Poll: Americans Want Bush Impeached

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, 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 Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 8-9.

The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:

"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."

44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error.

Among those who felt strongly either way, 39% strongly agreed, while 30% strongly disagreed.

"The results of this poll are truly astonishing," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. "Bush's record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House."

Impeachment Supported by Majorities of Many Groups

Responses varied by political party affiliation: 72% of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 56% of Independents and 20% of Republicans.

Responses also varied by age and income. Solid majorities of those under age 55 (54%), as well as those with household incomes below $50,000 (57%), support impeachment.

Majorities favored impeachment in the Northeast (53%), West (51%), and even the South (50%).

Support for Impeachment Surged Since June

The Ipsos poll shows a dramatic transformation in support for Bush's impeachment since late June. (This is only the second poll that has asked Americans about their support for impeaching Bush in 2005, despite his record-low approval ratings.) The Zogby poll conducted June 27-29 of 905 likely voters found that 42% agreed and 50% disagreed with a statement virtually identical to the one used by Ipsos Public Affairs. (see footnote below)


Ipsos 10/8-9
Zogby 6/27-29
Net Change
Support Impeachment
50%
42%
+8%
Oppose Impeachment
44%
50%
+6%
Impeachment Margin
+6%
-8%
+14%

After the June poll, pollster John Zogby told the Washington Post that support for impeachment "was much higher than I expected." At the time, impeachment supporters trailed opponents by 8%. Now supporters outnumber opponents by 6%, a remarkable shift of 14%.

Support for Clinton Impeachment Was Much Lower

In August and September of 1998, 16 major polls asked about impeaching President Clinton (http://democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls). Only 36% supported hearings to consider impeachment, and only 26% supported actual impeachment and removal. Even so, the impeachment debate dominated the news for months, and the Republican Congress impeached Clinton despite overwhelming public opposition.

Impeachment Support is Closely Related to Belief that Bush Lied about Iraq

Both the Ipsos and Zogby polls asked about support for impeachment if Bush lied about the reasons for war, rather than asking simply about support for impeachment. Pollsters predict that asking simply about impeachment without any context would produce a large number of "I don't know" responses. However, this may understate the percentage of Americans who favor Bush's impeachment for other reasons, such as his slow response to Hurricane Katrina, his policy on torture, soaring gasoline prices, or other concerns.

Other polls show a majority of U.S. adults believe that Bush did in fact lie about the reasons for war. A June 23-26 ABC/Washington Post poll found 52% of Americans believe the Bush administration "deliberately misled the public before the war," and 57% say the Bush administration "intentionally exaggerated its evidence that pre-war Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."

Continued at link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/11/171040/56

http://www.ipsos-na.com/pa/us/

[UTexasBronco]

Hey, good football post!!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Hey, good football post!!

Um, you're in the "War, Religion, and Politics" part of the forum, sport.

[upstart]

Polls mean nothing to Mr.Bush,he is running a country,not running for office.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Hey, good football post!!
You're in the War Room son. Want help out of here?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Polls mean nothing to Mr.Bush,he is running a country,not running for office.

:laugh:

Can't decide which part of this statement is funnier - the part about polls not mattering or the part about Bush running the country.

:D

[ak1971]

JUust curious, do you have any solutions to any of these problems? other than **** Bush? I was listening to Air America today (yes I try and get both sides of the story) and its all the same thing..gloating that Bush is bad, Rove is a criminal, Frist should be in Jail etc. Then I turn on Limbaugh and its the same thing, just pointed the other way. Tell me, other than hating Bush, what is your solution to all these problems.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

JUust curious, do you have any solutions to any of these problems? other than **** Bush? I was listening to Air America today (yes I try and get both sides of the story) and its all the same thing..gloating that Bush is bad, Rove is a criminal, Frist should be in Jail etc. Then I turn on Limbaugh and its the same thing, just pointed the other way. Tell me, other than hating Bush, what is your solution to all these problems.
Get rid of the criminals that put us here starting with the '06 elections. But there really isn't much we can do about the idiot who has put us in this mess unless the rest of America wakes up and quits supporting the liars in charge.

[patteeu]

Kind of a weak poll if you ask me. IF he lied (which he didn't) then Congress should CONSIDER impeachment (which they won't). LMAO.

[UTexasBronco]

Um, you're in the "War, Religion, and Politics" part of the forum, sport.

Foot tastes great, thanks!

[ak1971]

no quotes LABarf?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

JUust curious, do you have any solutions to any of these problems? other than **** Bush?

