More Americans Support Impeachment of Bush than Clinton

[No Limit]

In 1998 about 65-70% of Americans opposed impeachment of President Clinton. According to a new Zogby poll 46% of Americans would support impeaching Bush if it turns out he lied about the Iraq war (which the downing street memo proves he did).

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

BTW: Sorry if I post and run, I have 2 more minutes at the office and I'm out for vacation!!!! :thumbs:

 

[Foxtrot]

So the title of the thread should be, 46% of Americans would support impeaching Bush if it turns out he lied about the Iraq war.

 

[Glirk Dient]

I don't see where you found 46%, but I found it said 42% would support an impeachment if it was found that Bush lied about reasons for going to war with Iraq.

 

[Foxtrot]

I don't see where you found 46%, but I found it said 42% would support an impeachment if it was found that Bush lied about reasons for going to war with Iraq.

A statement like that would make you question the sanity of No Limit, we already know how twisted and warped his mind is, but now it is making nubmers for him! What next? Eating babies? Not voting on party lines? Crazy!

 

[Sulkdodds]

People make mistakes?

Besides, 46% or 42%, it's still more than supported the impeachment of Clinton. So his thread title is still true.

 

[Foxtrot]

People make mistakes?

Besides, 46% or 42%, it's still more than supported the impeachment of Clinton. So his thread title is still true.

No it isn't, if you actually read the title you would see that is it " More Americans Support Impeachment of Bush than Clinton" that is not true. More Americans would if Bush lied.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Fair enough.

I should find out more about this 'downing street memo' thing.

 

[MjM]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

It definately aint looking good for Bush.

Also,
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0504-34.htm

 

[Gray Fox]

No it isn't, if you actually read the title you would see that is it " More Americans Support Impeachment of Bush than Clinton" that is not true. More Americans would if Bush lied.

Lol, you don't believe he lied, and yet your accusing no limit of having a warped and twisted mind.

 

[DreamThrall]

ffs foxtrot who cares what the title of the thread should have been, at least stay on topic...

Sad enough as it is, I seriously doubt Bush would get booted even if he was impeached.

 

[Glirk Dient]

He is saying the topic is misleading. More americans DO NOT support the impeachment of bush than clinton. If you disagree you are not understanding what fox said above.

 

[Foxtrot]

ffs foxtrot who cares what the title of the thread should have been, at least stay on topic...

Sad enough as it is, I seriously doubt Bush would get booted even if he was impeached.

I am sorry you are too dense to understand what I am saying, it really isn't my fault so don't place the blame on me.

 

[Feath]

(which the downing street memo proves he did).

I don't think it does. It doesn't mention anything about lying.

 

[Hazar]

I'm don't think it does. It doesn't mention anything about lying.

my thoughts exactly

 

[gh0st]

I'm don't think it does. It doesn't mention anything about lying.

No it doesnt. I simply stop replying in threads where this nonsensical "evidence" for him ever lying is brought up since whacko people will always distort "facts" to prove their illconcieved point.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I'm don't think it does. It doesn't mention anything about lying.

Me four. Much as I hate Bush, I don't see any evidence of him lying there.

 

[Gray Fox]

so basicly the fact that no wmd's were found in iraq isn't prove enough he was lying.

 

[Feath]

so basicly the fact that no wmd's were found in iraq isn't prove enough he was lying.

Well, no.

 

[Dag]

How do you know exactly there are no WMD's in Iraq? You know how many Bunkers and Storage facilities Saddam had? How do you know they aren't buried? They are still searching for all the bunkers Saddam has built, and they are a long way away from finding them all. So just becuase he hasn't found any, doesn't immediatly mean he lied.

 

[Gray Fox]

How do you know exactly there are no WMD's in Iraq? You know how many Bunkers and Storage facilities Saddam had? How do you know they aren't buried? They are still searching for all the bunkers Saddam has built, and they are a long way away from finding them all. So just becuase he hasn't found any, doesn't immediatly mean he lied.

It's been two years, if you think like that then there is no point in even searching, cause even if you don't find any you can always still say what you said, so thats not a valid argument. He lied, you all know it, don't pretend.

