"42% say they would favor impeachment proceedings..."

[the Talking Can]

Zogby..no bounce from photo op (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007)

Imagine if the White House wasn't blocking all attempts to investigate their use if intel relating to WMDs...or if republicans had any principles at all and demanded an investigation....impeachment.





Released: June 30, 2005

No Bounce: Bush Job Approval Unchanged by War Speech; Question on Impeachment Shows Polarization of Nation; Americans Tired of Divisiveness in Congress—Want Bi-Partisan Solutions—New Zogby Poll

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.

The Zogby America survey of 905 likely voters, conducted from June 27 through 29, 2005, has a margin of error of +/-3.3 percentage points.

Just one week ago, President Bush’s job approval stood at a previous low of 44%—but it has now slipped another point to 43%, despite a speech to the nation intended to build support for the Administration and the ongoing Iraq War effort. The Zogby America survey includes calls made both before and after the President’s address, and the results show no discernible “bump” in his job approval, with voter approval of his job performance at 45% in the final day of polling.

Where voters live has some impact on their perceptions. The President’s job rating remains relatively strong in the South, with 51% rating his performance favorably; in all other regions, those disapproving his performance are in the majority.

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. The President also gets negative marks from one-in-four (25%) Republicans—as well as 86% of Democrats and 58% of independents. (Bush nets favorable marks from 75% of Republicans, 13% of Democrats and 40% of independents.)

Impeachment Question Shows Bitterness of Divide

In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country.

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.

Impeachment is overwhelmingly rejected in the Red States—just 36% say they agree Congress should use it if the President is found to have lied on Iraq, while 55% reject this view; in the “Blue States” that voted for Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry in 2004, meanwhile, a plurality of 48% favors such proceedings while 45% are opposed.

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.

Americans Tiring of Partisan Division on Capital Hill

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.

These views are held by members of both major political parties, as well as independents, although Republicans, whose party controls both houses of Congress, are more likely to favor the parties focusing on the desires of their base than are Democrats and independents, with 31% of Republicans favoring this approach—more than the 20% of Democrats and 17% of independents who hold that view.

Pollster John Zogby: “The nation continues to be split down the middle but there appears to be a deep and growing concern about how polarized we are. The President tried to address the situation on the ground in Iraq and hoped to allay the fears of the nation. It looks like that did not happen. Meanwhile, opposition to the war reveals that Americans are just as hostile and intense as they were the day after the 2004 election. The message seems to be pretty clear for Mr. Bush: lay off the partisan rhetoric and work to find compromise solutions.”

[Michael Michigan]

And Zogby never misses:

http://www.google.com/search?q=kerry+311+Zogby&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

In the middle of the day on Election Day Mr. Zogby released this:


ELECTORAL VOTE
Kerry 311
Bush 213

That still has to smart just a bit.

[Pitt Gorilla]

And Zogby never misses:

http://www.google.com/search?q=kerry+311+Zogby&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

In the middle of the day on Election Day Mr. Zogby released this:


ELECTORAL VOTE
Kerry 311
Bush 213

That still has to smart just a bit.
Given this case, the poll isn't credible?

[Laz]

.
glad to see the conservative media bias is still going strong

[Cochise]

Impeachment on what crime :rolleyes:

[BIG_DADDY]

So you want DICK?

[Chief Henry]

[QUOTE=the Talking Can]Zogby..no bounce from photo op (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007)

Imagine if the White House wasn't blocking all attempts to investigate their use if intel relating to WMDs...or if republicans had any principles at all and demanded an investigation....impeachment.




:bong:

[Bootlegged]

Obsession for men.

[BCD]

What about these people? Ted Kennedy

Oh wait he said this.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

Kleagle Robert Byrd

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Sen. Jay Rockefeller

"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."

Hillary Clinton

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sandy Berger

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

[Taco John]

And Zogby never misses:

http://www.google.com/search?q=kerry+311+Zogby&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

In the middle of the day on Election Day Mr. Zogby released this:


ELECTORAL VOTE
Kerry 311
Bush 213

That still has to smart just a bit.



Man, I don't care how any cowardly hack tries to deflect this... 42% is just dumbfounding! That's an incredible number. I'll be interested to see the other polls that inevitably run copy cat polls.

[Michael Michigan]

Given this case, the poll isn't credible?

He might be right.

I'd say at least 35% of people hate Bush enough to impeach him just for winning the election.

But he's going to have to actually get some stuff right for me to take him seriously again.

His polling of late [even brfore blowing the Prez election] has sucked.

