Skip to main content

View Diary: Poll: Americans Want Bush Impeached (254 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Maybe now (4.00)
    Zogby will have a "story" he can relate to and follow up on his own damn study.
    •  RWCM is coddling Bush (4.00)
      The tame RWCM has always favored Bush, so that's why we don't see much talk about this.  If we had an impartial media, Bush never would have been close enough to cheat his way to election in 2004.

      It is hard work just to keep up with all the breaking Bushco scandals, this group of wing-nuts are champions of corruption.

      Impeach Bush- rebuild America

      Impeach Cheney- conservation works, Cheney doesn't

      •  I wonder how this administration compares (none)
        to other scandal ridden ones.  Are they truly the scandal champions?
      •  Compare and Contrast (4.00)
        ...all the RWCM cheerleading for Clinton's impeachment. Blowjobs in the Oval Office offend the delicate sensibilities of Tweety, Little Russ, and Co. But lying our way into an illegal war? Just the price of doin' bidness in the rough and tumble world of politics.

        "This war is an ex-parrot." - The Editors

        by GreenSooner on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 05:04:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But the FACTS Aren't Settled as w/Clinton (none)
          Timmy and the gang didn't really get started on Clinton until the special prosecutor leaked leaked leaked that they were going after the Monica story and were going to pin Clinton's under-oath testimony back on him. Clinton issued a denial of the Lewinsky affair (which the RWCM knew was misleading because they all knew about Monica already), which put the story in full swing for months.

          Once it has been established -- by for instance a special prosecutor, beyond the frame of "this is just politics" -- then you'll see the RWCM start to feed on the decomposing carcass that will be this administration. The right wing itself will accelerate its flight away from it. And everyone will pile on.

          George Bush: The Most Catastrophic Presidency Ever

          by TX Unmuzzled on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 07:34:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Impeach Bush?! (4.00)
        He is the greatest thing to ever happen to the Democratic party. I would never be here if it wasn't for him.
    •  The problem with this poll (4.00)
      Is that Bush wasn't lying about his reason for going to war.  He DID believe that Saddam had WMD, even if Bush didn't quite have all the evidence.  His gut (and Cheney and Chalabi) told him that Saddam had weapons, so Bush wanted to just take 'em out.

      I think the Bush administration pumped up weak evidence of their claims, but they all thought that Saddam really had some weapons stashed somewhere.  I don't think we'd be able to convince the public that Bush KNEW there weren't any weapons and lied about it.

      Nor am I convinced that we can convince the public that Bush went to war for reasons besides WMD and terrorism. I think those were his primary motivations, with oil coming right behind and democracy coming dead last.

      We'd need very strong evidence of malfeasance to prove this one. But why am I wasting my time -- Bush won't get impeached unless Colin Powell comes forward and admits that the Bush team lied to the country. Which is a different thing than saying "Curveball fooled us".

      •  There is some pretty heavy circumstantial evidence (3.85)
        that WMD wasn't his only or even primary reason for going to war.  His statement in an interview before the 2000 elections that war gives Presidents tremendous political capital, the revolving reasons given after the war was launched, Paul Wolfowitz's remark that WMD was the excuse they thought the American people were most likely to get behind.

        Pumping up weak evidence is tantamount to lying, especially when that weak evidence had already been discredited.  I don't think willful ignorance will fly as a defense.

        As an aside, I think our congress critters are probably waiting - and probably wisely - for the results of the '06 elections.  With repugs in both chambers an attempt at impeachment would most likely fail, and I think this is the type of thing that you realistically only get one attempt.  I imagine a failed attempt might take a good chunk of public support down with it.

        ePluribus Media - Truth be told.

        by Stoy on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 03:47:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nope: Bush Created Evidence (4.00)
        That's a lie. Bush did lie as an excuse to invade Iraq. Whether Hussein did or did not have other weapons in Bush's mind, the manufacture of fraudulent evidence is a lie. A lie already well documented in this case.

        9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

        by NewDirection on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 03:50:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  unfortunately... (none)
          I think existenz, for all intents and purposes, is correct. Yeah, WE know they lied. And everything they did leading up to the war was the moral equivalent of a lie, sure.

          But I think they've probably maintained enough of a "plausible deniability" that it ain't gonna happen. They'll plead the "We ain't crooked, we're stupid" defense.

