"What exactly are, as you put it, "The charges" against Bush?I
didn't know Bush had even been charged with anything (except in the mind of
Rocky Anderson and his rabid "Hate-Bush" fan club)." Dude above said
this. Ah. . . about charge, my computers dictionary says:
2) accuse (someone) of something, It doesn't have to be a legal
charge, see. Crimany, I have to explain words to these people. Yougo,
I think that people that bring up Clinton when certain of Bushs issues are
raised are trying to deflect the argument. They don't want to address the. . .
charges directly. But there are hypocrisies, I agree; plenty to go
around. I will bet you that if Bill Clinton had done the things that
George W. Bush has done, many (if not all), that are defending Bush on this
board would be calling for his head. What should we bet, Yougo?
Thanks, Anon. 7:09, for giving us a bird's eye view of the thinking (or lack
thereof) of liberal wingnuts. Note, I didn't say liberals. Liberals can have
their criticisms. But YOU are a liberal wingnut. And probably just a troll.
You actually hurt your own ideology when you say things like that, because
reasonable people across the spectrum have to dismiss your ranting.
McBush would be a loose-cannon president.The guy is stuck in the Vietnam
era grinding an axe.Only the typical American red-neck cage-fighting
freaks worship him.
Well, most people who have any sense of honor and morality will realize that
Clinton's behavior was licentious, and I seriously doubt he would have done
better. He would have been to busy doing other things to start the war, or run
the country at all. Anyhow, McCain will take care of the war, I will admit.
Bush was an okay Pres., but you are right. I can't wait for McCain to take over
.McCain is going to be a great President !
Why is that instead of facing the reality of just how heinous the Bush
Administration truly is, the usual neocons start whining about Clinton?
"Can't wait until Bush is gone" 12:09 -I TOO can't wait.Then the healing of American can begin.
To "mark | 2:48 p.m." I think that people bring Clinton into the arguement only
to point out the hypocracy. The same people who can find no fault with
Clinton's time as president are often the same ones who cry for impeachment of
What exactly are, as you put it, "The charges" against Bush?I didn't
know Bush had even been charged with anything (except in the mind of Rocky
Anderson and his rabid "Hate-Bush" fan club).P.S.I know you
would like this to be just about Bush and make some sort of arbitrary ruling to
leave President Clinton out of it, but it doesn't work that way. The concept of
Presidents being held accountable doesn't only apply to Bush. Think
about it... I doubt you and your Hate-Bush fan-club will be dropping the
anti-Bush rhetoric after he leaves office. I suspect the Hate-Bush rhetoric is
going to go on with these people a long time after he's gone. He has become the
poster-child of the "Hate-Republicans" fan-club. You can already hear them
attributing all bad characteristics of Bush to McCain in their DMN postings.
It's obvious this hatred is going to be an ongoing battle for these people.
Maybe someday they will come up with a therapy and open a rehab center for
people who can't get over their Hate-Bush complex. I can only hope so. Maybe
they could adapt it for the Hate-Clinton people too.
Ah... like, this is about Bush not Clinton. Clinton is not president right? Not
much of a defense when presented with crimes that Bush and co. has committed
(and yes lamonte had a very strong post outlining the problem, in 200 words or
less. I was kinda surprised he did not mention, in addition to FISA and domestic
spying, torture, because yes, whatever you kids want to think, okaying torture
and beating people to death is illegal, even if just used on Arabs, as is
extraordinary rendition.) But for people to yell, but Clinton! look at
Clinton! Well that's all fine and dandy, but it really does not answer the
charges. (And for people to try to compare the current situation to
Lincoln and the civil war, well, now you guys are just getting silly.)
