Skip to main content

Zogby:

President Bush's televised address to the nation produced no noticeable bounce in his approval numbers, with his job approval rating slipping a point from a week ago, to 43%, in the latest Zogby International poll. And, in a sign of continuing polarization, more than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.

Some interesting analysis and details, too.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:59 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  no bounce (4.00)
    that just tickles me.

    "I eat just enough to stay fat." Karl Rove

    by steelman on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:59:33 PM PDT

    •  Not to be entirely crass (3.40)
      YMMV but this gives me a woody.
    •  Other Juicy Bits (4.00)
      A couple of other nice tidbits from the Zogby presser:
      In a more significant sign of the weakness of the President's numbers, more "Red State" voters--that is, voters living in the states that cast their ballots for the Bush-Cheney ticket in 2004--now rate his job performance unfavorably, with 50% holding a negative impression of the President's handling of his duties, and 48% holding a favorable view.
          --  --  --
      A large majority of Democrats (59%) say they agree that the President should be impeached if he lied about Iraq, while just three-in-ten (30%) disagree. Among President Bush's fellow Republicans, a full one-in-four (25%) indicate they would favor impeaching the President under these circumstances, while seven-in-ten (70%) do not. Independents are more closely divided, with 43% favoring impeachment and 49% opposed.
      So a quarter of self-proclaimed Republicans are ready to turn the Dear Leader over for a trial in the Senate (if Rehnquist stays on, do we get to see that goofy Gilbert and Sullivan get-up again?).  If we can pull just a few percent more independents over to the impeachment side, I'd imagine that the media would be much more inclined to start using the term themselves with some degree of regularity, but even at the present level, I doubt that anyone who talks about the possibility of impeachment can be mocked by a "serious" journalist.  Not with numbers like these out there.
      •  Impeachment Needs Proof (4.00)
        The problem we have right now is that whatever we may think about the DSM, it's not concrete proof of the sort that would stand up to an impeachment proceeding.  What the Bush administration will claim, and not implausibly, that they couldn't afford to risk another 9/11.  That they misread the intelligence because they didn't want to chance what would happen if they read it wrong in the other direction.

        What we need is clear evidence, some executive order, etc, that says, "we know there's nothing there, but we need to invade".  These people are way too clever to leave that smoking gun lying around.  Remember, these are the people who made torture possible by redefining what "is is", and totally avoided any real accountability.

        I will be very surprised if any lies can ever get ties to anybody important in the administration.  They'll have documents suggesting how critical it is to err on the side of caution, etc, and they'll have lots of things saying how thoroughly Saddam must be vetted.  But I doubt we'll have any evidence that they lied...  that means to dis(as)semble.

        •  The lies are already there in the public domain (4.00)
          The yellow cake docs being fake - they knew this long before invading and Bush's State of the Union Speech.  Then you have the alluminum tubes where they Energy Dept. says before the war that they were not suitable for use for enriching uranium.  These two key points where held up as reasons to act "now" and not later or allow inspections to continue.  These lies were so good they convinced me of the necessity to invade.  For me this alone is grounds for impeachment.  I recently posted on another thread (re. the campaign for Christine Cegelis) what Henry Hyde had to say about why Clinton should be impeached, some choice quotes from his summation  

          "The debate about impeachment during the constitutional convention of 1787 makes it clear that the framers regarded impeachment and removal from office on conviction as a remedy for a fundamental betrayal of trust by the president."

          "If the president calculatedly and repeatedly violates his oath, if the president breaks the covenant of trust he's made with the American people, he can no longer be trusted. And because the executive plays so large a role in representing our country to the world, American can no longer be trusted."

          "Senators, as men and women with a serious experience of public affairs, we can all imagine a situation in which a president might shade the truth when a great issue of national interest or national security is at stake. We've been all over that terrain."

          Has any President before him done more to break the bond of trust?

          Nobody wanted us to risk another 9/11 but if your going to take action at least give it to the American people straight.

          Howard Dean speaks for me

          by EuroDem on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 04:26:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  What impeachment ... (none)
          ... will require is insider testimony.  The tipping point will be when someone decides that the killings have to stop and damn the consequences.  That cabal is hanging by a thread because with one insider (Brit or US, civilian or officer) breaking the code of silence will create a firestorm within the military services and in the public that isn't part of the cult.

          Maybe there are some documents somewhere that will push the "one patriot" but I could see someone breaking from the gang right now.

          With everything we know from Richard Clarke, PNAC, Bob Woodward, DSM, Bushs own mouth, and others (can't remember the former treasury cabinet member), I guess having secret police under the National Intelligence Director is Bush's last chance at intimidation and control of his gang members and of us all.

          We are at the edge of the abyss.

          A Voice In The Wilderness

        •  It's definitely enough (none)
          for people to start making serious inquiries. People used to say "where there's smoke, there's fire"

          Well the DSM is definitely the smoke

          Hermaphrodite with attitude!

          by Willadene on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 04:59:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  John Conyers (none)
          appears to be in the process of possibly getting it.  That's the impression I get!!

          "War is the product of politicians not doing their job properly," General William T. Sherman.

          by Street Kid on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 05:21:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No proof? (none)
          To quote Mulder - "The truth is out there."

          The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Bush lied - people died.

      •  Goofy impeachment getup... (4.00)
        this man is who Rehnquist modeled his robe on.  Makes you wonder about his sanity, eh?
    •  You were expecting (4.00)
      bouncy? What does this look like, the NBA draft?
    •  This parrot is dead (n/t) (4.00)
  •  According to the right wing, (4.00)
    His speech was such a success miliary recruitment is going to soar.
  •  About what I expected (4.00)
    And I'm glad that this sort of rah-rah without any specfics, doesn't seem to be working on the voters anymore.

    "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

    by jbeach on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:00:58 PM PDT

    •  Rah rah not working any more (4.00)
      This may be part of the reason:
      The same survey finds that a 55% majority of voters believe the two parties are too focused on their respective bases, and as a result, compromise--and results--have become impossible in Washington. Just 36% in the poll rejected that notion, saying the parties' organization provides as broad a base as possible, and that compromise is occurring.

