New Poll: 42% Want Bush impeached, 46% for censure

[brewdogmike]

Want to hear about another interesting poll?

In every issue of National Journal, they take a poll of members of Congress and ask them some interesting political question. This time they asked: "Would you support air strikes against Iran if that was the only way to prevent that country from getting nuclear weapons?"

Republicans: Yes-76% No-16% Other-8%

Democrats: Yes-39% No-47% Other-14%

Keep in mind the question stated -- air strikes are the only way to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. The only way! Still the Democrats equivocate and qualify their responses with things like: "I would only support military actions that are sanctioned by the U.N."

And one Democrat said this -- keep in mind, this is a member of Congress talking -- "Why don't we bomb Iran on the way home from bombing Israel's nuclear weapons?"

I think that pretty well sums up the Democratic Party, and shows just how far they can be trusted with national security.

[Midnight Judges]

I love it, it just goes to show you that people don't have the first clue what impeachment is.

Impeachment is used to bring forth a president to trial for ALLEGED CRIMES commited, thus resulting in removal from office if the congress decides such.

As of yet there is no proof that George W Bush has commited any crime. Even if he indeed lied(which I don't think he did, the term lied implies that there was an intent to decive as opposed to just being wrong) that is not a crime, if it was then almost every one of us would be in jail(and all women, j/k ).

.

The Bush administration didn't lie?!?! Where have you been for the last 5 years?

“Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.”

-George W. Bush, Buffalo, NY April 20, 2004

“…surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.”

-George W. Bush on Iraq, Oct 10, 2002

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

-Dick Cheney August, 2002

"I do

n"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees"

-George W. Bush 4 Days after Hurricane Katrina

Using defense contractors or intermediaries posing as freelance reporters, the military has been paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by a military propaganda unit lauding the US mission. –The Guardian, December 1, 2005

“Western press and frequently those self-styled 'objective' observers of Iraq are often critics of how we, the people of Iraq, are proceeding down the path in determining what is best for our nation," the article began. Quoting the Prophet Muhammad, it pleaded for unity and nonviolence.” –AOL December, 2005

Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, declined to comment on the document. She said that the courts have upheld "the constitutional right of the president and vice president to obtain information in confidentiality."

A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.” –Washington Post Nov. 16th, 2005

“McClellan said in a Sept. 29, 2003, briefing: "The president has set high standards, the highest of standards, for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration...In other statements, Bush has pledged to "take the appropriate action" if anyone in his administration leaked classified information.”

-Washington Post July 18, 2005

“As recently as September, Medicare chief Mark B. McClellan said the new drug package would cost $534 billion over 10 years. Last night, he acknowledged that the cumulative cost of the program between 2006 and 2015 will reach $1.2 trillion.”

-Washington Post February 9, 2005

“humanely, and to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles' of the Geneva conventions,"

-George W. Bush on the treatment of detainees. 2002

“Just last week, Cheney showed up at a Republican senatorial luncheon to lobby lawmakers for a CIA exemption to an amendment by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that would ban torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners”

-Washington Post November 7, 2005

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Karl Rove after 100% of the Liberal Senators voted for the use of military force against Afghanistan

These are all Bush administration lies and they are indisputable.

[ZoEd]

Wasn't Clinton actually impeached? I remember thinking why is he still in office after being impeached. Then they said something on the news that a President can be impeached but stay in office. Can someon enlighten a brother?

[brewdogmike]

Clinton was impeached by the House but not convicted by the (gutless) Senate.

[Crazyhorse1]

Was Bush convicted of the wire-taps? I don't think so? So he's not guilty of anything! G.W. has my vote.

Impeachment is a trial. I am advocating a trial for the wire taps. Are you saying you are going to vote for him because he hasn't been tried and shouldn't be tried because he hasn't been tried? Good thought.

[brewdogmike]

Impeachment is, more accurately, an indictment. The House votes to impeach, the Senate votes to convict.

[Crazyhorse1]

I love it, it just goes to show you that people don't have the first clue what impeachment is.

Impeachment is used to bring forth a president to trial for ALLEGED CRIMES commited, thus resulting in removal from office if the congress decides such.

As of yet there is no proof that George W Bush has commited any crime. Even if he indeed lied(which I don't think he did, the term lied implies that there was an intent to decive as opposed to just being wrong) that is not a crime, if it was then almost every one of us would be in jail(and all women, j/k ).

Did George Bush actually go out and torture anybody in person??? No he didn't

Did he know about it while it was occuring?? There has never been any evidence to point either way, I don't personally believe that he did but I am basing that on what I can gather of his character so I am not saying that he didn't either

As for the lieing about connections to big oil??? SO WHAT??!! That is not a crime unless they lied under oath in a court of Law.