[Uncle_Ted]

I'd be curious about the exact wording of the poll question. If the question were "would you favor impeachment if it is conclusively determined that the president deliberately misled the nation about the need to go to war and his reasons for doing so," then the "yes" answers better be somewhere north of 85%. Shouldn't matter which political party.

[Michael Michigan]

I'd be curious about the exact wording of the poll question. If the question were "would you favor impeachment if it is conclusively determined that the president deliberately misled the nation about the need to go to war and his reasons for doing so," then the "yes" answers better be somewhere north of 85%. Shouldn't matter which political party.

Agreed.

[BCD]

I'd be curious about the exact wording of the poll question. If the question were "would you favor impeachment if it is conclusively determined that the president deliberately misled the nation about the need to go to war and his reasons for doing so," then the "yes" answers better be somewhere north of 85%. Shouldn't matter which political party.Certainly. If they have unequivocal evidence of this, he should not only be impeached, but pay a large fine, and serve some time...

[Laz]

He might be right.

I'd say at least 35% of people hate Bush enough to impeach him just for winning the election.
sounds like the clinton impeachment

[Michael Michigan]

sounds like the clinton impeachment

35%? I'd say that's about right.

[penchief]

The really amazing part is that 25% of republicans would be in favor of impeachment if Bush mislead us into Iraq.

[Logical]

So you want DICK?Many would say that is what we are being given anyway. So would there really be a difference?

[Logical]

I'd be curious about the exact wording of the poll question. If the question were "would you favor impeachment if it is conclusively determined that the president deliberately misled the nation about the need to go to war and his reasons for doing so," then the "yes" answers better be somewhere north of 85%. Shouldn't matter which political party.
That is one thing I really dislike about Zogby, they never seem to actually publish their exact surveys so you have to accept their interpretation of their survey results. This is a real flaw IMO. However, all that being said given his horrible performance in keeping religion out of government, and preventing the government from invading the citizen's rights I would not mind seeing Bush impeached.

[Cochise]

If the swing vote in this country is only as high as the middle 10% (which, it seems like a million political years ago that a presidential election was decided by more than that) then what you have probably got is almost all liberals want him out (big surprise) no matter how it is done and some independents, libertarians, and greens. How many Republicans were in this poll saying they would favor impeachment? Probably damn near if not zero. I don't think this shows any kind of new trend on the political landscape. It's just a question that is not normally asked.

I found this ABC poll from the day of Clinton's acquittal:

"Regardless of the Senate's verdict, do you think the charges against Clinton were serious enough for him to be impeached and put on trial, or would you say the charges were not serious enough and the impeachment and trial never should have happened?"

Serious enough 43
Not serious enough 56

http://www.pollingreport.com/scandal1.htm

[Mr. Kotter]

If "ifs and buts were beer and nuts" we could throw a heck of a party, eh? :rolleyes:

[Taco John]

I donno dude. sounds like a sausage fest...

[Ugly Duck]

Imagine if the White House wasn't blocking all attempts to investigate their use if intel relating to WMDs...or if republicans had any principles at all and demanded an investigation....
They may not be able to deflect attention away from the issue forever. In spite of the amazing lack of coverage in what righties say is a "liberal media," folks are starting to pay attention anyway. America may soon demand to know if we were deliberately misled about the war intel. Bushron cannot fend us off indefinately. Check out these poll numbers:

Washington Post - ABC News poll, Tuesday, June 28: "For the first time, a narrow majority -- 52 percent -- said the administration deliberately misled the public before the war, a nine-point increase in three months."

Bushron probably did get some help from the gullible that watched the speech, but the blip was nullified by the steady downward trend. If the RoveGB hadn't of ordered the chimp out on stage again, the approval rating would be even worse. Its all starting to unravel, I tell ya.....

[Ugly Duck]

And another thing... (I guess I ain't done yet)..

Remember the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence thingie? Remember that we libbies were all kinds of pissed off because Committee Chairman Pat Roberts said he would wait until after the elections before they would investigate how pre-war intel was used? Remember? Yeah, well, the joke was on us. Now that we waited til the election is over, they now say they just flat out ain't gonna investigate. We should all write to Pat Roberts and remind him that we remember his promise to investigate. America wants to know if our senators, congressmen, and the public were duped into going to war. Stuff don't get much more important than that.

[Logical]

I am just curious and I have asked this before with no one producing a quote. Can you find a reference where GW Bush actually said they had WMD. Not a threat of the possibility of them having or developing WMD? Also not something that some other admininistration official said.

[Taco John]

I don't know that I want impeachment hearings, but I'd like a committe to review the build-up to the war and make a determination based on the evidence whether there is a basis for it. I'm greatly conflicted on the situation, as I believe we need to have a role in Iraq's transformation (in fact believing that we shouldn't have stopped the first time, until Hussein was made to pay for his crimes), but I don't believe we should have invested ourselves so heavily and tied the future of our nation in with the future of the Middle East. Especially at a time when China is on the rise.

