised regarding the possible conflict of interest resulting from Cheney's deferred compensation and stock options from Halliburton. However, before entering office in 2001, Cheney bought an insurance policy that guaranteed a fixed amount of deferred payments from Halliburton each year for five years so that the payments would not depend on the company's fortunes.[24] He is legally bound by an agreement he signed which turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (in Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education. The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," preventing Cheney from taking back the options at a later date.
          • kingmanic, on 01/03/2008, -1/+2note the word "profit" unless defined he can administrate that down to very little. why not just sell them and keep the money and invest it in other things? because there is less upside. He chose a purposely obstificated vehicle for his stock options because he will profit from them. Why didn't he liquidate them?
          • thcobbs, on 01/03/2008, -1/+2after-tax profits: seems clear cut to me... Sell price - (cost of stocks + commission)
          • GeneralFault, on 01/03/2008, -2/+1Nobody seems to be pointing out that Haliburton may not have been able to pay the $398,548/yr for very long at the rate that it was going pre war. The stock had gone from 26.82 down to 5.03 in the year after the election (and it wasn't doing so hot before). That means that Cheney's 170million was only worth about 31million by the end of 2001 and at the rate of decline would be nearly worthless within a year and a half.
      • kingmanic, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3No just his friends.
    • themarq, on 01/03/2008, -2/+9OK, so there's a buttload of evidence that Cheney ignored the constitution by holding on to his Haliburton stock and then created a war to increase his personal wealth (as I understand it).
      But now what? How do you actually launch the impeachment process? I see and hear a lot of Americans calling for just that, but who does it... what needs to happen to get the ball rolling? As someone who is not American, I am genuinely curious as to how your system works.
      • thcobbs, on 01/03/2008, -11/+5Umm, he sold all the sock, and gave away the money.
        • kingmanic, on 01/03/2008, -2/+8He put the stocks in trust, and pledged that the profits (if any) on those stocks and options be distributed to certain charities. He then insured them against loss. He didn't sell them and give away the money. It's a lot more complicated then selling it and giving the money away. He didn't. He set it up so that the money is arms reach and made a promise to give away profits. It's a way to defuse any direct accusations of conflict of interests without actually removing the conflict of interest by simply making the matter complicated. What happens if he sells it all 6 years later and gives the money to the charitable trust for his kids or relatives? Impeachment?
      • ChaosMotor, on 01/03/2008, -2/+4It's Congress that is supposed to impeach, but they are in on the scam. Thousands have tried to serve citizen's arrest warrants on Bush & Cheney, to no avail. We the People have no choice left but an out-in-the-streets revolution.
      • gandhii, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1I read somewhere that we the people might also be able to bring an impeachment.. but it was just theory. It has never been done before. And I lost track of the link to that blog post. Interesting idea though.. and looking more and more like a good idea.
    • noahhoward, on 01/03/2008, -8/+3Wow, how very circumstantial of you. I'm not saying the guy isn't scum but you will need a whole lot better than that, unless you plan on arresting everyone with Haliburton stock under accusations of starting a war.
      • ChaosMotor, on 01/03/2008, -2/+5Most Halliburton stock holders didn't have a direct hand in the lies and government actions that led to this war. Cheney is not just an average Halliburton stock holder, genius. He's the vice-*****-president of the USA.
      • GeneralFault, on 01/03/2008, -2/+3Just those with a direct involvement in creating the evidence and starting the war. Know any more people (other than Cheney) like that? I'm sure we would all like to hear about them too.
      • supermanred, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2LOL, he's the Vice President of Haliburton. It's cut and dry, clear-cut, obvious. Haliburton has moved operations to Dubai, just in case all this ***** eventually hits the fan.
    • alsahir, on 01/03/2008, -4/+5As a few others have pointed out, by the time the war was on Cheney had no stock and did not profit financially. The impeachment movement might have more to go on if it wasn't full of retarded accusations. Just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean you get to impeach him. This isn't California (which technically wasn't impeachment either, but had the same effect).

      @themarq - see above for his actual guilt in this particular matter. As far as impeachment goes, a quick glance at the Constitution (everyone complains about it being abused but so few have actually read it) would inform you that the House of Representatives is the only body in America that can impeach someone. After the House impeaches them, the Senate tries them and hands out the sentence. If the citizens wish to get the ball rolling as it were, they would have to contact their Representative and convince them to take action.
      • Terr01, on 01/03/2008, -2/+1Hell, I prefer accusations along the lines of blatant violation of the bill of rights and behavior in flagrant contradiction to his oath of office, but...
    • WhiteRaven, on 01/03/2008, -4/+4What is it that you think that is evidence of? Are you so simple-minded and laughably irrational that you think that any result of an event must therefore be the prime motivation of those involved? Given that there are many, many results of any event, especially something as major as the invasion of a country, it's hard to imagine a dumber conclusion.
    • dijital, on 01/03/2008, -2/+5There's no lack of evidence. Just a lack of resolve (read: balls)
  • UtubReptilian, on 01/03/2008, -16/+14First MSM covers up Osama bin Laden's death (15 honors in u tube). Now U.S. Treasury Secretary gets shot too and just like Buttho's news, FOX News Corp and their business partners are going out of their way to spam the internet saying this is a conspiracy theory. http://digg.com/business_finance/U_S_Treasury_Secr ...
    • dancanm, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2HENRY PAULSON WAS NOT SHOT.