      A follow-up question found that seven-in-ten (70%) voters believe the parties should be broad-based, and should pursue compromise--while less than one-in-four (23%) favored putting base issues first, even if it means nothing is accomplished.

      Not too many of those R base voters.  Only 23%  favor putting base issues first, even if nothing is accomplished.  And that is out of all voters.

      "False language, evil in itself, infects the soul with evil." ----Socrates

      by Mimikatz on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:28:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Reid's playing this well (none)
        By offering reasonable compromises first, which the GOP has to refuse in order to appease the White House or their Fundie base.

        I thought it was particularly smart of him to propose Republican moderate senators as justices. Before the conversation even begins, he's already on record with a reasonable compromise solution - that of course will be turned down. Which shows the voters that it's the GOP & White House who's refusing to discuss a reasonable compromise.

        Also with SS, Reid and the Dems are playing it right, at where they will let the compromise begin - after privatization is dropped. The case has been well made that privatization won't solve any of the alleged problems SS may have 42 years from now. So why does White House need it?

        The next stage is with Iraq policy. Dems have to make the case that Bush and the Senate GOP are refusing to listen to reasonable compromise. This is a bit tougher, as it is going against the leader's wishes in a military struggle. The fact that Bush has no plan, and refuses to accept the need for one, is the way in.

        As long as the Dems keep hammering on Bush to develop and show a plan - not even one they agree with. Any plan - it's a win-win.

        Bush refuses, he looks bad. Bush does it, and we now have a plan we can hold him to.

        "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

        by jbeach on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:44:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  How can this be? (none)
        Don't we have one party government? How can things not be getting done?

        Many an insightful opinion and observation can be found on my web log Occam's Razor.

        by Guy Noir on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 06:39:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  "If it is found"? (3.80)
    What more do they need?
  •  We're only 25-30 points away from impeachment... (4.00)
    Let's stay on Downing Street.

    Alex
    Choose Our President 2008

    •  impeach (4.00)
      impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach impeach
    •  The impeachment question... (4.00)
      ...is what I found particularly interesting.  I was shocked at how high the numbers were when considering how little the average American (still) knows about the DSM, etc.

      Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

      by Barbara Morrill on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:08:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This explains (4.00)
      why Tony Blair is all= "Really, the DSM was taken out of context. You don't understand, blah, blah, blah".
      •  My paper's Blair Story headline... (none)
        ... was something like "Blair refutes DSM...".   Reading it, i was expecting some (twisted) argument from him other than "we did not".   But quite frankly, it was just "we did not".  And i was surprised that the poll had an impeachment question in it.  These guys have no where to hide on this. The people are sick of hearing the "9/11 = Iraq" crap from the shrub and i think the tide is finally turning.  I would like to see the DEM politicos and talking heads start using the word "impeachment" more and more when they get on the tube.  Get it out there for the masses to absorb.
        •  It's all a question of timing (none)
          If you peak too soon and start chanting "impeach" to the masses the Busheviks (stole this from earlier.. i really like that) will be able to rally and cry to their 101st keyboarding crybabies and they'll lockstep faster than a brownshirt.

          What the dems need to do is get people up in front of the TV, mike, etc, and look very grave. They should ask for more special inquiries into DSM and continue to hammer the fact that Bush lied. Bush can't really defend himself because it's so obvious he lied.

          After that gets going for a bit they step it up a notch and make their language sharper and graver. After a bit of this, impeachment might be possible even under a repug congress because they all want to keep their jobs and damage control will the be the order of the day.

          The trick is in timing, gathering more evidence, and ( i really hate to say it..because it sounds so machiavellian ..ack bad taste in mouth) playing up the drama.

          Hermaphrodite with attitude!

          by Willadene on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 05:21:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  "more than two-in-five voters (4.00)
       (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq"

      This is startlingly good news!

      After the Repuplicans debased the importance of what impeachment means over Clinton/Lewinsky, I have been loathe to get excited about the possibility.

      But that number makes my head spin.

      Is it possible, long suffering friends and patriots, that someday somehow Bush can be held accountable for the biggest crime of all, lying about a war?

      "I can't stand it, I know you planned it, I'm a set it straight, this watergate..."

      by Republic Not Empire on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:11:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is it really good news (none)
        that over 50% of the population wouldn't favor impeachment if they found out the Bush knowingly lied in the run-up to the war?  What's that all about?

        "Don't blame me, I voted for the smart guy."

        by frsbdg on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 10:23:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  not quite (4.00)
      I found those numbers shocking, and encouraging as far as they mean that we're in great shape for the midterms. But 90% of the public could support impeachment and it would still be incredibly unlikely, simply because of the makeup of the house judiciary committee and the senate. We can't get 2/3rds in the senate with this senate. Instead of beating the drums of impeachment, I still believe we should play on the underlying discontent that is feeding public opinion on impeachment, and see if we can pick up a few house and senate seats.
      •  Impeachment is a possibility (none)
        I have always thought that if Bush had tanked in public opinion so badly even a Republican Congress could not resist calls for impeachment forever.  If the American public wants it, the House would be ill-advised to go against STRONG public opinion.  Of course, this all turns on what does STRONG mean.

        I don't think it is likely with these Republican toadies, but they serve at the pleasure of the voters and I think they are going to feel the heat in 2006.  Now if we had a Democratic Congress that would change matters - think power of subpeona (to paraphrase Kos).  

        •  We need 67 Senators (4.00)
          All it requires are 34 bat shit crazy Senators to block. There are a lot more than 34 bat shit crazy Senators.
          •  Yeah, but it will taint him like it did to Clinton (none)
            Although this may start a never ending tit for tat impeachment cycle-but who cares, lying to get us into war is a much bigger deal than trying to cover up bad sex.
            •  Who did impeachment taint? (none)
              One might look at the 1998 midterm elections and say that it tainted the GOP even more.  

              If we do win one or even )praise the thought) two Houses in 2006, it will be because the GOP has proved it cannot solve the coutry's problems.  So why would the Dems then want to begin impeachment proceedings, rather than just govern?  

