Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Why I Believe Bush Must Go: Nixon Was Bad. These Guys Are Worse.

McGovern = the man who ran against Nixon. An interesting article that was ignored by most of the major news publishers.

I have not been heavily involved in singing the praises of the Nixon administration. But the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney is far stronger than was the case against Nixon and Vice President Spiro T. Agnew after the 1972 election. The nation would be much more secure and productive under a Nixon presidency than with Bush. Indeed, has any administration in our national history been so damaging as the Bush-Cheney era?

Good luck on that!

*tries to hold in laughter*

I personally think this is irresponsible. The Clinton impeachment deeply divided this country, and I think it was at that point that our politics entered a crisis zone of bipartisan division. As the 2008 Presidential campaign kicks off with neither Bush nor Cheney running; there is no reason for such calls that will only serve to widen the D/R divide when we need people reaching out for healing. Furthermore, he conflates most of his "facts":

1) As someone who works around the Intel community; I doubt he lied. Saddam intentially misled the international community to believe he had WMDs. Furthermore, there are biological precursors we KNEW he had but are thus far unaccounted for.

2) There is NO such thing as international law.

3) The war in Iraq has been the most humanely fought war in the modern age; it is precedent setting in how to actually conduct military operations--even with the rare case such as Abu Gharib (which the soldiers involved were appropriately punished for).

4) He has a point about the debt...

5) If Bush is to be dinged for the lack of a Declaration of War...so does Hillary, Edwards and every other Congress member who has voted for funding under the War Powers Act. They are accomplices in this "high crime or misdemeanor".

6) Perhaps my biggest complaint is Hurricane Katrina. Bush legally could do nothing until the Mayor and Governor asked for Federal assistance. That is the way the system is set-up. Even after a federal response is called in, the local and state officials are the ones who are responsible for managing crisis and disasters. The failure was more Ray and the Governor of LA....

At 1/7/08 08:39 PM, TheMason wrote: The Clinton impeachment deeply divided this country,

Wasn't that over the whole sex affair thing? If it was, then it should not of even come close to impeachment, that was a personal issue not something the whole world had to hear.

At 1/7/08 08:50 PM, LordJaric wrote:

Wasn't that over the whole sex affair thing? If it was, then it should not of even come close to impeachment, that was a personal issue not something the whole world had to hear.

Though I did not actually care about his affair, I did find him unsuitable to be president when he lied about something so minor.

However, I do believe that IF people can be fired for having an affair in the workplace, then that same standard should apply to the President also.

At 1/7/08 08:50 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 1/7/08 08:39 PM, TheMason wrote: The Clinton impeachment deeply divided this country,

Wasn't that over the whole sex affair thing? If it was, then it should not of even come close to impeachment, that was a personal issue not something the whole world had to hear.

Yes and no. He wasn't impeached for actually getting the BJ but committing perjury and lying about it under oath.

On one hand this is something lower level civil servants has not only lost their jobs...but were put in jail. So on some level these charges were justified. And at the time I FULLY supported them. But now I see just how divisive (no matter how passionately justified I felt and still kindof feel) the impeachment was. I don't think it was necessary and hurt the country more than Clinton deserved punishment...

I think those young 'uns who are calling for impeachment will some day feel the same regret I do...

At 1/7/08 08:56 PM, Memorize wrote: Though I did not actually care about his affair, I did find him unsuitable to be president when he lied about something so minor.

Just about anyone would of lied about that in his position.

At 1/7/08 08:56 PM, Memorize wrote:
However, I do believe that IF people can be fired for having an affair in the workplace, then that same standard should apply to the President also.

Sounds like a good policy to me.

I'm divided on the issue. On one side, this seems pointless, and as Mason said, re-divides the political landscape. We're already voting for the "lesser of two evils" every election, let's not make things worse shall we?

On the other end, I'm not happy that Bush would get away for the stuff he DID do. I know he didn't lie about WMDs and stuff like that, but the scandals of this administration have just been coming and going like clockwork. The Buck stops at Bush, and he is clearly not capable of the office.

