Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq

[TahitiNut]

For Immediate Release: October 11, 2005

Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq

By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 6-9.

The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."

44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error.

Among those who felt strongly either way, 39% strongly agreed, while 30% strongly disagreed.

"The results of this poll are truly astonishing," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. "Bush's record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House."

Impeachment Supported by Majorities of Many Groups

Responses varied by political party affiliation: 72% of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 56% of Independents and 20% of Republicans.

Responses also varied by age and income. Solid majorities of those under age 55 (54%), as well as those with household incomes below $50,000 (57%), support impeachment.

Majorities favored impeachment in the Northeast (53%), West (51%), and even the South (50%).

<more>

http://democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-1

For Release: January 16, 2006

New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping

By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.

The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

43% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.

"The American people are not buying Bush's outrageous claim that he has the power to wiretap American citizens without a warrant. Americans believe terrorism can be fought without turning our own government into Big Brother," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik.

<more>

http://democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

He LIED!
He wiretapped!
Impeach!

And FUCK all the historical revisionists who FALSELY claim the voters "don't want impeachment"!!

:grr: :grr:

[fooj]

1. "IF" he lied?

[ixion]

yeah, right? if?

gee, that's not too difficult to prove.

[Hamlette]

11. how do you prove it?

put into Bush's mouth words he knew were untrue when he said them.

[TahitiNut]

63. He had contrary data. He suppressed it. Q.E.D. He lied.

Suppression of contrary intelligence and repression of disssenting positions is more than adequate to prove a LIE. It takes less to support perjury and FAR, FAR less for contempt of court.

[cui bono]

95. Yes, and it's already documented and will come out when the Dems

take over the intelligence committees.

[John Gauger]

118. Exactly.

He was presented with information that disproved the information he was presenting. In addition, remember the numbers that he gave during the 2003 State of the Union address concerning sarin, vx, and mustard gas. Those numbers were completely fabricated. Those numbers didn't exist anywhere in any documentation. He just made them up. Further, internal British government documents state plainly that he was lying (remember the "Downing Street Minutes?") The British government would not dare deny a subpoena for whoever wrote that memo. Blair might try, but fucking with the relations with America should be enough to get him ousted.

[civildisoBDence]

127. Did he lie, or did he "disassemble"?

He dissembled us into Iraq, then disassembled the country.

What a fucking mess. Impeachment should just be the start.

I won't say I want to see DUHbya hanged, but it sure would be nice to see him Hagued...which is why daddy bought that land in Paraguay.

Newsprism

[Ringo84]

5. Yeah. Really! [end]

[porphyrian]

2. The numbers would be greater if people understood impeachment. - n/t

[cool user name]

17. No shit ...

You don't know how many times I have to explain what impeachment is to people who say that we shouldn't "get rid of the president just like that."

It's annoying.

[porphyrian]

23. I've been on and off here all day trying, and I'm running out of energy.

Now, I'm just basically calling people stupid, which I know doesn't help the cause, but I'm an asshole.

[cool user name]

45. LOL ...

After awhile you just have to be an asshole. It's the only way to keep your sanity!

:hi:

[magellan]

94. Me too

I've been trying to explain impeachment for months. People have a kneejerk reaction to the word. I don't doubt it's mostly due to the way the Repugs misused the process with the sole intention of removing Clinton from office...but still, I'm finding Dems frustratingly misinformed on this matter.

[porphyrian]

129. Well, see you on the battlefield...

;)

[TahitiNut]

132. It's not only annoying, it's intellectually dishonest, imho.

There's really no excuse for ignorance of the impeachment process. It DOES include fact-finding and prosecution. It DOES include presentation of evidence, and testimony UNDER OATH.

Furthermore, it's the ONLY way to forestall a flood of PRESIDENTIAL PARDONS for the crimes of this regime ... and the further entrenchment of criminality in the Executive Branch. That was one of the despicable results of the failure to adequately address the Iran/Contra debacle - an abhorrent abuse of Executive Power and the breeding ground for many of today's fascist functionaries.

