Zogby: 42% favor Impeaching Bush for Lying About Iraq
-
Bob FertikWant to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!
According to a brand new Zogby poll, the Bush administration is in its "last throes." These numbers - 42% in favor of impeachment, including 25% of Republicans - are astonishing because most Americans haven't heard of the Downing Street Minutes, the smoking gun that proves Bush lied. And most Fox viewers think Saddam ordered the 9/11 attack - and WMD's were found in Iraq. Let's collect 1 million signatures on our petition for impeachment!
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...
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.
- Bob Fertik's blog
- |
- Login or register to post comments
- |
-
- |
Top Actions
-
23,210 of 30,000
-
42,758 of 60,000
-
94,685 of 100,000
Comments
In case anyone missed this,
In case anyone missed this, it is an article by George Lakoff in yesterday's Huffington Post. This should be read by every Dem Senator and Congressperson as well as Dr. Dean. They need to learn this to be able to effectively deal with the Radical Regressives. Please read and pass it along to your Dem officials! Thanks!
Rove Rides Again -- With the Help of the Democrats
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/george-lakoff/rove-rides-a...
I have been saying this for a long time:
We as democrats need to develope the 'Nah, Nah, I can't hear you!' approach to politics. I works quite well for repugs and the BA.
I'm shocked that they are
I'm shocked that they are polling for impeachment!
Asking the question is fully half the battle. This is NEWS.
Holy crap this is great.
Holy crap this is great. What can we do to keep up the momentum? Senators and Congressmen need to know about this. So does Dean.
EMAIL YOUR CONGRESS PERSONS AND DEAN FOLKS!:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
http://democrats.org/page/s/contact
http://www.house.gov/
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/contactus.php
Who the hell gave the order
Who the hell gave the order to poll for this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Somebody dropped the ball.
Der Fuhrer.
Der Fuhrer.
Could Bush finally be
Could Bush finally be pissing off corporate America? I mean they did clear out
every scrap of wealth to be taken so maybe its time for the climb back up until
the next shearing.
Or perhaps on of the execs
Or perhaps on of the execs finally developed a conscience.
Done! Your turn.
Done! Your turn.
42% favor impeaching Bush
42% favor impeaching Bush for lying about Iraq.
(I'm putting to good use what I learned from a troll.)
what troll?
what troll?
Check the other site. That
Check the other site. That should fill you in.
Bob, you are awesome!
Let's wipe the slate clean! Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Ashcroft, Bolton, Wolfowitz,
Pearle, Rove, Delay, Halliburton, Ken Blackwell, Jeb, Hell let's throw the Twins in too. They need
to be brought up on treason, war profiteering and send them all to Gitmo with no right to a trial.
They are enemy combatants!
Recall Election in Nov 2006...
If Arnold 'Terminator' can have a recall election ; we the people of the United States -can ask congress for a 'recall election' of the President of the U.S.
Since Congress is [republican controlled]; and the minority [congress] have reasons to believe the President hasn't been 'honest and abiding of the oath of office and; and the (people)have doubts of; deception, misleading information and documents and possible 'obstruction of justice' have occurred --we can request this administration; under 'judicial investigation and/or recall the election of 'presidency'.
If the 'recall election' isn't approved and/or passed; then we can ask for a 'formal judicial investigation'.
Either way we wouldn't be asking for 'impeachment'; rather for the formality of making a 'clear path' of incidents and errors of omission be 'clarified' and made public just like any other 'formal judicial investigative hearing.
Frank Rich 'gets it'...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/opinion/03rich.html?
Is that opportunity we hear knocking? "Republicans up for re-election?" The 2006 elections are ours to lose. Let's not.
Oh man that article was
Oh man that article was FANTASTIC! It almost feels to good to be true.
Thanks Bill. Good
Thanks Bill. Good article.
Bring the troops home, they've been put through enough.
Intellectuals throughout the
Intellectuals throughout the land knew exactly what would happen in Iraq. Democrats fought hard to get the word out while the Republicans, in their rejection of science and intellectualism, rejected any input. In my own conversations with fellow scientists some of us would shake our heads and note that Bush was a dope but somebody in the administration must know something we don't know.