          In the court of public opinion, I just don't think Americans will come out strongly, overwhelmingly against Bush. Maybe I'm underestimating the American public, but they've proven me right so many times now that I've given up hope.

          But please, America... if we regain the House, and start hearings, PLEASE prove me wrong. PLEASE.

          If only there was a blowjob involved...

          ...Freedom is on the march. Straight to the gas chamber. this is infidelica...

          by snookybeh on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 04:10:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  reluctantly agree (none)
            We can't prove he lied unless a whistle blower comes forward, I don't think that's likely.
            •  Even then. (none)
              Most Americans will never believe that their President, who is in some respects just a massive ego projection of your Average American Citizen (that's why we don't like electing smart presidents), is a liar.

              As issues go, this is a nonstarter.  Certainly nothing worth getting one's hopes up over.

              •  I am old enough to disagree.... (4.00)
                since Nixon resigned only because he was certain that he would be impeached.  And the Watergate episode and subsequent coverup was, in the long run, far more benign in its consequences than those of the Iraq War. I don't think there's  much doubt that even the most lackadaisical Americans would demand impeachment if the media would fully report what they already know.  And this is the key IF.
                •  Ah, but I'm old enough (4.00)
                  to recognize that we lived in a much different country back then.  The desire to lie, cheat, steal and kill for Jesus just wasn't as strong back then.

                  But you're certainly right about the complicity of the media in keeping Bush safe.

            •  We already have the Whistle-Blowers... (4.00)
              We have the Downing Street Minutes which indicate strongly that either Condoleeza Rice and/or  George Tenent indicated to Sir Richard Dearlove that the "facts were being fixed around policy".

              The President also lied when he promised within the Section 3.a of the Iraqi War Resolution (HR 141) that prior to going to War with Iraq he would ensure that:

              (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or

              (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

              There is Richard Clarke - Former NSA Counterrorism Chief ("The Lights are blinking Red", "Bush wanted  to get Saddam from day one")

              There is Michael Scheuer - Former Head of the CIA Bin Ladin Desk ("While al Qaeda-led, anti-U.S. hatred grows among Muslims, U.S. leaders boast of being able to create democracy anywhere they choose, ignoring history and, as Stanley Kurtz reminded them in Policy Review, failing to regard Hobbes's warning that nothing is more disruptive to peace within a state of nature than vainglory...") who point out a cavalcade or errors which led us into War with Iraq.

              There is Lt. Col Karen Kwaitkowski - Former Aide to the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans ("the pressure of the intelligence community to conform, the rejection of it when it failed to produce intelligence suitable for supporting the "Iraq is an imminent threat to the United States" agenda, and the amazing things I was hearing in both Bush and Cheney speeches told me that not only do neoconservatives hold a theory based on ideas not embraced by the American mainstream, but they also have a collective contempt for fact.")

              And lastly there is the best known of the Whistle-blowers, Joeseph Wilson, who went to Niger to check out the Yellowcake rumors - found them false - and then found himself being smeared.  The lie was not only the 16 words, the the strange way that those word remain in Bush's state of the union speach despite being removed due to the objections of the CIA.

          •  Some rimming probably occurred (none)
            Harriet Miers is a real brown nose after all.
      •  He lied about WMD (4.00)
        Main Entry: lie
        Function: verb
        Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing 'lI-i[ng]
        Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavonic lugati
        intransitive senses
        1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
        2 : to create a false or misleading impression
        transitive senses : to bring about by telling lies <lied his way out of trouble>

        Even Webster's Dictionary agrees that he lied.

        •  Absof*uckinlutely (4.00)
          And even if Bush was completely deluded by his own lies, why did he RUSH into war if there was even a hint of doubt?  Why did he RUSH to pull out the weapons inspectors before they had the chance to finish their jobs?   Why did he launch a bombing campaign on Iraq even before he started the official war?  Because he was hell bent on war with Iraq long before he was even President.  To prove he lied is easy; but to launch an official investigation with the Rethugs obstructing....well that's another matter.
          •  He LIED, LIED, LIED (none)
            During the SOTU address he said that Saddam wouldn't allow the inspectors into Iraq while the inspectors were IN IRAQ! That was a blatant, blatant lie.  