You said, "You guys make my head spin! You ask for examples of broken laws, then
accuse those who provide them of "whining".Who asked for examples of
broken laws? I went back looking for people asking you for examnples and didn't
find any, much less a deluge of people asking you to whine even more.I couldn't read all of the comments, so I may have missed the ones you were
talking about in your comment. It's hard to finish some of the comments. This
topic seems to bring out the mostly mind-numbing drivel I've ever read.I also didn't see the comments you wrote about saying, "Things are going great
in Iraq". I did see one that said things are going better than they were
before, but that's not the same as saying "The war is going great". Maybe you
consider any comment short of condemning the war as a "The war is going great"
Do you really want to go there? If we start this debate of which party is "The
party of lies" you have to be betting people will totally ignore the Democrat
party's long-term track record on "Honesty" issues.There is no
"Party of lies" on one side and the "Party of all that is good and nobel" on the
other, except in they eyes of you partisan hacks (and I don't care what side
your on or if you have a show on FOX-news or not).Democrats are just
as bad as Republicans when it comes to lies (I can give you some specific
examples from the Clinton administration if you like), so get off your high
Yes, every negative incident in Iraq should be blamed on President Bush.Where were you "Blame the President" people when a US B-2 bomber dropped
3 GPS-guided (JDAM) bombs on the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade (capitol of
yugoslavia)? That was OK with you because it was your buddy,
President Clinton?Dir of CIA George Tennet (the same guy who gave
Pres Bush bad intel) just said, "Oops we must have used the wrong GPS map to
identify the target". And though they admit a mission like this couldn't take
place without the President's approval, they claim somehow no-one in the Clinton
administration reviewed the target information from the CIA before Clinton
himself approved the bombing?Your a bunch of hypoctits.
Bush was the best the Republican Party could offer once and McCain is the best
the Republican Party as to offer today. Can America survive more debt, a larger
government, a smaller middle class and by expecting the same few to defend this
country? Look at Scott McClellan. He proves nothing conservatives hate more than
the truth. The noble lie is the most important tool conservatives have in their
The "movement" conservatives have run out of ideas. There whole push has been
to reduce the size of government power, and spending. The two most notable
conservative presidents have been Bush and Reagan. Neither of them have done
anything to reduce the size of government, or increase the fiscal responsibility
of it. Conservatives need to go back to the drawing board and figure out a way
to actually govern, once elected.
You guys make my head spin! You ask for examples of broken laws, then accuse
those who provide them of "whining". You say things are going great in Iraq, but
have no suggestion as to when all this could maybe sometime please END! Isn't
that what you do when wars are "won"???
To my detractors, Bush has made quite a few "boneheaded" decisions. I do see
his shortcomings, I just don't believe in crying for impeachment or arresting
people just because you don't like their political views. I do believe in the
law, and believe that politicians should be required to have a full
understanding of the constitution and the powers alloted to each branch.I also believe that politicians should work in the interest first of the
people that they are elected to represent (not the people who give them the most
money), and that they should work collectively for the common good of the
country.I believe that the best government is the smallest
I'll be so glad when Bush is gone... Then I won't have to read so many snivling
comments from these whiners that fill the opinion page with their latest
complaint about President Bush day after day after day. I suspect
the DMN opinion page will become defunct because these liberal whiners won't
have anything to complain about anymore.
YouGo reminds me of one of the people in "The Emperor's New Clothes."George W. Bush and company are the most transparently naked power-freaks this
country has ever seen.But people like YouGo refuse to see any
It is unfortunate that so many on comment boards have no clue as to what is
really happenign in Iraq.I have had lengthy conversations with friends and
relatives who have been there and get a different perspective than the one
painted in the news.- Iraqis are taking the major load now of their own
defense- Violence is decreasing- Iraqis are cooperating across the
board for their own benefit and that of their nation- Schools and public
services are on the increase - Freedom is a new concept which is being
ever more being embraced by Iraqis- In spite of the terrorist threat,
Iraqis are more free than under Saddam- There is hope in Iraq for a better
life and pride in the fact that they will actually have a role in deciding what
that life will be- American service members have and continue to
contribute to all of these positive events and have pride in that
contribution- This war in spite of all the horrors one associates with
wars of any kind is honorable in that it has freed a people long in bondage and
given them hope for the future
Obviously, the Bush apologists will argue to the end of time that their man is
true and right in all things. There is no discussion as they are adament in
their conviction. Nothing will convince them otherwise of the rightness of
their cause. They will stand my Bush/Cheney come Hell or High Water.