I don't know what's more astounding, the level of incompetence the Bush admin displays, or the level of tolerance the public displays.....

But impeachment (although it sounds nice; just desserts and all that)......I dunno......

At 1/7/08 09:02 PM, LordJaric wrote:

Just about anyone would of lied about that in his position.

Just about anyone would also lie about accepting bribes as well. Still doesn't make it right.

I just want the same standards to apply for the President as they do anyone else. Considering he/she is leading the country and doing something like that can bring embarrassment upon the nation.

Sometimes I hate irony. Clinton gets a blowjob from an ugly fat chick, and he's the scum of the earth. Bush starts a war with a country that never did anything to us, and we call him God.

At 1/7/08 09:44 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: Sometimes I hate irony. Clinton gets a blowjob from an ugly fat chick, and he's the scum of the earth. Bush starts a war with a country that never did anything to us, and we call him God.

Who is calling him god?

Google search bill clinton, then google search george bush.

Clinton;

http://images.google.com/images?client=f irefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&
channel=s&hl=en&q=bill+clinton&um=1&ie=U TF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

not alot of nonsense really, the occasional picture of bill with his pants down... nothing much

Bush;

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10 &um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&r ls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Geor ge+bush&btnG=Search+Images

Adolf hitler, Criminal, Satan, the works.

At 1/7/08 09:44 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: Sometimes I hate irony. Clinton gets a blowjob from an ugly fat chick, and he's the scum of the earth. Bush starts a war with a country that never did anything to us, and we call him God.

He started a war with people who have no country and did attack us. If you didn't notice, we're fighting alongside Iraq at the moment.

I'm surprised nobody has a clue about the whole clinton thing.
Paula jones accused clinton of sexual harassment, her lawyers looked for character witnesses. They found lewinsky who actually had physical evidence. Clinton lied under oath a serious crime no matter what the subject. Ofcourse I liked clinton so I'm glad there was no impeachment.

At 1/7/08 09:44 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: ... Bush starts a war with a country that never did anything to us, and we call him God.

This is a war we were heading for no matter who won in 2000. Afterall, the war never really ended in 1992...Clinton/GORE kept it going for all eight years of their administration...plus Saddam was making deals with the EU and Russia that would've really screwed with our dollar.

At 1/7/08 09:55 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: Ofcourse I liked clinton so I'm glad there was no impeachment.

It is a common misperception that Clinton was NOT impeached. The reality is he WAS impeached. Many ppl conflate impeachment with removal from office.

In fact an impeachment is the same thing as an indictment; a finding that there is sufficient evidence for a trial. At the point where the US House votes for impeachment the person is impeached and the impeachment process is actually over. However, this begins a trial in the US Senate. That is why you will hear ppl say Clinton was impeached...but then say that he survived the trial.

He was impeached...but NOT removed.

Fuck Bush, he is going to get a bullet lodged into his head one of these days I swear to god, it'll probably be by one of his own security guards not taking his shit anymore, money doesn't justify letting somone murder thousands of people.
Impeach the motherfucker.

At 1/7/08 09:55 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: I'm surprised nobody has a clue about the whole clinton thing.
Paula jones accused clinton of sexual harassment, her lawyers looked for character witnesses. They found lewinsky who actually had physical evidence. Clinton lied under oath a serious crime no matter what the subject. Ofcourse I liked clinton so I'm glad there was no impeachment.

"Impeachement" is simply when a vote is taken in Congress and the President is taken to court for any charges. It can result in a guilty or not guilty, just like any trial.

At 1/7/08 10:15 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Fuck Bush, he is going to get a bullet lodged into his head one of these days I swear to god, it'll probably be by one of his own security guards not taking his shit anymore, money doesn't justify letting somone murder thousands of people.
Impeach the motherfucker.

That's pretty close to a threat kid, watch what you're saying.

At 1/7/08 10:15 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Fuck Bush, he is going to get a bullet lodged into his head one of these days I swear to god, ...