[Taco John]

I am just curious and I have asked this before with no one producing a quote. Can you find a reference where GW Bush actually said they had WMD. Not a threat of the possibility of them having or developing WMD? Also not something that some other admininistration official said.


2003 SOTU (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html)

"Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups."

[Saggysack]

I am just curious and I have asked this before with no one producing a quote. Can you find a reference where GW Bush actually said they had WMD. Not a threat of the possibility of them having or developing WMD? Also not something that some other admininistration official said.

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
George W. Bush, Radio Address 10/5/2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002

7 Oct 2002 During a speech in Cincinnati, President George W Bush declares: "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."

28 Oct 2002 During a speech at the Riner Steinhoff Soccer Complex in Alamogordo, New Mexico, President George W Bush declares: "He's got weapons of mass destruction. This is a man who has used weapons of mass destruction."

28 Oct 2002 During a speech at the Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum in Denver, President George W Bush declares: "It's a person who claims he has no weapons of mass destruction, in order to escape the dictums of the U.N. Security Council and the United Nations -- but he's got them. See, he'll lie. He'll deceive us. And he'll use them."

31 Oct 2002 During a speech at Northern State University in Aberdeen, South Dakota, President George W Bush declares: "This is a guy who's used weapons of mass destruction. He not only has them, he's used them."

1 Nov 2002 During a speech at the Pease International Tradeport Airport in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, President George W Bush declares: "Saddam Hussein is a man who has told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, and yet he deceived the world. He's got them... We know he's got chemical weapons, probably has biological weapons."

2 Nov 2002 During a speech at the University of South Florida, President George W Bush declares: "He's a man who has told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, yet he does."


There is a whole bunch more where that came from too.

[Logical]

Thanks guys, it indeed appears the quotes are there.:thumb:

Perhaps everyone assumed I was just being a partisan hack when I asked in the past and did not take the question seriously.

[the Talking Can]

And another thing... (I guess I ain't done yet)..

Remember the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence thingie? Remember that we libbies were all kinds of pissed off because Committee Chairman Pat Roberts said he would wait until after the elections before they would investigate how pre-war intel was used? Remember? Yeah, well, the joke was on us. Now that we waited til the election is over, they now say they just flat out ain't gonna investigate. We should all write to Pat Roberts and remind him that we remember his promise to investigate. America wants to know if our senators, congressmen, and the public were duped into going to war. Stuff don't get much more important than that.


Yup...we were bamboozled....it would take about 3 secs investigating Cheney's OSP to figure out they lied to us...but if you think the White House is going to EVER allow that you're eating 'shrooms.

And if you think Republicans will EVER allow investigations you're dumber than Jeb Bush.

Ahmed Chalabi.....forever and amen.

[stevieray]

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
George W. Bush, Radio Address 10/5/2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002

7 Oct 2002 During a speech in Cincinnati, President George W Bush declares: "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."

28 Oct 2002 During a speech at the Riner Steinhoff Soccer Complex in Alamogordo, New Mexico, President George W Bush declares: "He's got weapons of mass destruction. This is a man who has used weapons of mass destruction."

28 Oct 2002 During a speech at the Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum in Denver, President George W Bush declares: "It's a person who claims he has no weapons of mass destruction, in order to escape the dictums of the U.N. Security Council and the United Nations -- but he's got them. See, he'll lie. He'll deceive us. And he'll use them."

31 Oct 2002 During a speech at Northern State University in Aberdeen, South Dakota, President George W Bush declares: "This is a guy who's used weapons of mass destruction. He not only has them, he's used them."

1 Nov 2002 During a speech at the Pease International Tradeport Airport in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, President George W Bush declares: "Saddam Hussein is a man who has told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, and yet he deceived the world. He's got them... We know he's got chemical weapons, probably has biological weapons."

2 Nov 2002 During a speech at the University of South Florida, President George W Bush declares: "He's a man who has told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, yet he does."


There is a whole bunch more where that came from too.

There sure is, and the bulk of them came from clintons admin.

[stevieray]

And another thing... (I guess I ain't done yet)..

Remember the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence thingie? Remember that we libbies were all kinds of pissed off because Committee Chairman Pat Roberts said he would wait until after the elections before they would investigate how pre-war intel was used? Remember? Yeah, well, the joke was on us. Now that we waited til the election is over, they now say they just flat out ain't gonna investigate. We should all write to Pat Roberts and remind him that we remember his promise to investigate. America wants to know if our senators, congressmen, and the public were duped into going to war. Stuff don't get much more important than that.