:stupid:

You voted for the moron - probably twice - and you have the nerve to demand "solutions" from those of us who warned against the dry drunk in the first place?

You should be hanging your head in shame right about now - not acting all self-righteous.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

no quotes LABarf?

How about this one:

"I don't like you. Why are you talkin' to me?"

- Steven Weber, from the movie "Late Last Night"

[MistrSynistr]

JUust curious, do you have any solutions to any of these problems? other than **** Bush? I was listening to Air America today (yes I try and get both sides of the story) and its all the same thing..gloating that Bush is bad, Rove is a criminal, Frist should be in Jail etc. Then I turn on Limbaugh and its the same thing, just pointed the other way. Tell me, other than hating Bush, what is your solution to all these problems.

Unfortunately, we don't live in your little imagined world where problems just 'appear' and then 'disappear' like magic. The reality based community doesn't solve issues in Black and White because nothing in life is Black and White. We live in a very, very grey world where problems, issues and decisions all come from a source. When insurmountable evidence points to the fact that the "source" happens to be Bush and his Administration, the call to action isn't to ask for an apology and hope he 'changes his ways'...it's to remove the problem so it can be fixed and replaced with some sort of body that has a grasp on the issues and can do so in a positive manner. There is no way to convince classist, elitist ignorant/indifferent Politicians to up and learn about society, psychology, race, etc.. and stop making money off us. It's not about "hating" Bush, it's about being outraged with his absurd decisions that are costing the lives of our American children...a FACT which one cannot deny.

[W*GS]

It's not about "hating" Bush, it's about being outraged with his absurd decisions that are costing the lives of our American children...a FACT which one cannot deny.

OK, so what are you doing about solving the problems created by Bush? I daresay almost any effort would far surpass LABF's efforts, since it's clear he does absolutely nothing that matters.

Well?

[bendog]

I don't think there is a solution to Iraq that will satisfy most. Possibly we'll get lucky and the const will be acceptable to enough sunnis for them to abandon the insurgency, but everything I've read is that when the contst passes despite a maj of them being dissatisfied, then the insurgency will continue to gain popular support. Right now, al queda can market it in other countries as 'join us to toss the imperialsts out of our brothers' country," but that will end once we're gone, but now it appears a civil war will be the outcome. If that's the case, then the only country with the means to suppress a sunni faction with friendly al queda ties is ...... Iran. That's bad, very very very bad. But, I think it's the most likely outcome at this pt. A fractured Iraq with the sunnis being watched, as well as some of the more radical kurds, where al queda actually was before we removed saddam.

Domestically, I think we're already seeing the result of the bushii deficits. Taxes will rise on the middle class and rates will keep going up. Medicare and esp the drug benefit cannot be sustained without tax hikes. I suspect AFDC, sec 8, medicaid, higher educ aside from just loans, will all be cut even more.

[patteeu]

It's not about "hating" Bush, it's about being outraged with his absurd decisions that are costing the lives of our American children...a FACT which one cannot deny.

Which FACT is that? The lives of American children? Which ones?

I think his decisions have been decent. He's missed on some things but he's been really good on others. Better than his predecessor and his father IMO.

[patteeu]

I don't think there is a solution to Iraq that will satisfy most. Possibly we'll get lucky and the const will be acceptable to enough sunnis for them to abandon the insurgency, but everything I've read is that when the contst passes despite a maj of them being dissatisfied, then the insurgency will continue to gain popular support. Right now, al queda can market it in other countries as 'join us to toss the imperialsts out of our brothers' country," but that will end once we're gone, but now it appears a civil war will be the outcome. If that's the case, then the only country with the means to suppress a sunni faction with friendly al queda ties is ...... Iran. That's bad, very very very bad. But, I think it's the most likely outcome at this pt. A fractured Iraq with the sunnis being watched, as well as some of the more radical kurds, where al queda actually was before we removed saddam.

You're such a pessimist. We'll be in Iraq for a long time. It's far to early to tell how it will turn out.

Domestically, I think we're already seeing the result of the bushii deficits. Taxes will rise on the middle class and rates will keep going up. Medicare and esp the drug benefit cannot be sustained without tax hikes. I suspect AFDC, sec 8, medicaid, higher educ aside from just loans, will all be cut even more.

Fantastic news. Cut them deep.

Let's roll back the prescription drug benefit so we can help out the people who have been hurt by Katrina.