Even though you go on to attribute this to his Secret Service agents, this could easily be considered a threat against the President.

If you really believe Bush is capable of all the impeachable offenses you claim; he could be aware of this threat RIGHT NOW! Oh shit is that a black helicopter I hear? OMG Bush has wire-tapped NG! RUN SHAGGY RUN! THEY'RE GOING TO SEND YOU TO GITMO!

At 1/7/08 10:22 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote: That's pretty close to a threat kid, watch what you're saying.

First of all, I'm as much of a kid as you have the chance to actually say anything important.
Threaten I do not, as much as it seems like it, I'm making a very true observation, it will happen eventually, that is what I'm saying.

And if I'm found and taken to a federal prison with no trial, singled out as an enemy combatant as the patriot act defies the United States Constitution, I will not go quietly.
My voice will be heard from the bottom the poisonous pond that is the American government now, and the events that follow, the retaliation I predict, will come.

At 1/7/08 10:32 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

At 1/7/08 10:22 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote: That's pretty close to a threat kid, watch what you're saying.

First of all, I'm as much of a kid as you have the chance to actually say anything important.
Threaten I do not, as much as it seems like it, I'm making a very true observation, it will happen eventually, that is what I'm saying.

And if I'm found and taken to a federal prison with no trial, singled out as an enemy combatant as the patriot act defies the United States Constitution, I will not go quietly.
My voice will be heard from the bottom the poisonous pond that is the American government now, and the events that follow, the retaliation I predict, will come.

Even w/o the patriot act death threats against the president (even in jest) are illegal. So either way, ur screwed (and how do you plan on being heard anyways? If they are truly the evil monster you believe them to be they will simply silence you at the first sign of noise).

I have a question! Did McGovern ever serve as a governor?
Because it would have been super cool to hear on a normal basis "Governor McGovern".

Other than that, I could care less for this.

At 1/7/08 08:39 PM, TheMason wrote: there is no reason for such calls

What about justice?

1) As someone who works around the Intel community; I doubt he lied. Saddam intentially misled the international community to believe he had WMDs. Furthermore, there are biological precursors we KNEW he had but are thus far unaccounted for.

And Bush presented evidence that he KNEW to be questionable and faulty. To help make his case for the war, Bush Bush presented British intelligence that suggested Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Africa. This evidence was known to be false at the time that he presented it.George Tenet took the fall for for providing Bush with the intel despite the fact that the White House had already been informed that the information was false in March 2002 (long before Bush mentioned it in his speech)

Then there was the whole case of Iraq attempting to acquire aluminum tubes which the Bush administration claimed were to be used to construct weapons of mass destruction, a claim the the CIA and DIA supported, but not the DOE (which is funny, because the DOE is the only government agency that has expertise in nuclear weapons programs), who said that is was possible but very unlikely.

Other entities took a different view, however. The Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. government's primary repository of expertise on nuclear matters, assessed that the tubes--although they "could be used to manufacture centrifuge rotors"--were "not well-suited for a centrifuge application" and were more likely intended for use in Iraq's Nasser 81 millimeter Multiple Rocket Launcher (MRL) program. 32 The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) agreed with DOE's assessment, concluding that the tubes were usable in a gas centrifuge application but that they were not directly suited to that use. 33

Despite this Colin Powell (A member of the Bush Administration) still referenced the aluminum tubes while addressing the U.N. Security Council.

and don't even get me started on stovepiping.

2) There is NO such thing as international law.

What? Then what's the UN for? What are the Geneva Conventions?

You aren't serious right?

3) The war in Iraq has been the most humanely fought war in the modern age; it is precedent setting in how to actually conduct military operations--even with the rare case such as Abu Gharib (which the soldiers involved were appropriately punished for).

I have a question. How is this humane?. And if it's humane, then why did the CIA destroy the evidence?.

What about those secret prisons that the CIA had? They're secret for a reason you know

I got a page full of links and sources for you to look at.

