Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Parsing the Polls on Censure and Impeachment

Calls to censure or impeach President George W. Bush are nothing new.

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) introduced a resolution late last last year calling for a committee to be convened to determine whether enough evidence existed to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush -- a proposal that has attracted 33 House cosponsors, according to The Post.

The censure option was formally broached by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) last month in response to Bush's acknowledgement that he authorized a warrantless wiretapping program designed to monitor American citizens with suspected links to terrorists. Only two senators -- Democrats Barbara Boxer (Calif.) and Tom Harkin (Iowa) -- have said they would vote for Feingold's resolution. (Feingold's office informed The Fix this morning that Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry has said he would support a censure resolution and Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy has said he is "inclined to believe" the President should be censured.) Other high-profile Democrats have largely avoided the question as noted by The Post's Dana Milbank in a recent "Washington Sketch."

What is new is that for the first time in the Bush presidency, The Washington Post has included questions testing the public's views on impeachment and censure in its most recent national poll (questions 40-42).

The overall results were written up in Tuesday's story by Richard Morin and Claudia Deane: 45 percent of respondents said Bush should be censured or reprimanded for the warrantless wiretapping program while 53 percent said he should not. The response was more decisive on impeachment, with just one in three voters supporting such a move.

Thanks to the kindness of The Post's polling team, The Fix got a chance to look at the demographic breakouts (crosstabs in polling parlance) on both the censure and impeachment questions.This data provides a better sense of the geographic, ethnic and economic backgrounds of the respondents who said they support (or oppose) the measures.

Let's take the censure question first.

Overall, as noted above, 45 percent of the sample said they would support a censure or reprimand of Bush, while 53 percent opposed such a move.

The issue remains heavily divisive along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting censure by a wide margin (67 percent to 31 percent) and Republicans opposing it by an even wider gap (16/83). Interestingly, though, independent were evenly divided on the question -- 49 percent supporting censure, 49 percent opposing it.

When voters are broken down by ideology, the numbers are remarkably similar. Self-identified liberals favor censure by a 50-point margin, while self-described conservatives oppose it by the same margin. Moderates are divided -- 50 percent in favor, 48 percent opposed.

The gender gap was also evident in the survey, with women more prone to support censure than men. Forty-nine percent of females backed the idea compared with 41 percent of men; an equal 49 percent of women opposed the censure resolution compared to 57 percent of men.

The blue state/red state divide was also apparent when the censure vote was broken down along geographic lines. The East favored a censure of Bush by a 53 percent to 45 percent margin -- the measure's strongest showing in any of the four regions of the country. Respondents in the South were the least willing to support censure (41 percent) and the most opposed to it (58 percent).

When it came to education and income levels, there appeared to something of a contradiction: Respondents most likely to support censure were the most highly educated in the sample (those with post-graduate degrees favored the idea by eight points) and the least well paid (those making under $35,000 a year backed it 52 percent to 48 percent).

The most ardent opponents of censure were respondents with a high school degree or less (43 percent favor/55 percent oppose) and those who make between $75,000 and $100,000 (36 percent support/62 percent oppose).

The numbers concerning impeachment are less intriguing because only a third of all voters said they favored it, meaning that across most demographic groups there was widespread opposition to the proposal.

The two exceptions to that statement are Democrats, who support impeachment by a 55 percent to 43 percent margin, and self-described liberals who back it at a 54 percent to 45 percent rate.

Otherwise the idea of impeaching Bush was resoundingly rejected -- most strongly by voters over 65 (a 44-point spread against impeachment) and those making between $75,000 and $100,000 (a 59-point anti-impeachment margin.)

Again, men were more likely to oppose an impeachment measure than women (70 percent vs. 62 percent) and the South as a region most strongly rejected the measure (70 percent opposed).

What's your take on these numbers? Any surprises? Please post in the comments section below.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 12, 2006; 7:20 AM ET
Categories:  Parsing the Polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Romney Courts Christian Conservatives
Next: Calif. Special Election: Democrat Comes Up (Just) Short


Today's Post had articles on Gore and Kerry. The Gore piece made me rethink Gore as a viable candidate. When you say that by far the big argument for Kerry's candidacy is fund-raising, I close the window. But then I hadn't even thought of that one positive for Kerry.

