86% Believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment

One week in the middle of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, more than 200,000 people took part in an MSNBC Live Vote that asked whether President Clinton should leave office. Seventy-three percent said yes. That same week, an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found that only 34 percent of about 2,000 people who were surveyed thought so.
To explain the vast gap in the numbers in this and other similar cases, it is necessary to look at the difference in the two kinds of surveys.

A Ringing Endorsement for the Democrats' Electoral Successes

Democratic talk about "redeployment" of American forces out of Iraq encouraged Islamic jihad's Muhammed Saadi. "As Arabs and Muslims, we feel proud of this talk," he said, because it meant the violence in Iraq had "brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."

au, what matters about this 70 million is that they want investigations. They dont believe the government's story. But they dont say they know the story. They want investigations. To brush them aside would be a huge mistake for the Dems. How absurd for Pelosi to say flat out "no impeachment" even for lying us into war or 911 complicity. Those are 2 huge crimes and if proven impeachment would be a slap on the wrist. Pelosi is not the judge and jury.

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently he told me was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime.

Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.…I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again…." Clinton, July 2003: "…t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there.

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat….Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons….He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."

There is no doubt that…Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs….In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years….We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

blueflame1 wrote:

au, what matters about this 70 million is that they want investigations. They dont believe the government's story. But they dont say they know the story. They want investigations. To brush them aside would be a huge mistake for the Dems. How absurd for Pelosi to say flat out "no impeachment" even for lying us into war or 911 complicity. Those are 2 huge crimes and if proven impeachment would be a slap on the wrist. Pelosi is not the judge and jury.

"Lying us into war"?
Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright, February 1998:

Quote:

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, February 1998:

Quote:

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, October 2003:

Quote:

When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently he told me was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime.

French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003:

Quote:

President Bill Clinton, December 1998:

Quote:

Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.…I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again…." Clinton, July 2003: "…t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there.

General Wesley Clark, September 2002, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee:

Quote:

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat….Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons….He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean [D], September 2002:

Quote:

Former Clinton assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation Robert Einhorn, March 2002:

Quote:

Senator Bob Graham [D-Florida] and others, in a letter to President Bush, December 2001:

Quote:

There is no doubt that…Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs….In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Representative Nancy Pelosi [D-Calif.], December 1998:

Quote:

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Senator John Rockefeller [D-W. Virginia], ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee, October 2002:

Quote:

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years….We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Any questions?