Fortunately, they are a very small minority of the American people.Yes, history will judge this presidency for all the deception, lies,
violations, incompetence, and endemic partisianship that has characterized it
from the beginning. The same as with other leaders (including Clinton, Bush
Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, etc). But
the ignomious legacy of this administration will go down as the worst of modern
history.Let's get it straight: impeachment is a non-starter. The
country doesn't want it and it will not help with the healing that should begin
with the next president. Let the wingnuts climb into their holes and lament the
loss of their great leader. The rest of us will get on with our lives, but not
forget to be vigilant regarding future presidents and what thay do while in
office. Remember the Bush years as a reminder.
I don't have a problem with holding President Bush accountable for any of his
decisions or actions. I think Presidents should always be held accountable (not
after the fact, but Real-Time). That's why we have 3 branches of government (so
one man can't dictate what the country will do and lead us somewhere we don't
want to go).President Bush isn't the only President who should be
held accountable. All Presidents should be accountable. It seems
to me that President Bush gets especially harsh treatment from the whiners.
Where were all these calls for accountability when President Clinton took us
into wars with countries that were NO THREAT to us (like Cosavo, Somalia,
etc)??? or when he launched premptive cruise-missle attacks into Afganistan?
(Remember, we were not even at war with Afganistan then)"Holding the
President accountable" doesn't mean that a group of loud-mouth activists should
be able to tear the President down because they don't agree with him. If we let
this become the norm in American politics we will never again have a President
finish a term in office. That's just the tail wagging the dog and another
attempt to establish "Rule by complainers".
I think that many would do well to read a couple of books. "Shadow Warriors,"
and "Countdown to Crisis." Both are by Ken Timmerman. These books shed a lot
of light on the war in Iraq, the coming war with Iran, and many other subjects.
Sadly, even if Americans had a crystal ball in 2000 and could see the way things
would transpire voting for Bush would still be the rational choice.Many who voted for Bush were not casting an afirmative vote for Bush but
instead were voting against Democrats they found totally unacceptable.As long as Democrats nominate grossly unqualified candidates Republicans will
continue to win by default.This Republican would love to have seen a
vigorus campaign in 2004 that challenged the conduct of the war and held the
Administration accountable.Kerry was such a poor candidate that the
conversation never rose to the level of a serious discussion of the issues, and
to the surprise of all, esp Republicans, Bush was re-elected.Even
more unfortunate for the Republic this year the Democrats are determined to
nominate a candidate with shortcomings on a scale not seen since McGovern.In a year when a serious discussion on the issues is vital instead we
will endure a campaign distracted by an inexperienced Democratic candidates
missteps.Democrats, for the sake of the Nation, please get your
(nominating) act together.
To "lamonte | 9:43 a.m." If he has broken the law, why hasn't congress acted on
it, and impeached him yet?Also, why hasn't the liberal media run
with it? The only references to what the Globe claims are all extream left
political groups or media outlets.Again, name a specific law that he
has violated. The Boston Globe does not mention anything specific. They do
show how congress tries to limit the president's constitutional powers.There are a lot of unaswered questions.Assuming that the evidence
is there to impeach him, are you ready for criminal charges to be put up against
Clinton and Bush Sr?
You use the Globe as an absoulte truth paper, could it becasue A) it a Liberal
Newpaper or B) because it is more in line with your beliefs?The
Reporters of both TV and Newspapers has lost all credabilitty. They are no
longer interested in the "TRUTH" but thier slant on the Truth.I can
show you other newspapers that can dispute almost any point you want to make.
Because they are slanted toward the Right Wing.The point is that
CONGRESS who is controlled by the Democrats has A) not proven any wrong doing B)
been able to use the power of persausion to convince people to come over to
their side and C) most of the leadership bought into the IRAQ war.Don't try to hide the fact that Pelosi and Reid are nothing more than blow
hards. They like to speak abotu things Bush has done, but can't find a single
piont to bring up impeachment.Time will tell his Bush was as bad a
President as all you Liberals and Democrats think. According to the
studies I have done, President Carter has the distinction of being the worse
president in the 20th century.