While I'm on the subject, Chris, let me say you annoy me with your constant reference to cash. It makes you seem one-dimensional. I remember Phil Gramm and his huge money advantage in 1996. And I think 2008 could be something entirely different from the past. I think voters will look for a problem-solver and will look beyond the manufactured glitter and give candidatges careful scrutiny.

Posted by: Lee Ballard | April 18, 2006 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Doug wrote:

I agree someone’s head, or heads, should roll in the CIA. And congress also for ever letting the CIA get so run down in its human intel capabilities.

there _was_ no failure of intel,

it is disinformation that _you_ are spreading........

review the Video of the hearings regarding the "communication failure"

about 9/11.

It's very obvious that you have two bored heads of agencies that knew _full well_ that 9/11 was supposed to go down and that they were doing a dog and pony show for

the public,

which they have no respect for.

you dougie are a disrespector of your country.


Posted by: hello | April 16, 2006 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Can we agree on one thing: Richard Nixon deserved to be impeached, and would have been impeached and convicted if he had not resigned first.

If you look to the bahavior of Richard Nixon as the standard for impeaching a president, and Congress drew up articles of impeachment for abuse of power based on Nixon's warrantless wiretapping program at a time when Congress had not yet passed a law regulating such matters (FISA passed in 1978), then how is Bush's warrantless wiretapping program NOT impeachable AFTER Congress specifically made it illeagal? Is the GOP-controlled Congress so spineless that they have totally abdicated their Constitutional oversight responsibility?

And to those who think FISA judges have given the program their official okie-dokie, you need to pay closed attention to the news.

Posted by: Back to the topic, please... | April 15, 2006 8:00 AM | Report abuse

there's a reason that I don't use my name.

most people interact with each other by labeling.

you seem smart enough to know what they means.

if you can't understand what I'm saying then what difference does it make what my name is?

what do you want to know about me?

whether I know what I'm talking about?

look it up.

I'm in the business of making sure that my country

doesn't become 100% for the monied.

historically, it has been that way for far longer than it has ever been something approaching democracy...

what would you like it to be, a have for government defense contractors, regardless of whether we need to attack someone to come up with a solution?

do you know what PNAC is? did you check that?

do you have anything to offer other than disparagement for those that don't back your position?

do you think or parrot a favorite position?

if you think I invite you to dialogue, other wise, I'll just content myself to nullify your position.


Posted by: hello bob, | April 14, 2006 4:17 PM | Report abuse

you're in Massachusetts...

don't bs me small fry, or you'll end up eating what you came to steal...


the fact that you work for one of the named companies in my suggestion would be what you are failing to advertise..

thanks so much for _your_ candidness.

I love it when the "named companies, and their subsidiaries" begin to post like they don't have an interest and are just normal us citizens.

thanks so much for your atttendant gestures...

I take it as a signature of respect that you are unwilling to dignify your remarks with clarity.


be who you are,

not who you're paid to represent, pee wee.


Posted by: dear robert in silicon valley, | April 14, 2006 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Hey Doug ,
I think you read only thoose comment you agree with. So who cares. Truth is always harsh. I pity you

Posted by: Tom | April 14, 2006 1:23 AM | Report abuse

Elizabeth O. Ellis: thanks for putting the polar opposite of Ralph Nader into office.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 13, 2006 6:15 PM | Report abuse

How much more damage does he need to do before people open up thier eyes . i was with Feingold from the start .Clinton din`t do anything that he is doing. They have the media behind them it is ashame .,

Posted by: Romelee | April 13, 2006 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Ralph | April 13, 2006 4:18 PM | Report abuse

The question was "should Bush be impeached" -- not is it possible or probable. Of course, Bush should be impeached, not only for wiretapping citizens, but for misleading the country into invading a sovereign nation, for misrepresenting facts that he knew to be incorrect to Congress and the people, and for selectively leaking known untruths to the media. What else do we need -- a blue dress?

Posted by: justvisitingfromanotherplanet | April 13, 2006 3:19 PM | Report abuse


Might stop and think about this one -- the concept of impeaching an elected leader over policy differences has a pedigree, but it is hardly an American one.

Never heard of Clinton, right?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 13, 2006 2:20 PM | Report abuse

We have developed a society of extreme diversity in thought process. We have become specialists in our individual fields, but at what cost? We devote our intelligence to learning our specialty but then depend on others, so called self-proclaimed experts, to do our thinking for us on so many other matters. In essence we are allowing our society to be determined by the lowest common denominator.