              Investigations, ok, but if the Dems are elected, it will be to solve problems.  That is the meaning of the questions I cited to above about feeding the base vs compromising to solve problems.

              Better to emasculate Bush but leave him in office, and show what Dems in power can do.

              "False language, evil in itself, infects the soul with evil." ----Socrates

              by Mimikatz on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 03:36:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Depends on the mood of the country at the time (none)
                And whether or not we can drag a handful of Republicans (or more than a handful) with us.  It also matters on whether or not more Downing Street-like stuff appears.
                •  I think there are 54 (none)
                  Senators that would never vote to remove Bush no matter what the evidence. We need to reduce that by 21. If we already have 66 Senators, maybe Chaffee would decide to be the 67th.
              •  Of course it tainted the Republicans! (none)
                The majority of the people opposed his impeachment because it was for something (the pres's sex life) that Congress had no business asking questions about in the first place.

                But, if the case is really made and impeachment is JUSTIFIABLE in the public's mind, then it is to our benefit to impeach and their loss to block it.

      •  Let's have our cake and eat it too! (4.00)
        By using the momentum of W.'s downfall to make big Congressional gains, we can take those very gains and use them to put the impeachment fork in this abominable Administration.

        The Book of Revelation is NOT a foreign policy manual.

        by Dont Just Stand There on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:28:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (3.50)
        If those numbers render Bush politically radioactive then we don't need impeachment.  It'll be enough to have the entire GOP caucus running from their president like scared little children.  

        Tom DeLay's GOP: cheating America in a time of war.

        by Tom Frank on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 03:41:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right on! (none)
          Impeachment is just frosting, the cake lies in labeling Bush so that even Repiglicans won't invite him to a rally. The polls are clear, the masses are well, if dimly, aware of W's dishonesty, they don't trust him on Iraq, SS, budget or the environment. Label all the '06 GOP candidates as Bush lapdogs, call 'em all as dishonest as W, give no quarter. It's attack time.
    •  Yes, as the word gets bandied about more (4.00)
      and more it will become conventional wisdom.

      I don't think impeachment should be seen as the boogyman it is.

      With a parliamentary system governments can fall through votes of no confidence. This is the closest thing we have with our fixed term system.

      He fucked up and lied (and lied and lied and lied). Dump him (and cheney while we're at it) let the chips fall where they may. It can't get any worse.

      •  You're exactly right... (4.00)
        ...the rarity of impeachment makes the MSM nervous, but the actual process is NO scarier than a vote of no-confidence in a parliamentary system.

        Just because we've had relatively good or not-bad presidents in the past doesn't mean we have to stand still as a nation as our treasury is looted, rights eroded, environment fouled and sold, and our system of government--the democratic example for the world, as Bush says frequently--is ruined and defiled.

        Alex
        Choose Our President 2008

      •  Really, we need a Queen, (none)
        the British are much harder on thier elected officials that we are, because they seperate those who actually rule them from patriotic symbols and the sourse of national unity. The royalty works perfectly, because it brings back the glory days, and alot of history. We have a much greater reverance for elected leader because we lack royalty.

        We are all wearing the blue dress now.

        by PLS on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 05:52:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Just Ducky (none)
    Quack

    "If you play with cripples, you're gonna get a limp" -Mary Carey

  •  Good! (4.00)
    I think the only people who watched the address were the die-hard Republicans and the politrical junkies on the left, like myself.

    To be honest, it's painful for me to watch Bush on TV. I just sit there laughing at his idiocy.

    The Bushie's need to realize their propoganda game has been uncovered and they need to do more than lie to the American peopel again about a link between the Iraq war and 9/11 - and stage the speech at some military base.

    We aren't fucking idiots, Mr. Bush!

    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds - Albert Einstein.

    by GregNYC on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:04:05 PM PDT

    •  I'm a die hard junkie (none)
      But I didn't watch it....I'm sure a lot more on the left didn't either....

      Truly it was mostly the repubs watching that night...

      I think it will lose him more of an audience for the next time as well.

      "I like to poop a lot" - Mary Carey

    •  They need to do more (4.00)
      but they can't since that's ALL THEY HAVE.  I wonder if this is a wake up call to them that people aren't buying their b.s. anymore? Probably not, since they'll just lie some more.

      Honestly, I think his sticking to his bubble has hurt him--what works for the fundies won't work on the rest of public forever.  Obviously, those middle ground people are starting to wake up. It'd be nice if they had done that back in November, but I'll take what I can get.

      There's no point for democracy when ignorance is celebrated...insensitivity is standard and faith is being fancied over reason.-NoFx

      by SairaLV on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:07:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Base Pandering (4.00)
      He's trying to get his numbers up by being "anti-terrorist".
      I saw Dick Morris on FOX critisize Bush for being "too gung-ho and macho" instead of making all the moms of the heartland scared of personal attacks.
      Even his own (moderate) supporters are saying he's coming on too strong.
      •  When they evacuated the Capitol yesterday (none)
        were you thinking you could almost have predicted it based on the flat response to his speech and the poll numbers that showed him in positive territory ONLY on issues of terrorism?  

        I KNEW it would turn out to be nothing but a headline grabber.  First thought in my head!  

  •  Fascinating (4.00)
    "A large majority of Democrats (59%) say they agree that the President should be impeached if he lied about Iraq, while just three-in-ten (30%) disagree. Among President Bush's fellow Republicans, a full one-in-four (25%) indicate they would favor impeaching the President under these circumstances, while seven-in-ten (70%) do not."

    That 70% of Republicans would be against impeachment even if it were proved Bush lied us into war is not surprisingly.  Republicans these days unfailing put party over country, and this proves it.

    But where are those 30% of Democrats who wouldn't favor impeachment?  If somebody finds them, could they please slap them real hard?

    "The use of federal dollars to destroy life is something I simply do not support" -- George W. Bush

    by Irfo on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:05:19 PM PDT

    •  My guess (none)
      My guess is that the wingnuts who wouldn't impeach bush for any reason rationalize it by saying that every president needs to lie sometimes in the national interest.  Which certainly flies in the face of the "We're always the good guys" crowd.