      People believe everything they read on the internet, don't they?
  • abran1984, on 01/03/2008, -2/+12Send this to Conyers, he killed impeachment already.

    http://digg.com/politics/IMPEACHMENT_IS_DEAD_CONYE ...
  • lhbaker, on 01/03/2008, -25/+8I wish they hadn't wasted so much time on this.
  • blindhammer, on 01/03/2008, -9/+119Unfortunately, this list does not contain evidence that Bush had a consensual sexual relationship with another adult. So, no impeachment.
    • banzai26, on 01/03/2008, -3/+12Who in the ***** would have sex with Bush??
    • briguymaine, on 01/03/2008, -7/+7Clinton lied under oath, that was the problem on that one.
      • armoreddillo, on 01/03/2008, -2/+1depends on the meaning of the word 'lied'...
      • blindhammer, on 01/03/2008, -1/+8And Bush lied in the State of the Union Address, which is Constitutionally mandated. What is worse? Lying about an affair or lying about a pretext to invade another country?
      • GeneralFault, on 01/03/2008, -1/+3And Bush hasn't?
      • enri, on 01/03/2008, -1/+4The problem was Clinton didn't keep lying. When confronted with a mountain of opposing evidence you stick to the lie. Future presidents will know this thanks to Bush.
        (Not that I defend Clinton's actions, but that particular wrongdoing is nil compared to Bush's.)
        • YanMan, on 01/03/2008, -1/+2OK, Clinton admitted the relationship eventually, but come on - he got off by arguing about "what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

          No one has proven anything other than Bush was wrong about WMD - not lying, but wrong - HUGE difference. [Also, I might add most of the rest of the world was wrong on that one too. Saddam even admitted that the kept the illusion alive so Iran wouldn't invade.]
          • GeneralFault, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2Please review the downing street memo. All the proof in the world that Bush was lying us into war.
          • YanMan, on 01/04/2008, -0/+0@GeneralFault (reply not working, argh)

            Depends on what the meaning of the word 'fixed' is - lol. Honestly, if you were getting at that parallel, you're a comedic genius.

            I'm familiar with the DSM. I take the meaning of 'fixed' in that context to mean exactly what I stated above - that Bush was spinning justification for the war with the evidence he thought would be most compelling to the public. And by spinning I don't mean lying, I mean emphasizing.
      • briguymaine, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1I love how I'm getting dugg down for stating a historical fact. Digg ftw! I don't think the State of the Union is done under oath, I could be wrong.
    • YanMan, on 01/03/2008, -5/+2Does anyone else find it ironic that NOW and a bunch of other organizations who supposedly support women's rights in the workplace would be against the impeachment of a serial sexual harasser? I know the issue has been successfully spun into a "consensual sexual relationship," but remember the impeachment was actually for perjury - perjury in a sexual harassment case in which the plaintiff was trying to establish that it would not be the first time (or last time, more accurately) Clinton had participated in a relationship with a subordinate.
      • blindhammer, on 01/03/2008, -1/+5You have some good points. But then you have to consider that Bush lied in the State of the Union address, which is mandated by the Constitution. In the scheme of things, which is worse?

        The Clinton impeachment was more of a political hack job than anything else. Republicans were pissed off that he was in office, that the economy was soaring and that Clinton was popular.

        There's a huge difference between the two.
        • YanMan, on 01/03/2008, -2/+1I know I'll get dugg down for this, but here goes anyway: I object to the use of the word "lied." I don't think Bush intentionally misled the American people on WMD in Iraq (plus one could argue that Saddam did TRY to get Uranium from Africa, unsuccessfully, but TRIED nonetheless - if that is the statement you were referring to).

          Hell, I don't even think he cared about WMD in Iraq. I think that was the horse the administration picked to ride because they thought it was the best chance at success. I think we went into Iraq because Bush was sick and tired of Saddam thumbing his nose at the UN while the UN did nothing but pass increasing irrelevant resolutions. Bush is guilty, IMO, of nothing more than spinning his justification for the war in the wrong way. Bush should have just said we're going in because Saddam is not adhering to these 23 UN resolutions (sorry, that number is just a guess - I lost count).

          Anyway, to answer your question, I think Clinton's offense was worse. I don't disagree that the Republicans pursued impeachment because of all the reasons you mention, but you have to admit Clinton did break the law. It was a stupid and petty "consensual relationship," but a relationship he lied about all the same.

          BTW, I dugg your comment because it's actually nice to see some rational arguments on digg instead of the usual petty sniping (and I'm not saying those on your side of the issue are the only ones doing it).
          • Terr01, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1I agree to an extent: There's a lot of wiggle room when it comes to "lie" versus "mislead" or "imply" blah blah blah.

            But too many people focus on the war as grounds for impeachment when violation of bedrock civil liberties is comparatively clear-cut and ripe for articles of impeachment.
          • blindhammer, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2Your opinion is fine and, as I said, you have some good points. I think our disagreement lies with our interpretation of why the United States went to war.

            I believe we largely went over there for oil and to establish a larger US presence in the region (US bases in Saudi Arabia causes some problems).

            Remember, UN inspector Blix stated over and over that there was no evidence of WMD in Iraq so it seems questionable that Bush wanted to enforce UN resolutions. Even the UN didn't support the invasion.

            No one died because of Clinton. Future generations are not burdened because of his sexual escapades. But, you're right, he did technically break the law.

            And no, I won't digg you down :)
          • YanMan, on 01/04/2008, -2/+1@blindhammer: I'll agree with your reasons except for oil for oil's sake. I'll go as far as to say we went for oil for national security's sake because while no one wants another 1973, Bush's oil buddies surely don't want the market flooded with cheap oil from New Texas (nee Iraq).

            I remember Blix and the UN. The UN authorized consequences several times, but then refused to make the "consequences" anything more serious than more paperwork. Blix just didn't want to lose his job... :) IMO, Bush finally had enough and took the put up or shut up tack. Saddam, unfortunately, thought it was a bluff and called (a fact he admitted to after capture).

            Anyway, the end result - hopefully - will be a more a more stable Middle East in the long run. Hell, I hope it still happens even if we get a Democrat in the White House in 2009. It would be even better if all Americans and our allies were united in the effort. There would be a lot more Libyas and a lot less North Koreas if no one questioned our collective resolve.

            @Terr01: I see your comments, but fail to make the connection to bedrock civil liberties or Padilla. Bush lost the Padilla enemy combatant argument, but he let the issue vet itself out in the court system (unsuccessfully), and then just charged him with good old-fashioned murder and conspiracy charges (successfully). Just looks to me like Bush was trying to send a message to any US citizen thinking of training with a terrorist organization that they are basically renouncing their citizenship. He failed, but I fail to see where the crime is.

            Again, I don't disagree that Bush argued some angles harder than he did others, but I don't think that falls outside the realm of spin. He may have omitted contradictory evidence of WMDs, but he didn't ignore/cover-up glaring evidence to the contrary. Sorta falls within the "what the meaning of 'is' is" arena...