            I have yet to catch Bush & Co in a truth, anywhere.  He lied about the torture, he lies about the economy, etc, etc.  Now it may be that when lies so much they believe their lies are the reality - because they are trying to make them a reality, but that doesn't change the fact that they are lying to us.

            Oh, just thought of a truth: "We've have no evidence that there's a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11" (I think that's exact).  but the media doesn't replay that clip...

            Oh, and maybe "You're either with us or against us; you're either evil, or you're good."  The word order reveals that with us=evil, against us = good.  So maybe that was an inadvertent truth telling.

            IMPEACH this SOB....

            I think though that Chenery is in trouble, so this whole Fitzpatrick thing, which is definitely related to lying us into war, may end up in this desire.

      •  What are you talking about? (none)
        How do you know Bush wasn't lying about "his reason" for going to war?  

        How can know what he "DID believe" and what he did not?

        WTF?

        •  asdf (4.00)
          the matters in question: standard of proof in an evidentiary hearing

          Mr. Swanson's written another diary featuring a grossly misleading theme. It's really a damned shame that only 50% of the public think Mr. Bush should be impeached if it can be shown that he lied.

          While the number of Americans who believe he has lied is also up there, the question actually posed in a poll was assumptive. It's most probable that, of the 50% who believe impeachment would be proper if he lied, only somewhere between half and three quarters of that group are likely to believe that he did.

          Really a shame that the number - 50% - is so damned low. I'd hardly look at that as something hopeful. Instead, take it as a measure of just how damned big the job of taking back Capitol Hill and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will really be.

          Some times require that you accept circumstances as they are ... claiming blamelessness just doesn't cut it

          by wystler on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 06:49:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Furthermore (none)
            the question asked was whether Congress should consider impeachment, not proceed with it.

            "There's more than one answer to these questions, pointing me in a crooked line" - Indigo Girls

            by AlanF on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 08:14:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Reluctance to admit the possibility (none)
            I think part of the reason for the 50% number is that a number of people aren't willing to entertain the notion that the president lied, and aren't quite able to separate that feeling from their response to  the hypothetical question.  I also think a significant minority of Americans (30% maybe or more), have invested so much of their hopes into the man that if Bush was caught raping a late-term aborted male fetus on the White House lawn, they wouldn't want the man impeached.
            •  i'd expect ... (none)
              ... that number to be closer to 44% right now (see poll question and results from diarist)

              Some times require that you accept circumstances as they are ... claiming blamelessness just doesn't cut it

              by wystler on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 10:13:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  WMD vs. Nuclear weapons (4.00)
        Back before he needed a vacation, Bob Sommersby was hitting this pretty hard. Everybody thought Iraq had WMD's (defined strictly as biological or chemical weapons), and so it would be hard to prove that Bush lied on that score. Iraq protected itself through the deterrence effect created by the belief that they had WMD's, so it's no surprise that a lot of people were fooled.

        The evidence is pretty clear, however, that the administration knowingly lied about Iraq's nuclear capabilities. Rice, Powell, Tenet, the whole bunch of them, knew that Iraq didn't have nukes, and yet we heard all that nonsense about smoking guns and mushroom clouds. They certainly knew the aluminum tubes were a false lead, and they had already struck the reference to yellowcake uranium out of one speech before it reappeared in the State of the Union.

        Those are the lies that Joseph Wilson was trying to stop. And these are the lies that Rove et al tried to defend by smearing Wilson. If part of the fallout from Fitzgerald's investigation is exposure of these intentional lies -- and if Bush is shown to have known about the plot against Wilson (two big ifs, I know) -- the next impeachment poll could look bleak for Bush.

        •  Yes (none)
          I am hoping Fitzgerald will hand out some indictments which will  sway public opinion even further when all the lies, conspiracies, and cover-ups reveal how deeply corrupt this administration truly is.  Bush knew the Niger uranium story was bogus when he included the lie in his mushroom cloud State of the Union address.
          •  Cincinnati - NIger - SOTU. (4.00)
            Remember that in late 2002, Bush gave a speech in Cincinnati in which he was going to allege that Saddam had been buying uranium in Africa.  George Tenet insisted it be taken out of the speech, even calling Cheney's office as a follow up to make sure it was out, because the support for the claim was not solid.  (Search talkingpointsmemo for 'cincinnati' and 'tenet' and I expect you'll get a couple of dozen posts on this.)