Congress was duped? ROFL The desperation is oozing from your pores.

[Saulbadguy]

Waste of time. Cheney is much worse. It would also just divide the country further.

[Patriot 21]

Quotes? You mean these quotes? Many of which were made while George Bush was Gov of Texas?

Jesus this argument gets old.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"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."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"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."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[stevieray]

Quotes? You mean these quotes? Many of which were made while George Bush was Gov of Texas?

Jesus this argument gets old.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"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."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"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."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

every time thier new allegation doesn't stick, the dems go in circles.

Except this time they've convinced themselves it's fact, without anything to back it up.

[mlyonsd]

I agree that if it's proven Bush deliberately lied about Iraq's WMD he should resign.

I'm not sure how he could be impeached without committing a crime.

I don't see either happening so the left better get used to him for 3 1/2 more years.

[Cochise]

I agree that if it's proven Bush deliberately lied about Iraq's WMD he should resign.

I'm not sure how he could be impeached without committing a crime.

I don't see either happening so the left better get used to him for 3 1/2 more years.

Right, the only path would be resignation would it not?

The only thing I can see is the Dems somehow miraculously wresting control of Congress in the midterm (right) and doing something to where he would testify under oath and then being able to prove for 2/3 of Congress that he lied on purpose. By the time all that happened he would be out in a year or less and the campaign will already be in full swing.

Just wishful thinking on the part of the hard left.

[Amnorix]

Bush hasn't done anything remotely impeachable that I have seen.

If it could be proven he monkeyed with analyst data or ordered evidence fabricated to support the Iraq invasion, then maybe we're getting somewhere. Until then, this is a pointless debate.

[KCTitus]

Bush hasn't done anything remotely impeachable that I have seen.

If it could be proven he monkeyed with analyst data or ordered evidence fabricated to support the Iraq invasion, then maybe we're getting somewhere. Until then, this is a pointless debate.

yup and if it could be proven, Bush wouldnt wait to go through defining 'is', he would just resign.

[Ugly Duck]

I'm not sure how he could be impeached without committing a crime.Now you're catching on. The first step in finding out if a "High Crime or Misdemeanor" has been committed is to pass a Resolution of Inquiry and investigate.

Is it a High Crime or Misdemeanor to submit an official report to the United States Congress falsifying the reasons for launching military action? We need a Resolution of Inquiry to begin exploring this type of question. Heck, you guys.... this is America - the truth is not too much to ask for. It is our right.

[Ugly Duck]

Congress was duped? ROFL The desperation is oozing from your pores.Did Congress really have access to the same intelligence info that Bushron had? We need to investigate to find out, dontcha think?

1) October 10, 2002, Congress voted to allow Bushron to decide when to use force against Iraq

2) Sept 5, 2002 Senators Graham, Durbin and Levin meet with George Tenet and ask to see the National Intelligence Estimate for Iraq.

3) Three weeks later Tenet produced a 90-page document riddled with caveats, qualifications, ifs, ands & buts about the Bushron contention that Sodom had WMD.

4) Since the report was classified, only the few on the intelligence subcommittes were allowed to see the full report. CongressFolk asked for the report to be declassified so they could read it and make an informed decision on how to vote on the use of force thingie.

5) October 4, 2002, less than a week before they had to vote on authorizing the use of force, they finally got the intelligence report. But the 90-page document had been rewritten down to a 20-page color brochure. Gone were the qualifications, caveats, ifs, ands & buts about the WMD. Congress only saw unqualified certainty about Sodom's WMD, as Senator Graham put it, "a vivid and terrifying case for war."

Small wonder there was "no doubt" about Sodom's WMD just before the vote. The adminstration stands accused of removing the data that would cause doubt. That filtered data was all that folks had to make their decisions on, and they received it less than a week before the vote.

[mlyonsd]

Now you're catching on. The first step in finding out if a "High Crime or Misdemeanor" has been committed is to pass a Resolution of Inquiry and investigate.

Is it a High Crime or Misdemeanor to submit an official report to the United States Congress falsifying the reasons for launching military action? We need a Resolution of Inquiry to begin exploring this type of question. Heck, you guys.... this is America - the truth is not too much to ask for. It is our right.

Go for it. You and jAZ make a nice Woodward and Bernstein. Except this time you can take out two world leaders, Bush and Blair.

Knock yourselves out and remember us peons when you recieve your Pulitzer. Your acceptance speech should have some mention of CP. I like the irony of a raider fan doing that.

[beavis]

Bush hasn't done anything remotely impeachable that I have seen.