We now have political leaders who understand this and use this knowledge to promote their agenda by any means available. They have misrepresented or omitted facts. They have rearranged data to support their reasoning. They have rejected debate and attacked fellow citizens who question their thought processes. They have ignored proof of their errors and have continued on with polices that are not only not working but have become increasing unpopular. Censure George W. Bush? His own party has begun that process by moving away from and even rejecting many of his polices. Impeach George W. Bush? Great idea, but look what we would be left with! The solution is for us as individuals to examine our own ability to reason, to look into the future before we set a political course. If we start learning how to reason outside our specialty, then we may no longer govern ourselves with the lowest common denominator.

Posted by: Troubleshooter | April 13, 2006 12:43 PM | Report abuse

When I alit this morning, I came back here and read it all over.

Chris; no matter what, I appreciate your starting this thread. I hope it will excite some in-depth material and exploration in a lot of places.

“The numbers concerning impeachment are less intriguing because only a third of all voters said they favored it, meaning that across most demographic groups there was widespread opposition to the proposal.”

“only a third…” Considering that George Bush is supposed to represent Americans as Head of State, and considering the unpleasantness that would attend an impeachment, I find Chris’s use of the word “only” makes my eyebrows behave strangely. If a third of the population is prepared to suffer the gut-wrenching, the upheaval, and the embarrassment in many cases, of such an crisis, the word seems to understate or slant the issue. Its like saying, “Nothing to worry about; only a third of the people you meet on the street are thinking about clubbing you to death.”

Also: “meaning that across most demographic groups there was widespread opposition to the proposal.” Perhaps I am straining gnats here, but my faint recollection of “Introduction to Statistics” ‘101’, makes me reluctant to interpret this as conclusive as the word “widespread” makes it appear. If some stranger polled me with the question: “Would you like to see your mother-in-law pushed over a cliff in your “911-S”, I would pencil in “No”. But my opposition to the idea might not be as overwhelming, nor as clear-cut, as one might deduce from just the raw datum. If the question had been asked during her last visit, there would needs be an “undecided” option on the form, at least.

I must say, I am disappointed that this thread hasn’t elicited more condign wisdom from those who understand just how close the US is to demise. If I were to draw my conclusion from this thread and what has been appearing broadly in the American Media, I would say Americans do not have a sense of what awaits in the months to come and that it might, therefore, be too late to do anything but sit back and watch and weep.

The US does not have the GDP at present nor in prospect to recover from its debt. The ND right now stands at $8.3 trillion and the 2005 deficit in Balance of Payment was about $350 billion. The shortfall in dollars available from Fed. and State coffers to meet existing medical, education and infrastructure needs is staggering.

The financial papers are continuing to report a growth in the economy, but: this is illusory and deceptive. It is based upon a spiraling debt; $2 billion a day according to “The Center on Budget Policy”. This is like limiting out all your credit card by withdrawing cash, depositing it in you current account and bragging about how much money you have.

Pressures on the electronics and automotive sectors of the US economy are increasing to the point where icons of industry are boning up on Chapter 11. GM is moving assets out of the US as quickly as it can ($350 million to Mexico announced just last month), GMAC is toast and Delphi (its major parts supplier) is in crisis. Ford is not far behind. If/as/when these go under, the impact on investor confidence will be great. Investor capital will become more expensive, the rate of inflation (already a concern to the Fed) will increase and interest rates will soar. Stock values will drop and bond issues, essential to public works, education and pension funds will be in a very critical state, much worse than they are at present. The value of the US dollar will drop.

Given that the major media are owned by corporations, I am suspicious that the reason the citizenry hasn’t been illuminated better might be that when the collapse does occur, they will be taken down with it. In 1929, almost no one wanted to recite the writing on the wall, and one or two who did were ‘poo-pooed’ mercilessly. Everyone was betting on uninterrupted growth; to utter anything contrary to this was blasphemy; considered self-destructive, alarmist, superstitious. It seemed like everybody was “in the market”. The mindset of America was that of the chronic gambler. The burgeoning growth in the gambling sector of the US economy could be seen as a fair indicator or warning if you will, of how the two eras resemble one another.

What has this to do with a poll on impeachment? This: there are only 2 ways out of the mess. One is to suck it up and get back to basics; rationalize foreign policy and start making friends instead of inflaming enemies and pissing off allies. The second is the way this Administration is heading the country; the same way Hitler chose to get Germany out from the crushing debt after WW I; another world war.