      When we outlaw free speech, only outlaws will speak freely. - DaveOinSF

      by Bob Love on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:11:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nah... (4.00)
        They just don't accept that there's such a thing as proof.  

        They believe.  The President believes.  They have faith.  The President has faith.  

        All the proof in the world can't shake that kind of zealotry.  I'd love to see those same people asked, "If it were proven that evolution is real, would you favor teaching it?"

        •  I agree. I have thought since the deluded (none)
          Reagan years that it's time we initiate an election for "First Buddy" or "Drinking Buddy in Chief" and get that out of the way before we try to elect someone who's capable of and ready to govern the country.  The confusion the American public has that these are very different concepts is getting us in more and more trouble with each election cycle.  
      •  Lying in the White House (4.00)
        Aren't these the same guys who promised to return INTEGRITY to the White House?
        •  OK, you get a '4' (4.00)
          Fer God's sake, dig up this shit and get it on the air, only the most batshit-soaked sycophant denies the obvious about W. What a great advert: "restore integrity to the White House" v. "WMD", "mushroom cloud," "major combat operations have ceased," "turning the corner." Wow, Post the casualty count with each clip. Add the DSM, can you see the obvious!
      •  My .02 (none)
        The wingnuts will start invoking the moral bs re: abortion to rationalize their position.  Somehow, the religion card/aspect will be used.  

        "War is the product of politicians not doing their job properly," General William T. Sherman.

        by Street Kid on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 05:32:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Evolving opinion (4.00)
      I think the hypothetical is still informed by the current context.  What I mean is, people say now that they wouldn't support impeachment, even hypothetically, but that's because they haven't thought about it, or felt it enough.  If the zeitgeist continues to shift, so will those numbers.  Some of the people who can't imagine impeachment will start to find that they can imagine it, after all.

      My heavy metal has turned millions into rock-a-holics. They've become zombies.

      by BrooklynRaider on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:14:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (none)
        I think those folks are really saying with their answer that they can't quite believe it yet that it was all a con-job.

        "The use of federal dollars to destroy life is something I simply do not support" -- George W. Bush

        by Irfo on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:18:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nope! (none)
        As a matter of practicality I think there are those of us who go plaster them with the onus of it and discredit everyone associated with him but he's a lame duck and it's becoming apparent that he's making thoroughly evident all by himself that he's a turkey as well.  So why put the country through the process of impeachment?

        We're already as battered, divided and diffused as we can possibly be.  Time for some oil on troubled waters if you ask me.    Especially since it's only going to look for tit for tat following the Clinton hearings.  ...which probably WERE tit for tat for Nixon's.  

        Give it up and let him stew in his own juices.  It's enough that more and more Americans are thinking that he SHOULD be impeached.  

        •  My own take (none)
          There's no chance of impeachment actually happening with a GOP House.  Never mind putting the nation through it - the Republicans will never put themselves through it.

          But I just like to see noise about it.  Kind of like you say, actually - let more and more people think he SHOULD be impeached.  So my thought is, let's talk it up, but all the while let's get ready to win in '06 and '08.

          Anyway, even if he was impeached, we're still left with Mean Ol' Uncle Dick.

          My heavy metal has turned millions into rock-a-holics. They've become zombies.

          by BrooklynRaider on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:34:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The 30% of Dems are still upset about the Clinton (none)
        mess. That was very unpopular, and cast a pall over the whole impeachment thing. The fact that 25% of repugs are saying they would support impeachment if it turned out he was lying, is huge.

        We are all wearing the blue dress now.

        by PLS on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 06:09:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Talking Impeachment (3.80)
    i think we could pull off an impeachment. Zogby has started talking about it. We need to get the MSM to take the bush impeachment movement seriously.

    Mid-Coitus Epiphany: A Progressive Blog testing the theory that the best ideas emerge during sex.

    by schwompa on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:05:30 PM PDT

  •  Hey, Rep. Conyers - start that impeachment ball (4.00)
    You know John, over 48% of the country would be behind you! You know that the time is coming when people will get back what they gave.

    Of course,do we really want DICK in the Oval Office (Like he isn't right now!)

    It would kill the Rethugs in 08 and eliminate any Jeb Bush hopes!

  •  Oh, and Just Wait (none)
    'til BushCo has to deal with their newfound Old Friend In Iran...maybe Mr. North can arrange the meeting...

    Oh, these polls haven't even begun to drop for Geogie yet...

    "It best, before speaking, to take twice the time pondering one's words as it will take to utter them..." Blaghdaddy 2005

    by Blaghdad on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:08:24 PM PDT

    •  Oh, darn! (none)
      I thought you were going to talk about Iran's democratically elected hard line conservative president elect.  He and Georgie should be buddies since they are two of a kind, epsecially since Dubya helped get him elected.  Kind of like how Osama bin Laden helped Dubya get elected.

      Tyranny goes with poverty;it's cheaper than democracy. (Larry Niven)

      by Fabian on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:35:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Impeachment now a "major issue" (4.00)
    Look, when a sizable minority (40+%) of people opposed Roe v. Wade and wanted to make abortion illegal, it was called a "major issue". That means that by the same measure, impeachment of the president is now a "major issue".

    I'm sure most of that 42% are Democrats, but still... Most of the "abortion" 40% were Republicans.

    So, we should frame impeachment accordingly.

    Considering that, I bet the march on Sept. 24 is gonna be big.

  •  Impeachment (4.00)
    We've got to get that word on C(onservative)NN and MSNBC(onservative). Right now all we get is the cowardly Sheep Blitzer and Little Tweety sporting a boner every time Georgie opens his pathetic little yap. Impeach is a beautiful word.

    Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

    by dpc on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:10:24 PM PDT

    •  Sweet Polly Purebread (3.66)
      I have a crush on CNN's Sweet Polly.  One time she asked a real question.  I saw her catch herself.  She knew what she had done.  She would have to atone.

      Iranian hostage crap = Carl Rove's latest distractions.

      If Bush decides to invade Iran, what's he going to do, travel around on a horse from pub to pub, inspiring the rabble to sober up and follow him to battle the evil oil squatters.

      Lets go to Washington and take back our country.

