Impeach Bush? YES say half, "if he lied"....


Karlin
Avatar
#1
"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."
--

Note that about half of American's are saying this, that they would impeach Bush2, but only IF he lied about the reasons for invading Iraq.

Oddly, it is now obvious that there were lies about the WMD, and more than half of Americans KNOW THIS. If it were the same half that "want to impeach if he lied", well, then he would/could be impeached.

The reasons for invading Iraq were, at first, that WMD dangers that needed to be dealt with "before they can be used". {which is lousy reasoning, as any nation could invade another on that basis].

Bush has said that the real reason for invading Iraq was that "god told him to do it". Seriously. He keeps saying it too.

It has been suggested that "the reasons" dont need to be the actual reasons, because he can't tell us everything he knows, for security reasons, of course.

Americans want impeachment to happen if 'the reasons' were misconstrued, and if there were no other reasons [that could not be spoken of] that could justify it. There is more!!
I bet they would want impeachment if they knew the whole story - about the torture, about the Iraq invasion set-up before hand including 9-11, about how corporate America is getting such huge windfalls at the taxpayers expense in Iraq. Those are all on the internet, backed up with good facts.


----------media's role:

Media: main story "not told" :
quote: "The strong support for impeachment found in this poll is especially surprising because the views of impeachment supporters are entirely absent from the broadcast and print media, and can only be found on the Internet and in street protests, including the large anti-war rally in Washington on September 24." [same link]\\

K - So if the our mass media was doing its job, Bush2 would be impeached. ThePeople would know that their concerns are valid. BushCo could never have moved so far and so fast in his evil agenda without first getting the media onside, and keeping them solidly on his side ," whatever it takes".
 
p106_peppy
#2
Well, how are we to prove he lied? We know now that what he said was not true. but at the time he said it, it was not a flat out lie, because we didn't know for sure.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#3
Quote:

CIA review faults prewar plans
By John Diamond, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — A newly released report published by the CIA rebukes the Bush administration for not paying enough attention to prewar intelligence that predicted the factional rivalries now threatening to split Iraq.
Policymakers worried more about making the case for the war, particularly the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, than planning for the aftermath, the report says. The report was written by a team of four former CIA analysts led by former deputy CIA director Richard Kerr.
"In an ironic twist, the policy community was receptive to technical intelligence (the weapons program), where the analysis was wrong, but apparently paid little attention to intelligence on cultural and political issues (post-Saddam Iraq), where the analysis was right," they write.
White House spokesman Fred Jones said Tuesday that the administration considered many scenarios involving postwar instability in Iraq. The report's assertion "has been vehemently disputed," he said.
Then-CIA director George Tenet commissioned the report after the invasion of Iraq. The authors had access to highly classified intelligence data and produced three reports concerning Iraq intelligence.

Quote has been trimmed
 
no1important
#4
Impeaching would be a start. Being tried, convicted of war crimes and spending the rest of his life in jail is what he really needs.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
Avatar
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by p106_peppy

Well, how are we to prove he lied? We know now that what he said was not true. but at the time he said it, it was not a flat out lie, because we didn't know for sure.


how does one prove a negative??? Tough, but can be done...

The thing is that his statements were SUSPECT from the onset. Nations asked him for PROOF of his statements about his WMD claims and he REFUSED to provide it.........expecting other nations to go on his "word".......which was already proving to be faulty.

If one is going to MILITARILY INVADE a nation .....particularly one far away ..........one had better have a damned good reason for it and the PROOF of same. He manipulated , and lied and it was apparent to most .......right from the onset. ( a deductive process in this case)
 
neocon-hunter
#6
Quote:

Note that about half of American's are saying this, that they would impeach Bush2, but only IF he lied about the reasons for invading Iraq.

That is disturbing.