I get it, YouGo. You're not a lawyer, but you play one on this space. Is it
legal to imprison people without charges? We've done that. Is it legal to use
government facilities and employees to further the goals of one political party?
The Hatch Act says no, but Bush officials at the Cabinet level have done that. I
guess lying to the American people is perfectly OK as long as there's no oath
involved, right? Ditto trying to rewrite science before government-funded
research is published. And we know all about the effort to NOT find the leaker
of information about the CIA-employed Mrs. Wilson. Too bad, since she was
working on issues of nuclear proliferation, including Iran, when the Bush folks
decided it was perfectly OK to wreck her career for reasons they've never
explained. Keep digging that hole, YouGO. There's a reason Bush popularity is
down near two bits.
YouGo First - the predictability of your responce is breathtaking. The Boston
Globe article is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this adminstration's
wrongdoings. You know as well as I that the space available on this page does
not afford one an opportunity to make a thorough case and your logic that Bush
is not guilty else why wouldn't he have been prosecuted is falatious at best and
just plain silly at worst. Plain and simple evidence won't sway your opinion to
please - just be honest enough to admit it.
9-11 was a parting gift to the nation from a Clinton administartion asleep at
the wheel for 8 years while terrorists attacked the Towers the first time,
attacked our warships, etc etc. Why didn't the war on terror start with those
blatant acts of war?Bush did the best he could with the crummy hand dealt
Ok, if the Boston's Globe's assertations are correct, they better get a legal
team together to prossecute Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush.In my reading
of the article, it does not list anything specific. Also, I question what they
say simply because of the Democrats hate Bush, and if what is said is truely a
prossecutable offense, then why hasn't Congress (controlled by Democrats)
brought up impeachment procedings?One thing that sticks out in the
article is this "There is no way for an independent judiciary to check his
assertions of power, and Congress isn't doing it, either" so, what that says to
me is that the globe is admitting that what they are saying is pure speculation
since it is impossible to check his assertions of power.
And also to the rest of you that keep saying we haven't been attacked since
9-11.How often were we attacked BEFORE Bush came into office?It's a comment that goes both ways.
YouGoFirst - From the Boston Globe, April of 2006 - "President Bush has quietly
claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took
office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by
Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations,
affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about
immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear
regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally
funded research.Legal scholars say the aggression of Bush's assertions
that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the
expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government.
The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws
and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully
executed." With the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he
ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal
specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the
constitutional authority to override."
If the American people knew then what they know now about Bush and Cheney, they
would never have made the tragic mistake of allowing these people to run our
great country into the ground.Reasonable Americans tried to warn you
but you voted for them anyway.
Robert, you should know better than to expect D-news readers to use their brains
and understand what you're saying.I agree with you, by the way. Bush is
hardly a Christian, he's a disaster.
Unless you are a hypocrite, if you attack President Bush for Iraq, you also have
to attack every member of Congress that was in office at the time authorization
was granted. The president is unable to do what ahs been done without
authorization from Congress.I have asked this before in this forum,
and have yet to receive a response. WHAT LAW HAS PRESIDENT BUSH BROKEN?The last time I asked that I had responses ranging from calling me names
to changing the subject to praising Obama. If you don't have a real response to
the question, just be prepared to have me asking it over and over again until
somebody gives an answer.
to sure - but we WERE attacked on 9/11 when George Bush WAS the president and
there is more than scant evidence that he and his so called national security
team ignored significant warnings.Chad - lying under oath in a
private deposition in a civil suit doesn't even come close to the lies told by
this administration regarding the terror threat and everything associated with
it. The lack of evidence of WMDs, the changing reasons for going into Iraq (was
it Saddam? Was it democracy? was it WMDs?) We saw the president make light of
the fact that no WMDs have been found at the correspondant's dinner while
thousands of our soldiers died in battle. We have all watched as our government
refuses to spend any money on anything that doesn't have the word "security"
attached to it while our nation's infrastructure crumbles away. If only we
could get Haliburton and Bechtel interested in building bridges and roads we
might have a different picture of the War on Terror. Oh yes, every president
for the past twenty years believed Saddam had WMDs - but none of them started a
preemptive war in Iraq.