          • YanMan, on 01/04/2008, -0/+0PS - I couldn't reply directly to Terr01's comment. Anyone know how to get around that digg bug?
      • arbulus, on 01/03/2008, -1/+6but but...but but CLINTON!

        That's right. Let's just make this whole discussion about someone else. Acutally, let's just clear this up:

        Yes, Clinton was impeached for perjury. But the issue is that it should never have come up in the first place. If we was getting BJs in the Oval Office, it's no one else's business. Linda Tripp just decided she wanted to become a celebrity and sold out her friend to do it. But just to clarify: Clinton lied to cover up an affair.

        Bush lied to the American public on numerous occasions, including during the State of the Union address. His lie, however, has directly led to the deaths of nearly 1 Million Iraqis and Afghanis, the deaths of over 4,000 American soldiers and the maiming and injuring of thousands more.

        So, you people wanna keep talking about Clinton?

        Clinton - lied to hide an affair. No lives were lost, but he was impeached.
        Bush - lied to start a war. Over a million lives lost, but no one will impeach him.

        Your argument end there.
        • YanMan, on 01/03/2008, -3/+1I didn't bring Clinton into this, blindhammer did. Your logic there was off, and just kept getting worse...

          Clinton lied under oath about a sexual relationship in the workplace while being investigated for sexually harassing a subordinate. You can't complain if you get caught cigar-banging the intern when you swear under oath that you've never had an office relationship.

          No one has convinced me that Bush was anything other than wrong about the WMD intelligence - I don't disagree that he was wrong, just that it was intentionally inaccurate.
          • Terr01, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1I agree that there's wiggle room between "lied" and "knowingly lied" and "decieved" and "chose to believe falsehoods" and "omitted some truth" and "lied but not under oath" and "implied but never directly said"...

            ... Which is why I base my arguments for impeachment based on civil liberties issues with direct evidence and court cases, etc. (You may want to look up "Jose Padilla")
          • blindhammer, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1My comment was meant only to be witty and to garnish a few diggs, that is all.
        • spucky, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1I may be wrong as I have not looked this up in a while (and I am too lazy), but Clinton was not convicted of perjury. He was impeached for lying under oath, but it was not perjury because what he lied about was immaterial to the case which is why there was no legal action.
    • Gorgamel, on 01/04/2008, -2/+1You're so clever and definitely the first person to use that line. By the way, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not sexual relations. Go beat another dead horse.
  • killakan, on 01/03/2008, -29/+19No reputable source, no digg.
    • robberry, on 01/03/2008, -4/+11Ironic that this comment appeared just below bangor's comment. It's like bangor is psychic or something....
    • spell024, on 01/03/2008, -3/+2Reputable sources won't cover this because the administration has got the media in their control. It's all messed up.
    • Terr01, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1If you had, well, ACTUALLY FOLLOWED THE LINKS, a hell of a lot of it is quoted from major newspapers.
    • hawkeye17, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1At least read the article before you make an ass out of yourself.
  • LLamaStar, on 01/03/2008, -8/+9Oh look, more reasons why. Will anyone do anything? Nope, because sadly, nobody cares. :(
    • WhiteRaven, on 01/03/2008, -5/+5Actually, it's because this list is full of half-truths, lies and events that simply aren't impeachable actions.
      • ChaosMotor, on 01/03/2008, -2/+1You're full of *****. There's no way a person with half a working brain cell can dismiss the documentation of ongoing duplicity of this administration as "half-truths, lies, and [unimpeachable] events". The Constitution says that he can be impeached for high crimes and /misdemeanors/. If even a single lie to congress can be shown, that is impeachable. The cold, hard facts of the matter is that Bush and Cheney are TRAITORS who have committed TREASON on repeated counts. They should not only be impeached but jailed for the remainder of their lives, if not hung in the town square as a warning to other traitorous pigs.
        • ChaosMotor, on 01/03/2008, -1/+1So do you troll all your comments and digg me down every time I point out your stupidity?
        • WhiteRaven, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1Fine. Show a single lie.
          • ChaosMotor, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Weapons of mass destruction, Iran developing nuclear weapons, those two come to mind. I'm sure more would surface if I bothered to think about it, or go back through even a tiny fraction of the news stories I've read in the past 7 years, or Bush's speeches both to the public and Congress.
            But you won't ever believe they were lies, because you refuse to consider it.
          • WhiteRaven, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1@ChaosMotor

            Provide specific quotes. Neither thing you cite was ever a lie. Reporting and acting on legitimate intelligence leads (in the case of WMDs in Iraq) is in no way a lie. Perhaps you need to look up the word lie in a dictionary.

            The case of Iran shows your lack of understanding of the situation even more egregiously. The Bush administration put enormous pressure on Iran to end it's enrichment program. What Iran did three or four years ago... as reported on in the news and acknowledged and commented on by the Bush administration and welcomed as a step in the right direction at that time... was halt the actual processing of Uranium. However, all the facilities and personnel remain in place. Since that time, the pressure that the administration has been applying has been to force Iran to *dismantle* the infrastructure that is still in place and would allow Iran to resume active production very quickly.

            The recent release of the intelligence report has been used to completely mislead the public. If you would bother to do some research, you would learn that none of the administration's statements in the past few years have dealt with any ongoing enrichment of uranium but with the fact that Iran is still *capable* of doing so at any time. The fact is that Iran continues to spend large amounts of money to maintain the facilities and keep technicians on the payroll etcetera. As long as that infrastructure is in place, the danger is plain. Don't let yourself be fooled. Iran is merely waiting for focus to shift so they can resume their weapons program and the administration has been working hard to promote the issue and apply pressure to Iran. It is absolutely disgusting the way people allow themselves to be so easily mislead.

            Let me say it again more simply. Since Iran halted active enrichment, no one in the Administration has EVER said that they are in fact still doing so. The issue has been the fact that they clearly remained prepared and intent to do so as soon as the pressure was off. Thanks for helping to remove that pressure.
      • GeneralFault, on 01/03/2008, -1/+1Yeah, even the list author admits that there is no sex directly involved except for the CIA prostitute parties.
      • Terr01, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3Yeah, because taking a US citizen off the street and throwing them into a cell in an abandoned military brig block without charge for years without any sort of due process is not impeachable, right?