[mmonk]

93. Or all the crimes.

[mom cat]

110. They will once John Conyers starts his hearings.

[Gwerlain]

3. Excellent! K&R...

this is HARD EVIDENCE of what mandate was intended. This needs to be considered in any discussion of impeachment.

[boolean]

4. Hopefully, the Dems are listening

I really don't buy all the "Impeachment not on the table" talk. They're change their tune once the investigations happen.

[blm]

12. The coverup wing of the Dem party sure was quick to spin against the anti-corruption

Democrats as soon as possible. And THEY have the corpmedia helping do it.

[TahitiNut]

19. DU is thick with the 'concern trolls' today ... cockroaches coming out.

The historical revisionism is appalling. These polls are only about a hear old ... and BOTH polls support impeachment... FOR SEPARATE HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS!

Add habeas corpus and TORTURE!!! Jesus!!

[blm]

31. I've never seen so many establishment partyline DUers in five years here.

.

[ReadTomPaine]

84. Ditto, and I'm no newbie either.

They are out in force.

[pecwae]

116. Why would any DU'er be against impeachment?

Looking at the first poll from a year ago even the South gets it. I haven't read any of the posts against impeachment, but have to wonder what sort of creative reasoning would have to be fabricated.

[stepnw1f]

40. I've Noticed That Too... It Boils My Blood

[Old and In the Way]

41. I noticed that too, blm......

The firewall is up and running.

[blm]

75. Well, I'm going at them fullbore. I didn't work all this time so coverup Dems could

make BushInc's lives easier.

[dchill]

6. Kick...

for Impeachment. Wow, 50% - and they didn't even ask me!

[Individualist]

7. Thank you for posting this

[speedoo]

8. So that would imply even more would want Cheney impeached for the same reason.

Since Cheney is hated even more than Bush.

(edit - spell)

[TahitiNut]

54. Agnew went before Nixon and Cheney will go before Smirk

The tactics may vary but the Principles of Justice are consistent.

[H2O Man]

9. Nominated!

This is very important. I would like my friends on DU to recommend this post, and keep this thread kicked. It is extremely important at a time when some of our friends are attempting to frame this discussion in an entirely different -- and highly inaccurate -- manner.

[NNN0LHI]

22. I will kick this thread until doomsday if need be

KO has been doing his best to prepare America for this for months.

Don

[H2O Man]

28. Great point.

It's hard for me to picture anyone appreciating the brave reporting that Keith has been doing, but who at the same time feels compelled to stand up for this administration and argue against serious investigations.

[TahitiNut]

39. You, sir, are both a gentleman and scholar. Truly.

I say that VERY rarely.
You have patience. (I aspire to That.)
You have diligence. (I hold that in high regard.)
You have integrity. (I admire that above all.)

I salute you! :patriot:

[H2O Man]

46. Proud to be

on the same team.

[myrna minx]

123. Done and Done.

:hi:

[SammyWinstonJack]

125. knr

[Tiggeroshii]

10. That's kind of ridiculous.

ONLY 50%?

[TahitiNut]

13. That's a year ago when the 'approval' was higher..

Notice the edit ... I added the poll that shows 52% want him impeached for wire-tapping.

Lies about Iraq = 50% for impeachment
Wiretapping = 52% for impeachment

That adds up to 102%!! :evilgrin:

[dchill]

16. Isn't that "THE MATH"...

that Karl Rove was talking about?

[cool user name]

43. Put me down for impeachment at 150% n/t

[dchill]

14. AND Recommend.

[NNN0LHI]

15. Impeachment is what they were voting for Tuesday

Why some people refuse to admit this fact baffles me?

Don

[Generic Other]

20. That's what I was voting for

I'm surprised to discover so many others were voting for some other outcome.

[TahitiNut]

26. Quislings, and Vichy and Concern Trolls

It's been fucking appalling.

The historical revisonism gets close to holocaust denialism!!

Unfuckingbelievable!

[Individualist]

34. Hear, hear!!

I feel like vomiting every time I see one of those neocon enabling posts attempting to convince people to play nice with the pukes and not impeach the criminals.

[happydreams]

18. K&R

[BlueStater]

21. Thank you!

I'm baffled by all the people who are claiming impeachment would hurt us in '08. Bush is a highly unpopular president and most people want to see his sorry ass gone.