      "Who do you believe, me or your own two eyes?" - Groucho Marx

      by MrEdward on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:14:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Big Eddie (none)
    Shultz argues against impeachment everyday but he just mentioned Zogby and sounded kind of surprised and gave a "hmmm?" response. He reminds me of Scooby Do....
  •  Forty-two Percent Would Favor IMPEACHMENT? (4.00)
    Holy Cow!  This is huge!

    John Conyers' work is even more important than ever when it comes to getting to the bottom of the whole downing street minutes issue.

    BTW - did anyone else hear that he's submitted a FOIA reqest on this with 52 other members of Congress?  Or was I hearing things??

  •  He didn't say anything new! (none)
    His speech was the cliff notes version of the same policies the administration has had for months.  Of course he didn't get a bounce.  If he wanted a bounce, he should have announced some new programs or something, even if they were 100% bullshit.
  •  visibility = antipathy (4.00)
    The blah response to bush's speech corroborates my hunch about bush's multi-city Social Security blitz, that the more visible bush is the less people like him.

    When we outlaw free speech, only outlaws will speak freely. - DaveOinSF

    by Bob Love on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:15:39 PM PDT

  •  I voted for Kerry (4.00)
    but...
    secretly, inside, I was kindof hoping that bush would win...

    Sounds pretty perverted huh???

    Anyway, one of my reasons for feeling this way can be summed up by this excerpt from Zogby:


    The talk in Washington is of the dreaded 'tipping point'. This is when Iraq's insurgency deepens into uncontrollable crisis at the same time as American public opinion collapses. That could spell the unthinkable: American defeat.

    The tipping point has not arrived yet, but there are many Democrats, and some Republicans, who believe it is on the way if trends continue. '[Bush's] place in history will probably rest on Iraq becoming a stable democracy. Not too many historians, presidential watchers or political science professors believe that is a good bet,' said John Orman, who is professor of politics at Fairfield University in Connecticut.

    Actually, back then, I saw a dual 'tipping point'. That is, the worsening situation in Iraq coupled with a worsening situation with our economy.

    I was hoping that so much mess would occur, that all thoughts of this stupid gooper hegemony would just disappear and vanish with the onset of the damage!

    ...but maybe not....

    I also had misgivings about these personal thoughts too. Basically, it really pains me to see others suffer for the idiocy wrought on us by our elected leaders.

    but...

    I have gotten to experience 1st hand the blinded-ness of the neo-cons.

    Hey!!! neo means NEW right?

    Maybe those neo-cons were ex-Democrats? You know the ones that got us into all that trouble during the Vietnam era?

    I don't know what to think any more:

    When you strike me down; I will become all the more powerfull!

    "Obi Wan Kenobi to Darth Vader before he got struck down by Vader"

    No more gooper LITE!

    by krwada on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:16:48 PM PDT

    •  The original neocons were ex-liberals (none)
      But your other point is true-that is, since the Republicans are in firm control of the presidency, the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court, everything bad that happens is obviously thier fault.  They can't blame the Democrats.  Oh, they will try, but nobody is buying it (espeically the independents).  There has been a drastic shift of the independents from neutral to being anti-Bush in the past few months.  We still need to do some work to fully turn them our way, but they have turned away from the Republicans.

      At this rate, a majority in the Senate and 300+ seats in the House for us in 06 is not unlikely.  That's enough to impeach and send it to the senate, although not enough to convict, unless "moderate" Republicans in the senate (that is, everybody who is not batshit crazy) vote our way.  People like McCain or the Maine twins just might (Chafee is toast in 06).

    •  Agree agree (none)
      I felt the same way, but from the opposite point of view:  Bush had screwed things up so badly that the next 4 years, especially in Iraq, were going to be awful.  Kerry would have been blamed.  So there was a silver lining to Bush's mandate--let him and the rest of the RW reap the whirlwind
      •  Similar feelings. (none)
        Was actually wondering about how Kerry manage to straighten things up and why he even wanted to be President at this time.

        "War is the product of politicians not doing their job properly," General William T. Sherman.

        by Street Kid on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 05:44:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I have been telling the (3.88)
    REPUG's I work with that no WMDs will be found, since March 2002 & these WMD's came up I told them that Saddam was bluffing, that he didn't have WMD's and that anybody who has 'NUK-U-LER' weapons should be able to keep them-- considering they could not find NUKULER in the dictionary.  
    But they still rally round Chimpy and that we have to stay the course --- well why didn't he stay the course in those 2 business he bankrupted? How the American public has been hoodwinked by this 2-bit crook, is beyond me.
    I can't believe we (as the american voting public) wanted to impeach Clinton for getting "blown" but Lord forbid we impeach the dunce in the WH now who lied, cheated & stole from us.

    BTW this is my first post.  I've been reading here for quite a while and finally got an account so please be nice to me.  I'm still trying to figure out all the "bells & whistles".
    Thanks

  •  The West has come to save us! (4.00)
    REALLY interesting regional breakdown of the impeachment question from the Zogby link above:

    "Among those living in the Western states, a 52% majority favors Congress using the impeachment mechanism while just 41% are opposed; in Eastern states, 49% are in favor and 45% opposed. In the South, meanwhile, impeachment is opposed by three-in-five voters (60%) and supported by just one-in-three (34%); in the Central/Great Lakes region, 52% are opposed and 38% in favor."

    Dear Western States,

    Greetings from New England. We have been waiting for companionship for a long time.  We are delighted it's coming from your direction.  I thought parts of Montana reminded me of New Hampshire when I visited y'all.   Welcome aboard!!!!!!!

    Love,
    My heart, all pitter-patter with the promise of '06 and '08 returns...

    "I can't stand it, I know you planned it, I'm a set it straight, this watergate..."

    by Republic Not Empire on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:18:26 PM PDT

    •  grain of salt (none)
      that "west" includes the west coast states of california, oregon and washington. i'd bet that the coastal numbers for impeach are through the roof, and that the rocky mountain states are edging our way. at any rate, we hate that fucking monkey, and we hate being lied to.

      crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

      by wu ming on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:33:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That is mostly California (none)
      Plus some Oregon and WA.  The Mountain West is pretty sparsley populated.  Still, they are libertarian, and I don't think Bush is going over nearly as well as he used to, except maybe in Idaho and Wyoming.