        Moron.
    • monospaced, on 01/03/2008, -1/+1Nobody Cares? Are you insane?
      • ChaosMotor, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2Nobody /important/ cares. Until enough unimportant people care to take the streets, nothing will be done.
      • sponeil, on 01/03/2008, -1/+1No, he's just too stupid to realize that nearly half the country voted for Bush (you know, the "moral majority"), they still want him to remain in office, and that without a 2/3 majority for impeachment, our only options are civil war or try to block every move he makes until his term is up.
  • LmaoTzu, on 01/03/2008, -15/+7Evidence lol; I'm a conspiracy theorist.
  • Itazura, on 01/03/2008, -10/+26All the evidence you need is a newspaper.
  • AriaStar, on 01/03/2008, -6/+25We voted them in there, and we should have the right/power to just vote them right back out without a court process if they suck so bad that the majority of voters want them gone. They're failing their jobs and OUR country.
    • halobender, on 01/03/2008, -0/+4System is not set up that way.
    • incendiarylvr, on 01/03/2008, -4/+6We never voted them in. The Supreme Court handed Bush his first term which was unconstitutional. The second term was won with cheating- black box voting that was rigged and bags of ballots trashed without being counted.

      I'm all for impeachment. But we have to get Congress to realize that we don't vote them in to make decisions. We vote them in to speak for their constituents.

      • WhiteRaven, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2The Supreme Court prevent Florida's supreme court from interfering in the election. It was an ugly solution but something dirty deeds need to be met with abrupt force. It is an indisputable fact that Bush did in fact win Florida. He had more votes period, there is no room for doubt. Therefore, at worst the SCOTUS bent rules in order to allow the truth to win the day. But it was the truth.

        And you are also wrong about the role of congress. They don't answer to you. They vow to uphold the constitution. If they actually did that, they would pretty much always have to reject the people's demands.
        • SlimFastForYou, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2Florida wasn't so cut-and-dry as you make it out to be. Even with the widespread Democratic voter disenfranchisement that happened in Jeb Bush's state, the result was still muddy and efforts to recount votes in key counties was stymied. This was the only SCOTUS decision that the court said should not serve as legal precedent. Rightfully so, since the proper thing to do would be to let the state recount and certify. And as for your statement about Congress, it just boggles my mind how so many people are openly pro-corruption. Or, in case you didn't get the memo Congress does a piss-poor job of upholding the Constitution. We were once a nation of mostly free men, now we are becoming a nation of mostly serfs. And every "Congress-knows-best" apologist with their overused "Democracy is 3 wolves..." quotes is enabling our leaders to continue the madness and sell us all down the river.
          • WhiteRaven, on 01/04/2008, -2/+1I agree that the congress does a piss poor job of upholding the constitution. What you don't seem to understand is that it is when they "listen to the people" that are at their worst in shredding that document.
          • flameboy, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Oops! Looks like you accidentally typed "people" instead of "big corporations" or "lobbyists".
            Make sure you double check your comments before submitting so you don't make confusing or inaccurate errors like this in a future.
    • WhiteRaven, on 01/03/2008, -2/+6Actually, NO!!! That would be a completely unworkable system. Have you ever heard of the dangers of a Bread and Circuses mentality? Elected officials *must* have some breathing space in which they can actually run a country without having to pander at every step. The fact is, "the people" want things that are *impossible*. Having terms of a set duration allows our elected leaders to ignore irrational demands.
      • AriaStar, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3At some point that "breathing space" crosses the line into abuse of power, as has happened.
        • WhiteRaven, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1First of all, that is only your opinion. Secondly, that same set term *also* acts as a regulator of power because *it ends*. The fact is, Bush has done nothing we can't fix later if you really think it was wrong.

          I happen to think the war in Iraq is *right*. I hope that the end to his term is does not herald a rapid and senseless withdrawal. Nothing could possibly be more stupid or destructive than abandoning the Middle East to chaos. And this is *exactly* why elected officials frequently have to ignore you. BECAUSE YOU ARE OFTEN WRONG.
      • Waiting2awake, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2"Having terms of a set duration allows our elected leaders to ignore irrational demands."

        - With what has happened to your country in the last 6-7 years. That is anything but irrational. Bush and those associated with Iraq are war criminals. There is simply no other way around it. Evidence was made up.

        When the government refuses to listen to the vocal requests of the governed, the governed are left with one response. If they truly be free. Your actions, have lead you into this, and your actions will determine if you get out.
        • WhiteRaven, on 01/04/2008, -2/+1Your *opinion* about the war in Iraq is an example of the problem. You are unwilling to make a rational and intelligent investment in the future because you are incapable of seeing anything other than the cost.
        • Waiting2awake, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1 NO, the problem is that it wasn't YOUR PROBLEM!!!! It was the Iraqi's, and only the ***** Iraqi's could have solved it. What is happening right this very second is EXACTLY what every single person outside the US told your ***** was going to happen. But you didn't do it for Iraqi, or the Iraqi's did you? NO! You use that to satisfy some ***** guilt because you were either too ***** lazy or too ***** stupid to realize that those telling you to fear someone was exactly who you should be fearing. Especially after a year, definitely after two, and you're certifiably insane for letting it go on for four and more years.

          The US and UK have caused the pain, suffering, mutilation and death of how many people and you have the nerve to talk about thinking about the future?? You incredibly inhuman, immoral SOB. What future justifies what your stupid, inhumane country has done to these people that did NOTHING - NOTHING to you!!!

          It wasn't your ***** cost, or your decision to make. But remember this - and really let this stick in your craw - YOU or your kids will suffer for your stupidity, and when they do - NEVER say it was because of hating freedom. You stupid, ignorant ape.
          • TsunamiMind, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2"You stupid, ignorant ape."

            When are you going to learn not to say things about your family heritage like that when you look into the mirror?

            Ouch, guy, that really hurt us here in the States. I imagine London is all abuzz over this fearsome verbal assault from a northern bench-warmer.

            The only thing you do worse than politics and football is fighting.

            You want to sit there with your thumb up your ass and cry and whine about the U.S. and the U.K. being inhumane, and what we should and shouldn't have decided, but ask yourself this, apeboy, if we hadn't 'decided' what to do in the past you'd be talking German about now or else you'd be a lampshade in the house of some SS asswipe.