Bush is a miscreant and should be sharing a cell with Slobodan Milosevic for the autrocities and crimes against humanity that have been committed by US troops in Iraq and elsewhere.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
Avatar
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by no1important

Impeaching would be a start. Being tried, convicted of war crimes and spending the rest of his life in jail is what he really needs.

absolutely !! War crimes tribunal..... land the manipulative con man/mass murderer. in jail and throw away the key.

as by definition he IS a mass murderer. ( using the military to disguise it under the war flag does not negate the fact ) Any good lawyer worth his weight in legal gold......knows this. Loopholes be damned.

(anyone who supports him...........is complicit in these murderous acts. and now has the blood of all those Iraqis , and their own troops on their hands (conscience---) think Lady McBeth syndrome.
 
no1important
#8
He has threatened N. Korea, Iran, Syria to name a few and any of those countries would be justified in invading amerika.

"W" is just a snot nose, coke head cowboy wannabe from Texas, a place that has never had fair justice.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
Avatar
#9
Quote:

He has threatened N. Korea, Iran, Syria to name a few and any of those countries would be justified in invading amerika.

absolutely..... as he / the USR is the biggest THREAT to the world and peace. And no one has to LIE about it......as it is there in front of everyone.

(well, maybe the exception is the amerikans ......as they are not the most informed population on this planet. Woe to them)
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#10
Quote:

Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq
Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2005-10-11 12:46. Media

NOTE WELL: The After Downing Street Coalition hired Ipsos Public Affairs to do this poll. Ipsos did not sponsor the poll, but was very helpful, cooperative, and professional. Please do NOT complain to them that they did not do the poll for free. If you feel you must communicate with them, please thank them for being helpful.

For Immediate Release: October 11, 2005

Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq

By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching 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 Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 6-9.

The poll found that 50% 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 by impeaching him."

44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error.

Among those who felt strongly either way, 39% strongly agreed, while 30% strongly disagreed.

"The results of this poll are truly astonishing," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. "Bush's record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House."

Impeachment Supported by Majorities of Many Groups

Responses varied by political party affiliation: 72% of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 56% of Independents and 20% of Republicans.

Responses also varied by age and income. Solid majorities of those under age 55 (54%), as well as those with household incomes below $50,000 (57%), support impeachment.

Majorities favored impeachment in the Northeast (53%), West (51%), and even the South (50%).

Support for Impeachment Surged Since June

The Ipsos poll shows a dramatic transformation in support for Bush's impeachment since late June. (This is only the second poll that has asked Americans about their support for impeaching Bush in 2005, despite his record-low approval ratings.) The Zogby poll conducted June 27-29 of 905 likely voters found that 42% agreed and 50% disagreed with a statement virtually identical to the one used by Ipsos Public Affairs. (see footnote below)


Ipsos 10/8-9
Zogby 6/27-29
Net Change

Support Impeachment
50% 42% +8%
Oppose Impeachment
44% 50% +6%
Impeachment Margin
+6% -8% +14%

After the June poll, pollster John Zogby told the Washington Post that support for impeachment "was much higher than I expected." At the time, impeachment supporters trailed opponents by 8%. Now supporters outnumber opponents by 6%, a remarkable shift of 14%.

Support for Clinton Impeachment Was Much Lower

In August and September of 1998, 16 major polls asked about impeaching President Clinton (--). Only 36% supported hearings to consider impeachment, and only 26% supported actual impeachment and removal. Even so, the impeachment debate dominated the news for months, and the Republican Congress impeached Clinton despite overwhelming public opposition.

Impeachment Support is Closely Related to Belief that Bush Lied about Iraq

Both the Ipsos and Zogby polls asked about support for impeachment if Bush lied about the reasons for war, rather than asking simply about support for impeachment. Pollsters predict that asking simply about impeachment without any context would produce a large number of "I don't know" responses. However, this may understate the percentage of Americans who favor Bush's impeachment for other reasons, such as his slow response to Hurricane Katrina, his policy on torture, soaring gasoline prices, or other concerns.

Other polls show a majority of U.S. adults believe that Bush did in fact lie about the reasons for war. A June 23-26 ABC/Washington Post poll found 52% of Americans believe the Bush administration "deliberately misled the public before the war," and 57% say the Bush administration "intentionally exaggerated its evidence that pre-war Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."

