Originally posted by: conjur
Very telling chart courtesy of the Wall Street Journal
Too bad the party of accountability has ZERO scruples.
Originally posted by: thraashman
Originally posted by: conjur
Very telling chart courtesy of the Wall Street Journal
Too bad the party of accountability has ZERO scruples.
I like that. Almost twice the percentage of people believe GW acted in a manner that justifies he be put on trial to answer for his actions. I feel that at the very least Bush should be impeached. The trial process needs to be used to determine whether or not he should be removed from office, but the GOP needs to realize that they should stop protecting their own and they need to hold Bush accountable. But no, they won't even try him. If they have faith that he's innocent, take it to impeachment and let it be shown if Bush acted properly. I don't think even the Republicans believe Bush acted right, and that's why they won't even make him answer and it's also why no one is ever put under oath.
That's why any talk of impeachment needs to include the whole lot of treasonous bastards and bitches: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Hadley, etc. and bring up charges against the PNAC fcks that got us into Iraq: Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton, etc.Originally posted by: ModerateRepZero
I'm not sure, but I would think that the 'line of sucession' (the prioritized list of people to succeed an uncapacitated/dead etc. president) would apply in the case of impeachment. Assuming this is the case, then the Vice President (in this case Cheney) would be automatically first in line.
Well, why don't we get the Propagandist and his cabal under oath?Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: conjur
Very telling chart courtesy of the Wall Street Journal
Too bad the party of accountability has ZERO scruples.
Talk about leading questions.
Maybe if they phrased what Clinton did a little different it would have a different outcome.
Something like for instance what he actually did, lie under oath.
The bush one is "consider" impeachment if he "lied".
What a quality poll.
Good grief. :roll:Originally posted by: Gimli
Polls that are run by news groups are run by liberals who have nothing better to do that to try to stir the ****. It would be a waste of taxpayers money on top of all the wasteful spending that Bush has already done, if anyone should be blame is the people who re-elected Bush (I didn't vote for Bush) for a second term. I'm leaning in becoming an independant...meaning neither a Republican or a Democrat for both parties haven't shown nothing in the last 6-7 years.
Yeah... but read the questions. The Clinton question only addresses lying about sex and makes no mention of whether he should be impeached if he lied in front of a grand jury.Originally posted by: conjur
Good grief. :roll:Originally posted by: Gimli
Polls that are run by news groups are run by liberals who have nothing better to do that to try to stir the ****. It would be a waste of taxpayers money on top of all the wasteful spending that Bush has already done, if anyone should be blame is the people who re-elected Bush (I didn't vote for Bush) for a second term. I'm leaning in becoming an independant...meaning neither a Republican or a Democrat for both parties haven't shown nothing in the last 6-7 years.
First off, the OP was a link to an internet poll, obviously worthless, statistically speaking.
The chart I linked above was performed by Zogby, hardly a group run by liberals who have nothing better to do.
Originally posted by: conjur
Well, why don't we get the Propagandist and his cabal under oath?Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: conjur
Very telling chart courtesy of the Wall Street Journal
Too bad the party of accountability has ZERO scruples.
Talk about leading questions.
Maybe if they phrased what Clinton did a little different it would have a different outcome.
Something like for instance what he actually did, lie under oath.
The bush one is "consider" impeachment if he "lied".
What a quality poll.
But the Democratic National Committee, chaired by 2004 campaign firebrand Howard Dean has declined to chime in. A House resolution offered by Rep. John Conyers of Michigan seeking an initial impeachment inquiry has attracted support from just 26 of 201 House Democrats. Even Mr. Conyers, the ranking Judiciary Committee Democrat, allows, "This isn't something we have to do right away."
A Bush impeachment drive could only move forward if Democrats regained control of the House from the president's party. But even then it would be an uphill fight.
"At most, they could show a mistake in judgment, it seems to me," says the Rev. Robert F. Drinan of the Georgetown University Law Center, a former Democratic House member who backed seeking the impeachment of Richard Nixon in 1974 over Watergate. Michael Gerhardt, an impeachment expert at the University of North Carolina law school, says there could be a "credible basis for an inquiry," but additional facts would have to be established before anyone could "demonstrate an impeachable offense occurred."
As I replied to Genx87: Put the Propagandist and his cabal under oath.Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Yeah... but read the questions. The Clinton question only addresses lying about sex and makes no mention of whether he should be impeached if he lied in front of a grand jury.Originally posted by: conjur
Good grief. :roll:Originally posted by: Gimli
Polls that are run by news groups are run by liberals who have nothing better to do that to try to stir the ****. It would be a waste of taxpayers money on top of all the wasteful spending that Bush has already done, if anyone should be blame is the people who re-elected Bush (I didn't vote for Bush) for a second term. I'm leaning in becoming an independant...meaning neither a Republican or a Democrat for both parties haven't shown nothing in the last 6-7 years.
First off, the OP was a link to an internet poll, obviously worthless, statistically speaking.
The chart I linked above was performed by Zogby, hardly a group run by liberals who have nothing better to do.
"Should Bill Clinton be impeached if he lied about having a sexual relationship with Monical Lewinski" is a very different question than "Should Bill Clinton be impeached if he committed perjury with regards to a sexual relationship with Monical Lewinski, under oath, in a grand jury proceeding".
Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
As for these polls, I found it quite funny that MSNBC never mentioned the results of this poll on the TV like they normally do with the rest of them.
