Impeacheable? Bush?

Quote:

By a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want Congress to impeach President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,200 U.S. adults from October 29 through November 2.

The poll found that 53% agreed with the statement:

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

42% disagreed, and 5% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.

"These results are stunning," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. "A clear majority of Americans now supports President Bush's impeachment if he lied about the war. This should send shock waves through the White House - and a wake-up call to Democrats and Republicans in Congress, who have sole power under the Constitution to impeach President Bush."

That number seems to have gone up since the last poll... More people paying attention?

0 Replies

WRONG AGAIN!!!!

53% do NOT support the impeachment.

53% WOULD support impeachment IF the President lied.

How about YOU start being honest with your posts.

0 Replies

Well, seeing as the Prez DID lie, then he is being honest.

It's just a matter of proving what anyone can see evidence of just by following politics; the Prez's ship is sinking quickly these days.

Remember the good ol' days when we argued about SS reform? What a laugh!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

woiyo, I feel your pain man but squnney is right. Since a majority of Americans believe Bushie deliberately lied us into war and the same believe if he lied us into war he should be impeached squinney tells it like is. But I understand your nitpicking is driven by your frustration.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

woiyo, I feel your pain man but squnney is right. Since a majority of Americans believe Bushie deliberately lied us into war and the same believe if he lied us into war he should be impeached squinney tells it like is. But I understand your nitpicking is driven by your frustration.

Just trying to keep things in perspective since both sides are bent on exageration.

No one can prove GW lied to get us into Iraq and the facts do not support this opinion.

Squinney's post clearly states the question and the answer. Yet, Squinney felt compelled to distort the quote as most partisens do.

The fustration must be on your side, since those who think like you and Squinney feel compelled to distort the facts. That is a sign of fustration.

0 Replies

woiyo, sure, sure. You're in an ever shrinking minority of Americans who dont believe Bushie deliberately lied us into war.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

woiyo, sure, sure. You're in an ever shrinking minority of Americans who dont believe Bushie deliberately lied us into war.

Wrong again, Blue.

I'm just not like you and the rest of the partisen hacks and Bushwackers who will frame a conclusion wihtout any basis in fact. I, unlike you, do not listen to agenda driven politicians just looking to get a vote.

When someone can show me that the day prior to the invasion of Iraq, GW had information contrary to what he advertised, then I might see things your way and support impeachment.

Until then, keep your snippy little comments within your own partisen family of Kerry Kool-Aid drinkers.

0 Replies

woiyo, sorry but I repeat you're in an ever shrinking minorty of Americans who believe Bushie didn't lie us into war. That trend wont reverse itself. Now an MSNBC poll today says 85% of Americans think Bushie should clean house. What a bunch of partisan hacks huh?

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

woiyo, sorry but I repeat you're in an ever shrinking minorty of Americans who believe Bushie didn't lie us into war.

BF, you are in the ever-increasing majority of Americans willing to jump to that conclusion notwithstanding a lack of evidence to support it.

0 Replies

tico, sure, sure. Spoken like a child left behind.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

woiyo, sorry but I repeat you're in an ever shrinking minorty of Americans who believe Bushie didn't lie us into war. That trend wont reverse itself. Now an MSNBC poll today says 85% of Americans think Bushie should clean house. What a bunch of partisan hacks huh?

MSNBC????

What kind of poll is that?? Clean House??? Show me what you are talking about, since it is most probably a vague poll of "adults", which means absolutely nothing to me.

However, I can see whay you're all excited about it!!!

0 Replies

LEVIN: NEW INFO SHOWS WHITE HOUSE MISSTATED IRAQ INTEL

Even as the Bush Administration was claiming that Iraq aided
al Qaeda's chemical and biological weapons efforts, the source
for those claims was deemed unreliable by U.S. intelligence,
according to a release from Senator Carl Levin.

"Newly declassified information from the Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA) from February 2002 shows that, at the same time the
Administration was making its case for attacking Iraq, the DIA did
not trust or believe the source of the Administration's repeated
assertions that Iraq had provided al-Qaeda with chemical and
biological weapons training," the November 6 news release said.

"Additional newly declassified information from the DIA also
undermines the Administration's broader claim that there were
strong links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda."

A copy of Senator Levin's release and the supporting documents,
which were reported in the New York Times and the Washington Post
on November 6, may be found here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2005/11/levin110605.html

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

blueflame1 wrote:
woiyo, sorry but I repeat you're in an ever shrinking minorty of Americans who believe Bushie didn't lie us into war.

BF, you are in the ever-increasing majority of Americans willing to jump to that conclusion notwithstanding a lack of evidence to support it.