            When was the last time Canada was invaded? Was it because the Canadians are a tough and hardy breed? No? Pray tell, then, oh wise jin, why is it that a land as broad and rich as Canada with an army and navy that have the military might of a pair of slingshots has faced no aggressors in hundreds of years when the Soviets were right across the way from Alaska? Did your brand of socialism scare Hitler and Stalin to ***** death, or did you say it was because of the horrible, unfair U.S. and British doing all the heavy lifting?

            Ding, ding, ding, you are as right as rain on this one, although I'm guessing you might not have an honest outlook on this matter. In my book, the only thing worse than a stupid, ignorant ape is a prissy, uninformed *****.
      • ChaosMotor, on 01/03/2008, -1/+3WhiteRaven, are you truly a fool or do you just play one on Digg? Governments exist at the whims of the CITIZENS, and by the will of the governed. It would be an unworkable system for thieves and liars, but not honest men doing honest work. It protects only those who cheat and deceive.
        • WhiteRaven, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2You think people can govern themselves with wisdom? You have never bothered to pay attention to actual human nature. You are simply, factually and emphatically *wrong*. People are incapable of behaving as you describe.

          People tend towards obesity. People become addicted to drugs. People believe in an afterlife and a loving god. Why? BECAUSE ALL LIVING THINGS ARE SELFISH AND FOOLISH BY NATURE.

          I want you to give serious thought to what I just said. People who get fat and drunk obviously are incapable of governing themselves... why the hell do you think they will behave better when they can join with others like them and vote to take stuff from others?
        • Waiting2awake, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3WhiteRAVEN - You are committing a cardinal sin my friend. Assuming that what you think - others think the same. History is littered with unselfish acts, incredible kindness and glorious humanity in the face of horror. It is just not glorified anymore - but human nature is genuinely divided almost 50/50 between good and bad nature.
          "BECAUSE ALL LIVING THINGS ARE SELFISH AND FOOLISH BY NATURE."
          • WhiteRaven, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2Ask a biologist or psychologist or sociologist. I stated absolute fact. It is a matter of survival. It is a matter of physical law. Without selfishness, life could not and would not exist. It is integral to the will to live.

            The fact that you are incapable of seeing this nature in yourself only demonstrates humanity's capacity for self-delusion... also a well established, scientific fact.

            You know... you seem to be denying that there are a lot of people who suffer from superstitions and obesity and addiction. Surely you aren't denying such obvious facts.
          • WhiteRaven, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2Actually, I want to amend that. 50/50 between good and bad? Well, I would actually dispute the terms good and bad but let's take that at face value. If you let "the public" that is 50/50 good and bad rule, you will get 90% crap. Nothing can be accomplished when 50% of the people want something that is *wrong* while the other 50% argue about how to achieve something that is right.

            The reason I would dispute "good" and "bad" is because human instinct and tribal nature and ability to rationalize (note I did not say reason) are only "bad" in certain contexts. It all exists as a matter biologic necessity.
      • GeneralFault, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1Agreed, but we don't have that system either. Until we figure out a way to reduce the power of paying special interest groups, we never will have that system. Any politician that needs to raise $10,000+ per day just to keep their job is always pandering.
        • arbulus, on 01/03/2008, -0/+4Completely outlawing lobbying is the first step to fixing the system. That's where we the people take back the power and remove it from the hands of big corporations and special interests. Until lobbying is completely outlawed in all forms, we will never have control of our government.
  • ronpaul20008, on 01/03/2008, -9/+1
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=x4-NZ23phVo
  • Frostman3D, on 01/03/2008, -14/+22They should be impeached, they've obviously failed in their oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. They've literally pissed and ***** all over it.
    • PoisonousDrool, on 01/03/2008, -2/+16You should take an oath to look up the definition of "literally".
      • Refrag, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1No, it's true. They did!

        A little too much alcohol and cocaine one night in DC.
    • wademickelsen, on 01/03/2008, -3/+3Really? Cause it should still be in that glass case.
    • OverkillTASF, on 01/03/2008, -3/+10Literally? I do not think that means what you think it means.
    • jsmu, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1And that's before the enema GhostyBoy suggested.
    • Frostman3D, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2Guys, I know what literally means. I didn't mean it literally.
  • chrazyc, on 01/03/2008, -14/+8People, it's 2008 and we will elect a new bunch of Tards... get over it already!
    • musicbear, on 01/03/2008, -2/+4Absolutely and Giuliani will, of course, win. Americans will do their best to not only scrape the bottom of the barrel, but they will flip it over and dig in the dirt underneath.
    • samcp, on 01/03/2008, -1/+1why is this comment being buried? This guy is right. Remember the clinton impeachemnt? an impeachment of bush would last until the end of his term anyway! whats the point now? It would've done some good when bush and his buddies were all lying about WMD and al queda in iraq and Blah-bitty blah blah when we invaded a country without a declaration of war from congress. I just think is really funny that there are people pushing for impeachemnt at this point. Just a little too late....
  • trenchcoat, on 01/03/2008, -19/+10A DU story hits the front page? Digg has reached a new low.
  • jetboyterp, on 01/03/2008, -24/+11THAT'S "evidence"? Well, look at the source...DU....where BDS reigns supreme. Get over your impeachment crud...And dare I say to you leftist liberals....Root for America for a change, huh?
    • robberry, on 01/03/2008, -1/+16"THAT'S 'evidence'? Well, look at the source...DU"

      Looks like somebody didn't read the article very careful. The Democratic Underground article was *not* the source of any of this information. It was simply a compilation of crimes, with links to articles documenting the evidence of those crimes.

      "And dare I say to you leftist liberals....Root for America for a change, huh?"

      Buried for the inaccurate suggestion that liberals are somehow not "rooting for America." We *are* rooting for America. We simply aren't rooting for the Bush administration. There's a difference, you know. The whole point of the DU article is that the Bush administration has done incalculable harm to America. If we didn't love America, her people, and the values for which she stands, we wouldn't be bothered by the Bush administration's actions.
    • musicbear, on 01/03/2008, -0/+6And ousting GB and crew is not rooting for a better America? For a more progressive America? An America with it's soldiers out of harm's way? For an America not racing to the apocalypse with it's "demonic" rivals? For an America that would allow stem cell research and believe in evolution? For an America that doesn't quibble over what "torture" is or is not? For an America that can feed the poorest of its poor and give health care to it's woman and children? For an America to not be satisfied to being behind 2nd and 3rd world countries in education? For an America that is not the leading country in gun crimes and people in jail? That's that not rooting for America?