4) He has a point about the debt...

9 trillion dollars isn't anything to sneeze at

5) If Bush is to be dinged for the lack of a Declaration of War...so does Hillary, Edwards and every other Congress member who has voted for funding under the War Powers Act. They are accomplices in this "high crime or misdemeanor".

Can't argue with you there.

6) Perhaps my biggest complaint is Hurricane Katrina. Bush legally could do nothing until the Mayor and Governor asked for Federal assistance. That is the way the system is set-up. Even after a federal response is called in, the local and state officials are the ones who are responsible for managing crisis and disasters. The failure was more Ray and the Governor of LA....

I think it's a viable point. the head of FEMA Micheal Brown took 3 DAYS to respond to Katrina. THAT'S LUDICROUS, people are drowing in their houses and all Brownie can do is sit bewildered with his thumb up his ass. Wanna know who put Michael Brown in power? That's right, good old Dubya Bush.

You see because to Bush, loyalty is much more important than competency.

SHIT, I TAKE IT ALL BACK BROWNIE DID A HECK OF A JOB... He was fired like a week later

At 1/7/08 10:32 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

First of all, I'm as much of a kid as you have the chance to actually say anything important.
Threaten I do not, as much as it seems like it, I'm making a very true observation, it will happen eventually, that is what I'm saying.

Saying something important is something you will never do as the only thing you've posted are your paranoia and remember a threat against the president has been illegal even before the Patriot Act so therefore it doesn't matter what time period you're on since you'll still get locked up even if you do so as a joke.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscod e18/usc_sec_18_00000871----000-.html

At 1/8/08 12:02 AM, Empanado wrote: I have a question! Did McGovern ever serve as a governor?

Nope, he served as a senator.

At 1/7/08 08:39 PM, TheMason wrote: 2) There is NO such thing as international law.

I take a bit of issue with that. As I see it there is such a thing as international law.

If you have a system where states gain and lose power, you eventually end up with a hierarchy of power. The state with the most power is put in a place where they can easily take on the role of 'law maker', especially when there is only one main power base. As the US is the worlds only super power and as such has quite a nice hegemony going for it, it is in the position where it can basically make it's own rules and then those rules effectively become international law.

I can't seem to recall who it was exactly, might have been Hans Morganthau, but someone wrote in one of the books I read for my Uni course that the UN and many other international institutions such as the WTO etc are essentially instruments for the US to use to put forward it's views. And when you look at the majority of what global institutions like the WTO, the UN etc do, they do fall in line broadly with what the US wants, and when t doesn't the US drops out a bit and the UN or whatever fails in what it was doing.

So yeah, I really don't see how you can say that there is no international law when the US hegemony allows it make it's own international law by deciding what is and is not acceptable, which I'm sure you'll agree is the very basics of what a law is.

At 1/8/08 01:48 AM, Musician wrote:

And Bush presented evidence that he KNEW to be questionable and faulty.

You do know that Bush was given intelligence from the CIA and British Intelligence on the matter, right?

Oh wait... no, you don't.

3) The war in Iraq has been the most humanely fought war in the modern age; it is precedent setting in how to actually conduct military operations--even with the rare case such as Abu Gharib (which the soldiers involved were appropriately punished for).

I have a question. How is this humane?. And if it's humane, then why did the CIA destroy the evidence?.

We had already known what had happend to him LONG BEFORE this issue even came about. Everyone knew about the video and that they waterboarded. No one had an issue until they got rid of the tape that showed them doing it.

As for Abu... happens in every major battle/conflict. Isolated Incident. And in case you didn't know, those responsible for it, were all dealt with and convicted.

What about those secret prisons that the CIA had? They're secret for a reason you know

Wow...

lol, I love it when people make that statement.

9 trillion dollars isn't anything to sneeze at

Except that no demcrat will ever explain how debt works or how much it is in proportion of our income. Which would mean we have less debt than Canada...