[Laelth]

24. Nicely done, TahitiNut!

n/t

:patriot:

-Laelth

[TahitiNut]

33. Thanks. The frustration popped my eardrums.

It at least ties my greatest frustration with DU to see all the Reichbot apologist spewage and historical revisionism.

When I see people, less than a year after the question was POLLED, claiming the people don't want impeachment ... that was the final straw. It's an OUTRIGHT LIE on DU!

:grr:

[Laelth]

37. Agreed!

:patriot:

Keep fighting the good fight. I got your back.

:dem:

-Laelth

[mvd]

25. Recommended

People really are coming around.

[AntiFascist]

27. Very cool, this is why the House of Representatives is given the power..

to start the process, because they are the ones most democratically responsible to answer to their constituencies.

[Hubert Flottz]

29. I agree!

ZERO TOLERANCE! Just say No to Nazis!

[Skip Intro]

30. It would seem repukes would even support it, as a cleansing of their party

you know what I mean?

Afterwards, they could claim their party cleansed, the bad apples removed, and delcare a fresh start.

[leftchick]

32. thank you!

Investigate, Impeach, Imprison!!!!

[TahitiNut]

35. !!

:hug: :loveya:

[leftchick]

71. you too baby!

:loveya:

I just read your homepage for the first time.

:yourock:

[TahitiNut]

82. Oh, really?

:blush: Well, that's about as 'open kimono' as it gets ... truly reflects much of what is at my core. I put that together for the first time about 12-13 years ago. It's now something I check in on regularly to remind my 'soul' - and occasionally tweak.

Did you read http://members.aol.com/tahitinut/imagine.htm ?? (I'm not the most poetical spoon in the drawer, for sure.) That wrote itself thru me (as accurately as I can describe it) one gray, misty afternoon outdoors ... and still reflects my most deeply-held viewpoint regarding all of us human beans. :silly:

Anyhooo... folks can't validly say I'm not (an obese) WYSIWYG. :dunce:

[leftchick]

88. that poem

is beautiful. You are the best TN!

:)

[Swamp Rat]

36. k&r

[stepnw1f]

38. Kick and Nominated!!! (nt)

[Hubert Flottz]

42. This issue is a GREAT troll trap!

I just had been going down the GD page putting all the Anti-impeachment naysayers on my ignore list. They will be on there FOREVER! I'd never used that thing until today but a couple of times but now it's about maxed out! The Freepers are restless, shiftless, toothless and no good and they are out in force!

[TahitiNut]

58. I know the pain ... I really do.

We've got some REAL sleeper "concern trolls" ... all for the "good of the party" of course.

Well, that "good of the party" bullshit JUST DOESN'T FLOAT with me, of all people.

I voted 99.44% Democratic this week ... much like 2000 and 2004. But, as a STAUNCH Independent Liberal, arguing the "good of the party" above Justice and Principle just don't float my boat.

[Swamp Rat]

140. yep

:kick:

[Hosnon]

44. Read the poll. If he lied they want Congress to CONSIDER impeachment. nt

[YankmeCrankme]

62. If you want someone to consider something...

...it means you favor that something. If I ask you to consider buying a Ford motor car my intent is for you to buy a Ford motor car. See? If they want congress to consider impeachment, it means that they favor that choice..as long as it's warranted, i.e. there is proof he lied about he reasons for going to war with Iraq.

[Hosnon]

106. I see a distinction when the consideration is based on a condition.

"Will you consider buying a Ford?" and "If you get a raise, will you consider buying a Ford?" are different to me.

If I answer yes to the former, I think it is more clear that my intent is to actually buy a Ford. Answering yes to the latter only commits one to revisiting the issue once the condition (a raise) is met.

I see a distinction and would perceive the poll in this thread the same way.

[YankmeCrankme]

113. It doesn't matter

It doesn't matter if there are conditions or not. The person is stating yes, if the condition is met I would favor that something. It means they are in favor of it, i.e. they want it. Whether its a car or an action it's the same.