[W*GS]

Can't decide which part of this statement is funnier - the part about polls not mattering or the part about Bush running the country.

Polls don't matter - why do you think they should?

Do we really want a President that's a slave to current popular belief?

[bendog]

You're such a pessimist. We'll be in Iraq for a long time. It's far to early to tell how it will turn out.



Fantastic news. Cut them deep.

Let's roll back the prescription drug benefit so we can help out the people who have been hurt by Katrina.
A bet. Congress will make headlines cutting troop levels prior to the 06 elections. Loser leaves for a month.

wait a minute. why should I bet with a fool who calls ME a pessimist cause I'm pissed a selected president has gotten 2k guys killed after ****ing lying about womd. Hey, putee, you're still young enough to be over there, aren't ya

[Old Dude]

I don't think he lied about the WMDs.

But I'd impeach him anyway, just for the sheer fun of it.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Which FACT is that? The lives of American children? Which ones?

I think his decisions have been decent. He's missed on some things but he's been really good on others. Better than his predecessor and his father IMO.

Let's see his list of accomplishments then.

[bendog]

I don't think he lied about the WMDs.

But I'd impeach him anyway, just for the sheer fun of it.
no offense intended, but really? You still think he just made a mistake even after Blix went to those 300 sites?

And, I really mena no offense. Patch and I got into it. I was for nation building, but thought the UN and Arab League had to be in on it for it to possibly work.

[patteeu]

A bet. Congress will make headlines cutting troop levels prior to the 06 elections. Loser leaves for a month.

wait a minute. why should I bet with a fool who calls ME a pessimist cause I'm pissed a selected president has gotten 2k guys killed after ****ing lying about womd. Hey, putee, you're still young enough to be over there, aren't ya

I'm already on record (here I think, but maybe it's at ChiefsPlanet) as believing that we might see troop reductions but that we will still have tens of thousands of troops in Iraq when the next President is inaugurated. If you want to bet against that, I'll take it. (Although to be honest, I'm guessing you would miss 1 month of Mane time more than I would since I'm only mildly interested in the Broncos-related news in the main forum. Maybe you mean leave this politics forum for a month?).

Surely you aren't referring to me as a fool when it is you who complains of WMD lies. I'm young enough to be over there but I'm not young enough to join or to be drafted.

[Montaq]

Let's see his list of accomplishments then.

1. He lowered taxes..
2.
3.
4.

Sorry, I could only think of one.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I'm already on record (here I think, but maybe it's at ChiefsPlanet) as believing that we might see troop reductions but that we will still have tens of thousands of troops in Iraq when the next President is inaugurated. If you want to bet against that, I'll take it. (Although to be honest, I'm guessing you would miss 1 month of Mane time more than I would since I'm only mildly interested in the Broncos-related news in the main forum. Maybe you mean leave this politics forum for a month?).

Surely you aren't referring to me as a fool when it is you who complains of WMD lies. I'm young enough to be over there but I'm not young enough to join or to be drafted.
You're over 40 eh? The age requirements can be waived if you really want to join and aren't obese or disabled. If you have prior service the age requirements don't apply.

[patteeu]

Let's see his list of accomplishments then.

1. Chose Dick Cheney for VP
2. Growth oriented tax cuts
3. Invaded Afghanistan to take down the Taliban and disrupt Al Qaeda's center of operations
4. Established a central front in the GWoT in Iraq and eliminated the Saddam problem at the same time
5. Pushed personal SS accounts
6. Replaced Powell with Rice
7. Named a boatload of conservative judges
8. Abandoned our involvement in the Oslo Accords peace process
9. Broke up a nuclear proliferation ring led by Pakistani AQ Khan.
10. Put an end to the corrupt UN Oil for Food program
11. Put a stake in the heart of Kyoto

How's that for a start?

[Montaq]

1. Chose Dick Cheney for VP
2. Growth oriented tax cuts
3. Invaded Afghanistan to take down the Taliban and disrupt Al Qaeda's center of operations
4. Established a central front in the GWoT in Iraq and eliminated the Saddam problem at the same time
5. Pushed personal SS accounts
6. Replaced Powell with Rice
7. Named a boatload of conservative judges
8. Abandoned our involvement in the Oslo Accords peace process
9. Broke up a nuclear proliferation ring led by Pakistani AQ Khan.
10. Put an end to the corrupt UN Oil for Food program
11. Put a stake in the heart of Kyoto

How's that for a start?

I thought Dick Cheney chose himself for VP. ???