I think it's a viable point. the head of FEMA Micheal Brown took 3 DAYS to respond to Katrina. THAT'S LUDICROUS, people are drowing in their houses and all Brownie can do is sit bewildered with his thumb up his ass. Wanna know who put Michael Brown in power? That's right, good old Dubya Bush.

I do love this...

Bush is a war monger and a war criminal because of the illegal war he started... even though he was given information that Saddam has WMDs and/or was planning on rebuilding his WMD program.

All on top of what we know now that Saddam deliberately gave incorrect or incomplete information to the UN to have everyone think he had WMDs so Iran would think he had WMDs, which had gotten to the point where even the closest of those in his government thought he had WMDs. Where he would pay off the UN for the sanctions to end in 2003 so he could start back his WMD program to build himself a nuke against Iran.

Of course, we're talking about the same man whose government attempted to assassinate one of our Presidents.

So after all that... despite stopping Saddam from having any nukes... he's still a war criminal who started an illegal war (even if Congress authorized military force).

And yet... when Katrina is about to hit and Bush offers support and gets told NOT to come (because they claimed they had it under control down there) when it's not legal to do so unless asked for that support, he's still to blame. While those who told Bush to screw off are not.

DOUBLE STANDARDS FTW!

SHIT, I TAKE IT ALL BACK BROWNIE DID A HECK OF A JOB... He was fired like a week later

If it were all about loyalty, then he surely wouldn't have been fired.

Heh, after all, what about Libby having a commuted sentence? Right?

At 1/7/08 08:39 PM, TheMason wrote: The Clinton impeachment deeply divided this country, and I think it was at that point that our politics entered a crisis zone of bipartisan division.

Huh, sounds like the time surrounding the Gracchi and how their efforts for reform divided Rome. History is crazy, isnt it?

At 1/7/08 09:02 PM, LordJaric wrote: Just about anyone would of lied about that in his position.

That is not an excuse for lying under oath, no matter how you spin it. It is trivial and I agree with Mason but Clinton should have been smarter.

At 1/8/08 01:48 AM, Musician wrote:

Nothing you say can stick in court and you are delusional if you think it can. It is all a case of "he said she said" circle jerk and nothing gets done except a drawn out media circus that ultimately results in little more than yelling and screaming. Why do you want to subject the country to a trial that serves no purpose? Do you really hate Bush more than just getting on with our lives and letting bygones be bygones and fixing the problems we have now instead of dwelling on those from the past?

At 1/8/08 01:10 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 1/7/08 08:39 PM, TheMason wrote: 2) There is NO such thing as international law.

I take a bit of issue with that. As I see it there is such a thing as international law.

So yeah, I really don't see how you can say that there is no international law when the US hegemony allows it make it's own international law by deciding what is and is not acceptable, which I'm sure you'll agree is the very basics of what a law is.

No, that is not the basics of what law is, and Morgenthau in particular would disagree. What you describe is an international dictatorship in which by that definition would be impossible for the US to violate international law because we would be the ones dictating what that international law is. Morgenthau would simply claim that the US would just redefine international law to fit its interest.

This is why there is no such thing as international law; there is no suprantional body that is capable of enforcing international agreements by punishing defection. What we have is a network of treaties, conventions and regimes that is enforced only by the ability of the respective signatories to punish defections and violations of these treaties.

The international arena (especially as described by Morganthau) exists in a state of structured anarchy rather than a state of law.

US hegemony is simply a nice term for US imperial control...not an international legal system.

At 1/8/08 01:48 AM, Musician wrote:

At 1/7/08 08:39 PM, TheMason wrote: there is no reason for such calls

What about justice?

No that is not enough of a reason. Clinton's impeachment and the reasons I think it was justified and served the interest of justice was that if a local civil servant such as my dad (City Treasurer) had done the same thing as Clinton:
1) He would be fired due to ethics violations (for the sex).
2) Be subject to civil suit (for the sex).
3) Be thrown in jail (for the perjury).

For me Clinton's impeachment was in the interest of justice.

However, I am older and wiser and understand now that this has only served to divide this country in a way that is deeper than it has been since probably the Civil War.

A Bush/Cheney impeachment would only deepen this divide at a time when we need healing.

1) As someone who works around the Intel community; I doubt he lied. Saddam intentially misled the international community to believe he had WMDs. Furthermore, there are biological precursors we KNEW he had but are thus far unaccounted for.

And Bush presented evidence that he KNEW to be questionable and faulty.

This was not all about Nukes. Biological and Chemical weapons are far more scary in a post-Cold War world than nukes. It is a fact that Saddam used VX gas against the Kurds (the ONLY person known to use this horrid nerve agent). It is also a fact that he had built (with French help) biological research centers far above the necessary biohazard levels required to conduct peaceful, civilian research. Then there are the massive amounts of biological precursors he's KNOWN to have purchased that is used in the weaponiziation of Anthrax...that has yet to be accounted for. I can't really get into the rest at this point. But if there was an impeachment trial, it would not all be in the public eye and Bush would be found innocent.

Also Bill Clinton's intel advisors agreed he had WMDs.

So did the British.

So did the Israelis.

Here's something else; NO intelligence is completely foolproof. ALL intelligence is faulty because it is NOT a science but an art. The art of knowing what someone else is actively attempting to keep you from knowing.

2) There is NO such thing as international law.

What? Then what's the UN for? What are the Geneva Conventions?

You aren't serious right?

Absolutely serious. Take an upper level/graduate international relations course; the international arena exists in a state of anarchy. The UN does not have the capability to enforce its resolutions (and in fact has shown itself to not have even the will to do so).

Same with the Geneva Conventions; their enforcibility is dependant only upon the individual signatories desire to follow them and their desire and capability to punish those who defect/violate them.

You may say there is a World Court; however this again has the problem of not having the capability to enforce its judgements.

That there is NO supranational organization enforcing these treaties, resolutions, judgements, etc...international relations scholars describe the international arena as characterizied by a state of anarchy.

3) The war in Iraq has been the most humanely fought war in the modern age; it is precedent setting in how to actually conduct military operations--even with the rare case such as Abu Gharib (which the soldiers involved were appropriately punished for).

I have a question. How is this humane?. And if it's humane, then why did the CIA destroy the evidence?.

1) The CIA destroyed the evidence regarding GitMo...something altogether different from Iraq.
2) What you don't see is the gun camera footage. Our shooters by and large do not fire unless they have authorization by higher authority who take into consideration factors such as:
* treaty constraints
* cultural sensitivity (ie: is a Mosque nearby)
* collateral damage
These factors are then compared and contrasted to the military necessity before a shot is fired.

Only 40-50,000 Iraqis have died due to US military action for the entirity of the war and civilian/soldier alike. This is an unparalleled, if you look at previous wars, low enemy casualty count...and it is because the US military does not go in and indiscriminately kill like the VAST amount of occupiers down through history.

4) He has a point about the debt...

9 trillion dollars isn't anything to sneeze at

But that has more to do with fiscal policy and not being able to do anything about social security and medicare.

6) Perhaps my biggest complaint is Hurricane Katrina. Bush legally could do nothing until the Mayor and Governor asked for Federal assistance. That is the way the system is set-up. Even after a federal response is called in, the local and state officials are the ones who are responsible for managing crisis and disasters. The failure was more Ray and the Governor of LA....

I think it's a viable point. the head of FEMA Micheal Brown took 3 DAYS to respond to Katrina. THAT'S LUDICROUS, people are drowing in their houses and all Brownie can do is sit bewildered with his thumb up his ass. Wanna know who put Michael Brown in power? That's right, good old Dubya Bush.

That has NOTHING to do with Brown or Bush. Neither person could LEGALLY respond until the request came from local and state officials. That they did not and COULD not is proof that we have YET to live in a military/police state.

The person who blames Bush (or ANY president) for the Katrina response dangerously flirts with authoritarianism and tyranny.