Hold Bush accountable

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • mark
    June 3, 2008 9:24 p.m.

    "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?

  • Joe Moe
    June 3, 2008 8:02 a.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    June 2, 2008 7:09 p.m.

    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.

  • Bush to McCain
    June 2, 2008 6:45 p.m.

    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 leadership.

  • can't wait till Bush is gone-
    June 2, 2008 6:30 p.m.

    McCain is going to be a great President !

  • Anonymous
    June 2, 2008 6:20 p.m.

    Why is that instead of facing the reality of just how heinous the Bush Administration truly is, the usual neocons start whining about Clinton?

  • Anonymous
    June 2, 2008 4:06 p.m.

    "Can't wait until Bush is gone" 12:09 -

    I TOO can't wait.

    Then the healing of American can begin.

  • YouGoFirst
    June 2, 2008 3:43 p.m.

    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 Bush.

  • Too "mark | 2:48 p.m."
    June 2, 2008 3:22 p.m.

    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).

    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.

  • mark
    June 2, 2008 2:48 p.m.

    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.)

  • Too "Lewt | 12:33 p.m"
    June 2, 2008 2:41 p.m.

    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" comment.

  • Too "Party of lies | 12:53 p.m."
    June 2, 2008 2:04 p.m.

    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 horse Democrats.

  • Yes, let's hold Pres accountable
    June 2, 2008 1:32 p.m.

    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.

  • Party of lies
    June 2, 2008 12:53 p.m.

    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 arsenal.

  • liberal Larry
    June 2, 2008 12:48 p.m.

    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.

  • Lewt
    June 2, 2008 12:33 p.m.

    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"???

  • YouGoFirst
    June 2, 2008 12:19 p.m.

    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 government.

  • Can't wait till Bush is gone!
    June 2, 2008 12:09 p.m.

    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.

  • The King has nothing on!
    June 2, 2008 11:42 a.m.

    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 shortcomings.

  • MadMax
    June 2, 2008 11:07 a.m.

    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

  • Gus Talwynd
    June 2, 2008 10:55 a.m.

    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.

  • Not a problem
    June 2, 2008 10:51 a.m.

    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".

  • Barry
    June 2, 2008 10:39 a.m.

    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. Great books!

  • takes two to tango
    June 2, 2008 10:31 a.m.

    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.

  • YouGoFirst
    June 2, 2008 10:22 a.m.

    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?

  • Confused
    June 2, 2008 10:16 a.m.

    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.

  • Mark B
    June 2, 2008 10:04 a.m.

    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.

  • lamonte
    June 2, 2008 9:43 a.m.

    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.

  • accountability
    June 2, 2008 9:29 a.m.

    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 him.

  • YouGoFirst
    June 2, 2008 9:21 a.m.

    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.

  • @ Sure
    June 2, 2008 9:02 a.m.

    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.

  • lamonte
    June 2, 2008 8:40 a.m.

    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."

  • today it's different
    June 2, 2008 8:39 a.m.

    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.

  • Ernest T. Bass
    June 2, 2008 8:37 a.m.

    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.

  • YouGoFirst
    June 2, 2008 8:17 a.m.

    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.

  • lamonte
    June 2, 2008 7:53 a.m.

    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.

  • DBG
    June 2, 2008 7:50 a.m.

    @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.

  • don't cry veto babies
    June 2, 2008 7:49 a.m.

    It's not the veto, boys.
    Google it.
    Pelosi and Reid are bumbling boobs.

  • You Too
    June 2, 2008 7:42 a.m.

    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.

  • Greg
    June 2, 2008 7:10 a.m.

    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 President Bush.

  • jr
    June 2, 2008 7:04 a.m.

    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

  • sure!
    June 2, 2008 6:56 a.m.

    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,but
    will you help us pick a spot on the Mall in DC for a statue?


  • veto
    June 2, 2008 6:54 a.m.

    Bush has cast way fewer vetoes than previous Presidents.

    You'll have to come up with another excuse for the

  • Chad
    June 2, 2008 6:47 a.m.

    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.

  • orion
    June 2, 2008 6:17 a.m.

    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 turn.

  • lamonte
    June 2, 2008 5:34 a.m.

    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...
    June 2, 2008 1:19 a.m.

    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.