The US doesn’t have the ground and support troops to wage conventional war. So friends; figure it out yourselves. Bush has articulated the enemy as “The Axis of Evil”, and declared war in his “National Security Strategy” Proclamation of March 16. His sponsors the PNAC signatories, have documented the ideological framework (would manifesto be too strong a word?).

If I could find a way to say it that wouldn’t sound offensive I would do so. But even this mild mannered, ‘laisseé faire’, Canadian has pretty much exhausted his supply of mollifying words and phrases. Bin Laden’s statement on 9/11 was that American presence and policies and attitudes abroad had become so offensive that they were intolerable. He made his point, and damn him for the way he did it. But, the US response of invading Afghanistan and then wasting and occupying Iraq reinforced his thesis and has convinced even the most skeptical that, from an ideological point of view, he was right. Americans don’t seem to understand how badly they lost the war against terrorism the moment the first “Shock and Awe” missile hit Baghdad. Like the diseased gambler, as long as he (this Administration and it’s supporters) can lay his hands on poker chips, he thinks he’s winning. All he really wants is TO gamble; he doesn’t care where the money comes from just so long as there is something to mortgage, something to steal, so he can stay at the table. The argument that what he is trying to achieve in the Middle East is “regime change” that will ultimately benefit the world and the US is transparent. It is no different than the gambler wanting a fresh deck thinking it will improve his luck, or the alcoholic who wants to change from whiskey to beer thinking he will be better able to manage his binges. These are just classic manifestations of denial, delirium tremens; hallucinations.

The century is young. How long do y’all think it will be before a device goes off in some Manhattan (Project) hi-rise, put there by someone you might never identify and against whom you have no way to exact remedy? How long do you think you can bully every kid on the street before one of them decides that breaking a few windows wasn’t doing the job and torches your house while you’re asleep? The US has barely, ineffectively, dealt with Katrina. What would happen if all the financial markets, communications nexus’, and people in NYC got vaporized? The US would be put on par with Paraguay for the next 50 years.

My point is: only a chronic gambler/addict would even contemplate risking it. The US electorate has the choice of continuing to enable the addict, or separate him from the substance he is abusing; your substance, your lives your posterity.

One final question: what is America going to do if Bush starts dropping “Bunker Busters” on Iran before the November 06 elections?

Posted by: roderick whitney stillwell | April 13, 2006 12:29 PM | Report abuse

I support censure and see it as a step on the road to eventual impeachment. This is not like the Clinton/Monica scandle where the choice between censure and impeachment was made AFTER the affair was over. Clinton's preverications under oath were also a thing of the past. The offense in this case, prolongued non-emergency domestic wiretaps without judicial review continues now. Given Bush's stubbornness, I expect he would persist in carrying out this policy even in the face of congressional censure. I predict that this defiance would increase support for impeachment.

Posted by: Michael Mavroidis | April 13, 2006 12:17 PM | Report abuse

People think Impeachment is a party rule situation and that Congress cannot impeach him unless there are enough "Democrats" to do a usurption of a Republican.

The MERITS are the PROPER CAUSE for IMPEACHMENT of the SUPPOSED "President of the United States" currently being called "George W. Bush" who certainly is NOT abiding by the defined duties of the U.S. Constitution. As an Individual, Bush is an offense to EVERYONE. Never mind party. It is NOT a party issue when you are talking impeachment.

Treasonous undermining of all sanity for proper rule of the United States and PUBLIC INTEREST at a MAJORITY level by violating established Presidential Authority and robbing CONGRESS of REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE with unconscionable violations IN OUR FACES unabashed up front warmongering and escalations with DEFICIT INCREASES as his KEYNOTE/HALLMARK of NO LIMITS with BUSH, certainly is CAUSE for IMPEACHMENT. "Warrior King" is not a proper Presidential behavior, and not at all what America was founded to offer: Democracy for a nation, in the public interest for offering PUBLIC SERVICE, not private interests, at a obviously defined in the Constitution legal framework of security. Our proper maintenance of the Constitutional protections is the security for this nation, and the proper provisions of the American Public Interest represented by a SANE government. Bush is a horror, and should be impeached for TREASONOUS undermining of our Government and attempt to offend the world, and protect no one, not even himself. He is unreal. Cheney and Bush and Condi are all subject to legal and diplomatic ousting.

If they are not removed sanely from office, the rest of the world will have just cause to offer sanity and declare the United States "unrecongizable" as a country.