            A couple of months later, we have the State of the Union Speech, and behold, the Africa uranium crap was back in.  They just realized that they couldn't sell the war to mainstrean voters without some kind of nuclear threat.

            They knew this was bogus, but it was crucial to their argument, so they used it.

            Lie.  QED.  Let's get the torches and pitchforks.

            If Bush were President when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, he would have invaded Mexico.-- Cervantes

            by jem6x on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 07:29:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Do you know... (none)
          Bush uses the "everybody thought so" defense but was there any of his charges left unproven before the invasion began?

          I don't think so. You mentioned a few things that went by the wayside beforehand... I'd add that the US and UK gave all of their suspected WMD places up for the inspectors to inspect (after stalling for months) and nothing was found... and I cannot think of anything they charged before the invasion that held over until after.

          Georgie Porgie pudding and pie kissed the girls and made them cry; When the boys came out to play, Georgie Porgie ran away!

          by isbister on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 06:08:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No, not everyone: (none)
          "Everybody thought Iraq had WMD's (defined strictly as biological or chemical weapons),"

          1. "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has or will establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities." Defense Intelligence Agency, 9/2002

          2. "In my time at Centcom, I watched the intelligence, and never -- not once -- did it say, 'He has WMD.' " GEN. ZINNI, Wash. Post, 12/23/03
        •  Not everybody thought they had WMD (4.00)
          Neither Scott Ritter, Hans Blix nor Rolf Ekeus believed that Iraq had WMD at the time war was imminent. It amazes me that every spy agency in the world supposedly believed he had WMD while at the same time there were expert people on the ground searching for any evidence who told us that they were clean.

          But who you gonna believe anyway: the physicists, scientists, engineers, and cops or our boy Curveball courtesy of Chalabi?

          Pop-gun president lying with impunity, soundbyte policies and photo opportunities

          by Dave the Wave on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 08:58:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And also (none)
          Chemical weapons degrade. They degrade at a pretty predictable rate. Even if Saddam still had some, they would have been close to useless.

          If he was making new ones, it would have been pretty easy to figure that out -- and we DID bomb some things for that reason, IIRC, when Clinton was pres.

          Not to mention that chemical weapons are unpredictable, you need a lot of them to do any real damage, and that means you have to use heavy artillery or planes to deliver them -- and Saddam had no way to get them HERE.

          Biological weapons are even harder and more unpredictable.

          Nuclear is the only thing that's even possible to cause any real major damage with, and they DID know that he didn't have those.

          So, yes, I'd say they knowingly lied. They may have lied to Bush as well, but IMHO that just means he should be impeached because he's proven he's too stupid to be pres.

          A president should have enough background and intelligence to not accept blindly what ANYBODY tells him, especially on the really important things. He should have the brains to do some fact checking him/herself.

          Bush wouldn't know where to start, and he really doesn't care.

      •  Bush was lying (4.00)
        The official determination for going to war (not what he fed the unwashed masses) was:

        (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

        By the time of the nvasion just about all, if not all of the administration's charges against Iraq had been disproven or, in the case of the missles that barely went ourside of the limits allowed, had been eliminated.

        Iraq did not pose a threat to our national security, posed no threat while the inspectors were in the country inspecting... the previous months of inspections prooved that, the previous relevant UN resolutions were being enforced except where the bush administration knowlingly allowed violations (see Khor al-Amaya - in a nutshell, the administration allowed at least seven uninspected supertankers to leave the Iraqi port of Khor al-Amaya from within a week after Powell's UN farce to the beginning of the invasion... not the actions of an administration truly concerned about the spread of WMD to terrorists - how many teaspoons of Colin Powell's anthrax fit into a supertanker?)

        (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

        There wasn't a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda and bush knew it. The best proof of this is the story of Zarqawi and Ansar al Islam (some info here and here). From August 2002 until after the war began bush did nothing to disrupt Ansar al Islam, his primary link to Saddam supporting al Qaeda, even though the Pentagon had strike plans in place and he authorized attacks on almost everywhere else in Iraq. Bush purposely left the Ansar al Islam boogeyman in place for all of those months because it was one of the selling points and he knew they posed no threat to the United States.