      Oh yeah, I forgot, rooting for America means never thinking - you just ask yourself what would an old white rich Christian man like GB would do in a given situation - because he's so wise and smart.
    • halobender, on 01/03/2008, -0/+5I want the real America to return. The one with a thriving middle class, one with a few less lies.
    • jsmu, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1Oh, rooting for America means rooting for high crimes, impeachable offenses, torture, wars for oil, and the rape of the middle class?
    • hawkeye17, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2If you were truly "rooting for America", you'd be as pissed off at Bush Co. as the rest of us "leftist liberals".
  • wademickelsen, on 01/03/2008, -11/+10Any of that real?
    • GeneralFault, on 01/03/2008, -0/+5Yes... most of it is. Most of it is backed up with sources and facts if you have the time and energy to follow the links.
    • Izult, on 01/03/2008, -0/+5you don't watch the news much at all do you?
      • Psygonn, on 01/04/2008, -0/+4Actually Wade here probably just watches FOX.
  • cambob76, on 01/03/2008, -4/+34Well, I still say George has a sweet heart and all of the best intentions. I also smoke crack.
  • Beatmiser, on 01/03/2008, -3/+17I've said it before I'll say it again. We are past the point of anything other than a symbolic impeachment. Forget it. You really want to do things right, begin the process of extradition to the Hague.
    • trutek, on 01/03/2008, -1/+5hang the war criminals
    • Waiting2awake, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3One of the better suggestions I have heard... Bravo.
    • Terr01, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2I think the case of impeachment is stronger than the case for the Hague.

      What we need to do is impeach and block their attempts to give themselves immunity. There's till 382 days 8 hours and 13 minutes.
  • thcobbs, on 01/03/2008, -13/+7At this line, I new the article was biased trash beyond hope of logical and reasonable facts.

    "With House committees having come within a vote of starting investigations, with the Democrats having shut down the Senate to try to force an investigation, with Chairman-to-be John Conyers having published a book on Bush and Cheney's crimes and held unofficial hearings in the basement, we had reason to be hopeful."

    You had reason to be hopeful because a congressman goes OUTSIDE OF CONGRESS to publish a book, and holds "unofficial hearings" in the basement?

    God, you were DESPERATE!
    • birdly, on 01/03/2008, -4/+4At this mispelling, I "new" you weren't very bright.
      • thcobbs, on 01/03/2008, -1/+2Wow, I mistyped ONE letter.... I'm sure you've NEVER done that.
    • pitlord, on 01/03/2008, -3/+2It's funny how the leftists complain that all of the right wing arguments are just name calling with no substance, but when one of us posts a cogent response that exposes the unashamed bias of this disjointed, vengeful rant, the only response from the left is to criticize the grammar.
      LOL who's the Nazi now?
      8^D
    • Terr01, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3I don't think you understand.

      The reason it was in the basement was because the Republican majority (who decided room reservations) decided to be assholes and claim that every other room was taken.
      • thcobbs, on 01/04/2008, -2/+1And the Democrat who wanted to be an ***** and hold UNOFFICIAL INQUIRIES into the president AFTER having written a book that slammed said president's isn't suspicious at all either?
        • Terr01, on 01/04/2008, -0/+11) You're changing the subject with bizarre and vague "isn't it suspicious" non-accusation-accusation comments. Point is, it was in the basement because some Republicans were being petty jerks with room reservations, rather than any sort of mystical secret society voodoo vindaloo.

          2) ... Nooooooooo, it's common sense.

          What would be weird is if someone who was previously best-buddies with Bush suddently decided to have unofficial inquiries. Invasion of the pod people, etc.
  • yaryarhumphump, on 01/03/2008, -1/+7Its too late for impeachment it will do nothing for you, what needs to be done is the reversal of the laws that took away what America was.... vote for who will do that.
  • drgooch, on 01/25/2008, -15/+8Translation:
    blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
  • OffPiste, on 01/03/2008, -1/+9But you still have 49 Republican Senators.It doesn't matter how much "evidence" you have. Math is a bitch some times.
    • Terr01, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2Hey, even if the articles of impeachment don't end with ejecting him from office, I'll be happy (happier than now, anyway) that they at least tried.

      Plus, MAKE THEM VOTE. If those 49 Senators will defend Bush against his recorded unconstitutionality etc., at least make them pay for it with a paper trail, one that you can point to and say "Yes, but Senator X is a Bush-lover!" (Well, not in those terms, but...)

      We've still got 382 days.
  • ronpaul20008, on 01/03/2008, -11/+6Bush owns a huge compound in Paraguay as his escape plan. There is no extradition treaty with the US. He knows what he's done (steal elections, 9/11, Iraq, Enron etc..) , and eventually the people will be coming after him. I'm surprised it's taken so long. It's amazing what one can get away with having the Department of Defense, Dept Of Justice, Supreme Court, Military, Congress & Media in your pocket.. Remember how all the Bin Laden family suddenly disappeared from the USA after 9/11, even when there was a ban on air traffic? Well, when he finally feels the heat is getting to strong, he's going to disappear to Paraguay, with his own private military force, like the Nazi elite did after WWII. I'm sure Kenneth Lay is already at the ranch waiting for his arrival.
    • cotaskmemalloc, on 01/03/2008, -3/+4I logged on to Digg just to tell you that you're an idiot.
    • noahhoward, on 01/03/2008, -3/+3Bush was involved in Enron now? What'd I miss.
    • Colonel2121, on 01/03/2008, -3/+5I did the same. This is a moron. How is the weather on pluto?
    • EditorResponse, on 01/03/2008, -4/+4A Ron Paul ***** Wit telling us that Bush is leaving the country when Ron Paul himself was the one telling people with his screatchy old man voice to smuggle cash and gold out of the country. What a ***** Wit! I can't wait for these elections to end because at least fifty Ron Paul supporters that come to dig weekly plan to leave the country when Ron Paul does not get elected...I can't wait for these assholes to leave! I hope they take some of their liberal friends with them.
      • TsunamiMind, on 01/04/2008, -0/+0Oh, and I suppose you don't believe Harry Potter is true, either!!!