If it could be proven he monkeyed with analyst data or ordered evidence fabricated to support the Iraq invasion, then maybe we're getting somewhere. Until then, this is a pointless debate.
Thank you for your voice of reason.

This over the top crap is getting really old. :rolleyes:

[Brock]

Quotes? You mean these quotes? Many of which were made while George Bush was Gov of Texas?

Jesus this argument gets old.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"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."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"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."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Ha ha. Owned.

[Cochise]

I guess my data about the same numbers for Clinton's impeachment must be invisible or something.

[KCTitus]

I guess my data about the same numbers for Clinton's impeachment must be invisible or something.

I saw it.

[RINGLEADER]

Man, I don't care how any cowardly hack tries to deflect this... 42% is just dumbfounding! That's an incredible number. I'll be interested to see the other polls that inevitably run copy cat polls.


Dumbfounding as long as you look past the flaws with the poll and the polling firm. Zogby has an accuracy rate of less than 10% in their past polls which I'd consider a flaw. Maybe you don't, but I would. Beyond that the question is loaded unless there's somewhere in the poll where they ask how many people actually believe Bush misled on Iraq. To achieve the conclusive statement found in the title of this thread you'd have to take that number and multiply it against the impeachment question to arrive at how many people actually believe in what you think Zogby is saying.

It's kind of like asking the question "Would you be Taco's friend if he has sex with animals?" Without establishing the number of people who actually believe the underlying question the poll results are worthless.

And since they'll never be able to prove he misled about anything considering you have to first absolve the UN, Congress, the CIA, foreign intelligence services and Saddam Hussein himself to arrive at the "Bush lied" (and then only about the WMD part of the Iraq War Resolution that Congress signed off on) mantra this whole exercise is borderline stupid.

[RINGLEADER]

The really amazing part is that 25% of republicans would be in favor of impeachment if Bush mislead us into Iraq.

And that should be your first clue that something's amiss with Zogby's conclusions.

But again, unless you want to just ignore the facts of what occurred, there's no way you can conclude Bush misled about anything. Unless you want to blame him for what Saddam was telling the UN. Unless you want to blame him for the resolution that Congress passed. Unless you want to blame him for the intelligence that the CIA chief (appointed by Clinton I might add) provided.

If someone can tell me why Bush should have ignored those facts as well as Saddam's past behavior then please do.

[Michael Michigan]

Dumbfounding as long as you look past the flaws with the poll and the polling firm. Zogby has an accuracy rate of less than 10% in their past polls which I'd consider a flaw. Maybe you don't, but I would.

Zogby has seemed to give up on doing actual polls and just citing opinion with numbers. His release on Election Day [while the polls were still open] was not only a poor decision for the Electorate, but turned out to be an abysmal prediction.

Your MSNBC buddy Olbermann had him on last night. Under his mug on the chyron was the tag line:

"Independent pollster."

Did you catch it?

I think its time for another e-mail exchange.

;)

[Chief Henry]

Zogby has seemed to give up on doing actual polls and just citing opinion with numbers. His release on Election Day [while the polls were still open] was not only a poor decision for the Electorate, but turned out to be an abysmal prediction.

Your MSNBC buddy Olbermann had him on last night. Under his mug on the chyron was the tag line:

"Independent pollster."

Did you catch it?

I think its time for another e-mail exchange.

;)



Do it. And ask him how many viewers he has this week.

[penguinz]

"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations," Putin said.

Source: CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html)

[BIG_DADDY]

I wonder what percentage of CP would favor a public flogging of walking spam or terroristme as long as were talking numbers. :hmmm:

[BCD]

I guess my data about the same numbers for Clinton's impeachment must be invisible or something.Only if you're an ignorant liberal...

[StcChief]

I call BS. on impeachment

I am tired of capital hill and nothing getting done.

[BCD]

Quotes? You mean these quotes? Many of which were made while George Bush was Gov of Texas?

Jesus this argument gets old.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"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."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"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."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003Good stuff. I've tried. Doesn't work. Obviously, liberals are oblivious to the facts...

[BCD]

Did Congress really have access to the same intelligence info that Bushron had? We need to investigate to find out, dontcha think?

1) October 10, 2002, Congress voted to allow Bushron to decide when to use force against Iraq

2) Sept 5, 2002 Senators Graham, Durbin and Levin meet with George Tenet and ask to see the National Intelligence Estimate for Iraq.

3) Three weeks later Tenet produced a 90-page document riddled with caveats, qualifications, ifs, ands & buts about the Bushron contention that Sodom had WMD.