Support for the war has dropped significantly since June, which suggests that the percentage of Americans who believe Bush lied about the war has increased.

Passion for Impeachment is Major Unreported Story

The strong support for impeachment found in this poll is especially surprising because the views of impeachment supporters are entirely absent from the broadcast and print media, and can only be found on the Internet and in street protests, including the large anti-war rally in Washington on September 24.

The lack of coverage of impeachment support is due in part to the fact that not a single Democrat in Congress has called for impeachment, despite considerable grassroots activism by groups like Democrats.com (--).

"We will, no doubt, see an increase in activism following this poll," said David Swanson, co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org. "But will we see an increase in media coverage? The media are waiting for action in Congress. Apparently it's easier to find and interview one of the 535 members of Congress than it is to locate a representative of the half of the country that wants the President impeached if he lied about the war. The media already accepts that Bush did lie about the war. We know this because so many editors and pundits told us that the Downing Street Memo was 'old news.' What we need now is journalism befitting a democracy, journalism that goes out and asks people what they really think about their government, especially George Bush."

The passion of impeachment supporters is directly responsible for the new poll commissioned by After Downing Street. After the Zogby poll in June, activists led by Democrats.com urged all of the major polling organizations to include an impeachment question in their upcoming polls. But none of the polling organizations were willing to do so for free, so on September 30, AfterDowningStreet.org posted a request for donations to fund paid polls (--). As of October 10, 330 individuals had contributed $8,919 in small donations averaging $27 each.

AfterDowningStreet.org has commissioned a second poll which is expected soon, and will continue to urge all polling organizations to include the impeachment question in their regular polls. If they do not, AfterDowningStreet.org will continue to commission regular impeachment polls.

Footnotes:

1. AfterDowningStreet.org is a rapidly growing coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups that was created on May 26, 2005, following the publication of the Downing Street Memos in London's Sunday Times on May 1. The coalition is urging Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war.

2.Here are the complete tables from the Ipsos Public Affairs poll, plus the definitions of regions used by Ipsos and the U.S. Census Bureau.

3. Zogby asked: "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him through impeachment." Here are (complete tables from Zogby)

4. Pollsters have offered various reasons for refusing to poll on impeachment. For example, Gallup said it would do so "if, and when, there is some discussion of that possibility by congressional leaders, and/or if commentators begin discussing it in the news media."



seems they are still caught on the word "if". Do they need diagrams????
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#11
Quote:

October 14, 2005
On 19 March 2003 President Bush Jr. commenced his criminal war against Iraq by ordering a so-called decapitation strike against the President of Iraq in violation of a 48-hour ultimatum he had given publicly to the Iraqi President and his sons to leave the country. This duplicitous behavior violated the customary international laws of war set forth in the 1907 Hague Convention on the Opening of Hostilities to which the United States is still a contracting party, as evidenced by paragraphs 20, 21, 22, and 23 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956). Furthermore, President Bush Jr.'s attempt to assassinate the President of Iraq was an international crime in its own right. Of course the Bush Jr. administration's war of aggression against Iraq constituted a Crime against Peace as defined by the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950) as well as by paragraph 498 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956).
Next came the Pentagon's military strategy of inflicting "shock and awe" upon the city of Baghdad. To the contrary, article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defined the term "War crimes" to include: ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. . ." The Bush Jr. administration's infliction of "shock and awe" upon Baghdad and its inhabitants constituted the wanton destruction of that city, and it was certainly not justified...

Quote has been trimmed
 

Similar Threads

7
BBC lied about Queen's "tantrum"
by Blackleaf | Jul 12th, 2007
12
Bush Challenges Female T.V."Prez" to debate:-)
by Ocean Breeze | Nov 2nd, 2005
20
"President Bush isnt a moron, he's my friend"
by THT_Barrie | Jun 26th, 2005
no new posts