So, if circumstances show that Bush lied about the Iraq war or got unwarranted surveillance on American citizens they would support impeachment and would expect Congress to pursue that end. That's what this poll is saying, a majority of people polled support Congress pursuing impeachment if conditions are meet. I don't think you can spin it any other way.

[Hosnon]

119. I'm not trying to spin anything. I simply see a distinction when the

word "consider" is used. To consider doing something is not the same thing as doing something.

The poll could just have easily not used the word...

[YankmeCrankme]

151. I think you just changed the subject...

You said, "To consider doing something is not the same thing as doing something."

The subject isn't about doing or not doing something or how consider relates to that. It is about whether a majority of people favor impeachment. If I would like for someone to consider applying to medical school, if their grades are good enough (I added the conditional clause) it means I favor or support a medical school education. Otherwise why would I want someone to consider doing something if I didn't support it.

The polling referenced in the OP indicates that a majority of people support impeachment. I really can't see how you can argue that is not the case. Now if you want to argue that these polls are, in fact, not representative, that's fine, but you would need to show evidence of that.

[Hosnon]

153. Of course I did. It was obvious from my original response.

The original poster implied something that I think is inaccurate. I posted why I thought that was so. In order to show that, our discussion has gone down a certain path - one which centers around the difference between considering to act and acting. I changed the subject but I changed it from the beginning; I haven't changed it since. We are not required to discuss only what the original poster intended or wanted to discuss.

We've been discussing whether or not there is a difference. I think it is obvious that there is a semantic difference. The practical difference may not be as clear but I think there is one and think many people would see it as well.

I generalized but my statement could just as well have been: "To consider impeachment is not the same thing as impeachment." I simply see a distinction between being in favor of considering impeachment and being in favor of impeachment.

I see a difference there and I think the difference is clear.

As to your example: You wouldn't want them to go to medical school if their grades were not good enough, right? That is the critical point, in my opinion. If you have ask 1000 people whether or not a student should go to medical school if his grades are good enough, you will get a certain percentage that say yes. However, that percentage will drop if it turns out his grades are not good enough (putting aside whether or not he can actually go).

About 50% of the population wants to impeach Bush if he lied. That does not mean they favor impeachment in all circumstances and no matter what. That means they favor impeachment if he lied. If it turns out that he didn't or it can't be proven that he did, that number will not be 50%.

(edit: Clarity of position)

[TahitiNut]

66. "Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping"!!

YOU read the post!! Go ahead, READ it! Don't try to tell others to read when it's obvious YOU haven't!

:grr:

[Hosnon]

104. I did. Direct quotes from the articles you posted:

The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."

And

The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

What you quote appears to be from the title, which is misleading.

[rman]

112. yeah, meaning Americans don't really want impeachment,

obviously.

:sarcasm:

[Hosnon]

117. Well it means that only a slim majority thinks we should even consider impeaching

Bush.

I would then assume that less than a majority wants us to impeach as is.

[rman]

124. so you're saying some people want congress only to consider impeachment,

but not to actually impeach. Impeachment involves investigation no matter what, and any impeachment proceeding will be based on what the investigation finds - meaning that essentially no-one wants to impeach as is. I don't think it is much of a stretch to assume that people who do call for impeachment now do in fact mean that they are convinced that investigation would yield ample ground for impeachment.

In the mean time other polls show that well over 50% is opposed not only to Bush as president but also opposed to the war in Iraq, and thinks that Bush lied about the reasons for starting that war.

[Hosnon]

126. I think tossing in "consider" is a way to allow people to be less committed to impeachment but

still answer in favor of it. In all honesty, I don't see how that number isn't closer to 100%.

And that's not what I'm saying - considering impeachment and impeachment are not mutually exclusive. One can lead to the other.

I'm saying the poll indicates about 50% of people want Congress to consider impeachment if Bush lied. I have no idea what the number of people who want to impeach is. It would probably be a substantial percentage of the 50%.

I have faith in the science of polling but I think that the wording of this poll is a way to inflate the numbers. Like I said, I don't see how anyone could say no to this poll. However, I do see how someone could say no to the straight-up question: "Should Bush be impeached?"