The willingness to jump to a particular conclusion notwithstanding a lack of evidence is precisely what all the hubbub is about, bub.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
blueflame1 wrote:
woiyo, sorry but I repeat you're in an ever shrinking minorty of Americans who believe Bushie didn't lie us into war.

BF, you are in the ever-increasing majority of Americans willing to jump to that conclusion notwithstanding a lack of evidence to support it.

The willingness to jump to a particular conclusion notwithstanding a lack of evidence is precisely what all the hubbub is about, bub.

Except for all that evidence there was, huh?

0 Replies

Senators Were Told Iraqi Weapons Could Hit U.S.
By John McCarthy
Florida Today

Monday 15 December 2003

Nelson said claim made during classified briefing
U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said Monday the Bush administration last year told him and other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities.

Nelson, D-Tallahassee, said about 75 senators got that news during a classified briefing before last October's congressional vote authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Nelson voted in favor of using military force.

Nelson said he couldn't reveal who in the administration gave the briefing.

The White House directed questions about the matter to the Department of Defense. Defense officials had no comment on Nelson's claim.

Nelson said the senators were told Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons, notably anthrax, and it could deliver them to cities along the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones.

"They have not found anything that resembles an UAV that has that capability," Nelson said.

Nelson delivered the news during a half-hour conference call with reporters Monday afternoon. The senator, who is on a seven-nation trade mission to South America, was calling from an airport in Santiago, Chile.

"That's news," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington, D.C.-area military and intelligence think tank. "I had not heard that that was the assessment of the intelligence community. I had not heard that the Congress had been briefed on this."

Since the late 1990s, there have been several reports that Iraq was converting a fleet of Czechoslovakian jet fighters into UAVs, as well as testing smaller drones. And in a speech in Cincinnati last October, Bush mentioned the vehicles. "We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States," the president said.

Nelson, though, said the administration told senators Iraq had gone beyond exploring and developed the means of hitting the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction.

Nelson wouldn't say what the original source of the intelligence was, but said it contradicted other intelligence reports senators had received. He said he wants to find out why there was so much disagreement about the weapons. "If that is an intelligence failure . . . we better find that out so we don't have an intelligence failure in the future."

Pike said any UAVs Iraq might have had would have had a range of only several hundred kilometers, enough to hit targets in the Middle East but not the United States. To hit targets on the East Coast, such drones would have to be launched from a ship in Atlantic. He said it wasn't out of the question for Iraq to have secretly acquired a tramp steamer from which such vehicles could have been launched.

"The notion that someone could launch a missile from a ship off our shores has been on Rummy's mind for years," Pike said, referring to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Sen. Bob Graham, who voted against using military force in Iraq, didn't return phone calls concerning the briefing. Spokespersons for Reps. Dave Weldon and Tom Feeney said neither congressman could say if they had received similar briefings since they don't comment on classified information.

0 Replies

Thank you for posting that two-year old article again, BF.

0 Replies

Two years old the article might be, but it still shows that the Administration was not telling the truth on the WMD issue.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Two years old the article might be, but it still shows that the Administration was not telling the truth on the WMD issue.

Agree with you there. There is too much evidence that points to the fact that the Administration had reasons to lie.....obviously there were no WMD's when the US did their preemptive attack. They should feel like the biggest fools on the planet.

I just posted an article on another thread (it probably should have been on this thread) about the UK's reluctance to join in the fiasco. If the court of world opinion means anything to most Americans, they should be quite ashamed of themselves. BTW, have you read anything on PNAC's website? Interesting.

0 Replies

englishmajor wrote:

kelticwizard wrote:
Two years old the article might be, but it still shows that the Administration was not telling the truth on the WMD issue.

Agree with you there. There is too much evidence that points to the fact that the Administration had reasons to lie.....obviously there were no WMD's when the US did their preemptive attack. They should feel like the biggest fools on the planet.

I just posted an article on another thread (it probably should have been on this thread) about the UK's reluctance to join in the fiasco. If the court of world opinion means anything to most Americans, they should be quite ashamed of themselves. BTW, have you read anything on PNAC's website? Interesting.

This partisen BS from the democrats is laughable.

What you silly birds can never answer is a very simple question.

Why did the Senate overwhelmingly vote to give GW the authority to go in?

Why did the likes of Kerry, Clinton make statements indicating their agreement with the intelligence report? Is it not their job to be in the position of oversight?

0 Replies

Quote:

Why did the Senate overwhelmingly vote to give GW the authority to go in?

1) Congress never voted to invade Iraq 2) The vote was based on lies 3) Congress trusted the President of the United States not to cook the intelligence 4) Congress trusted the President to use the authority wisely

0 Replies

Impeacheable? Bush?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know