Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Amen. (4.00)
    The Congressional Democrats need to demonstrate some courage and leadership. Now.

    It is a proven fact, widely accepted, that Bush and his band of criminals (i.e., Administration) LIED us in this insane, murderous war of aggression.

    Why exactly are the Congressional Democrats refusing to step up?

    My take: They are Gutless Cowards.

    •  Only proven to a small group (none)
      Only a small group of people, admittedly almost everyone on KOS, believe that it's a "Proven fact, widely accepted" that the Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction.

      Many people, myself among them, believe that he sincerely believed that there were weapons of mass destruction, and that the 'fix the facts' type of comment, refers not to fraud, but selecting the arguments and building a case -- as any diarist does in deciding which facts to use and how to present them.

      I've seen, on television, President Clinton state that he believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. It was the general consensus that he did. The head of the CIA admits to telling him it was a "slam dunk". Unless someone comes forth and can demonstrate that Bush stated that he knew there were no weapons, this is not going to be considered proven by the majority of the people.

      Now, anyone who follows intelligence estimates knows that the intelligence community ALWAYS overestimates the capabilities of its opponents.  They did this in the space race, they did this in the missle race, they did this with respect to Mig fighter capabilities, they always do this.  And, we want them to -- because it's more dangerous to underestimate than to overestimate.

      This, in fact, is one of the blog problems.  Relatively small groups repeat shared agreements among each other until they are certain the "whole world" knows something that, in fact, only a small percentage agrees upon.  It is what led a journalist to state that she couldn't see how Richard Nixon got reelected, no one she knew voted for him -- he won 49 states.  It's called being out of touch with reality.

      The reality is that George Bush is president of the united states for the next three years.  If you want to influence the political discussion, stop ranting about impeachment, Florida 2000, Ohio and Dibold and focus on what you are going to tell the people of America that the Democratic party is going to do to make their children's life better.

      Because, for the majority of us, that's the bottom line.

      •  You are misstating the lie. (4.00)
        And doing a disservice to the cause of opposing this war and this President.

        It is indisputable, even if you choose to disagree, that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld & Co. wanted to invade Iraq from the beginning.  It is indisputable, and also well-known, that Rumsfeld on SEPTEMBER 12, 2001 was already looking to use the 9/11 attacks as pretext to invade Iraq.  See Bob Woodward's book Bush at War.

        But, most importnatly, you have misstated the lie that Bush is accused of.  Whether Bush believed Hussein had WMDs is totally beside the point.  Because, even if Hussein had WMDs, IRAQ WAS INCAPABLE OF DELIVERING WMDS to American soil.  And this was common knowledge.

        Because of this, Iraq was NOT an imminent threat to the United States.

        It was, therefore, a lie for Bush and his cronies to tell the American people that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States.  Bushco referred to "mushroom clouds" and used other references to scare the American populace into accepting an illegal and immoral invasion of another country.

        This was deception, pure and simple, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Americans and the expenditure of $300 Billion and counting ($1 Billion of which is unaccounted for and no doubt sitting in a Swiss or Russian bank account with George W. Bush's name on it).

        People can argue whether this a high crime and misdemeanor, but please don't tell me that Bush didn't lie, or that his belief in WMD somehow helps him avoid responsibility for the lies he told this country.  There is simply more to it than the WMD.  There's the threat of the WMD to this nation.  And it is indisputable that everyone knew there was no threat -- knowing this, Bush said that there was.

        That, in anyone's dictionary, is a lie.

        •  The other lie (4.00)
          that Bush and Co deny now when questioned directly but still keep trying to connect, is that Saddam was involved with 9/11.

          "Republicans are men of narrow vision, who are afraid of the future." --Jimmy Carter

          by murasaki on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 06:25:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  agree. (none)
            and, of course, the other problem to which Shipley refers (and is correct about, if the polls are to be believed) is that a majority of Americans STILL BELIEVE that Hussein was involved in 911
            •  Are you sure he wasn't? (none)
              The 9/11 commission report was unable to determine where Osama got his funding other than it was not, as had been previously thought, his personal funds.

              There seems to have been a hell of a lot of oil-for-food money floating around.  Saddam certainly didn't think highly of the US. I don't find it impossible that he sent a few hundred thousand in that direction.  He certainly could afford to.