@Veto: Obviously you don't understand how this works. Democrats may have a
majority, but not a simple majority (2/3 vote) to override a veto. Secondly,
Bush had a republican congress for 6 years which rubberstamped his policies he
wanted. Thus lack of vetos. Clinton, on the other hand, was inverse,
had a majority (with 2/3 majority) republican and thus had to veto many
policies. The difference? Bush had same party controling the
Congress. Clinton had the other party controlling Congress.
It's not the veto, boys.Google it.Pelosi and Reid are bumbling
While were at it, all of us need to be held accountable for our "secret sins",
what ever they are. Accountability is huge, but to do that we must all agree
on which is right and which is wrong and with a humanist crowd that is
impossible to do.
While were at it how about holding Lincoln accountable for the Civil War?
620,000 Americans died in that War along with our national treasure. Linclon
suspended habeus corpus and many accused him of being a dictator. Having served
in Iraq I know first hand the good we are accomplishing. You may disagree with
how we got into Iraq, but anyone who thinks we should pull out does not support
the troops. A study of successful counterinsurgency campaigns (Philippines
early 1900's, USMC Banana Wars 1930's, Malaya 1950's are few examples) shows
that it takes about 10 years to finish the job. General Petraeus has done a
magnificent job in Iraq....let him finish the job. I will let history judge
It is a fallacy that the Democrats control congress, what an easy fix to blame
the Democrats. They lack a few votes and then there is the turntable Leiberman
that can't decide anymore what he is. The Repubs still hold the control in
Congress along with Bush Vetoing anything he can't have his way
Let's hold Bush accountable:We haven't been attacked at home since
9-11.A grateful nation reelected W with 62+million votes.He can't run again,butwill you help us pick a spot on the Mall in DC for
Bush has cast way fewer vetoes than previous Presidents.You'll have
to come up with another excuse for thedo-nothing-Democrap-congress.
How is it "misguided" to hold Clinton responsible for his crimes. Lying under
oath is a crime, and according to the definition of "high crimes and
misdemeanors" - the standard for Presidents - it is punishable by impeachment
and imprisonment. The misguided were the ones who refused to say anything
because of fanaticism within the party.Also, it should be telling
that there is a congress in place now that could hold Bush accountable, but they
have done nothing. Why? Could it be that they, with a higher level of
knowledge of the situation than us here on a small-time newspaper comments
section, know better than we do what "crimes" Bush has committed? ooo...I
know...maybe they are so diabolical that they cannot be extricated from the
truths and half-truths they are woven with. Sounds like we give a
lot of credit to a man most call "slow" or "stupid" because he is not a good
public speaker when we then accuse him of masterminding the greatest conspiracy
in the history of america to bilk an entire nation out of their oil...so which
is it...moron or criminal mastermind the likes of which the world has never
seen? Can't have both.
TO WHY NOT:It is called "veto" which Bush uses generously when he has pen
in hand.It is ludicrous to blame a Democratic congress for a war
Bush never asked them to sanction. George Napoleon Bush imagined himself the
righteous president bringing in Armageddon and acted on that belief. Hubris has brought more than one man down, historically. Now it is Bush's
to Why not... - The difference is that during the Clinton Administration there
were some Democrats who, misguided as they were, crossed the aisle and joined
with the Republican gang in condemning the president. The Republicans in the
minority of the current Congress have signaled their undying loyalty to the
president and so the Democrats have no hope of garnering the necessary votes for
such proceedings. The Democrats also remember that the Republicans lost big in
the election following the impeachment hearings and they want to avoid such an
occurance in their own party. Such is the way of politics, disappointing as it
may be to all of us who seek to have those responsible brought to justice.
Why not have congress take care of holding Bush accountable for what he has
done? When clinton was caught congress aggressively took action and held Clinton
accountable. Yet this powerful Democratic controlled congress which vowed to
their constituents that they would bring change to our nation hasn't come close
to holding Buch accountable for what he has done. They haven't even garnered the
votes needed to completely end the war or bring the troops home immediately. For
all of that, you can go ahead and blame the Democratic controlled congress.