      "False language, evil in itself, infects the soul with evil." ----Socrates

      by Mimikatz on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:35:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My apologies (none)
        My thanks go out to dear California and Oregon and Washington as well.

        I just have a soft spot in my heart for Montana, since it seems to be rapidly evolving.

        "I can't stand it, I know you planned it, I'm a set it straight, this watergate..."

        by Republic Not Empire on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:38:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  the west is now deep purple (none)
        Don't forget that Cheney's "home" county in Wyoming voted for Kerry the last election.
        And then there's the phenomenon of Brian Schwietzer up in Montana.
        I swear, he's going to be the Pres. in '08. He's sort of a cowboy Howard Dean.
      •  You're going to wait a long time for Idaho (none)
        It pains me to say this, because I've lived here since 1981, but barring a revelation from the prophet, seer and revelator in Salt Lake City, it's going to be a long time before any Democrat gets to second base with a majority of Idaho voters. First base? Maybe. I can't live in a state of total despair. But outside of Sun Valley and Boise and perhaps Pocatello, Idaho is a red state twilight zone. We've always had the Mormons, but the California transplants who started arriving in the early '90s (best example: Mark Fuhrman) have really swung the state to the right. We might be headed back to the center, but definining the center in Idaho is a tricky business.
    •  Dear Southern States, (none)
      Dearest Southern States,

      Greetings from New England. I visit some of you when it is freezing here in the winter. You have some lovely mountains, beaches, and women. The accent actually sounds good on your women!

      Anyway, I am dismayed that you people still seem to be the dumbest, most ignorant Americans. Even if Lord Bush lied about the war, the vast majority of you would still want him in office? Something seems wrong with you people, something far more than just inbreeding...

      Perhaps the intelligent people of the coasts can do the nation a favor when our government is back in stable hands (and minds) in 2008: vote you out of the US; we shall rechristen you Jesusland.

      I'll still come visit you, of course, because you have some beautiful country. I just don't want you retards to ruin my country anymore.

      Love,

      Someone from intelligent America

  •  Impeachment too good for them...two other 'I words (none)
    ...come to mind: investigation and indictment.  Begin the process of investigation post '06, when we've(hopefully) regained control of at least one chamber of Congress.  Then, right after BushCo. leaves office, get the ball rolling on the indictments.  Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, Libby--all of 'em.  Impeachment just removes them from office; an indictment and conviction post-occupation puts them behind bars.
  •  25% of Republicans (4.00)
    To me, the most stunning statistic was that 25% of Republicans would favor impeachment. That's huge, considering how blindly loyal Repubs have been, and how thoroughly the SCLM has misled the public. It would be interesting to know what the same number was at this stage in Watergate - I'm certain it was much, much lower.

    $300 billion dollars and 100,000 lives, and all I got was this fake magnetic ribbon!

    by shine o mite on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:21:23 PM PDT

    •  actually not a great stat (none)
      25% of republicans would support impeachment if it were shown that bush lied. That means that 3/4ths of Republicans would not support impeachment, even if it were clearly shown that Bush blatantly lied to get us into war. 75% of Republicans would follow Bush off the cliff, like little lemmings.
      •  I see it as more positive than that (4.00)
        I think that Democrats and Republicans respond in very different ways to a question like this. Dems have known for years that Bush was a lying scumbag, and are finally seeing that there's some hope he could be held accountable. Many of us believe that there are grounds for impeachment even if you ignore the way Bush got us into Iraq. Republicans, on the other hand, think that overall Bush is a pretty good guy, so that now that reality is finally starting to penetrate their skulls, the cognitive dissonance that that reality creates is just beginning to build up. I'm sure many Repubs tell themselves that even if Bush lied to get us into the war, he was only trying to protect the country. It will take them a while longer to realize how wrong they are about that.

        So I think that given where Democrats and Republicans currently are in their respective psychologies on this, 25% is a pretty impressive starting point.

        $300 billion dollars and 100,000 lives, and all I got was this fake magnetic ribbon!

        by shine o mite on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:53:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, they'll follow him off a fucking cliff... (none)
        ...but they won't go fight his dirty war.
  •  beat ya by 15 min (none)
    Hey ... not to toot my own horn, but I beat you by about 15 min
  •  42% is a significant number (none)
    Although it's still couched in a hypothetical.  I just read the diary about the Plame affair.  It sounds very plausible that it WAS more about attacking the CIA than it was about attacking Wilson.  If that's true, and we find out that the CIA was actively being attacked, then later blamed for the failures, this country is in trouble if we're not inspired to take to the streets and demand accountability.
  •  BUSH IS IMPEACHED! (none)
    -if you want it-.

    (A take on John & Yoko's "WAR IS OVER - if you want it" billboard from the 70's)

    "I can't stand it, I know you planned it, I'm a set it straight, this watergate..."

    by Republic Not Empire on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:36:00 PM PDT

  •  Warms the heart (none)
    for sure. But this REALLY feels like an outlier/bad sample to me. It just strains credulity to say that, just six months after winning reelection, 42% want to impeach him. Especially since it clearly is not just a hardening of the opposition: 25% of Repubs say they would consider it. Thus, if this poll is accurate, something like 1 in 5 or 6 Republican voters voted for Bush but now want him impeached! What's happened to account for that? DSM? Seems so unlikely given how few have even heard of them.

    No, I rather suspect the real number is about 35%, with essentially none coming from the GOP base. Remember, this is Zogby, who still hasn't gotten one even close to right since 2000.

    •  Remember, there was a condition (none)
      42% want him impeached if he was found to have lied to get us in Iraq.
      •  Condition (none)
        And that condition actually makes the poll rather disturbing. What does that mean the other 58% think? That he shouldn't be impeached even if he lied?

        This issue is way to charged I think, my guess is that people on all sides misintrepted it as "Did Bush lie?" or "Should Bush be impeached because he lied?"

        This poll is crap. Least I hope so.