        Hah, caught you, didn't I? Now what?

        Believe me, I have it on the best authority that it's completely factual. I'm not supposed to tell, but it's what the aliens told me last time they picked me up and those guys don't lie' they don't have too because they have minds that can dial cell phones and they're giving this technology to us any day. They asked what I wanted to call it and I said that maybe 'hands-free dialing' might be a good idea.

        What do you think?

        Hold on a sec, *****, I spilled my bong water on my shag carpet again. Oops, now I'm on fire again. Dammit, this always happens when I start talking about G-dub bustin' out of here.

        Could someone call an ambulance for me? And, oh yeah, tell 'em to have some prozac handy; I'm a little low on mine.
    • pitlord, on 01/03/2008, -0/+4Me thinks you need to have your tin foil cap refitted.
      >.>
    • drgooch, on 01/25/2008, -1/+2holy crap... put the lid on the open can of paint thinner sitting next to you...
    • damnmonkey, on 01/03/2008, -1/+2Can I buy some of your weed? It seems to be more potent than my *****.
    • Psygonn, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Need links or bull *****.
      • surian, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Is that a choice? If so, I choose bull *****, it's much more abundant :-)
    • NewGTGuy, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1The Paraguay part could be true. But all rumors are unconfirmed at this point. It did make several South American newspapers.

      http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0610/S00308.htm

  • Raxem, on 01/03/2008, -1/+9If there is so much information on how and why they need to be impeached, how come someone doesn't just do it? Instead of everyone shouting things but doing nothing about it?
    • Colonel2121, on 01/03/2008, -6/+2BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!! PEOPLE HAVE NOTHING TO REPORT, SO THEY MAKE ***** UP. None of this holds any water.
      • Waiting2awake, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1Then lets have that case in court? Lets get the President under oath and ask these questions. If it is such a slam dunk, wtf is the problem with that? Holding up government business?

        BTW - please stop shouting.
      • Terr01, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1You obviously don't know what you're talking about. "No evidence"? Supreme court case proceedings? Padilla vs. Rumsfeld? National newspaper coverage? Legal statements from the White House? (Okay, so the last sounds like a contradiction in terms...)
    • jsmu, on 01/03/2008, -2/+1BECAUSE THERE ARE FORTY-NINE CORRUPT CRONIES OF BUSH IN THE SENATE WHO WILL DIE FIRST
    • drgooch, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1Well, we know Joe Biden's going to do it... He said so.
    • damnmonkey, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1Excellent ***** question.
  • F0RMLESSNESS, on 01/03/2008, -10/+8I would say wait until he's out of office, then President Obama will have a better chance of actually putting them behind bars. If you impeach now you will make it almost certain they never see any jail time.
    • bingobongony, on 01/03/2008, -2/+5You will have major disappointments in your life.
      • F0RMLESSNESS, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0haha okay... you will eat dinner tonight, the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. See I can make obvious predictions too, everyone will have major disappointments in their lives. Like I'm sure your parents feel extremely disappointed by the huge douchebag you turned into.
    • pitlord, on 01/03/2008, -5/+2LOL you mean Grand Mufti Obama? Or wait, is it going to be 13th Imam Obama?
      ROFL!
      • robberry, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2Obama is not a Muslim. He is a member of the United Church of Christ, a mainline Protestant denomination. You might consider postponing further posts on this thread until you've taken some time to educate yourself on the issues at hand. Alternatively, you could get a job at Fox News-- I understand they have an opening for the job where you change the "R" to "D" in the captions whenever a Republican gets caught in a sex scandal.
      • F0RMLESSNESS, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0OMG YROFL TISFIFTL I loathe people who use childish internet speak, it's similarity to George Orwell's New Speak is frightening. Besides that, you're a rasicst ass with the intelect of a twelve year old boy. Jokes on you *****
  • Severious, on 01/03/2008, -6/+1118 months is a bit short in my book. They should be tried for treason for trying to fix a national election. I don't normally support the death penalty but I would for this.
    • ScottooMc, on 01/03/2008, -1/+1http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o240/Inkednsf77 ...
    • bingobongony, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2OK...give some evidence that that happened and we'll be all set.
      REAL evidence now. Now your fantasy world crap that you live your life by.
      • Waiting2awake, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1Lets go to court for it... lets get the guy under oath. Done deal. Surely you can't be afraid of that - if you do believe he hasn't done anything. There are allegations, lets go to court to either prove, or disprove, these allegations...

        Sounds almost like justice...
  • jamangold, on 01/03/2008, -11/+2[YAWN]
    I'm sorry, what were you saying again? Impeach Bush and Cheney? Oh yeah, right...
  • david76, on 01/03/2008, -1/+6It's rather unfortunate that they don't link to the original source rather than cutting and pasting the original into their site. Still, a nice collection of articles.
    • ScottooMc, on 01/03/2008, -6/+0http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o240/Inkednsf77 ...
    • OrionBlastar, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2Hit the nail on the head. I'd like to read the original unedited documents before they were Photoshopped by afterdowningstreet.org and so likely would a court judge. Produce the original papers, and then we can start the impeachment process. Unless the original papers say something else, or don't exist. In that case then Speaker Nancy Pelosi was right in turning down the impeachment request because of lack of evidence.
  • wipis, on 01/03/2008, -4/+7When will people realize its not about evidence. It doesn't take much evidence or for that matter a big offense. It's about politics. We could discuss for hours why it's not happening but it's about politics not evidence. Clinton got a BJ and lied about it and he got impeached. Was it really a big deal? No. But the republicans wanted to drag him through the mud so they did.
    • OrionBlastar, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1The US Constitution and our court system begs to differ. Innocent until proven guilty, and you need evidence and proof of guilt to do that. Not Photoshopped and edited documents that some Anti-Bush group modified or created on a web site like afterdowningstreet.org which this forum post seems to reference for 99% of the evidence. If he had documents from dozens of different, but reliable sources, then it would be a much different story. If we are to impeach a President be it Clinton or Bush we need evidence. There was more evidence against Clinton, but he won an appeal.
  • bingobongony, on 01/03/2008, -6/+6It is just a matter of time now! I mean, when a reputable site like democraticunderground joins forces, there is no stopping it!
  • Elwayish, on 01/03/2008, -8/+1ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz not this $hit again .... yea we get it, Digg hates Bush .... get off the cross you all hang your selfs on , use the wood and build a bridge and GET OVER IT ....
  • Betrayer, on 01/03/2008, -4/+5everyone knows this, this is old news WE THE PEOPLE are to blame for putting him there TWICE. we are currently shopping for a new president so take some responsibility and VOTE