[patteeu]

You're over 40 eh? The age requirements can be waived if you really want to join and aren't obese or disabled. If you have prior service the age requirements don't apply.

Yes, I'm 42 and I only have one lung. How about that?

[Montaq]

1. Chose Dick Cheney for VP
2. Growth oriented tax cuts
3. Invaded Afghanistan to take down the Taliban and disrupt Al Qaeda's center of operations
4. Established a central front in the GWoT in Iraq and eliminated the Saddam problem at the same time
5. Pushed personal SS accounts
6. Replaced Powell with Rice
7. Named a boatload of conservative judges
8. Abandoned our involvement in the Oslo Accords peace process
9. Broke up a nuclear proliferation ring led by Pakistani AQ Khan.
10. Put an end to the corrupt UN Oil for Food program
11. Put a stake in the heart of Kyoto

How's that for a start?

ummm, is #5 really an accomplishment?

[bendog]

2 aint' workin, and 4's a drunken fatasy. I'm not sure about 8. I think Isreals still trying to trade land for peace. 10? well at least Iraq was paying the graft instead of us.

[patteeu]

ummm, is #5 really an accomplishment?

Well I thought about that when Beerslug asked the question and I decided that "accomplishments" was too subjective so I went back to my original statement and allowed myself the latitude to list "decisions" that I've considered decent as well as accomplishments. I agree though that it hasn't been an accomplishment.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

1. Chose Dick Cheney for VP
Cheney probably chose him, regardless, Cheney has proven to be the number 2 liar.
2. Growth oriented tax cuts
Cut taxes (mostly for the rich) and started a war = idiot.
3. Invaded Afghanistan to take down the Taliban and disrupt Al Qaeda's center of operations
Had no choice since the guy that actually is responsible for 9-11 is there but still hasn't brought him to justice, in fact hasn't brought ANYONE to justice responsible for 9-11.
4. Established a central front in the GWoT in Iraq and eliminated the Saddam problem at the same time
Attacked, invaded and occupied a country that was ABSOLUTELY no threat to us (is directly responsible for over 20,000 U.S. casualties as a result of lying the country to war).
5. Pushed personal SS accounts
Complete failure! Never once offered a way to actually bring SS to solvency.
6. Replaced Powell with Rice
Powell resigned when he found he was being used in the liar, liar game by Bush, another failure by Bush.
7. Named a boatload of conservative judges
LOL
8. Abandoned our involvement in the Oslo Accords peace process
Big deal, they weren't being followed for years. This isn't an achievemnet by any strecth of the imagination. The war there continues.
9. Broke up a nuclear proliferation ring led by Pakistani AQ Khan.
Khan was pardoned and is still free to as he pleases.
10. Put an end to the corrupt UN Oil for Food program
A program that the U.S. knew was corrupt and still supported.
11. Put a stake in the heart of Kyoto
Establishing himself as the worst environmental president in U.S. history

How's that for a start?

C'mon, all I'm asking for are some achievements Bush has reached. OK I'll make it easier, how about just one real achievement.

[W*GS]

OK I'll make it easier, how about just one real achievement.

He's driving the Democratic Party to the far left for salvation?

[patteeu]

C'mon, all I'm asking for are some achievements Bush has reached. OK I'll make it easier, how about just one real achievement.

I'm sorry, I can't think of any Bush actions that you would consider an accomplishment. Of course that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I think his decisions have been decent.

[patteeu]

He's driving the Democratic Party to the far left for salvation?

There is that too.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

wait a minute. why should I bet with a fool who calls ME a pessimist cause I'm pissed a selected president has gotten 2k guys killed after ****ing lying about womd.

^5 :thumbsup:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

C'mon, all I'm asking for are some achievements Bush has reached. OK I'll make it easier, how about just one real achievement.

How about the first net job loss since Hoover?

If he's consistent, then Patteeu has to be proud of that one too.

:laugh:

[Old Dude]

no offense intended, but really? You still think he just made a mistake even after Blix went to those 300 sites?
...

Okay. First keep in mind that I've voted against every Bush who ever ran for office.

But yeah, I don't think GWB "lied" about the WMDs.

I think what happened was that getting rid of Saddam was way up on his list of "things to do" before he was elected the first time.

As an aside, it would have been nice if he'd told us about that agenda when he was running for office, but of course it wouldn't have been all that popular and he might have lost the popular vote even worse than he did ...

... but I digress ...

I think he was looking for an excuse to lay the hammer down from day 1.

