[MSNBC Poll] Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?

One thing Dems have learned over the past couple of decades is no more unilateral disarmament.

Let's go back to 1986... somebody wrote the following...

Who was it? Oh yes, Newt Gingrich, Republican.

Dems have tried to change the culture and been rolled for it. No more. And sorry if a few wackos upset your sensibilities. Can't you tell they were joking? It's all in fun. It's a game. Ha Ha. Look at the bizarre, sick, corrupt, anti-family, traitorous basso who has no sense of humor when we merely use a few words. Ha Ha. Sore loser. Ha Ha.

Get off your high-horse and don't tell people you disagree with to change the culture so it makes it easier for your favorite autocrat to win. If you really want it changed you'll start by demanding it of those you suppport, but we all know you're perfectly happy with it as long as Bush and company are winning.

 

I thought Bush was the decider?

Anyways... your statement is a bit like the pot calling the grass green...

Cheers,
Brock

 

actually, zogby polls show that most americans support impeachment if bush is found to have illegally wiretapped. and almost half polled in another zogby poll say that he should be impeached if he lied about iraq.

since it is a fact that the bush administration is illegally wiretapping and it is a fact that they lied about iraq one can reasonably conclude that the majority of americans do want him impeached.

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2
By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, 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 Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.

The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007
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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062700270.html
"a narrow majority -- 52 percent -- said the administration deliberately misled the public before the war"

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/14/poll.wiretaps/index.html
According to the poll, Americans appear to be split over the legality of the domestic eavesdropping program. About 49 percent of respondents said the president had definitely or probably broken the law by authorizing the wiretaps and 47 percent said he probably or definitely had not. (Poll results)

Those numbers were similar to a question about whether the program is right or wrong -- 47 percent said it was right and 50 percent called it wrong.

 

since you suggest Bush is my hero autocrat, can you please highlight an instance where he portrayed a political opponent, since becoming president, in those terms?

no, no, that's fine, i'm happy to wait...

 

I see the Basso meltdown continues, may I suggest therapy. Oh wait, therapists are probably all a bunch of libpigs.

 

"Some say" that's really weak of you to try and move the bar to just Bush when we all know that he has others do it for him so he can pretend to be above the fray.

Oh wait, I seem to recall he once said Democratic Senators were, "not interested in the security of the American people." Another way of saying traitor or betray I guess.

Then there's this...

and this...

and...

"Some say" I could go on, and I easily could fill up pages with quotes from WH Staff and leading Republicans following Newt's "contrasting" rhetoric, but if so, "some say" I'll just be branded an insecure, shallow, self-serving liberal.

 

wow, fantastically weak post. is that all you can come up with? where all the demonizing, polarizing language? you know, Kerry is ho chi mihn's gay lover, that sort of thing, the functional equivalent of "nazi" or "hitler?" as i said, i'm happy to wait while you peruse google...

...not developing...

 

Is it a 'fact' that he lied about Iraq?

 

is it a fact he's illegally wiretapping?

 

good! so we all agree there needs to be an investigation

 

No, we don't. Even Nancy Pelosi knows it's counterproductive almost to the point of being childish.

 

Man, you guys keep moving the bar... First, we're talking about language put forth by Repubs like Gingrich to draw "contrasts" in a discussion about political rhetoric and who's job it is to push for more civility. Then, basso requires that I show Bush used such "contrasts," which I did, even though Bush has his toadies do the dirty work and "contrast" quotes by Cheney, Mehlman, Rove, etc. are numerous. Now, you want me to show Bush used slurs commonly seen coming from the mouths of Coulter, Limbaugh, and similar types. If I came up with that, you'd probably say "Yea, but when did Bush say he is the Antichrist and eats babies for breakfast."

(I will admit searching for serious Bush quotes on Google is difficult due to the huge number of Bushisms... you almost have to know exactly what he said because any search with "Bush + quote + X" nets you pages and pages of stupid stuff Bush said.)

 

That was implied in your statement

How are the Democrats not thinking of themselves as Americans? Your implication is that by not supporting the Admin but instead criticizing it they are being un-american. How else can that statement be taken?

 

why? is it a fact that he never lied or manipulated the truth or concealed any doubts to justify this war OR that he never authorized illegal wiretaps or torture?

 

the point is, you won't find examples of bush demonizing his opponents in the same fashion as democrats, from gore to kerry to dean to pelosi to reid routinely use to criticize him. i'm not talking about coulter, hannity, rush, etc., because i never read them, don't pay attention to what they say, and generally think they're bozos, albeit, in the former's case a BILF.

 

There are a lot of "ifs" in those questions. I don't agree with the warrantless wiretapping and think it violates constitutional due process but that's far from being a fact. At the moment there is no judicial decision on whether it is illegal.

 

If that's true, in large part it's because Bush can have others speak for him. Bush definitely benefits from Cheney, Mehlman, Rove, Republican Congressmen, Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh (who you may forget is an honorary member of the 1994 Republican Congress and whose program both Bush and Cheney chose to appear on in the last few weeks of the election), etc. It's awfully convenient to forget about one of the pillars that props up the modern Republican party, but we all know the party's successes over the last two decade would have been nothing without those "voices" and the division they spew.

And I do appreciate the noble Bush coming out and condeming the Swift Boat ads and advocating a stop to the racist ads in Tennessee. He truly sets the example.

 

a federal judge back in august ruled it unconstitutional. the judge says the program must end immediately, but mr. heck-of-a-lot-easier-if-it-was-a-dictatorship has appealed the desicision and continues with the unconstitutional and illegal wiretapping.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/domesticspying.lawsuit/
A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the U.S. government's domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately.Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the Bush Administration disagrees with the ruling and has appealed. "We also believe very strongly that the program is lawful," he said in Washington, adding that the program is "reviewed periodically" by lawyers to determine its effectiveness and ensure lawfulness.

but its ok - alberto gonzales says that it is not illegal, so he must be right.

 

yes it is.

 

yes it is.