    •  no (none)
      42% would impeach if it were shown he lied. I'm guessing the number of people who actually believe he lied is much much smaller than 42%. I still don't think that many people currently favor impeachment.
      •  Here's the quote from the poll (4.00)
        42% said they "would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq."  Note the question did not include the word lie or its derivatives.  Misled is a lower standard.  Therefore, the DSM is enough to begin the push for an inquiry.
    •  No one likes a loser (none)
      What's different is that a critical mass now realize we're losing in Iraq.  If Chimpy had pulled it off, he'd have been worshipped.  Losing is the only thing (too many) Americans--and Republicans for sure--won't forgive.
    •  What has changed? (none)
      The American people have realized we are losing, that's what. The info about the lies was out there, but no one cared, at least if we won. There is a "success" cult in this country. Make us feel like a nation of "losers" and you will pay.

      We are all wearing the blue dress now.

      by PLS on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 06:28:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you Zogby for polling the question of (4.00)
    impeachment.  It's nice to see that the concept has entered the public consciousness.  If anything, the possibility of impeachment will encourage those mushy moderate Dems to get tougher on Bush.
  •  Impeachment: practical considerations (none)
    I served as Field Director for the Grassroots Impeachment Campaign in 1987. We got one step farther than any current effort, in that a Motion to Impeach Pres. Reagan, VP Bush, and Atty. General Meese was actually introduced in the House by Henry Gonzales of Texas.

    At that time, the Dems controlled both Houses, but did not follow up. We were told that there would be no hearings unless we could find 15 Republican co-sponsors. Even if the 2006 elections produce Democratic majorities, we'll be in the same spot.

    So my advice is outreach to the potentially most receptive Republican Members. This of course flies in the face of the "low hanging fruit" strategy of targeting the Republican Moderates seats, rather than the flaming reactionaries.

    My proposal: Offer Jim leach of Iowa the Speakership in a coalition, if he can bring in 14 more House Republicans as a defacto 3d Party.

    No-one who voted against the USAPATRIOT Act has lost an election. I am not currently Licensed to Practice in this State. Or Yours.

    by ben masel on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:45:10 PM PDT

    •  That was then (none)
      This is now.  That was before Clinton's impeachment (which didn't have any Democratic sponsors, or very few-I'm not going to bother to look it up).  This was also over a less important thing that starting a war for no reason.  The Democrats aren't going to be as gun shy now, especially if polling backs them up.  I can see impeachment being the first thing on the agenda in January 07 if (when) we retake the House.  Heck, I can see Democrats challengers for House seats campaigning on this very issue.
  •  The big question, I think, is how (none)
    this will effect Repubs wanting to  draw distance at the same time that Bushie gears up to nominate ultra conservative Supreme Court nominees.  Hmmmmm  Bring on the heat!!!
  •  Let's all remember this a year from now (none)
    From Bill O'Reilly's talking points:

    I do agree with the left wing media press on one thing: President Bush must be held accountable for what happens from here on in. I think it's fair to give the military one more year to train the Iraqis to fight for themselves. If things are awful in Iraq this time next year, then it will be fair to say the Bush administration has failed in that country. We must see improvement. And the president must keep us posted. He should update the situation every month or so in a press conference.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161193,00.html

    •  Wait a sec (none)
      Isn't this the same O'Reilly who said he'd loofah his dick on TV if he found out GW lied about WMDs?  Why would you believe anything he said? A year from now he'll be explaining why the Iraqis acting like the Keystone Cops is great for America.
  •  Juts a reality check (none)
    Because when i saw this i just about shit.

    politicalwire.com :

    Though 56% of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction, a new Democracy Corps poll also shows that voters have more positive feelings about Republicans. Specifically, 43% of voters favor the Republican Party, while 38% had positive feelings about Democrats.

    The Christian Science Monitor quotes pollster Stan Greenberg: "Republicans weakened in this poll... but it shows Democrats weakening more." Greenberg attributes the decline to the perception that Democrats have "no core set of convictions or point of view.

    Let the Democratic Reformation Begin

    by Pounder on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 03:12:28 PM PDT

  •  so 'splain this to me... (none)
    ...my impression is that the two leading suspects for the Dem nomination in 08 are to the right of Bush on THE WAR ON TERROR/Iraq.

    Clark and Clinton. Not to mention Kerry. Watch the Clark tape on OLiely's show, posted on another diary. People on that thread are raving about it. Like it's a good thing.

    Maybe I have been sleepin. Mayb I just I don't get it. Are the polls saying that the presidency is gonna depend on who will spend the most on defense?  Is the idea that the Dem pres candidates are secretly antiwar, and are just lying to get elected, and they will change their stripes if they get elected? or are they gonna do what they say they want to do? Hard to choose between those alternatives.

    If we have to be to the right of Bush...well...

    Bush's 140,000 troops and 2 deaths a day and $3,000 a second are better than 300,000 troops and 4 deaths a day and $6,000 a second and a draft.

    I'm sorry but if the best that our candidates can do as far as war/Dem values is better armor and proposing an investigation of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, geez...not even Howard Dean will be able to raise money on that platform.

    Throw in the increases in taxes that are necessary anyway, and add MORE military costs....., man, why would anybody, repub, dem or indy, vote for Hawk dems. Look at the polls. geez. You think America wants MORE of this shit?

    Flame me if you want, but IMHO these candidates and maybe the party are on queer street and I don't mean gay.  And every time they go on the floor of the Senate or on TV it makes it harder to change directions. I think the Repubs are winning 2008 already, just collecting video tapes. Thats all they have to do. "Here's Gen. Clark: 'I support what the president said in his speech.' "

    I, for one, am gonna assume that Clinton and Clark and whoever all else are telling the truth about what they would do as president. If they say they are gonna send more troops to Iraq, then I am gonna believe them, and I for one can't support them. This war shit has got to stop and this is the time for that to happen.

    I for one don't give a big rats ass about Chicken Little or even somebody a lot smarter than Chicken Little who says the sky might fall if we get out of this war mode....some sort of "hard landing." The landing is gonna come sooner or later. War is not the answer to economic problems. Not in my idea of the way world should be.