It didn't help that within 24 hours after 9/11, Saddam issued an idiotic statement praising the great planning and execution of whoever carried it out ...

I think the administration tried its darndest to establish an Iraqi connection, but just couldn't do it. The problem was that to justify a war on that basis, Bush would sort of have a "burden of proof."

So instead they went to the terms of the original agreement and decided that Iraq had made insufficient disclosures about the WMDs. This was a case where Saddam actually had the burden of proof. And the fact is that he wasn't playing along like he was supposed to on the disclosures themselves.

I think the reason Saddam didn't play along was that he himself did not really want to admit that Iraq had no WMDs. I think he saw some political advantage in making people wonder whether he really had them or not. Like a lot of Saddam's decisions, this one was a miscalculation.

GWB probably believed that Saddam did have some WMDs stashed away somewhere. Saddam had a long history of flaunting folks, and we know that the man really did like his army toys.

Personally, before the CIA released any of its reports, I would have bet that there was a 90% chance that Saddam did have some chemical weapons squirreled away somewhere, just for a rainy day.

As we know now, most of the intelligence we got on this was fed to us by Iraqi expatriots who had plenty of motive to lie about it.

Did Bush probe deeply enough into this to realize it or not? My guess is probably not.

Because what he really wanted was an excuse to go in there. Saddam had the Burden of Proof. But Saddam had no interest in carrying it. According to the CIA sources, (which we now know to be invalid) there was at least some reason to believe that Saddam was lying and conventional wisdom said there was a high chance that he had some stuff stashed somewhere even if we couldn't confirm it.

So I do think that Bush thought that there was a very high chance that Saddam had WMDs. And he was probably disappointed to find out otherwise.

But it didn't come back to bite him, because the whole country, just like every other country in time of conflict, got all rah - rah when the shooting started and anyone who didn't support it was a traitor and a pinko scumbag, yada, yada, yada.

Just like always.

And it didn't come back to bite him in the election, because voting Bush out was seen by a lot of people as being tantamount to admitting defeat in Iraq. That's why so many people voted for Bush saying that since Iraq was his mess, he should be the one to clean it up.

If he'd finished the mission and gotten the heck out, he would have been quietly voted out, just like his dad.

But GWB is far more incompetent than his dad, which is, ironically, why he's still the prez.

Just my opinion, anyway...

[W*GS]

[...]Just my opinion, anyway...

I agree with just about the whole thing.

The only mistake bigger than the US attack on Iraq was Saddam's calculation that it wouldn't happen.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/dist-bird-flu.gif

[patteeu]

...

But GWB is far more incompetent than his dad, which is, ironically, why he's still the prez.

Just my opinion, anyway...

I detect that you and I wouldn't see eye to eye on a lot politically, but with the exception of this last little bit, I think that was a damn fine post.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

But GWB is far more incompetent than his dad, which is, ironically, why he's still the prez.

Just my opinion, anyway...
No doubt Bush was looking to go to war before he was even elected but his motives were obvious to me. Saddam put out a contract on his daddy and wasn't playing by the rules he agreed to (weapons inspections).

Bush didn't care one iota if Saddam might have had some left over chemical weapons because he was blinded by his revenge grudge match he envisioned and would go to almost any length to make it happen. That included using people in his own administration by playing the WMD card and suppressing his own intel in part and exaggerating (to the point of falsifying) other intelligence.

He was running out of time because the weapons inspectors we're being granted full access to Iraq and had covered almost the entire country with only a few sites left to inspect.

Bush lied to the country to further his own personal agenda and thought he would be considered some kind of conquering hero in the process.

Over 20,000 casualties later this person is still killing Americans. I don't see how anyone that voted for him can sleep at night knowing they are a part of these criminal activities.

[patteeu]

No doubt Bush was looking to go to war before he was even elected but his motives were obvious to me. Saddam put out a contract on his daddy and wasn't playing by the rules he agreed to (weapons inspections).

Bush didn't care one iota if Saddam might have had some left over chemical weapons because he was blinded by his revenge grudge match he envisioned and would go to almost any length to make it happen. That included using people in his own administration by playing the WMD card and suppressing his own intel in part and exaggerating (to the point of falsifying) other intelligence.

He was running out of time because the weapons inspectors we're being granted full access to Iraq and had covered almost the entire country with only a few sites left to inspect.

Bush lied to the country to further his own personal agenda and thought he would be considered some kind of conquering hero in the process.