[rman]

128. I think the number is closer to 100%

When was the last time we could trust the MSM, polls and other tools of the ruling class to be honest and accurate?
Poll results are distorted not only by the phrasing of the questions but also by the selection of those who participate in the poll. I think most polls do not include for instance people who live in a ghetto, and those that do don't get the results published.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. But...but..Rush would say mean things about us!

Not to mention the soiling of pink tutus by the "moderates"!

[H2O Man]

49. This

made me laugh harder than anything since the president's first press conference yesterday. Thank you!

[TahitiNut]

51. (lol!) There must be a factory in China somewhere ...

... churning out those pink tutus. They sure seem 'popular' in recent hours.

[Hubert Flottz]

53. Do you think the tutucrats missed the message sent to Joe Lie...

berman, by the democrats?(Joe won with Karl's money and voters) The rose garden Democrats may become extinct in a couple of more elections and the country would be better off.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. "TutuCrats". An apt discriptive term for the timid wing.

I like it!

[TahitiNut]

70. "Tutucrat" ... an EXCELLENT neologism!

pwned! :evilgrin:

[leftchick]

72. ROFL!

PERFECT HF!!!

tutucrats!!!

:rofl:

[Old and In the Way]

48. Kick for the 3000 Americans who died on 9/11

because this WH ignored the warnings...they needed a Pearl Harbor event to get their war on.

[AIJ Alom]

50. Time to gather up all the info we have on why we went into Iraq.

[Major Hogwash]

52. Kick for the 2839 dead American soldiers and sailors who were killed in Iraq.

For a war that was started on lies!!

[Zhade]

55. Well, there you go.

Those who would rather excuse criminals don't even have the "public won't support it" lie to hide behind.

[TahitiNut]

61. They keep on trying, though.

After all, holocaust revisionists keep trying, too ... and that's immeasurably more drain-bamaged.

[Individualist]

56. kick for justice and integrity!

[Cameron27]

59. Wow that's an amazing poll.

Impeach.

[Clarkie1]

60. There need to be investigations that do not tie up our POSITIVE legislative agenda.

Serious, frank, non-partisan investigations.

[baby_mouse]

Excellent. Now the NEXT step...

...is showing that he lied...

Taps fingers patiently...

Providing that your *whopping* 6% gap (from a sample space of 1001 people) doesn't backflip after watching a loin-stirring Burger King commercial. Or losing their toothbrush.

After all, they couldn't make up their minds about whether or not their president should be removed from office GIVEN he had lied to them about going to war. TahitiNut.

[brentspeak]

64. I was never polled on that question.

How about yourself?

[slipslidingaway]

65. K&R! nt

[Individualist]

67. kick in the face for neocon enablers

[Individualist]

68. kick for all who mourn the deaths of those killed by the Bush Admin.

[TahitiNut]

69. In the interest of "reality-based" discussion: Kick.

:kick:

[Nikki Stone1]

73. kicked, Recommended

:kick:

[in_cog_ni_to]

74. Well, IF a Majority still rules in this country

(did he sign a signing statement for that rule yet?) then the MAJORITY OF CITIZENS WANT HIS ASS IMPEACHED.

Just DO IT!

[tom_paine]

76. The point is DSM PROVES he lied. PROVES!

That one piece of evidence...verified as authentic by an allied government. Is enough to warrant an investigation that will bust the nest of snakes wide open.

START with the DSM.

[TahitiNut]

83. There's so much proof, one has to make an effort to avoid it.

Sadly, otherwise lazy people seem to make that effort. :puke: Wotta waste of energy.

[ReadTomPaine]

85. Well said - you have look hard *not* to find malfeasance at this point.

[pinniped]

77. I think the question of "if" has been settled long ago.

.

[YankmeCrankme]

114. Still...

We need official investigations to legitimize that fact, otherwise it will be called partisan and political.

[Stinky The Clown]

78. This is an excellent start

Don't anyone try to tell me we'd be wrong to call for impeachment if the evidence warrants.

[wiggs]

79. Beautiful. Forward to Olbermann and maybe Scarborough since he's

lately scrambling to appear like he's been the only one holding the WH accountable.