    • youMISERABLEpos, on 01/03/2008, -2/+4Stolen election = voting him in?
      • drgooch, on 01/25/2008, -3/+3you're an idiot, "stolen election." the numbers came in, Gore lost, end of story. recount after recount, Gore lost. get over it. do what your dopey site says, "moveon."
    • Gemfinder, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2***** that noise. I voted for Kerry.
  • superguysteve, on 01/03/2008, -2/+13have fun storming the castle!
  • ericgungon, on 01/03/2008, -7/+0for crying out loud, get over it. They only have less than a year left. If they do hold an impeachment it would so long that at the earliest they would be impeached months before they leave anyways. So move on and do something more productive that would actually change the government. Impeachment bad tactic!
    • sremick, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3So a criminal should get off unpunished when the punishment is inconvenient? Seems to me, the bigger the crime, the bigger the punishment therefore the bigger the inconvenience. So presumably you have some threshold of crime above which anything more-serious should not be tried and punished. I'm curious what that line is: rape? Murder? Multiple murders? Theft of how many million? Treason?

      Last I knew, criminals were supposed to be punished under federal law despite the time, money, and inconvenience it costs.
  • bigfatdummy, on 01/03/2008, -1/+3@ Djdavey
    "If you need more evidence, look at this chart...
    http://www.floort.com/?fid=94&ftitle=Dick+Cheney+i ..."

    That chart fails. Trying checking HAL stock quotes yourself and showing more accurate data.
  • griffeycom, on 01/03/2008, -4/+7Stop talking about doing it, saying it should, saying they need to AND JUST DO IT
  • fsweep, on 01/03/2008, -0/+12Obviously the democrats are complicit in all of this--- since they have done nothing. What a joke.
    • OrionBlastar, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2Well they need real evidence to do that. Besides most of the Democrats in congress voted for the things that Bush and Cheney wanted anyway, so they are as much at fault as anyone else.
      The USA is run by a system of checks and balances, so it is not a dictatorship. Congress can vote on a bill to pass it or reject it, the President has the power to agree with the bill or veto it, even if both Congress and the President agree on a bill, the Supreme Court can review it and vote it down.
      Most of the war crimes happened because the Congressional Oversight Committees that monitor the CIA, the Military, and the White House have high ranking Democrats like Ted Kennedy on them, yet they seem to have approved when the CIA asked them if they could torture emeries they captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. The rules of the CIA are such that they cannot do anything with a prisoner until an oversight committee approves it. So who approved it?
      Congress has the power to order a cease fire for Iraq and Afghanistan because the Democrats control a majority of Congress, yet why didn't they do that?
  • CrazedLeper, on 01/03/2008, -1/+4They wouldn't have brazenly subverted the entire government, constitution, nation and humanity if they didn't know for sure that they could get away with it. The fact is the two serpents are eligible for the death penalty but there is no duly authorized government agency that is not totally under their control and blindly loyal to them and their evil, global conspiracy.

    There will be no impeachment, trial, imprisonment or justice...from men.
  • Gemfinder, on 01/03/2008, -3/+6It takes two to tango. Pelosi WILL NOT impeach, even if the House unanimously passes articles, might as well get used to that fact of existence.
    Not to say we shouldn't keep up the pressure to impeach. The other thing we need to do is keep Congress from declaring war on Iran, make sure the next President isn't a Republican or a war-monger who'll continue this parasitic boondoggle, and hope that King George II doesn't nullify the election as sitting President in time of war.
    • omegaredIX, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1Meanwhile democrat candidates still say we will be in Iraq till 2013 and still will not take nuclear first strike off the table when it comes to Iran.
  • Roger_Ramjet, on 01/03/2008, -9/+8DemocraticUnderground.com, when it absolutely, positively needs to be deranged on time. Burying this.
  • TheEditor1, on 01/03/2008, -3/+7Wow, big shock, most of the references are linked to afterdowningstreet.org, a BLOG. This is ***** and the neo-libs and diggberals need to move onto something more effective. Same tired ***** evidence that is not evidence but speculation an conjecture. moveon.org needs a better play book, this one is getting to be a real BORE.
  • bigfatdummy, on 01/03/2008, -9/+4MakiMaki
    A male from Toronto, Canada (CA) who joined Digg on March 29th, 2007

    Why is it a male from Toronto, CA is pushing a story about the impeachment of Bush?
  • londubh, on 01/03/2008, -4/+4All I ask that you impeach Cheney first. And you gotta remove him from office too. Impeachment is just an indictment. The wonderful thing is that they cannot be pardoned.
  • IsnowboarderI, on 01/03/2008, -8/+2Obama 08' FTW!
  • ScottooMc, on 01/03/2008, -8/+3If you digg this article, click this link please http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o240/Inkednsf77 ...
    • CrazedLeper, on 01/03/2008, -1/+3you're stupid but that was funny.
  • superdog87, on 01/03/2008, -9/+4Well.... Vote Ron Paul for President.
    • TheEditor1, on 01/03/2008, -1/+1Yea, vote Ron Paul and guarantee that Hillary gets into office. God help us all.
    • pintomp3, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2ron paul voted against investigating for impeachment. the only candidate calling for impeachment is kucinich.
    • Psygonn, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Little messages like that are how impeachment got old.
    • supermanred, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Next time you see Ron Paul, tell that Republican son of a bitch that he's a complete *****.

      Thanks.
  • aadyss, on 01/03/2008, -1/+0The Grungers are now on Digg.
  • trevor98, on 01/03/2008, -2/+4Could they convolute their point any more? What a horrible argumentative piece.
  • Nickdotnet, on 01/03/2008, -2/+3content was well-thoughtout and mostly fact based, but I can't respect any article that gets the entirety of its content from one website (afterdowningstreet.org)..especially a blog site
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 82 of 82 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.