I understand in politics it’s difficult to take input from the opposition. I would not be filled with infinite anger towards the Republican Party about this war if two things had occurred:
1) Why didn’t anyone in the Republican Party tell America that Iraq would take decades and cost the USA its standard of living? I’m sure there are a few moderates in that Party with a brain. They must have voiced concerns.
2) Knowing (1) why didn’t Bush Junior understand that a small victory for the USA could be gotten by leaving immediately after Saddam was captured?
I understand the above is NOT what any Democrat would do. I understand that it would cause other problems. It would however not be the grand mess an occupation was predicted to be. It would at least have been a message to nations flirting with terrorist cells that the USA will pounce. By lingering, as I’ve noted before, Bush revealed that the USA is vulnerable. We can’t win. Does this sound negative? A reflection on the US military? Growing up, all I learned from adults was that Vietnam taught us something. You don’t put soldiers in non winnable positions. Am I wrong about that? Should we ask the US military to take any damned task we feel like tweaking? Isn’t the job of commander and chief one of choosing battles which by their nature offer the possibility of decisive victory? Even when a nebulous situation exists, true commanders draw a line and DECLARE victory! You don’t linger and let the troops get whacked for slight gain decades down the line. You certainly don’t use the military to try to reduce the number of bad guys to zero. What kind of insanity is this! If we miss a few thugs out of 6,000,000,000 nothing has changed. That being true, what is the point?
On September 11th Americans were ready to pick up rifles and head out. The Taliban in Afghanistan were a military target and we went after them. A far more massive effort should have been launched and then a rapid return to peace and economic power should have been secured. The largest surplus in history should have been directed towards securing our borders. Not in a frenetic and panicked way, but in a deliberate American way. With smiles on our faces and an understanding that life holds some threats but none worth losing our liberties over.
Bush senior seemed to know in Gulf War 1 that there are big broad grey lines in the sand. Lines, though blurred, are visible and should not be crossed. Bush junior and this new Republican Party seem vacant, incompetent, or worse.
I’ll say it again, when I was very young, with a bleeding heart wanting to help other nations, I heard the old fashioned conservatives warning that you can’t ask other men to fight the war of your desire. That tempered me for life.
Those "somebodies" in the
Those "somebodies" in the administration were, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the rest of their PNAC conspiritors. Their grand scheme for American "unipolar benevolent dominance" is a thinly disguised Pax Americana through military force.
And you are exactly correct: they expect "others" to do the actual fighting by convincing them that our freedoms are at stake. They present "terrorist" boogeymen as a world-wide threat, but they don't know exactly who they are, so they invent their own versions of an "enemy" (Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc., etc.). None of these countries are run by people stupid enough to attack the strongest military force in the world. In fact, all they need do, is wait for China to bring us to our knees economically while we squander our national treasure on a senseless war.
On the home front, they play on fear and instill distrust between otherwise good-hearted Middle Americans. They use religion, personal family tragedy (Shiavo), and any other underhanded manuver that Rove can dream up to divide us. As was mentioned on another thread, they have never gotten out of their vicious campaign mode (or don't know how) and have never even considered "governing" the nation. They don't represent the American people -- not even those who voted for them. They only represent their own narrow vision of a "better world," and will go to any lengths to achieve those goals, including (but not limited to) lying and deception.
Dubya is their stumbling, bumbling, inarticulate front man, and REAL Americans are starting to wake up and smell the coffee.
Bill, I provided a template
Bill, I provided a template, and you answered the questions.
I would challenge anyone else to provide an alternative explanation.
Jim, reading your post
Jim, reading your post brought out the rant in me...
I keep trying to see if
I keep trying to see if there is any other explanation. It seems like the Neo Cons must choose between the labels of incompetence or immorality at best. I fear however that a combination of the two, along with a great lack of humility, is more accurate.
It's the Peter Principle,
It's the Peter Principle, Murphy's Law, and Nightmare On Elm Street all rolled into one dysfunctional cabal.
A moment of mirth amongst
A moment of mirth amongst madness :) Thanks.