[H2O Man]

80. Good idea. n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

81. kick

:kick:

[bobbolink]

86. This whole impeachment kerfluffle has accomplished one really good thing..

It's brought out a lot of smart people, posting all the ammunition in one place. :evilgrin:

Seriously, between this post of yours, and H2OMan's thread, I feel a lot more prepared to edumakate others.

And you KNOW there are lots of confuddled people outside of DU. :hi:

Kicked, recommended, and PRINTED OUT!!

Thanks :applause:

[TahitiNut]

89. H2O Man is a treasure. Rarely has anyone impressed me more online.

He's an online demonstration of what it means to be a "responsible adult," imho. I'm fully confident that whether I agree or disagree with him, I'd learn and grow in any discussion. I have no problem with a planetful of such beings.

[bobbolink]

90. Where's That Planet?!! I'm moving there!

Seriously, can you imagine what it would be like if ALL could discuss in such a courteous manner? (Actually, you don't seem to do too badly with that, yer own self.. eheheh)

Back in my dirtyhippiecommiepinkobum days, that's how we were with each other. You could actually ask someone not to use certain terminology with you, or whatever, and be heard. Today, at least on DU, you just get a choice putdown.

I really grieve for what we've become. There's very little support, or concern--no wonder I feel so isolated! How does that help our party, not to mention our country?

But, H2OMan is many magnitudes above that-- all that study and learning.

I'm doing good to remember my password.

:hi:

[Jcrowley]

87. K & R

He must be impeached and tried for war crimes. There can be no reconciliation with a war criminal.

[femrap]

91. The voters want * fired, axed, pink-slipped.....OUT! nt

[Individualist]

92. K for more R's

[Jeffersons Ghost]

96. K&R GREAT OP! and the text boxes are a neat color...

I gotta figure out how to do them in that color.

[TahitiNut]

98. (grin) Thanks ... and, here ...

[div style="margin:10pt; padding:5pt; background:#eeffff;
border:solid blue 1px;"] Quote Here [/div]

[L0oniX]

97. Water board the chimp bitch and his cronies then impeach the ass carrot

[brentspeak]

99. Checking the link out, I found that the OP is not being completely honest

Those are only TWO of the polls quoted on that site. Here's info on another poll conducted AFTER the two mentioned above:

On 12/14/05, members of AfterDowningStreet.org hired Rasmussen Reports to ask a harder-edged question: "Should President Bush be impeached and removed from Office?" 32% said yes, 58% said no. Rasmussen also asked: "Should Vice President Cheney be Impeached and Removed from Office?" 35% said yes, 55% said no. A gap between support for impeachment hearings and removal is understandable - there was a 10% gap in similar polls for President Clinton in 1998. Rasmussen's results probably understate support for impeachment and removal, because Rasmussen's polls consistently show Bush's approval ratings 5-10% higher than all other polls.
http://www.impeachpac.org/?q=node/76

That's from this page on a democrats.com entitled, "It's Time to Demand More Polls on Impeaching Bush": http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-polls

In other words, that site -- the one the OP is quoting to all of you right here -- wants to keep conducting polls over-and-over until it gets more of the results it wants -- polls which claim the public wants to see impeachment hearings. That approach is nothing but pure intellectual dishonesty, and would be laughed at with scorn by any academic or responsible journalist.

[philly_bob]

100. Just start investigating. Say 'oversight' not 'impeachment.'

Impeachment follows from any number of matters.

[TahitiNut]

101. Impeach. Indict. Imprison. (Rinse. Repeat.)

:shrug: It's the MINIMUM required.

[NoSheep]

102. Yes.Yes. Yes. And please....can we stop this war?

[TahitiNut]

105. In my firm personal opinion, we'd be able to end our occupation of Iraq

... far sooner once the LIES that led to the invasion and occupation were part of the grounds for impeachment. Part of the reason, imho, the Reich is so totally resistant to ANY end to the occupation of Iraq is the same as their reasons for invading: greed and power. Once that's exposed to sunlight and fresh air, it strips away the continuing falsehoods and pretenses.

In summary, the quickest way out of Iraq with the best possible outcome is to fully expose the war crimes in an impeachment prosecution.