Impeachment for meritorious grounds of complete failure as a President as DEFINED in the Constitution, treasonous usurption of his proper balanced supposed "leadership" which is not being done, he has replaced leadership with the opposite: destruction on every level. He is INCAPABLE of leading this country for the public interest, for a budget that reflects proper goods and services for a proper government as officially provided in the Constitution.

Impeachment is our PROTECTION. All sane citizens who understand the proper duties of a President for the people, should write Congress - their senators and district representative to show the people rule, not a "Warrior King" and that the public understands the majority rule of the people, FOR THE PEOPLE, and BY the PEOPLE is what this country must be able to be.

I voted for Ralph Nader. People should realize it was the media who "told" them they could not vote for the public interest at a majority level and that there are only party issues going on in office, not REALITY! Duopoly of a greed two faced monopoly was what was offered. War not Peace, for the People? No. No. No.

All sane people want peace and prosperity. Bush is the opposite of that leadership and is not the president. He must be impeached.

Posted by: Elizabeth O. Ellis | April 13, 2006 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Miss Cat asks:
...But what God is it that would support such behavior?

Well it's a fact that many people believe in a personal god, one which guides or admonishes their behavior and their destiny. Thus the destiny of their whole society.

Personally, I try my best to be guided by the impersonal Creator wherever I can discover the rules of successful existence and follow them. You know, fire, gravity digestion, things like that.

Some call me a Deist, or else a technocrat. But one of those success rules is to respect the power of that other kind of faith - it can be powerful, uplifting, and sometimes even dangerous [as shown in the confusion plaguing the Muslim sects. Tho it's been awhile, there have also been more than enough Christian and Atheist pogroms.]

Posted by: Robert in Silicon Valley | April 13, 2006 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Oh, btw, mr. no-name: I just re-read the rules above --
"Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed."

Maybe this is a reminder for us all.

Posted by: Robert in Silicon Valley | April 13, 2006 10:47 AM | Report abuse

I read your information regarding impeachment with great interest. The one question that you didn't ask is..."If President Bush were impeached, how comfortable would you be with Cheney and Rumsfeld in charge?" Or you might phrase it as..."Cheney as Commander-in-Chief?" What kind of response do you think that you might get then?
Boggles the mind, huh?

Posted by: Mara McManus | April 13, 2006 10:46 AM | Report abuse

To Doug:

I took note of some cogent ealy posts, but I'm afraid as the night wore on you seemed to wear out.
Sadly you began to fall into the quibbling and baiting and name-calling mode so dominant in crowds such as this. Sorry, I began to lose touch.

Time to put it to rest, Doug, and it's also 7 hours past my bedtime.

Good luck to you all in your search for freedom with dignity.

Posted by: Robert in Silicon Valley | April 13, 2006 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Why would Cheney want to run anyway???? He's been the real president since 2000. Bush is a puppet and a bad one at that because he is sophomoric enough to let the strings show and thinks we don't notice.

Lots of tit-for-tat in this discussion...picking at little points and missing the bigger point altogether. While other presidents have lied, the depth and breadth of corruption in this particular administration alone is so profoundly shocking that it is almost hard to believe it is real.....but it is and there is more than enough credible evidence. What scares me the most are the people who turn a blind eye in the name of theirs and Bush's faith which goes against the Constitution (when mixed with politics as it is by them), but then I guess if Bush doesn't care, then are we supposed to??? However, I don't know what sort of faith condones the sort of lies and deceitful ways of Bush et. al., as their behavior is the antitheis of what theirs or any others faith espouses. If you think I am the one making a big deal out of this faith thing, think again. Afterall it was Bush who openly admitted that he believes that God wanted him to be President. But what God is it that would support such behavior???? And Bush uses his faith openly to continue to woo his supporters into thinking he is a good Christian man. This is an important element of this discussion that should not be ignored.

Posted by: Miss Cat | April 13, 2006 10:35 AM | Report abuse

I've read this whole blog cover-to-cover tonight. Largely a waste of time, but --

I got a solid sampling of the kind of people who read the WashPost:

Largely all alike, frequently given to faith more than fact, as expressed by the prevalence and reliance on labels and ad hominems.

Considerable evidence most of you have abiding faith in Mainstream Media, in that it persists in hammering such a repetitive pattern that it frequently is more propaganda than news. Sadly the MM seems to be your most common source of info, which you then take to be truth.