The people that are asking for impeachment procedings to begin are bitter about the proceedings that were brought on Clinton. The difference here is that Bush never lied under oath in court. Clinton did. Bush never commited purgery, Clinton DID. Purgery is a crime and infact stronger than a misdemeanor and therefore rose to the level of High crimes and Misdemeanors that was required for impeachment.

Just because you don't like the man doesn't mean that you can impeach him, you need specific laid out grounds for that.

There are too many pounds of solid evidence against Bush to lay it all out here. Try your local Barnes and Noble. Read the Conyers Report. The mountain of evidence against the administration for sanctioning torture is virtually self confessed, lying to congress is a matter of record, breaking the law in re wire-tapping is self confessed. The existence of secret prisons, unlawful detentions, etc. all proven. Corruption in re to Abramoff. Proofs of gross incompetence, failure to see that the laws are enforced. Removal from office is a slam dunk if the Republican Party ceases to shield Bush from impeachment.

[Crazyhorse1]

Clinton was impeached by the House but not convicted by the (gutless) Senate.

Impeachment is not a verdict. It is a trial. A President is impeached (tried) for alleged crimes. If found guilty, he is removed from office.

[brewdogmike]

You mean this Conyers report? http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011407.php

This one? https://nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200501100742.asp

The Conyers report that said Republicans tried to "disenfranchise" black voters, even though the number of votes cast by black voters in Ohio doubled, and Bush's share went up from 9 percent in 2000 to 16 percent in 2004? That Conyers report?

[brewdogmike]

Impeachment is not a verdict. It is a trial. A President is impeached (tried) for alleged crimes. If found guilty, he is removed from office.

Yeah... ummm.. that's what I said.

[LApunkrocker72]

I would love to see Bush impeached. He is the worst president in the history of the our country.

[DCRunner]

I love it, it just goes to show you that people don't have the first clue what impeachment is.

Impeachment is used to bring forth a president to trial for ALLEGED CRIMES commited, thus resulting in removal from office if the congress decides such.

As of yet there is no proof that George W Bush has commited any crime. Even if he indeed lied(which I don't think he did, the term lied implies that there was an intent to decive as opposed to just being wrong) that is not a crime, if it was then almost every one of us would be in jail(and all women, j/k ).

Did George Bush actually go out and torture anybody in person??? No he didn't

Did he know about it while it was occuring?? There has never been any evidence to point either way, I don't personally believe that he did but I am basing that on what I can gather of his character so I am not saying that he didn't either

As for the lieing about connections to big oil??? SO WHAT??!! That is not a crime unless they lied under oath in a court of Law.

The people that are asking for impeachment procedings to begin are bitter about the proceedings that were brought on Clinton. The difference here is that Bush never lied under oath in court. Clinton did. Bush never commited purgery, Clinton DID. Purgery is a crime and infact stronger than a misdemeanor and therefore rose to the level of High crimes and Misdemeanors that was required for impeachment.

Just because you don't like the man doesn't mean that you can impeach him, you need specific laid out grounds for that.

There are so many things wrong and inaccurate about your post that I am dumbfounded. Maybe others have the time or inclination to correct you point for point. I just don't.

But just a few points: there is enough probable cause on a number of issues and allegations that could easily warrant impeachment of Bush for several offenses. The standard of proof for probable cause is not very high. Whether the allegations could be proven at a trial is another question.

There are a number of ways someone could lie without being under oath that could still be a crime. Depends on the circumstances and parties involved in the lie.

One does not have to be the actual perpetrator of a criminal act to be found guilty of it. Just ask the many, many people convicted on conspiracy charges or those found guilty under an aiding and abetting theory. Ah, conspiracy charges, the government's favorite "go to" charge.

And for the last time, Clinton did NOT commit perjury. Perjury is a specific offense - it is not just lying. It is not even just lying under oath. There are specific essential elements to perjury. Clinton's statment was just not perjury and I can't think of a prosecutor's office that would have charged that offense given those circumstances. I also maintain that given the specific question that he was asked that Clinton did not even technically lie. He simply answered the specific question without volunteering more. It is something that police officers do every day on the stand - in fact, it is what they are trained to do. Just answer the question. Nothing more. If the examiner doesn't know how to properly and effectively follow up with more questions then that's too bad.

And if you think that what Clinton is alleged to have done is more serious and detrimental to this country than allegations against Bush - ones that could seriously damage the Constitution and our basic liberties as well as the detention and torture of human beings who have been found guilty of nothing as well as starting and conducting an illegal war then I think it is you who cannot see the reality for the politics.

I guess I did have the time.