4) Since the report was classified, only the few on the intelligence subcommittes were allowed to see the full report. CongressFolk asked for the report to be declassified so they could read it and make an informed decision on how to vote on the use of force thingie.

5) October 4, 2002, less than a week before they had to vote on authorizing the use of force, they finally got the intelligence report. But the 90-page document had been rewritten down to a 20-page color brochure. Gone were the qualifications, caveats, ifs, ands & buts about the WMD. Congress only saw unqualified certainty about Sodom's WMD, as Senator Graham put it, "a vivid and terrifying case for war."

Small wonder there was "no doubt" about Sodom's WMD just before the vote. The adminstration stands accused of removing the data that would cause doubt. That filtered data was all that folks had to make their decisions on, and they received it less than a week before the vote.You're a ****ing tool. Read this, asshat...Quotes? You mean these quotes? Many of which were made while George Bush was Gov of Texas?

Jesus this argument gets old.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"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."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"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."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 Apparently Clinton was duping Congress in the 90's, too...

:rolleyes:

[penchief]

I wonder what percentage of CP would favor a public flogging of walking spam or terroristme as long as were talking numbers. :hmmm:

I was thinking that Chiefsplanet could actually wind up being Bush's Alamo.

[Brock]

I was thinking that Chiefsplanet could actually wind up being Bush's Alamo.

Oh, don't sweat it. You only have a few more years until Bush is gone and the next republican is elected. ROFL

[penchief]

Oh, don't sweat it. You only have a few more years until Bush is gone and the next republican is elected. ROFL

As long as it's a real republican and not another ideological far right-wing corporate lackey.... I'd be okay with that.

[Brock]

As long as it's a real republican and not another ideological far right-wing corporate lackey.... I'd be okay with that.

Maybe just another corporate lackey without the right wing stigma like Clinton.

[penchief]

Maybe just another corporate lackey without the right wing stigma like Clinton.

Clinton would have to walk a million miles for a Camel before he could even knock on Bush's door.

[Brock]

Clinton would have to walk a million miles for a Camel before he could even knock on Bush's door.

Eh, whatever that means.

[BIG_DADDY]

I was thinking that Chiefsplanet could actually wind up being Bush's Alamo.

Remember your talking to someone who hates this administration. The Feds are doing a major massage parlor raid this morning in SF, it was on the news. I can't believe they have nothing better to do, what a joke. Pot clubs last week, massage parlors this week.

On that note I think Liberalism is a disease. I don't think the lefties will be happy until they have emasulated the entire country.

[penchief]

Remember your talking to someone who hates this administration. The Feds are doing a major massage parlor raid this morning in SF, it was on the news. I can't believe they have nothing better to do, what a joke. Pot clubs last week, massage parlors this week.

On that note I think Liberalism is a disease. I don't think the lefties will be happy until they have emasulated the entire country.

I realize that, Big_Daddy. It was more a humorous reference to some of the blind faithful, not you. It was the Chiefsplanet reference that inspired my lighthearted comment. I have always respected your libertarian point of view. That is one thing we have in common.

I think there are different notions about liberalism. While I completely understand your concerns, and while there are enough examples to support your distaste for liberalism that is not where I come from. My liberal point of view is rooted in the libertarian tradition, as well. And I respect those conservatives who are TRULY conservative. Especially those who are libertarians first.

In fact, I used to really be turned off by Bob Barr's partisanship during the Clinton years. However, since he has retired I have gained a lot of respect for his outspoken stances on the patriot act and other issues which have posed a threat to our individual liberties.

[Taco John]

WIth the Supreme Court Nomination on the line, I'm interested if the Dems try anything drastic between now and the end of next week in this regards...

[Brock]

WIth the Supreme Court Nomination on the line, I'm interested if the Dems try anything drastic between now and the end of next week in this regards...

I think you can count on it.

[Calcountry]

And Zogby never misses:

http://www.google.com/search?q=kerry+311+Zogby&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

In the middle of the day on Election Day Mr. Zogby released this:


ELECTORAL VOTE
Kerry 311
Bush 213

That still has to smart just a bit.Zogby is an Arab, and he let some anti Jew bias get into his polling me thinks.

Perhaps he was actually trying to tip a close election, you know, the polls become self fullfilling kind of crap.

The Dems have but one chance to impeach Bush, win the 06 midterm elections. Guess what? The troops will be out of there by summer 06, bank on it.

[RINGLEADER]

You're a ****ing tool. Read this, asshat... Apparently Clinton was duping Congress in the 90's, too...