              Now the only connection that has been actually made is a very low level connection, so this is, admittedly, speculative. I don't think, however, it is absurd or inconceivable.

              •  Weak, very weak (none)
                It's not inconceivable, but it is absurd.

                Care to make a list of individuals that it is 'not inconceivable' that they may have given money to Bin Ladin?

                Using the fact that it is "not inconceivable" that Saddam gave money to OBL as a justification for a war is absurd.

                •  Osama - Saddam (none)
                  With the amount of money passed around, I actually think it quite likely that Oil-for-food money may have gotten to Osama.  I was responding to the common statement that there was definitively no connection.

                  Now, as justification for war, I didn't say that. Even a proven funding connection would not, in my opinion, have been justification for war.

                  The connection to the Taliban was that they were providing a safe base of operations -- far more than simple funding.

                  •  This has been investigated extensively. (none)
                    And, investigated by people (i.e. Bush&Co) who have an ENORMOUS stake in proving it true.

                    They have found no such proof.

                    It is not true, and you are in error to call it "likely".

                    So, yes, I can say that Hussein DID NOT give money to either the Taliban or bin Laden.

                    Another factor, other than the absence of proof, is the fact that Hussein hated, HATED, the Taliban and bin Laden.  He would never give them money.

          •  Murasaki (none)
            As I noted above, even bush admitted a lie in regards to your statement...

            "The other lie that Bush and Co deny now when questioned directly but still keep trying to connect, is that Saddam was involved with 9/11.

            Bush said, and I think my quote is pretty much perfectly accurate: "We've had no evidence that there's any connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11"... I hear it on Randi Rhodes show all the time.  But in the State of the Union address before we went to war the connection was implied over, and over and over again, so that at the time 52% of the American sheeple believed there was a connection.  (Most of us on KOS knew better, I'm sure -- at least I did).  

            I think if we could go through all the speeches and all his press conferences we would be hard pressed to find any truths that exist, as opposed to easily finding lies.  Most everything he says is a lie, he's pathological.

            Just like his Dad, how do you know he's lying?  His lips are moving.  Must be a genetic trait.

        •  mini-quibble (none)
          no doubt in my mind that any statement of a threat to the national security of the united states by the sovereign nation of iraq is untrue ... whether Bush himself lied, though, or really - himself - didn't know any better could be open to speculation, and perhaps reasonable doubt ...

          i know Dubya is incompetent, but incompetence does not rise to "high crimes and misdemeanors", as required for impeachment ...

          this is a whole lot stickier than most here are willing to admit ... i believe bush lied (but it's a faith-based belief)

          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 07:14:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Incapable of delivery? (none)
          Container Cargo ships.  I simply do not believe it is possible to check them all.  Perhaps our radiation detection mechanisms are good enough, but I think it's a real possibility.  Or, smuggled in from Mexico and put on a truck.

          There are lots of ways of 'delivering' nuclear weapons if you only want to deliver one.

          •  Try to keep up (none)
            It has already been established that nobody outside the most crazed loons, even the somewhat war crazed loons in the Whitehouse, actually thought Saddam had nuclear weapons.

            You want to keep your fevered speculation to biological and chemical weapons.  The ones it was conceivable he had even though there was no actual evidence of it.  Radiation detectors are also useless against this.

            Saddam might have had chemical weapons.  He might have been able make them in to a weapon that didn't require a delivery mechanism.  He might have been able to put these on a cargo ship heading to the US.  The US intelligence services might be too busy coming up with politically motivated briefings to notice this.  US port security might not detect this weapon until too late.

            Using your standards of proof is any country in the world not an imminent threat to the US?

            •  Incapable of delivery (none)
              Was the point I was addressing.  Have you ever looked at how many containers arrive in a port like Long Beach, for example.  And can any one really believe that stuff couldn't be brought in from Mexico -- or Canada?
      •  Nope, Tenet did not admit that, AFAIK (none)
        "The head of the CIA admits to telling him it was a "slam dunk". "

        That was from Woodward's book, not directly from Tenet.

    •  Dems... (none)
      should read a page out of the Rethuglican Attack Manual:  The relentless hunting of a President: How to impeach a President like killer bees on steroids.

      IF Bush lied?  Pleeeease.  Andrea Mitchell's smug criticism of the ignorant populace for NOT knowing what she and her inner circle of press friends knew: Of course Bush knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, fools.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site