        Georgie Porgie pudding and pie kissed the girls and made them cry; When the boys came out to play, Georgie Porgie ran away!

        by isbister on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 06:00:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You nailed it. (none)
          Everyone who says "Sorry, he was an idiot but he wasn't lying because everyone believed there were WMD's" please read this.  Click the links.  They lied their way into this war as clearly as the sky is blue.

          Please do not make any excuses for George W. Bush.

          If Bush were President when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, he would have invaded Mexico.-- Cervantes

          by jem6x on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 07:34:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  on what evidence (none)
        do you support your claim that Bush thought WMD were there? All the evidence points the other way, including the DSM and the Niger forgeries (which would have been unnecessary or extremly gratuitous to say the least had WMD been there) that the Wilson/Plame situation uncovered. Why would the Bush WH have cared so much about Wilson's NYT Op-Ed had history been on their side?. It is clear and uncontrovertable that a great deal of (in fact, most of) the intelligence that existed pointed to SH having precisely NO WMD. Not just H.Blix and the inspectors (like the one in the UK who supposedly killed himself b/c he was being pressured to fix the facts around the agenda), but internal CIA and State Department memos also show this--as do the articles by Sy Hersh and others. In fact, the intelligence we had on Iraq was as good if not better than the intelligence we had on most other countries: after all, we had been monitering it extremely closely since 1992 (tapping all the phones, using drones and spy planes from the no fly zones, monitering all the email, etc).  

        Furthermore, Bush is on record as saying before he was elected that he would be a war president, he is on record for having a high-level and still mostly secret meeting with R. Clark and others in February 2001 which discussed how (not if) to invade, and there are several mainstream news sources that suggest covert military operations in BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq were occuring before 9/11.

        The PNAC 1998 letter to Clinton called for immediate invasion. The CENTCOM plan to have full-time military presence in the mideast and Eurasia dates back as well. There can be little doubt that Iraq was among the top priorities of the Bush WH, if not the top priority, and the Cheney Energy task force maps of Iraqi oil fields confirm this The boondoggle war profiteering of Halliburton aand others, the placement of CIA stooge Chalabi as head of the oil ministry, all of this suggests a motive far more transparent than Rice's b.s. phrase about "mushroom clouds."
        We KNOW that N. Korea HAS WMD, and that is precisely why we do NOT invade. If SH had WMD, why not use them as we invaded or just before? If anything, it seems almost certain that Bush not only knew SH had no WMD, but that in fact IT WAS A PREREQUISITE FOR US INVADING--since the possibility of SH using WMD on American troops would have backfired politically here: imagine if 10,000 US soldiers had died the first day?

        In short, ALL the evidence suggests the Bush WH knew damn well WMD were a convenient fiction for invasion.

      •  the aluminum tubes are all you need (none)
        Even if bush believed his own bullshit, he still lied about the aluminuim tubes

        condi told us that the tubes could only be used for refining uranium. In truth, the tubes could be used for everything BUT refining uranium. And the US Atomic Energy Agency said as much in October of 2002

        who cares what bush believed. His belief was based upon selective evidence, disregarding the stronger evidence that proved him wrong, and accepting suspect information that proved him right

        belief doesn't alter facts, and george said he had facts

      •  I really think (none)
        it had more to do with his daddy and saddam's affair and oil than Jr. believing there were WMDs there.  He didn't believe that as much as his belief that he needed to pick a fight to redeem his daddy, and to try and grab some oil.

        WMDs were bullshit from the beginning, and he knew it.  He forced his advisors to tell him what he wanted to hear, not let them report what was fact.  It is plain and simple in that regard.  It began even before Powell had those pretty satellite pictures of the metal sheds in the desert that were supposedly full of WMDs.  C'mon, if you see the sheds, and see the trucks supposedly going in there to clean them of their WMDs, you can see where the trucks went after that.  You could probably even see the freakin' driver if you tried.  

        It didn't matter if there were WMDs or not, and he didn't really believe they were there.  He was going to 'get Saddam' regardless of circumstances.  Creating that bullshit about WMDs was just the easiest way to scare this country's stupid population into supporting his actions.  The other reasons (democracy) were even higher piles of shit that came as an afterthought.  That was never mentioned during his announcement to go to war.  It was something they came up with after wiping the egg from their faces when no WMDs were found.  

        STOOPID is as stupid does.  

        Healing BEGINS with impeachment...

        by valeria on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 04:31:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site