:rolleyes:


No doubt. Liberals like to gloss over the fact that regime change became a policy of the US on Clinton's watch and don't like to hear the quotes from Kennedy, Kerry, and the rest of the left-wing politicians who dutifully supported Clinton on the issue. Like a lot of things related to national defense the only difference between Clinton's policy and Bush's policy is that Bush actually did something more than just hold a press conference. On Al Qaeda, on Iraq, on North Korea...Clinton's goal was holding the press conference - not actually accomplishing much.

[RINGLEADER]

WIth the Supreme Court Nomination on the line, I'm interested if the Dems try anything drastic between now and the end of next week in this regards...


Again, Taco, if you asked the question "Do you believe that President Bush misled America into war in Iraq" and then from that sub-group asked "Do you believe President Bush should be impeached because of his actions regarding Iraq" the final number wouldn't be anywhere near 42%. It might be 25-30% because there will always be a quarter to a third of the populace that are partisan on either side of the spectrum, but you're relying on a poorly worded question in a poorly conducted poll by a less than accurate firm to arrive at a conclusion that supports your personal beliefs.

[Cochise]

Again, Taco, if you asked the question "Do you believe that President Bush misled America into war in Iraq" and then from that sub-group asked "Do you believe President Bush should be impeached because of his actions regarding Iraq" the final number wouldn't be anywhere near 42%. It might be 25-30% because there will always be a quarter to a third of the populace that are partisan on either side of the spectrum, but you're relying on a poorly worded question in a poorly conducted poll by a less than accurate firm to arrive at a conclusion that supports your personal beliefs.

Yeah, any introductory marketing class that covers that kind of thing will tell you to ask one thing at a time if you want any kind of accurate results.

[RINGLEADER]

Yeah, any introductory marketing class that covers that kind of thing will tell you to ask one thing at a time if you want any kind of accurate results.

Along those lines the CNN/USA Today poll has terrible news...for liberals:

<B>An overnight poll of speech-watchers showed Bush making some headway when it comes to one presidential mission — buying time. A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll of 323 people who watched the speech showed that after the speech <U>54 percent of those polled said the United States is winning the war on terror; 63 percent said Bush has a clear plan for Iraq; and 70 percent said we should keep troops in Iraq.</U></B>

[Cochise]

...and 70 percent said we should keep troops in Iraq.

Where they hell do they find these people? 30% of the country thinks we should gas up the helicopters right now and be out by sundown?

[Hydrae]

I think this is ridiculous. I didn't like us going into Iraq, I think the whole thing stinks and that we have not been told the whole truth.

However, impeachment? I don't think so. I guess this is something we are going to talk about with every president elected in what is left of my lifetime. :shake: It was ridiculous that Clinton was impeached for having affairs and it is equally ridiculous to consider an impeachment of Bush over this issue. I am sure there are more important things for congress to worry about.

[WolfDawg]

Where they hell do they find these people? 30% of the country thinks we should gas up the helicopters right now and be out by sundown?


At DU

[go bowe]

Thanks guys, it indeed appears the quotes are there.:thumb:

Perhaps everyone assumed I was just being a partisan hack when I asked in the past and did not take the question seriously.oh, right...

vlad as partisan hack... :shake: :shake: :shake: :shake: :shake:

[go bowe]

I agree that if it's proven Bush deliberately lied about Iraq's WMD he should resign.

I'm not sure how he could be impeached without committing a crime.

I don't see either happening so the left better get used to him for 3 1/2 more years.ok guys...

you know i'm not exactly a flaming conservative (although i did (not) stay at a holiday inn express last night), and i was appalled by the attempt to impeach clinton...

but i don't understand what all the fuss is about...

politicians lie all the time and presidents are less than forthcoming when very important issues like war and peace are being contemplated...

this is not exactly news...

no way in hell is misleading the public is an impeachable offense and i, for one, see no reason for the president to step down...

finally, i think the people who responded to zogby's poll are out of their freaking gourds to even consider impeachment under these circumstances...

[go bowe]

Zogby is an Arab, and he let some anti Jew bias get into his polling me thinks.

Perhaps he was actually trying to tip a close election, you know, the polls become self fullfilling kind of crap.

The Dems have but one chance to impeach Bush, win the 06 midterm elections. Guess what? The troops will be out of there by summer 06, bank on it.i don't think all of our combat troops will be out by the next midterm elections unless the president decides to cut and run, and i just don't see that happening...

and i suspect that there are some democrats who wouldn't go along with any impeachment effort so that even if the dems win back both houses, there won't be any impeachment proceedings...

at the risk of being taco'd if i'm wrong, i'll predict that there won't be any impeachment hearings, period...