 

[Dag]

It's been two years, if you think like that then there is no point in even searching, cause even if you don't find any you can always still say what you said, so thats not a valid argument. He lied, you all know it, don't pretend.

So what your saying is that he never even needed to search? That we should stop searching to find WMD's because you think that since we have only explored a fraction of Saddams bunkers and storage facilities, that we should just stop, give up, and not explore any more facilities despite the fact that there could be countless weapons of any kind out there? Your saying that since you don't agree with my state of mind or my defense, that it must not be valid now?

 

[Gray Fox]

So what your saying is that he never even needed to search? That we should stop searching to find WMD's because you think that since we have only explored a fraction of Saddams bunkers and storage facilities, that we should just stop, give up, and not explore any more facilities despite the fact that there could be countless weapons of any kind out there? Your saying that since you don't agree with my state of mind or my defense, that it must not be valid now?

yes exactly thats what I'm saying, with that state of mind there is no point in searching.

Anyway It's been two years, the prez said they had credible evidance that there were WMD's, and they even showed pictures of supposed facilities, it's strange that they haven't been able to find any, even with all that good intelligence, besides didn't I hear a couple months agoo the seach was officially stopped, without even finding the WMD's, doesn't that prove there aren't any.

 

[Dag]

If I hide my sisters brush, and she doesn't find it for 2 years, and decides to stop searching, does that mean I must obviously have never had it? If my sister had a picture of me stealing the brush, and knew where I had hid it a Month before her looking, yet she still hadn't found it in 2 years, does that mean I must never have taken it?

 

[MjM]

Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

What the hell is this? I guess it depends on how you interpret the word 'fixed'.

 

[Gray Fox]

If I hide my sisters brush, and she doesn't find it for 2 years, and decides to stop searching, does that mean I must obviously have never had it? If my sister had a picture of me stealing the brush, and knew where I had hid it a Month before her looking, yet she still hadn't found it in 2 years, does that mean I must never have taken it?

yes, on a large scale it does, if oyu do not set a limit then there is no point in searching. and besides the fact that they stopped the search without any results means they lied.

 

[MjM]

He had to knowingly say something that was untrue.

Aluminum artillery tubes misdiagnosed as nuclear related;
Forgeries alleging Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa;
Tall tales from a drunken defector about mobile biological weapons laboratories;
Bogus warnings that Iraqi forces could fire WMD-tipped missiles within 45 minutes of an order to do so;
Dodgy dossiers fabricated in London; and
A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate thrown in for good measure.

 

[DreamThrall]

I am sorry you are too dense to understand what I am saying, it really isn't my fault so don't place the blame on me.

Don't try to talk down to me like that. As usual, all you were doing was nitpicking at the specifics of what the original poster was talking about instead of debating the ACTUAL topic at hand.

 

[Foxtrot]

Don't try to talk down to me like that. As usual, all you were doing was nitpicking at the specifics of what the original poster was talking about instead of debating the ACTUAL topic at hand.

For some odd reason I was getting the idea that he was trying to say that More Americans Support Impeachment of Bush than Clinton, hmmm, maybe it was because of this statement "More Americans Support Impeachment of Bush than Clinton".

 

[Sir Phoenixx]

so basicly the fact that no wmd's were found in iraq isn't prove enough he was lying.

No it isn't proof that he lied. For him to have been lying, he would have had to know that Iraq had no WMDs (if there isn't any) before saying that, since he/they thought they did have them, it wasn't a lie. We could never find any kind of WMDs ever, and it still wouldn't be a lie.

 

[DreamThrall]

For some odd reason I was getting the idea that he was trying to say that More Americans Support Impeachment of Bush than Clinton, hmmm, maybe it was because of this statement "More Americans Support Impeachment of Bush than Clinton".

Okay, that's what he said in the TITLE. He then clarified what he was saying in his actual post:

In 1998 about 65-70% of Americans opposed impeachment of President Clinton. [Which means only 30-35% supported it] According to a new Zogby poll 46% of Americans would support impeaching Bush if it turns out he lied about the Iraq war (which the downing street memo proves he did).

So while his title may have been a little vague, he certainly wasn't trying to mislead anyone with his post, not to mention the fact that he posted a link to the source.