Over 20,000 casualties later this person is still killing Americans. I don't see how anyone that voted for him can sleep at night knowing they are a part of these criminal activities.

Is this last paragraph an example of the type of lying that you accuse Bush of doing? You conflate "20,000 casualties" with "killing Americans" in one sentence. Is that an attempt to trick people into thinking that he's already killed 20,000? Or do you expect the reader to take some responsibility for reading what you actually wrote and understanding the real meaning of your words? IMO, it should be the later, but the same standards should be applied to what the Bush administration said in the leadup to the war. In that case, the charge that Bush lied falls flat.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Is this last paragraph an example of the type of lying that you accuse Bush of doing? You conflate "20,000 casualties" with "killing Americans" in one sentence. Is that an attempt to trick people into thinking that he's already killed 20,000? Or do you expect the reader to take some responsibility for reading what you actually wrote and understanding the real meaning of your words? IMO, it should be the later, but the same standards should be applied to what the Bush administration said in the leadup to the war. In that case, the charge that Bush lied falls flat.

It's simple enough, if you have even average intelligence and understand the definition of casualties so "tricking" the average joe won't happen.

Equating 20,000 casualties and still killing Americans as "tricking" to Bush lying us into war is the real voodoo here.

[W*GS]

Over 20,000 casualties later this person is still killing Americans. I don't see how anyone that voted for him can sleep at night knowing they are a part of these criminal activities.

Well, folks who supported Clinton didn't have any trouble sleeping while he was looking the other way during the Oil-for-Food scandal, nor did they have a problem with his enforcement of the UN sanctions against Iraq, which we were told caused 500,000 Iraqi children to die.

[bendog]

Okay. First keep in mind that I've voted against every Bush who ever ran for office.

But yeah, I don't think GWB "lied" about the WMDs.

I think what happened was that getting rid of Saddam was way up on his list of "things to do" before he was elected the first time.

As an aside, it would have been nice if he'd told us about that agenda when he was running for office, but of course it wouldn't have been all that popular and he might have lost the popular vote even worse than he did ...

... but I digress ...

I think he was looking for an excuse to lay the hammer down from day 1.

It didn't help that within 24 hours after 9/11, Saddam issued an idiotic statement praising the great planning and execution of whoever carried it out ...

I think the administration tried its darndest to establish an Iraqi connection, but just couldn't do it. The problem was that to justify a war on that basis, Bush would sort of have a "burden of proof."

So instead they went to the terms of the original agreement and decided that Iraq had made insufficient disclosures about the WMDs. This was a case where Saddam actually had the burden of proof. And the fact is that he wasn't playing along like he was supposed to on the disclosures themselves.

I think the reason Saddam didn't play along was that he himself did not really want to admit that Iraq had no WMDs. I think he saw some political advantage in making people wonder whether he really had them or not. Like a lot of Saddam's decisions, this one was a miscalculation.

GWB probably believed that Saddam did have some WMDs stashed away somewhere. Saddam had a long history of flaunting folks, and we know that the man really did like his army toys.

Personally, before the CIA released any of its reports, I would have bet that there was a 90% chance that Saddam did have some chemical weapons squirreled away somewhere, just for a rainy day.

As we know now, most of the intelligence we got on this was fed to us by Iraqi expatriots who had plenty of motive to lie about it.

Did Bush probe deeply enough into this to realize it or not? My guess is probably not.

Because what he really wanted was an excuse to go in there. Saddam had the Burden of Proof. But Saddam had no interest in carrying it. According to the CIA sources, (which we now know to be invalid) there was at least some reason to believe that Saddam was lying and conventional wisdom said there was a high chance that he had some stuff stashed somewhere even if we couldn't confirm it.

So I do think that Bush thought that there was a very high chance that Saddam had WMDs. And he was probably disappointed to find out otherwise.

But it didn't come back to bite him, because the whole country, just like every other country in time of conflict, got all rah - rah when the shooting started and anyone who didn't support it was a traitor and a pinko scumbag, yada, yada, yada.

Just like always.

And it didn't come back to bite him in the election, because voting Bush out was seen by a lot of people as being tantamount to admitting defeat in Iraq. That's why so many people voted for Bush saying that since Iraq was his mess, he should be the one to clean it up.

If he'd finished the mission and gotten the heck out, he would have been quietly voted out, just like his dad.

But GWB is far more incompetent than his dad, which is, ironically, why he's still the prez.

Just my opinion, anyway...