[go bowe]

Along those lines the CNN/USA Today poll has terrible news...for liberals:

An overnight poll of speech-watchers showed Bush making some headway when it comes to one presidential mission — buying time. A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll of 323 people who watched the speech showed that after the speech 54 percent of those polled said the United States is winning the war on terror; 63 percent said Bush has a clear plan for Iraq; and 70 percent said we should keep troops in Iraq.actually, i would have expected better numbers for the audience of that speech...

weren't the overwhelming majority of those who watched the speech republicans who support their president?

[Brock]

actually, i would have expected better numbers for the audience of that speech...

weren't the overwhelming majority of those who watched the speech republicans who support their president?

I doubt it. The people who really pay attention to what he says and even more how he says it are his critics.

[mlyonsd]

no way in hell is misleading the public is an impeachable offense and i, for one, see no reason for the president to step down...



For me it depends on what your definition of misleading is.

Mine is deliberately altering, covering up, or witholding the information that led us to war.

By witholding, I mean say half of the intelligience indicated Iraq didn't have WMD. Just one or two reports stating such is not enough considering the considerable amount of other intelligience that indicated they did have WMD.

I expect a President to never lie to me. It doesn't matter what the lie is about, a lie is a lie. Especially when so many lives are at stake. I'm not partisan enough to any President for them to compromise my trust.

I truly believe the UD's and jAZ's of the world are chasing leprechauns but don't begrudge them the chance to do so. If Bush did deliberately lie to us then I would hope other conservatives would stick to their principles as well and not go thru the embarrassing display of trying to defend a lying weasel like the liberals did with Clinton. We don't need to be teaching our kids shit like that.

[RINGLEADER]

actually, i would have expected better numbers for the audience of that speech...

weren't the overwhelming majority of those who watched the speech republicans who support their president?


Good point. The survey group for the "after" poll was half GOP, 23% Dem and 27% Indy. His numbers did go up across all the groups polled, however, and it should be pointed out that the baseline adult numbers they used included 10% more Dems than Republicans for some reason.

[whoman69]

Impeachment on what crime :rolleyes:
Fraud

[Brock]

Fraud

Feel free to elaborate. :rolleyes:

[whoman69]

ok guys...

you know i'm not exactly a flaming conservative (although i did (not) stay at a holiday inn express last night), and i was appalled by the attempt to impeach clinton...

but i don't understand what all the fuss is about...

politicians lie all the time and presidents are less than forthcoming when very important issues like war and peace are being contemplated...

this is not exactly news...

no way in hell is misleading the public is an impeachable offense and i, for one, see no reason for the president to step down...

finally, i think the people who responded to zogby's poll are out of their freaking gourds to even consider impeachment under these circumstances...
Misleading is not what he is being accused of. He is accused of tailoring the intelligence to come to a pre-determined conclusion. Ignore anything that doesn't follow the thesis and push hard on the stuff that does, no matter how intangible.

[mlyonsd]

Misleading is not what he is being accused of. He is accused of tailoring the intelligence to come to a pre-determined conclusion. Ignore anything that doesn't follow the thesis and push hard on the stuff that does, no matter how intangible.

Get it right. He's not accused of anything. We're so far away from that the left is just dreaming.

[Logical]

Get it right. He's not accused of anything. We're so far away from that the left is just dreaming.
Formal accusation, no, but certainly he is now being accused by a majority of Americans, all you have to do is read the poll results on the latest polls asking if a person believes the President used WMD to mislead us into the war. Personally I never cared about the WMD and supported the removal of Saddam without it. However if he purpose mislead (lied) to us then impeachment should follow.

[jAZ]

no way in hell is misleading the public is an impeachable offense and i, for one, see no reason for the president to step down...

Actually the case for impeachment wouldn't be over his statements before the public... that would have been the case for voting against him in 2004. And that is a HUGE reason why all the congressional investigation into the USE of intel (not merely the collection of it) was postponed until after the election.

The case for impeachment is in the statements made before and submitted to Congress in the attempt to gain their vote for War. I've been posting for years now about the Vanity Fair article that goes through the history of Bush's case for war. In that article, it shows the 2 versions of documents submitted to congress. One was classified (and only available to a select few members) and the other which was declassified and presented to all voting members of congress.

The documents in the VF article show that the declassified version removed every single reference the uncertainty or doubt about the case for war.

It's this submission that would likely be the basis for any actual impeachment. Not any public statements made by Bush himself.finally, i think the people who responded to zogby's poll are out of their freaking gourds to even consider impeachment under these circumstances...
As I said there are more circumstances that you seem to be aware of...

At the same time, I'm not sure impeachment is the correct battle to be fighting right now. Do I think this administration is corrupt and that they mislead the nation to war? Yes. Am I gonna work to impeach Bush? No.