Not to be downcast, I did find several thoughtful people searching for real answers.

I wish you be well and that you spend time enlightening your offspring to do better at research and independent reflection.

Posted by: Robert in Silicon Valley | April 13, 2006 10:35 AM | Report abuse

To : no-name, who is recognized here by this peculiar style:
Why do you prowl all over this forum using every pseudonym under the sun?


"did you know that the 9/11 Commission finding after 9/11 on whether this administration had acted prudently after reveiwing the reccomendations had this to say:

"This administrations _lack of response_ to suggestions that we made that needed to be enacted, put in place, borders on the criminal."

the president has had _no response_ as his response to terrorists....

he _are_ the terrorists

even you with your limited resourcs, with no friends in the CIA, and never having lived within the City Limits of DC METRO,

which means Virginia, DC and Maryland

can understand that

12,000 people can't sneak in if we're keeping terrorists out...

_we_ trained the Saudi pilots to fly the airplanes...

we invaded Iraq, because it fit our agenda.

google "April Gillespie"

google george h. w. bush

timothy mcveigh was an abberation, so was the columbine massacre

_this_ is a little bigger.


12,000 people died from firearms last year...

a couple of months ago, YOUR CONGRESS, passed a law exempting gun manufacturers from being sued for liability, contributing to crime or wrongful death

because you as a citizen need access to saturday night specials, street sweepers and armor piercing bullets as well as teflon coated bullets...

because your congress people care about you.

Posted by: dear okie.... | April 12, 2006 03:47 PM ""

Another poster here says we have already 2332 military deaths in Iraq over 3 years .

Why aren't we going after the real domestic terrorists?

In california'04 we had 1634 traffic deaths alcohol involved [40%], 1154 solid DUI.
Nationally 16,694 alcohol traffic deaths each year after year.

Just for perspective I wonder if there were that many Iraqi war dead per year? But we've stopped doing "body counts" since Vietnam, haven't we?

Posted by: Robert in Silicon Valley | April 13, 2006 10:05 AM | Report abuse

roderick whitney stillwell said:

"Based on the fraudulent and dissembled use of intel to support invading Iraq, what is to stop the FBI or the CIA from planting false info on someone they don’t happen to like; say, someone critical of them? Hmmm?"
Are you thinking of Cointelpro, or Waco and the Davidians, or just Hillary and Filegate - being the most recently documented transgression?

If your wishful thinking about this Administration planting tricks does come to fruition let me be the first to hear the FACTS, direct from you.

You are a master with the word, and also the sly innuendo. Almost lulls me into being one of this crowd. Or 'cult' as some would call it.
roderick whitney stillwell [signs as]
editor: “The Boundary Bay Morning Steamer”

...Now I've got to admire that commercial!!

Posted by: Robert in Silicon Valley | April 13, 2006 9:32 AM | Report abuse

That higher educated people favour impeachment could be related to them being better informed about what this President has done. Just as ones health is dependent on education level, making the observation this administration has violated US and international law requires a certain degree of knowledge. Hence the better educated the more inclined to impeach.

Wikipedia has made a selection of the advanced transgressions.

Posted by: Tsutsugamushi | April 13, 2006 8:55 AM | Report abuse

c'mon dougie says:
"Check the oil futures markets, see who's playing it, see if there's any insider trading. Carlyle, Halliburton? "

Well, did you?

And, did they?

Posted by: Robert in Silicon Valley | April 13, 2006 8:44 AM | Report abuse

You and Doug seem to agree that the Europeans overran the indigenous peoples and cultures here on the continent [Spanish in Mexico, French/Brits in Canada, Swedes & Germans in Minesota, etc, etc].

Are you folks asking for foreigners to come and overrun us now?

I for one am damn tired of the overcrowding of the last 50 years here in California.

Posted by: Robert in Silicon Valley | April 13, 2006 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Stu | April 13, 2006 7:39 AM | Report abuse


I will speak with you on any level, if you will stop rambling and speak directly.

In two postings now you haven't once discussed the topic at hand. Do you even know the topic?

If yes, what is it and what is your position?