Two birds. One stone.

[eridani]

103. 50-54% is NOT a huge majority

We have a lot of damage to fix, and a lot of investigating to do first. If the outcome of the latter is a call for impeachment that goes up to 70% of just about everybody (not just Dems), that's a different matter of course.

[TahitiNut]

108. I think it's huge when one considers ...

... Fox News, talk radio, corporate media, Tutucrats, war hysteria, and the total absence of Legislative oversight. The impeachment proceedings themselves would wake up a LOT of people.


I remember Watergate. I thought "What's the big deal? A clumsy B&E. Hardly a 'high crime.'" It took me a long time to get my head around it ... and I'm no dummy. I was focused on my career (strike one) - in the coorporate world (strike two) - recently married (strike three) - and appalled when I finally "got it."

[rman]

111. I'm pretty sure impeachment involves investigation,

so there's no either/or there.
Damage to fix - yes. But why do they not even mention fixing the constitution and W's self-ascribed dictatorial powers? Maybe Dems want those same powers when they win in 2008?

[eridani]

115. Fixing the Constitution has to come before impeachment also

And they won't do it unless we start pushing them.

[upi402]

107. of course!

Someone will get impeached. They'll find a blowjob somewhere to inflame the rable.

[Rainscents]

109. Lets send this to our new speaker of the house ASAP!!!

I want Bush/Cheney IMPEACH NOW!!!

[klook]

120. It depends on what the meaning of "war" is. (n/t)

[Lars39]

121. Lay all the facts out there with investigations and *they are toast*!

I'm getting downright sick of all the anti-impeachment cheerleaders,too. :grr:

[In Truth We Trust]

122. Rule of Law! Principle! Justice! Integrity! The Constitution! Impeach and Prosecute!

[lonestarnot]

130. kick

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

131. Clinton's impeachment was an act of revenge based on manufactured scandals

That is why the public reacted like they did.

Despite the meme that was coming out of hate radio and the millions spent by Richard Mellon Scaife trying to destroy "ultra liberal" Bill Clinton, the American people knew impeachment was nonsense.

There are two important points to consider.

In the first place, if impeachment is warranted, it is not negotiable. It is the duty of congress to investigate and pursue it.

Secondly, there will not be a horrible reaction by the American people. Once the groundwork is laid by Conyers and others in Congress, the percentage of favoring impeachment of TruthLess Leader will be much more than 50%.

For starters, imagine FEMA officials trying to explain why they didn't use the existing plans for evacuating New Orleans, while under oath and the TV cameras are rolling. Imagine them explaining why the New Orleans evacuation plans that were supposed to be written by a private company that was paid $800,000 dollars were never finished.

Imagine officials from Cheney's office trying to explain the outing of Valerie Plame under oath while the TV cameras are on them. Imagine NSA officials being asked whose phone records are in the NSA database, why are they there and why didn't they obtain warrants from the FISA court, under oath while TV cameras roll.

I know all of these matters won't be done with live TV coverage, but a lot of them will.

The dirt on these people is mind boggling and it has only been kept under the rug because the republicans wouldn't subpoena the officials and hold hearings.

[nolabels]

134. The best thing is the guilty will probably embroil themselves in their own mess.

I am banking on it. The crooks posing as government representatives only learned how to lie under a fixed audience. The tables have turned and the people asking the questions get to keep on asking more. Getting to bottom of it should prove to be very interesting

[nam78_two]

133. K&R-great post!

Glad to see so many pro-impeachment threads on the greatest page...

[Senator]

135. And "Lied" is just a Euphemism -- They Terrorized the Nation

That's exactly what their "bomb threat" of "mushroom clouds" was -- an Act of Terrorism.

Like Olbermann, we all need to actually say it.

To punish the perpetrators, "Violence" is The Answer.

--

[GOTV]

136. Wake me up when they support imp. WITHOUT a conditional...

... this poll says nothing about how many people would support impeachment at this point.

"I support the death penalty for Nancy Pelosi if she has murdered 10 children" doesn't mean I support the death penalty of Nancy Pelosi - only that I would support it if I could be convinced of the conditional.

