Post #229,421
10/13/05 3:29:07 AM
|

WOW! (if true-enough?): 50% say Impeach IF__lied-into-Iraq
[link|http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/10/12/impeach/index.html| Salon] 'Course it's a sample size of 1001: who's Ipsos Public Affairs U.S.? Here's The Guardian citing [link|http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1163186,00.html| them] 3/5/04.. Fair number of hits on Google for the Co. Poll: Lying on Iraq is an impeachable offense
Congress should consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about his reasons for going to war in Iraq, according to half of the Americans surveyed in a recent poll.
The poll, commissioned by the [link|http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/86| After Downing Street Coalition], a loose aggregation of antiwar, Democratic and progressive groups, was conducted by the nonpartisan firm [link|http://www.ipsos-na.com/pa/us/| Ipsos Public Affairs U.S.]
Here's how the question was put: "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." Fifty percent of the 1,001 Americans surveyed agreed with that statement, while 44 percent disagreed; 6 percent said they didn't know or declined to answer. The breakdown was not entirely on partisan lines. Twenty percent of Republicans surveyed agreed with the statement, as did 72 percent of Democrats and 56 percent of independents.
Last June, a similar poll conducted by Zogby International found that 42 percent of those surveyed supported impeachment. As the death toll for American troops in Iraq approaches 2,000 and Bush's sorry approval ratings sag, maybe the "I" word can finally be spoken. Not that it's likely to be heeded in the Republican-controlled House and Senate, where not a single Democrat dares utter the word.
-- Katharine Mieszkowski Of course - IF (proven. enough..?) Lying on such a scale IS an impeachable offense or 'impeachment' doesn't mean shit. (We know it means sex, but - only to the Puritans.) Then too, with a nullified Constitution: it wouldn't mean much, would it? Never mind.
|
Post #229,448
10/13/05 11:27:59 AM
|

with chirac clinton kerry all agrreing on WMD's being
in Iraq gonna be real hard to pin it on him. We all know why he really went in but the public reason was echoed by enemies and friends alike, thanx, bill
"the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #229,450
10/13/05 11:28:49 AM
|

Based on information HIS administration posted...
|
Post #229,451
10/13/05 11:29:57 AM
|

no, clinton bombed Iraq as well
"the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #229,467
10/13/05 1:15:42 PM
|

Clinton bombed Iraq for different reasons
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #229,530
10/13/05 11:34:08 PM
|

But bombing isn't the same as invading....
as we now can easily see (how many American lives lost during bombing vs how many American lives lost during invasion/peacekeeping mission).
You know what's really sad? I've heard the right go on for YEARS about how are military is good at one thing - killing the enemy. They blasted past Presidents for "peace keeping" missions because our troops weren't international policemen.
And now that Bush is doing...you haven't heard a damn peep out of them.
|
Post #229,587
10/14/05 4:21:32 PM
|

Hell.. He RAN! on "no nation building.." CHA CHA CHA
|
Post #229,461
10/13/05 12:24:52 PM
|

Really what was it?
We all know why he really went in but the public reason was echoed by enemies and friends alike, Really, what was the reason? I've thought about it quite a bit and I keep coming up with too many plausible reasons to settle on one. As for pinning it on Bush, that will be hard. But there is a chance that the Plame investigation might do it. The Plame investigation could spill over into an investigation of where the information that started Wilson's investigation came from. It is generally believed at this point that somebody who was a member of PNAC or close to them created and planted the reports that the Italian service feed to the US. If that circle can be traced back to it's source, it could blow up horribly. Jay
|
Post #229,471
10/13/05 3:06:22 PM
|

he couldnt find osama, so attacked the Indians he could find
Old American War strategy thanx, bill
"the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #229,481
10/13/05 4:25:42 PM
|

Probably one factor
That is probably one factor. But the plans to invade Iraq where already in motion before it became clear that catching bin Laden was not going to happen.
It has been reported that Blair actually had to work to stop the US from invading Iraq before / along with Afganistan.
Jay
|