Yeah I agree. I make a mistake in that when communicating I shoudl specify what to me is a womd and what is not. Certainly an ongoing manufacturing of chemical warheads along with some manufacture of delivery systems would be a womd, even if it didn't have the range to hit the US. It wouldn't be the "looming mushroom cloud" bushii used in his speechs justifying the war, but still we couldn't ignroe it. Whether getting rid of it is worth 2K dead, tens of thousands maimed, and a trillion dollars .... we could waffle. But, the fact was that once blix got the inspections up and running again, there wasn't even an ongoing "conventional" military industrial complex.

But yeah, everyone not just in the admin but the professional army thought Saddam had some artillary shells or something hidden away the blix couldn't find. And, yeah, Saddam knew that bushii was coming after him regardless of anything he did, or didn't do, so pretending he had some defense was logical. So, I should have said bushii had to know that saddam had no biological or nuke program ongoing that posed a threat to the survival of the United States, and survival of the US is, imo, the only justification for getting soldiers killed and maimed. So, imo, he lied. And, I'm ashamed to have voted for him once. I also voted for his daddy against Duckass.

[patteeu]

It's simple enough, if you have even average intelligence and understand the definition of casualties so "tricking" the average joe won't happen.

Equating 20,000 casualties and still killing Americans as "tricking" to Bush lying us into war is the real voodoo here.

Yeah, right. When you do it it's entirely different than when Bush/Cheney do it. Uh huh, got it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bottom line: What others thought about WMD in Iraq is irrelevant: It was Bush who chose to invade and occupy the country based on bogus and trumped up intelligence.

Quotes

"The Bush political family, is at war with itself inside the White House. My sense is, it's Andy Card, the chief of staff, and his people against Karl Rove, the brain. And that runs through a whole lot of things, whether it's Harriet Miers or Katrina. But it all starts with Iraq. And some submerged, but now emerging divisions within the administration over why we went into that war, how we went into that war and what was done to sell it. There are people [who] are out for Karl Rove inside that White House, which makes his situation even more perilous."

- Howard Fineman

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Yeah, right. When you do it it's entirely different than when Bush/Cheney do it. Uh huh, got it.
When I do what, attack, invade and occupy countries while lying to Americans why we did it?

Geeeezus! Trying compare my post to what the Bush administration has done to this country. You really are into black magic aren't you?

[gunns]

Kind of a weak poll if you ask me. IF he lied (which he didn't) then Congress should CONSIDER impeachment (which they won't). LMAO.

Perhaps after the 2006 elections.

[gunns]

Domestically, I think we're already seeing the result of the bushii deficits. Taxes will rise on the middle class and rates will keep going up. Medicare and esp the drug benefit cannot be sustained without tax hikes. I suspect AFDC, sec 8, medicaid, higher educ aside from just loans, will all be cut even more.

These programs have indeed been cut. AFDC did see a small increase in grants this year for the first time in 3 years. Higher education in my area has seen a decrease in FT students, they cannot afford to go to school FT. The average bachelors degree is taking 6 years to complete now. But medicaid is the biggest cut. They have limited the amount of prescriptions a disabled person can get in a month. The number of people cut from receiving any medical care is staggering. And considering the fact that the available jobs out there don't offer medical insurance we are sure to have the medical industry get close to bankruptcy because people just can't pay. Yet Bush is spending more money than any other President. Yes there is a war but there are shortages there also. Where's the money going?

[gunns]

Sure let's do that, your mother or grandmother doesn't need medication. We'll call it population control and eliminate the elderly. Great idea patheeetic.

[gunns]

ummm, is #5 really an accomplishment?


No it's not, if he really wanted to solve that problem, make those that earn over $90,000 a year pay social security tax. Problem solved.

[gunns]

1. Chose Dick Cheney for VP
2. Growth oriented tax cuts
3. Invaded Afghanistan to take down the Taliban and disrupt Al Qaeda's center of operations
4. Established a central front in the GWoT in Iraq and eliminated the Saddam problem at the same time
5. Pushed personal SS accounts
6. Replaced Powell with Rice
7. Named a boatload of conservative judges
8. Abandoned our involvement in the Oslo Accords peace process
9. Broke up a nuclear proliferation ring led by Pakistani AQ Khan.
10. Put an end to the corrupt UN Oil for Food program
11. Put a stake in the heart of Kyoto

How's that for a start?