 

[Foxtrot]

Okay, that's what he said in the TITLE. He then clarified what he was saying in his actual post:


So while his title may have been a little vague, he certainly wasn't trying to mislead anyone with his post, not to mention the fact that he posted a link to the source.

Which is incorectly quoted.

 

[DreamThrall]

Which is incorectly quoted.

We've been through this already haven't we?

People make mistakes?

Besides, 46% or 42%, it's still more than supported the impeachment of Clinton. So his thread title is still true.

 

[Dag]

yes, on a large scale it does, if oyu do not set a limit then there is no point in searching. and besides the fact that they stopped the search without any results means they lied.

If you don't set a limit? WTF? If my if my sister did not set a limit to look for her Brush, than I guess that means that she lied about me having it, despite the fact she has photos of this, right? And if she stops the search, that instantly means she lied, because hey, lets face it, if she can't find it, it must not obviously exist, right? Even if she had a picture of me stealing it, right? What about those weapons stolen from that American bunker in Iraq? Oh wait, we never found them, so I guess we lied about that too, huh? There must obviously have not been weapons at all.

 

[Glirk Dient]

Wrong. Re read the title and what the article is talking about. More people would support the impeachment IF it is proven that Bush lied. Only if it is proven, as in they may not believe he should be impeached if he did not lie. Of course lying and getting many people killed in order to save millions may still seem horrible, and those deaths certainly are. However, if you cannot tell the difference between does and if then you need to go back to the 2nd grade.

 

[Gray Fox]

If you don't set a limit? WTF? If my if my sister did not set a limit to look for her Brush, than I guess that means that she lied about me having it, despite the fact she has photos of this, right? And if she stops the search, that instantly means she lied, because hey, lets face it, if she can't find it, it must not obviously exist, right? Even if she had a picture of me stealing it, right? What about those weapons stolen from that American bunker in Iraq? Oh wait, we never found them, so I guess we lied about that too, huh? There must obviously have not been weapons at all.

I said on that scale, what then, what if you don't set a limited time, he tell, me thne what is teh point in searching, he could just as easly say Holland has nukes, invade us, never fidn any, it wouldn't matter. it may not be fullproof but it's better then your idea. And why are are you pathalogically avoiding the fact that they stopped searching without finding any wmd's, doesn't that mean that even they don't think there are any wmd's in Iraq.

 

[DreamThrall]

Dag... you have half a point because it is true that just because someone stops looking for something doesn't mean that it isn't there.

HOWEVER... Given the stakes, do you honestly think that the US Military would stop looking if they hadn't exhausted every possibility?

 

[Glirk Dient]

Dag... you have half a point because it is true that just because someone stops looking for something doesn't mean that it isn't there.

HOWEVER... Given the stakes, do you honestly think that the US Military would stop looking if they hadn't exhausted every possibility?

they may have stopped because they belive they have been moved or simply want to concentrate on helping the people since they have limited resources.

 

[Dag]

Dag... you have half a point because it is true that just because someone stops looking for something doesn't mean that it isn't there.

HOWEVER... Given the stakes, do you honestly think that the US Military would stop looking if they hadn't exhausted every possibility?

But does that mean that they aren't there? That's the point I'm trying to get across. America might be good at finding stuff, but finding weapons that could be no bigger than a car in a vast network of underground storage? Or how do you know Saddam Didn't just bury them somewhere, as he was known to do?

 

[CptStern]

But does that mean that they aren't there? That's the point I'm trying to get across. America might be good at finding stuff, but finding weapons that could be no bigger than a car ...?

revisionist propaganda BS, my friend:

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

George W. Bush January 28, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003


We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003



Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003


Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Robert Kagan April 9, 2003





all of the sudden it's small amounts? from everything that was said before the war you'd think they'd be literally tripping over wmd:



"I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country."

Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003



oops



you know if I was saddam and the might of the US army was at my doorstep, I'd pretty much give everything I had to the enemy of my enemy...so if wmd do show up in say ....downtown chicago and some as of yet underheard of radical group claims responsibility, we'll know who set the chain of events in motion

 

[MjM]

Also forgetting the fact that the weapons inspectors said with a further 6months they could prove that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.