That doesn't mean I can't quote it because you said something completely retarded.

Oh I guess since someone elses name is in it I'll just ignore the fact that you said something completely asinine.

I don't care if you like it, I'm also pariticipating in this conversation. You aren't going to "impeach" me from it. Lawl.

Rob.. maybe you should read this topic from the start.

Jedikirby says and I quote, that bush admitted he lied about weapons of mass destruction. In my reply, all I asked was that I see this evidence. I want to see where bush says he lied about WoMD..

So please, stop making such a big deal about nothing and taking this off topic.

You're actually tying to argue/convince Rob of anything? What a waste.

This isn't flop sweat. It's crack sweat.

I don't care what jedikirby said. What you said was still stupid.

You don't have to admit to lying to be lying.

yeah I just realized it

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
Bush, September 2002 UN Hearings

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."
Ari Fleischer, January 2003

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
Bush, January 2003

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq."
Bush, 14 December 2005

Powell admits the war was had on faulty intelligence, known by the entire administration, April, 2006

Follow this up with the senate's finding bush used intelligence he knew was faulty, or ignoring intelligence in order to go to war.

Furthermore, Bush has even admitted the prison camps, and the overwhelming evidence that they exist makes you a pretty blind person.

I think Bush should be left in peace. The man has a few billions worth of blood money to spend, and how can he enjoy spending them at leisure if he needs to worry about silly things like trials?

Obama will hold him for war crimes, so I think this business is all a waste of time.

o rly

ok so I still don't see how bush "lied"

Making a decision based on information, even if the information is wrong, is not a lie.

I'll just focus on Bush instructing his subordinates to ignore subpoenas for now, because that's probably the easiest to prove. (Torture might actually be easier, but then you run into the problem of people who stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to acknowledge that waterboarding and induced hypothermia are torture, even though international law, U.S. statute law and U.S. case law all say they are.) You may recall that last summer Congress attempted to investigate firings of U.S. attorneys, and asked former White House counsel Harriet Miers to testify. She refused, even after being subpoenaed, and cited executive privilege to justify her refusal to appear. The problem: executive privilege is not a get-out-of-court-free card. Miers was still legally obligated to appear before Congress, and could only use executive privilege as a reason for not answering specific questions -- at which point she would need to explain why executive privilege applies to the matter at hand and, IIRC, have a judge rule on whether that's the case.

Instead, almost certainly at the White House's request, Miers chose not to appear. She was eventually cited for contempt of Congress -- a citation the Justice Department predictably refused to enforce. And this is just one example. Sara Taylor was subpoenaed for the same investigation and eventually testified after initially refusing as requested by Bush. Bush himself has refused to turn over documents related to the domestic spying program in defiance of another subpoena. There's a pretty clear pattern of disregard for the law here.

BECAUSE OBAMA IS THA LAWL, NO ONE BUT HE IS ABOVE IT

Kirby, there's a system to things. And even though that system is pretty much broken here, congress should still reserve the right to use their time to bring these articles and challenge Bush. Oh wait, I guess doing hearings on who really is a communist is a great way to spend it.

It is not the duty of the President to prosecute others. That, my friend, is a waste of time. The President's time.

And also, word to the wise: don't put so much expectations on up and coming leaders. I'm sure your chosen one will do a lot of good for turning the nation around back on course, but don't expect him to solve all of the little problems with a magic wand.

I think it would be hilarious if Obama extradited Bush to Belgium.

Why Belgium?

I can do know wrong, if I do not know what wrong is.

Belgium claims universal jurisdiction over war crimes.

... Did you read Powell's comments?

I think you're trying really hard to be "different" here, and it makes you look mildly incompetent. Bush is easy to throw fruit at and hate, I'll be first to agree with you. However, it is inexcusable to declare war on a nation of sovereign people on admittedly fudged, falsified, (and in cases of contrary intelligence) ignored intelligence. It is inexcusable to disregard the Geneva Conventions. It is inexcusable to illegally wire tap your own legal US residents.

These aren't disputable things, either. Everything I have listed above is widely agreed, and in some cases, physically proven. If you don't see any of the above things as dangerous, worse than a blow job, and even far worse than a 4 ounce bag of weed that can get you locked in jail for 15 years, your concept of judgment and responsibility is terrible.

This is the dumbest thing I have ever read.

He wasn't he was impeached for knowingly and willfully lying under oath which would put any normal in jail. It could be argued that this is the case for Bush as well, especially that the steaks are bigger. The thing is, Bush wasn't as much guilty of lying as he was of letting a stupid preconceptions guild him into taking and presenting an extremely biased view of the situation. That makes him a bad leader, but it's not as clear cut.

There are ten thousand things you can accuse him of, but most of those can't be aren't solid enough to be useful for much more bandwaggoning on digg. The rest just go to show the rampant lack of accountability we have in the government these days. Presidents do that kind of stuff all the time. I mean, we haven't even officially gone to war since WWII. I'd like to see Bush censored just for that.

The thing is, even if we did impeach Bush, the real problem goes much deeper than that. Just because we have a bad leader doesn't mean that replacing him will solve the problem. At best he's only served to call attention to the problem, but everyone's to busy playing retarded partisan politics to notice. Sometimes this country sucks.

Awesome

Sorry, I don't usually point out typos, but this was too tempting.

Obama said he was going to review Bush's executive orders, but...what?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMbXvn2RNI

I agree.

The fact I'm trying to argue here is that bush has nothing to gain by going to war with Iraq. I'm sure if things were different years ago, if he didn't have a lot of pressure on him from 9/11 maybe he would not have made the same decisions.

You guys act like Bush knew there was no weapons of mass destruction but yet, goes to war anyway for what..? There is nothing to gain from lying and going to war.. nothing.

By the GOP-majority 105th Congress [in which almost no Democrats voted to impeach]?

That's exactly what he did... And he has lots of reasons to go to war: Family obligations, obligations to Chaney, overpriced war contract deals with friends, and I am certain more and more dirt will be uncovered when Obama takes office in January. Speaking of which, I recall Obama saying that he'd hold Bush responsible for war crimes, but I don't seem to find it anywhere. As well, I'm all for impeachment, but I don't know how effective it'd be at this point, or if it'll be worth it if we can have him extradited on war crimes, later.

Also, I'm only speculating about the Clinton stuff.

Nothing like finding another hilariously overblown political story that doesn't mean anything, the start of more flame wars, as well as "YAY OBAMA", while browsing Digg...oops, I mean the forums

Kirby, that dude in the video you posted is creepy as all ****.

One more move in the New Great Game.

Obi, your spelling errors are hilarious. "dessert" instead of "desert". "steaks" instead of "stakes". Also Dubi instead of Dubai, but that one wasn't really funny.

Clearly Obi was hungry when he was posting

I use spell check but I'm way too lazy to fix errant homonyms. There are a couple of words I have trouble with for no immediately discernible reason. It took me forever to remember how to spell maybe.

thats not what homonym means

I guess technically I was looking for homophone. I always forget which is which.

You mean ****ups.

Er?

I'm assuming, by 'Belgium' you mean Brussels? As in, the capital of the European Union? Because the (EU) International Court for War Crimes is actually in The Hague. So that means he would be handed over to the Netherlands.

Keep this rule my teacher taught me: you say "dessert" when describing delectable delights instead of "desert", because it has more Ss (and, thus, more letters), and you always want more dessert.

Actually, dessert/desert (if you were referring to them) aren't homophones either because they aren't pronounced the same.

Unless it was desert as in to abandon, not desert as in big barren sandy place. (Those two are homonyms)