Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by BillQ, Jun 30, 2005.
More Bad News For Chimpy
Isn't 40% kind of low for proof of the President lying?
Please, come on, a beej is way worse then a war.
Think of the children!
From the same poll
Did you just get this from the DNC or did Dr. Dean send it to you personally?
Nobody "lied" on Iraq; sorry to burst your bubble!
But go ahead and keep repeating it; try holding your breath at the same time!
As shrill and vitriolic as the Left Wing of the Democrat party has become, I have no doubt that if there really was any proof, they would have started proceedings.
Without control of Congress? How would that work?
Didn't John Kerry receive 48% of the vote last fall? Apparently Bush has picked up support from 8% of the Kool Aid crowd.
"If" Bush lied about Iraq?
The street is Downing, and the gun is smoking.
I don't understand your math. Where is that 8% coming from?
All rightwingers of this forum showed up to defend their man on the first page. This news must be getting on their nerves.
Not really, not yet. If you believe that it will lead to something, you have to see that much work remains. There is a long way to go before the DSM lead to anything. Mel knows this- that's why he makes sure to keep the DSM thread alive.
There is much to be proven, either way.
As I said in the other post, there is a way to go before hearings have a chance of being successful. For this kind of thing, you only get one shot, and frankly, Conyers may have wasted that shot already.
I believe that the minority controls enough of a budget that they can perform investigations and/or ask the GAO to do the same. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that is being done.
Frankly, lying to lead the US to war is probably the 3rd MOST impeachable thing a president can do. (Behind treason and attempting a coup.) I'm kind of embarassed as an American the number is so low. I guess alot of people glossed over the "if" or something.
Maybe that would be an interesting way to get at the truth in another poll...ask half the respondents this question, which obviously is directed at Bush, and ask another one that's clearly hypothetical: "If a president was proven to have attempted a military coup, and failed, would you support impeachment?"
And further proof most Americans are partisan sheep, without honor and unworthy of the blood being spilled at the hands of their shepherd.
I wish they had asked more in-depth questions. Do you think that many people are opposed to impeachment because they feel that it is being used too often and/or it is a tit-for-tat with the Clinton impeachment? That might fit with the concern over partisanship in the Congress.
IMO if there was real strong evidence of wrongdoing (stronger than DSM, IMO) you would see those numbers go up. To put it in a Watergate context, we have just discovered that the DNC was broken into and pollsters are asking "if it was shown that the president were involved, would you be for impeachment?". It's too rearly, the average person has too little information and people are kind of sick of what goes on in Washington, IMO.
I rather him be Drawn and Quartered. If he lied, I already knew he lied, but I don't expect much from politicans anymore.
The question should phrased like this, "let's say, the president was proven to ..., would you support impeachment?"
Obviously IF he deliberately lied he should be impeached and removed from office (although would it technically have been a crime??). I don't see what's so Earth-shattering about that.
The problem for the left is that he DIDN'T deliberately lie. If he did, then so did all the other world leaders and Democratic Party leaders who saw the same intel Bush did and concluded that Saddam had WMD stocks just as Bush did.
If he did, he should be impeached because there were 100,000 Iraqis and 1,700 soldiers lives wasted due to this lie.
Even he didn't deliberately lie, it's still a lie. A lie that cost lives.
Ignorance is not an exuse to not be prosecuted.
Conservatives should stop calling them as such if they wouldn't be bothered by this kind of lie.
If it's not deliberate, it's not a lie.
That being said, I don't think he knew FOR SURE that the WMD stuff was false, I just don't think he cared.
Frankly, I think this poll question is basically a hypothetical, since we'll never get iron-clad proof that Bush lied on Iraq, if such proof exists. It's more likely than "Would you support impeachment of Bush if proof exist that he raped Girl Scouts," but it's still in the realm of the hypothetical until further notice.
He either lied or is grossly incompetent, or the people reporting to him lied or are grossly incompetent.
In any of the above four cases, someone gets fired. Right?
You don't understand the purpose of impeachment. Obstructing justice in a minor civil case is NOT something the founding fathers would have deemed impeachable, even though that's a crime. Lying to Congress to get them to back a declaration of war is NOT a crime, but the founding fathers would have laughed at anyone even asking the question of whether or not that's impeachable.
Oh God, not this ******** again.
Alex, how come there were at least a dozen posters here, in this little tiny corner of the universe, who knew we wouldn't find anything? Lucky guess?
Isn't about 90% of his first-term cabinet gone?