#3 he did not accomplish, he just spread out the Taliban. Al Qaeda seems to be doing just fine. #4, yeah he was a huge problem. #5 I've already addressed. #6, Powell got out because he realized he was being used as a scapegoat and the replacement, LMAO. #9, made nicey nicey with Pakistan as his daddy did with Iraq, while they hid Bin Laden. But then again he didn't care where Bin Laden was, Saddam was the big meany. Did you just wake up at 42 or what?

[patteeu]

When I do what, attack, invade and occupy countries while lying to Americans why we did it?

Geeeezus! Trying compare my post to what the Bush administration has done to this country. You really are into black magic aren't you?

Don't play dumb.

[patteeu]

Domestically, I think we're already seeing the result of the bushii deficits. Taxes will rise on the middle class and rates will keep going up. Medicare and esp the drug benefit cannot be sustained without tax hikes. I suspect AFDC, sec 8, medicaid, higher educ aside from just loans, will all be cut even more.

These programs have indeed been cut. AFDC did see a small increase in grants this year for the first time in 3 years. Higher education in my area has seen a decrease in FT students, they cannot afford to go to school FT. The average bachelors degree is taking 6 years to complete now. But medicaid is the biggest cut. They have limited the amount of prescriptions a disabled person can get in a month. The number of people cut from receiving any medical care is staggering. And considering the fact that the available jobs out there don't offer medical insurance we are sure to have the medical industry get close to bankruptcy because people just can't pay. Yet Bush is spending more money than any other President. Yes there is a war but there are shortages there also. Where's the money going?


Link to any real budget numbers to back that up?

[gunns]

Link to any real budget numbers to back that up?

Nope, and I'm not looking for any. This is the job I work in so we are told the stats quarterly. As far as higher education it was in the newspaper about 6 months ago and about the decrease in enrollment just last week. You wouldn't believe it anyway if I provided a link or you'd say the numbers were twisted. One other little note to let you in on since I work in this area. Since welfare reform where finally people were made to work for their allotments in both financial and food stamps the Bush administration has given more exceptions, or as we like to call them, excuses for people not to work. And our welfare rolls are increased 45% since Bush took office after a 56% drop from 96 to 2000.

[patteeu]

Nope, and I'm not looking for any.


Fair enough. As long as you're comfortable with people being skeptical of your "trust me" assertions, I'm comfortable ignoring them. While I could believe that some specific programs have seen cuts in funding, I have a very hard time believing that overall funding for social programs has dropped. And if they have, in fact, been cut, then add that as #12 on my list.

This is the job I work in so we are told the stats quarterly.

This is the job you work but it's too much trouble to find a link to real supporting data? Are you a janitor? A social worker?

As far as higher education it was in the newspaper about 6 months ago and about the decrease in enrollment just last week. You wouldn't believe it anyway if I provided a link or you'd say the numbers were twisted.

It sounds to me like you know the case that you'd be making for your claim, if you chose to make a case at all, would be weak since you can predict that I'd see flaws in your support. Difficulties in affording college and decreasing enrollment (if these are even true) couldn't have anything to do with rising college tuition could it? It's got to be the Bush administration's fault, right?

One other little note to let you in on since I work in this area. Since welfare reform where finally people were made to work for their allotments in both financial and food stamps the Bush administration has given more exceptions, or as we like to call them, excuses for people not to work. And our welfare rolls are increased 45% since Bush took office after a 56% drop from 96 to 2000.

Thanks for the bonus note. I don't suppose you've got a link for that either.

[gunns]

Fair enough. As long as you're comfortable with people being skeptical of your "trust me" assertions, I'm comfortable ignoring them. While I could believe that some specific programs have seen cuts in funding, I have a very hard time believing that overall funding for social programs has dropped. And if they have, in fact, been cut, then add that as #12 on my list.



This is the job you work but it's too much trouble to find a link to real supporting data? Are you a janitor? A social worker?



It sounds to me like you know the case that you'd be making for your claim, if you chose to make a case at all, would be weak since you can predict that I'd see flaws in your support. Difficulties in affording college and decreasing enrollment (if these are even true) couldn't have anything to do with rising college tuition could it? It's got to be the Bush administration's fault, right?



Thanks for the bonus note. I don't suppose you've got a link for that either.

I really couldn't care less if you believe me. You've already chosen to turn a blind eye to anything the Bush administration does and link would only allow you to, as I said, say the numbers are twisted, padded, insert whatever you'd like. They don't provide us with a "link", they give us stat sheets. If computer literate or if I cared if you believed me, I'd get it on here.

I'm a social worker.