Posted by: Doug | April 13, 2006 2:12 AM | Report abuse

you and I both know that when

you don't have content you simply assign a role to the person whose character that you wish to destroy and "talk to that" while ignoring who your talking to.

this is what weak ineffective people do, the O'Reilleys and what not...

it's a scam.

if you want to use it as your only tool, well hey, you can do that.

but I learned not to do it in 3rd grade, it's ineffective and doesn't address anything...

it shows that you can't think out of the context of your labeling...

it's why scholars are so effing funny...

they have years of reading and no personal experience to draw on....

it's like economics...

if I were going to build an model that would effectively work with the stock market I would have

several models working concurrently with weighted precedence to using a dominant option relating to the current conditions running the market...

the real world is dynamic not static.

if you can't discern when things have shifted out of a pattern that you're "used to," you're going to apply the same pattern

as_if it were correct.

which is why some people are victims....

they are not "awake," they simply have an opinion "that all people are good," or whatever...

just like you "have an opinion that you know me,"

and you're kind of stupid actually...learned perhaps, but moribund...

nice chatting, let me know if you want me to show you how to think..

Posted by: doug, | April 13, 2006 1:53 AM | Report abuse

see if you can understand this

Are you stoned or just drunk?


Posted by: Doug | April 13, 2006 1:52 AM | Report abuse


Never mind the name you choose to answer with fits perfectly, pathetic.


Posted by: Doug | April 13, 2006 1:48 AM | Report abuse

I was discussing "what is science" once and wrote the following...

SCIENCE is PATTERN recognition,
not truth
and the truth is always opinion.

or something close.

I could agree with you that science is not simply pattern
recognition, ultimately.

Originally it is just that, however, and that is what I am most interested in, the seeing or realization that something is happening or repeating itself.

- that's what the word pattern implies,
before the percieved pattern gets dragged back into the labyrinth

of the dreaded abstract mind, where it is dismembered, still screaming and made to fit our precious models.

We build models and call them reality, while ignoring real reality as being too "changeable."

However, if we don't "have a good feel" for reality we build our models incorrectly.

Additionally, we face the danger that if we don't know that we may have built our models incorrectly or if we build them without allowing for change we end up defending them because we don't know any better,

or it's too much work to change them, or we have too much ego invested, or we don't see the need, or we don't see the mistakes.

The biggest danger is not seeing the possibility of a mistake, which exists because we all have marvelous smoothing algorithms built into our minds that help us to fit things together,

perfectly - witness the fact that we are hardly ever aware of the asymmetry of our own faces or of others' faces.

If we proceeded as if a comparison to
reality were the ultimate judge or test of veracity rather than
a comparison to accepted theory, if we know how to think rather
than parrot, if the accepted body of knowledge is treated as
reliable information rather than the gospel. Suppose...

Suppose the truth is an animal. Suppose that the truth
existed in more dimensions than our normal 3+ dimensions.

Suppose the truth left behind trails that we name "patterns",
then much like the flatlanders in Goedel's example we
would percieve only fractions of the truth at a time.

Suppose we called these little traces TRUTH without knowing
what a whole truth was.

If we hold our mind's open to the
possibility that the truth is percievable only in it's
entirety, then it is only by the assimilation of all the
patterns into a single group at one time that we could percieve
this truth. But I've already said that that was impossible by
definition, we could at most build a pattern perciever, a tool of
perception, not a model and using it glance along the body of the
truth, pass truth through the tool to get an understanding, a feeling -
all the while using patterns in reality as tuning forks, to maintain
our objectivity.

Picking up and trying different views, forgetting
that one was math based, one psychology based, one religion based.
Suppose this tool was called a lens - suppose this particular lens
was called something snappy like:

"the point at which all things converge, where there is
no thing(yet) and all things(beginning)."

Suppose this tool was alive.

Sound familiar yet?

Then we would build our models differently or at least we not worship
them as false idols - or we would build fewer models and look for the
patterns - they exist without any help from us, we do not need to hold
onto anything, the truth exists and is there for the picking with the
fingers of our minds. Again, the point is that reality is sacred not
the models. A matter of emphasis, a different way of thinking. You
need different tools in addition to the old ones. No sacred cows are
being slaughterd.
Trust me.

A small experiment -

try to read the rest of my words without reflection.

Listen to me without opinion. Hear the cadence of my words, don't
think - percieve, read my sentence as one thought, at once. Picture
this - the first time you hear a record, do you hear it without
anticipation? Or do you unconciously or conciously try to figure
out what the next beat, sound will be, what the next words are, what
song it reminds you of - do you try to sing along?