We have no idea how many of those people actually believe Bush lied. The were asked a hypothetical and they answered a hypothetical.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

137. Investigate!! 50% is not a proper majority and it is fragile. Don't squander it.

Investigate and dig up the dirt (there's lots of it) and then you'll have a chance to increase that 50% to 67% and then maybe impeach.

But remember, you have to convice 16 Republican Senators, otherwise it is a waste of time and political capital to start proceedings.

[TahitiNut]

145. Here's a refresher for you ...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/342

Pay particular attention to steps 1, 2 and 3.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

149. Your point? My point: Prosecutors don't prosecute cases they don't think they can win.

Your point? Simply directing someone to read items 1, 2, 3 without explanation of what your point is and how it relates to it is your privilege, but not especially helpful.

My point: Prosecutors don't prosecute cases they don't think they can win. As things stand, you can't win the case in the Senate. Please read item 6 where you can see that you need a 2/3 majority, which means you need you need 16 Republican Senators, and you don't have them now and you have no prospect of getting them with evidence and public sentiment at only 50 percent.

Investigate, expose, and convince the American people. Then you will get the Republican Senators and you can avoid squandering the political capital with a wasteful impeachment hearing.

Remember, Nixon wasn't impeached. He was sunk by Senate hearings chaired by Sam Ervin. Key Republicans went to Nixon and told him to resign because he didn't have enough support to stop impeachment and conviction in the Senate because of evidence and public opinion resulting from the Senate hearings.

[kay1864]

138. EVERYONE READING THIS THREAD: PLEASE LOOK AT THE DATES

October 11, 2005

January 16, 2006

These are not current polls.

[Jemmons]

139. Just asking

I dont want to rub people the wrong way, but i have a few questions about the Impeachent strategies and views.
I saw a clip of Nancy Pelosi, where she said that they were not going to impeachech and said yes, when asked "is that a pledge?".

What is Pelosis motivation to "pledge" that there will be no impeachement?
Is she overstating her influence in doing so?
Could there be Fitsgerald-alternative to impeachement?
Could Pelosi be privi to knowledge about chances of that happening?

Im a passionate moderate in general, but id love to se Cheney and Rummy frog-marched into a prison. But i would worry about a polarisation before 2008, that might spoil the chances of having a dem congress, senate and prez. Why would it be a risk worth taking?

What is not off the table under Pelosis "pledge" which could change the dynamics a bit?
John Conyers "hearings" will do what?

Edit: Are there any lessons from the way that watergate hearings got up to speed?

[ComerPerro]

141. that is meaningless

there is no "if" about it, he did lie.

even the most hardcore Bushbot will say, "yeah, if he lied he should be impeached". But that's just it. You will never get them to admit that Bush lied

[hasssan1]

142. DEMS/AMERICAN MUST IMPEACH THIS FUCKER

WE SHOULD IMPEACH THE RAT . YOU GOT TO HAVE SHIT INSTEAD OF BRIAN IF YOU THINK BUSH DIDN'T LIE.

[krkaufman]

143. And what if he knowingly used torture-extracted statements ...

... to "bolster" the case for going to war?

In my opinion, the torture of al Libi and Zubaydah, and the use of statements made by these men under torture to bolster the case for going to war, certainly merits investigation.

[TahitiNut]

146. Three words: John. Walker. Lindh.

:eyes:

[novalib]

144. IMPEACH!! INDICT!!! CONVICT!! IMPRISON!!!

Impeach those who need to be impeached: Bush, Cheney, and Rice (for starters)

Indict those who need to be indicted: Rummy, and all the other bloodsuckers of Haliburton, Exxon/Mobil, and any other corporation that supported or enabled American agression and WAR CRIMES in Iraq!!

CONVICT EVERY ONE OF THEM!!!

THROW THEM ALL INTO JAIL!!

THROW AWAY THE KEY!!

Let the "detainees" in Guantanamo be the guards!!!!

[Individualist]

147. kick

[Swamp Rat]

148. IMPEEEEP!!

:D

[happydreams]

150. kick. This needs to stay at the top.

[TahitiNut]

152. Indeed.

:kick: