There are lots of people investigating him all the time.
Either a.) It can't be proven that he has broken any laws. or b.) Every single journalist, lawyer, bureaucrat, and member of the military that has dirt on him has been threatened or bribed into silence so effectively that their moral outrage at the president's criminality can't motivate them to speak out.
My guess is choice "a". Oh, and why would you think that using the presidency for personal gain is either unique OR against the law?
Grow up. :P
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-18 20:03
Clinton was dogged by Republicans for a lot less: some ambiguous investments and a blowjob. Bush, on the other hand, has multiple direct investments in companies based on his decisions. He just needs to be audited.
God damnit you have no sense of perspective. George Bush is very fucking obviously dogged for the things you say he should be. How do I know? Because every rabidly-anti-Bush-takes-politics-too-seriously kid on the intarweb knows everything you just cited (you are a prime example). He's every bit as guilty of corporate malfeasance and whatever else as Clinton was, and as guilty as every president and head of state ever.
The difference is, Clinton was never impeached for that: he was impeached for perjury. Why was he convicted of perjury? Because he eventually told the truth about something he'd been lying about. By the way, the mostly Republican Senate acquitted him on both counts.
SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU BIASED COUNTER-FACTUAL SPEWING LITTLE BITCH. Its people like you who ruin politics and make it into some sort of anything-goes "GO TEAM RAH RAH RAH!" nonsense, when really WE'RE ALL SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE SAME FUCKING TEAM.
I don't see why I have to defend fairness and equity. :P
Instead I would like to see an argument made as to how a mindless siege-mentality, a "better dead than red" fanaticism, will help anyone in any democracy anywhere address the very real problems addressing the world and their nation. :P
Why do I have to have a good argument that we shouldn't hound George Bush for the frailties he exhibits, that have been exhibited by every politician in recorded history?
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-19 8:04
>>12
>>Why do I have to have a good argument that we shouldn't hound George Bush for the frailties he exhibits, that have been exhibited by every politician in recorded history?
Not exactly "exhibited by every politician in recorded history", but hounding George Bush is making the liberals look ridiculous.
My point exactly. It's making the liberals look every bit as stupid as the conservatives looked when they couldn't stop screeching about how Clinton was getting his nob polished.
ahousedividedagainstitselfcannotstand. or something like that. :P
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-19 14:04
How is using the treasury as a blank check going to help us in the future? Bush is laundering money from the government to himself to secure his personal future and his cronies. He doesn't give a shit about how we deal with the tab later.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-19 14:58
He or she has to be removed from office to be subject to criminal trial.
The OP talked about suing; that's done in a civil court not a criminal court.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-19 15:56
It is only the fear of reprecussions from their activities that limits how much shit they get up to.
>>15
Might want some of that "proof" stuff before you start flinging accusations around.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-19 18:44
How do I get the IRS involved?
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-22 6:31
Can we just have a revolution already? I don't care who wins, I just want all of you dead or at least wounded so much you'll shut up. =}
Demockracy is overrated anyway, I'd rather have an absolutist monarchy or a true republic and not this half&half shit.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-22 21:08
>>22
Because we all know how well absolutist monarchies and pure republics turned out in history, and how many of them are still around.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-22 21:39
There have been >1000 year old absolutist monarchies. AND THEY HAVE ALL MANAGED TO DO IT WITHOUT NUKING PEOPLE.
>>14
Yes, persecuting someone successfully for getting a blowjob is exactly the same as protesting and speaking out against a president who has messed up the US economy, gone to war over lies and does everything he can to kill good science.
Oh, and if you really think the Clinton case was about perjury you're a fucking idiot.
You know what, believe whatever you want. This is my last word on this subject, because there is no point in trying to argue with someone who honestly accepts the most superficial and just... silly... interpretation of the facts. I don't know how you can accept the propaganda spoon-fed to simpletons through talk radio and other conservative populist mediums as the *actual motivating force* behind the American conservative movement, instead of what it really is: a simpering wail appealing to the lowest common denominator, shoring up the party of business's support in middle America in the one thing they want that the liberals are disgusted by: an absolutist moral code.
The Clinton case was about perjury. No-one forced him to commit perjury. He did it himself. Why did his political opponents jump on it? Because they're his political opponents. Why do you needlessly multiply what is really so simple to understand?
A lot of Americans were suckered into thinking there were biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, accusations that came out of Bush's mouth directly on several occasions. Hundreds of millions of dollars are going into the pockets of contractors who are best friends with congressmen (Haliburton's unexplained multi-million dollar bonus for work in Iraq, a 200+ million dollar bridge project in a remote part of Alaska, and contracts for $15 per cubic yard of waste removal after the hurricane), and it's taxpayer money.
It's not just the president, vice president, and his council that exploit their status; it's pretty much everybody in Washington including the opposition. Even if the case did make it to the Supreme Court, who do you think installed the justices?
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-01 13:10
>>32
Sure, his opponents jumped on the fact that he commited perjury. It wasn't the first thing they jumped on, though, and if the US (and especially Ken Starr) hadn't been obsessed about the sex life of Clinton there would have been no perjury.
The most superficial interpretation of the facts is that Clinton lied to the people about something important and rightly got impeached because of it.
A more sane interpretation is that Clinton made a mistake in his personal life and got fucked by an overly inquisitive public.
Unfortunately, the United States is a country where the context of a lie is a thousand times more important than its effects, its malevolence and its content.
"unfortunately... context of a lie is a thousand times more important than its effects,"
you are fucking retarded if you don't see that there is something very really wrong with making exceptions for people who lie in a court of law. so would you will that everyone should get to disrespect the rule of law evertime they think their crime wasn't morally wrong? if not then why allow a president to do it? are you saying you think presidents shoul be above the law?
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-02 7:38
What are you saying? It's exactly "making exceptions for people who lie in a court of law" that's really wrong. And as long as lies only matter in a court of law, that's where the exception is.
no. a person in a court-room, under oath, being investigated in a criminal trial, should be more incumbent to veracity in their story about what they did on april 14th, then someone asked the same question by their boss or their coworkers or the media or their mom.
there are only two ways to execute your idea: either a nastily illiberal, freedom-deprived society where no-one ever gets to lie about anything, under threat of criminal sanction, or one where everyone gets to lie about everything all the time, and all individual testimony in court is 100% circumspect, destroying the criminal justice system.
so what are you advocating here... a totaliatarian police state or a lawless anarchy? because i'm pro-moderation, i'm pro-everything in its place. i'm pro-don't-lie-when-you-just-swore-not-to.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-02 19:55
To my knowledge, there's no perjury in France and they seem to be doing alright.
Anyway, you're presenting a false dilemma. A society that holds their public officials to higher standards in regards to veracity in matters of war and policy wouldn't necessarily be freedom-deprived.
the reason the dilemna appears false to you is because you are making exceptio0ns. "public officials", "matters of war and policy". without exceptions as you previously stated (to quote you: "It's exactly 'making exceptions for people who lie in a court of law' that's really wrong."), the dilmena exists.
so.... either you've change dyour mind, or you're contradicting yourself. which is it? are you now in favor of exceptions and provisos to the law? single out some people for special sanction? is that democratic to you? is that liberal to you?
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-03 13:52
Law and exceptions already go hand in hand. Laws are mostly made up of exceptions themselves. That's kind of the point.
The US requires its public officials to take oaths where they state that they shall do what they can to uphold the constitution and so forth. That means there's already an exception for them. Are you saying that's democratic and liberal, but further exceptions would not be?
Remember that the law doesn't have to single out public officials – contracts, oaths and whatnot can take that place.
People with power are already singled out for special sanction, as they should be. The problems begin when these sanctions are only applied in areas that should be held outside of the public sphere.
In any case, I've never promoted the idea that presidents should be above the law.
As for democracy – the United States is not a pure democracy, but a representative one. One of the things safeguarding a representative democracy is holding public officials to higher standards. One of the (possibly inherent) flaws of a representative democracy is doing the same for public officials' private lives.