    This may be the old story of appealing to the party base vs appealing to the moderates. But somebody to the right of Bush is not a moderate.

    Am I getting worked up over nothing? or is there something important going on here?

  •  That's not really that surprising given (none)
    the make up of the audience watching. He got like 50 percent of the audience being made up of Republicans. what ever the party id breakdown- Rs are definitely not at 50 percent. So not much of a shocker that he didn't change the minds of indies or democrats who were against him already
  •  Check out (4.00)
    Zogby's article in the Huffington Post. It's a fun read and very informative.

    I think the American people--I hope the American-I don't think, let me--I hope the American people trust me.-George W. Bush

    by kitebro on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 03:26:58 PM PDT

  •  42% Is More Than Ever Supported Clintons... (none)
    impeachment. Just for starters.
  •  If a Republican Congress agreed to begin (none)
    impeachment proceedings against Bush, he would resign before those proceedings even began.
    •  I don't think his ego would allow him to (none)
      resign first. He would fight it believing that congress wouldn't dare impeach him after all he is a "war president".

      Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither. (Paraphrasing B. Franklin)

      by p a roberson on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 08:32:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If We Impeach Bush? (none)
    Will we still be left with A DICK right.

    Thats even worst

  •  "Impeachment Proceedings" (none)
    Those words are music to my ears.
  •  Impeachment a pushover. (none)
    Just get Jeff Gannon to hand over that blue dress.

    we're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression

    by Lepanto on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 03:49:06 PM PDT

  •  Change in Tactic (none)
    So does this preface a change in tactic by the White House?  Now is everything going to be about all those nasty obstructionist Democrats?

    Bush could take the tactic that the Dems should have taken a long, long time ago:  Put forth truly grand, popular, but unimplementable ideas.  When they get no traction, blame the Dems but take the credit.

    Well, I guess there was the whole Social Security debacle.

    Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die. -- Mel Brooks

    by jvillano on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 04:37:28 PM PDT

  •  cartoon version (4.00)
    Courtesy of Don Wright of the Palm Beach Post, and which also found its way to today's Santa Barbara News-Press editorial page:

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    (Image hosted by ImageShack)

  •  Bush's new strategy (none)
    i heard that bush wants to bring american sport to the middle east as a way of bringing our cultures together.
    http://nbxsportshow.com/broadcast/16434.swf
    are bush and cheney really this stupid??
  •  So Where Will The Next Attack Take Place? (none)
    I know this sounds suspicious and far-fetched, but I wouldn't put it past the current administration to plan an attack from within with, say, a dirty bomb and then blame it on Saddam Hussein or one of his henchmen.  I wouldn't put anything past these insane, greedy, war-mongering, power-twisted freaks inhabiting the Whitehouse.  ANYTHING to keep the lemmings afraid and walking in lock step.  Only problem is, nobody trusts them anymore.
  •  Boycott the military--don't enlist--end the war. (none)
    The military is having a tough time recruiting troops for cannon fodder in Iraq. The Pentagon has hired a private company to compile a data base of 16-18 year old school kids for the military to contact and recruit. Bush is pleading for kids to do "their patriotic duty." General Pace of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is urging parents to let their kids to the right thing and enlist.

    Parents should counsel their kids to stay out of the military. As soon as Bush runs out of military the war will end. Bush didn't serve in the Viet Nam war. He hid out in the Texas National Guard until he disappeared from view. If Bush is so hard up for troops he's got two daughters who could enlist. The neocons haven't served in the military either. They're rich kids from good families who didn't have to join the military for the GI bill to get through college. Let the neocons submit their kids and grand kids to serve. Members of congress who voted for the Iraq war can offer their kids and grand kids for cannon fodder. Let them lead by example.

    The draft won't be reinstated because that would subject the Bush Administration's kids to military service. Congress wouldn't pass a draft act for the same reason.

    The Iraq war was unjustified. Iraq did not attack the United States or ever threaten to do so. Bush has wanted to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein since 1999 while he was Governor of Texas. Once President he was trying to figure out a way well before September 11, 2001. He sold the war on weapons of mass destruction. He's changed his reasons as time passed because there never were any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Just as the Downing Street Memos indicate - he fixed the facts around the policy--to convince the American people to attack Iraq.

    It makes no sense for my kids and grand kids to enlist, go to Iraq, and risk death and maiming, kill and maim thousands of innocent Iraqi's when the Iraqi people never threatened the United States.

    I'm telling my kids and grand kids to stay out of the military. If history is any guide they'll get a chance to join the military when there is justification to do so. But this war is not an honest war. It's Bush's war. Let him pick up a weapon and go fight it himself--he started it.

    Patriotism has nothing to do with this. There is nothing patriotic about fighting an immoral war. I'm a veteran of the Korean War. I know all about that flag-waving stuff.

    A dead child is just that--a dead child. They never speak again, laugh again, or bring you joy--ever again. I won't sacrifice my kids just to make George Bush happy. Let him sacrifice his own if he wants.

    Boycott the military--don't enlist--end the war. Be a American! Do the right thing!

  •  Republican Majority = No Impeachment (none)
    Plain and Simple.

    So we gotta focus on getting Republicans in the House of Representatives voted out of office.

    In my state of Minnesota, Coleen Rowley, the FBI whistleblower, is running to become a member of the House of Representatives.  That's also where the impeachment hearings start.

    •  Perhaps. (none)
      However, a loser is a loser. Protecting an unpopular president is something that could cost those guys. If enough shit hits the fan, he may be toast. But '06 is very important.

      I think the American people--I hope the American-I don't think, let me--I hope the American people trust me.-George W. Bush

      by kitebro on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 06:53:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wasn't Zogby a Bush supporter? (none)
    Interesting that he would be the one to bring up the impeachment question.

    Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither. (Paraphrasing B. Franklin)

    by p a roberson on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 03:19:31 AM PDT

    •  No. (none)
      He's a Dem. He's enjoying this as much as we are. Check this out.

      I think the American people--I hope the American-I don't think, let me--I hope the American people trust me.-George W. Bush

      by kitebro on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 06:50:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site