More than likely, because common sense would dictate that the results probably aren't accurate. That and the questions are loaded.
Originally posted by: xeemzor
The only problem with impeaching Bush is that Cheney becomes the President.
Like these people:Originally posted by: themusgrat
True. It still amazes me that stupid people want to impeach Bush. If it could be done, Democrat politicians would be saying so. I don't hear any of them saying so, so I think it quite ludicrous to support it. MSNBC doesn't want people to know about it because it is a load of crap, and they know it.Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
More than likely, because common sense would dictate that the results probably aren't accurate. That and the questions are loaded.Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
As for these polls, I found it quite funny that MSNBC never mentioned the results of this poll on the TV like they normally do with the rest of them.
On December 18 of last year, Congressman John Conyers Jr. (D., Mich.) introduced into the House of Representatives a resolution inviting it to form ?a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.? Although buttressed two days previously by the news of the National Security Agency's illegal surveillance of the American citizenry, the request attracted little or no attention in the press?nothing on television or in the major papers, some scattered applause from the left-wing blogs, heavy sarcasm on the websites flying the flags of the militant right.
PROVIDENCE - Declaring that President George W. Bush "has repeatedly lied to our Congress and Americans, broke our laws and abused his executive authority with impunity," U.S. Senate candidate Carl Sheeler called for Bush?s impeachment at a Statehouse news conference Wednesday.
Sheeler is doing far more than saying anything to get elected. You should read up on him.Originally posted by: themusgrat
I see. Well, it is still rare, I haven't heard of it, till now. BTW, one of those was a candidate, they say anything and everything to get elected.
Originally posted by: themusgrat
I see. Well, it is still rare, I haven't heard of it, till now. BTW, one of those was a candidate, they say anything and everything to get elected.
A third former aide to U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr. has accused the Michigan Democrat of using staff as baby sitters and personal servants.
The aides said Mr. Conyers had them tutor and care for his two sons; help his wife, City Councilwoman Monica Conyers, with law studies; and drive him to political and private events.
Dean Christian Thornton, a legislative aide fired in January, has joined Deanna Maher, former chief of Mr. Conyers' office in Southgate, Mich., and Sydney Rooks, Mr. Conyers' attorney from 1997 to 2000, in charging the congressman with unethical if not illegal behavior, the Detroit News reports.
Miss Maher said that in 1998, Mr. Conyers ordered her to live in his Detroit house while his wife attended law classes in Oklahoma. Miss Maher said she lived there for six weeks, caring for the couple's two young sons.
Miss Maher and Mr. Thornton have written to the House ethics committee. Miss Rooks said she talked with committee staffers on the subject in 1999 and 2004 and plans to make a formal complaint soon.
"I'm not going to get into responding to these things," said Stanley Brand, an attorney for Mr. Conyers.
But the Democratic National Committee, chaired by 2004 campaign firebrand Howard Dean has declined to chime in. A House resolution offered by Rep. John Conyers of Michigan seeking an initial impeachment inquiry has attracted support from just 26 of 201 House Democrats. Even Mr. Conyers, the ranking Judiciary Committee Democrat, allows, "This isn't something we have to do right away."
This Minority Report has been produced at the request of Representative John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee. He made this request in the wake of the President?s failure to respond to a letter submitted by 122 Members of Congress and more than 500,000 Americans in July of this year asking him whether the assertions set forth in the Downing Street Minutes were accurate.
28 US House Reps Want Bush Impeachment Probe
Submitted by davidswanson on Sat, 2006-03-04 11:41. Impeachment
By Matthew Cardinale, Editor and National Correspondent, Atlanta Progressive News (March 04, 2006)
28 members of US Congress have now signed on to H Res 635, including US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the original co-sponsor, Atlanta Progressive News has learned. Meanwhile, US cities of Arcata, Santa Cruz, and San Francisco, each in California, have passed resolutions recommending Bush's impeachment.
Originally posted by: conjur
BWA HA HA HA HA HA!!
I was wondering when someone would pull that lame-ass sh*t up about Conyers. Crap that happened several years ago and has been looked over and under and through and come up with nothing now being trotted out by the right-wing talking point parrots to smear Conyers. Typical.
As for the lack of support, there's plenty of support.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/House_Jud...ocrats_issue_report_alleging_1220.html
This Minority Report has been produced at the request of Representative John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee. He made this request in the wake of the President?s failure to respond to a letter submitted by 122 Members of Congress and more than 500,000 Americans in July of this year asking him whether the assertions set forth in the Downing Street Minutes were accurate.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=taxonomy/term/1728 US House Reps Want Bush Impeachment Probe
Submitted by davidswanson on Sat, 2006-03-04 11:41. Impeachment
By Matthew Cardinale, Editor and National Correspondent, Atlanta Progressive News (March 04, 2006)
28 members of US Congress have now signed on to H Res 635, including US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the original co-sponsor, Atlanta Progressive News has learned. Meanwhile, US cities of Arcata, Santa Cruz, and San Francisco, each in California, have passed resolutions recommending Bush's impeachment.
Inertia is gathering. Conyers introduced that a while back but he has been steadily building the case and building supporters.
Hell, when the WSJ publishes a chart showing nearly twice as many people support an impeachment of the Propagandist as did Clinton, well, the writing's on the wall. Even Ron Paul predicts an impeachment will occur.
Some Democrats push for removing Bush from office, but mainstream steers clear.