Hear without anticipation -


See without interpretation -


Your experential history gives
you grounding and order, trust it, let reality arrange itself,
take your hands off, let things move where they want to - let the
order of the world ground you. You brought order to your personal chaos
by recognizing order within the world - it is still there, you are safe,
release your model, let it drop to the floor - if it's true it will still
be true when you pick it back up. Only a master could listen to a record
and hear it. What are these masters, masters of - reality - perception.
Your beliefs are based upon reality, whatever that is, and it doen't need
your belief to exist - it will still be there - if you can just resist the
temptation to anticipate knowing what it will be - it will still be what
it would have been, maybe. Why all this talk about seeing through the
eyes of a child? They see without anticipation - their reality is not
wrinkled or distorted by anticipation their perception is clearer
- it's not a theory it's a method - use it. Reality is my guide and
I shall not fear though it may turn out differently than I
anticipated for I AM reality and so are you.

You can start thinking again now. Let your models build themselves
as your needs dictate. Let different models exist simultaneously,
in the same space, for varied is the world. Let different models
exist concurrently for reality is fruitful, and yet let them be
one in their beingness for together they make truth. Do not bear
false witness against other models. Covet not another's model
for it is only a model..and so on. Variations on a theme y'all.


What I mean by "truth is opinion" is that interpretation of patterns
is always ultimately opinion in that we may use them predictively,
however, in finality they are always theory. We can not know the true
place or depth of a thing when we can not comprehend the totality of
the universe. We can only come close. It may seem, at this level of
our awareness, very close - however...

being sciency...I'm sure it's something that you can understand easily...

it's great state department reading.


Posted by: see if you can understand this, it's about direct perception | April 13, 2006 1:44 AM | Report abuse


Is calling a left wing kook, nutty left type or a lefty, when clearly identified in context of their remarks, considered labeling?

If so, how would you address them?

Posted by: Doug | April 13, 2006 1:44 AM | Report abuse

I have addressed everything you have said that was clear, concise and worthy of responding to.

Get to your point.

Posted by: Dougie | April 13, 2006 1:30 AM | Report abuse


is the refuge of the childish.

address the issues or shut up.

you embarrass me...

see yah.


Posted by: pathetic... | April 13, 2006 1:29 AM | Report abuse

I know that thinking is hard and that's why so few do it...

most get their recycled thinking from other people...

just check out what I wrote so you'll be ready next time,



Posted by: okay dougie... | April 13, 2006 1:28 AM | Report abuse

To un-named
“any simpleton can discern that we're not being protected from terrorists, right?” “clue one: 12,000,000 illegal aliens.”

WOW; a leftie that dares speak outside the Democratic Party lines. Careful, you will lose your kooky friends speaking like this.

Remember these 12,000,000 “illegal persons” are the voters your party is now courting and banking on to get them back into power.

Posted by: Doug | April 13, 2006 1:27 AM | Report abuse

your mightiness,

let's hear you address _any_ of what I wrote...

aunt may got your tongue?


Posted by: hey dougie, let's hear about | April 13, 2006 1:20 AM | Report abuse

Mark in San Jose

Further, now you know why the USA also refused to sign into the treaty that established Hague Tribunals on war crimes, just in case real left wing nuts ever got control of the US Congress or the Court there in The Hague.

Posted by: Doug | April 13, 2006 1:19 AM | Report abuse

answers by stealing them from someone else..

but unlike you, I can think.

I look, I examine, I draw conclusions.

any simpleton can discern that we're not being protected from terrorists,


clue one: 12,000,000 illegal aliens.

do I need to go on?

how about examining the data from the perspective that...

it's freely available...the only way you'd miss it is if you believed the "framing,"

There was an article about 300 words in the Times magazine saying that April Gillespie, said that it would be okay if Saddam attacked Kuwiat....

it's real, it's verifiable, it's probably online...

PNAC is obviously real, it's thier link that I gave you.

I don't read political bs, I am into perception...

unalloyed by predjudice...quit grasping

pull yourself up by your petards and put your feet on the ground...

I don't read opinions per se.

I don't waste my time shouldn't either, it's not healthy.

Posted by: look, perhaps you seek to find your | April 13, 2006 1:14 AM | Report abuse

Mark in San Jose

Wasn’t a landslide in the cards the last time? hehehehehe

USA cant breach the Geneva Convention...because the US is not a signatary to it.

Nice try though and more wishful thinking from the kooky left.

Please take better care for yourself, if you don’t know from where your speak why not remain silent and just appear stupid? Don't post and prove your lack of knowledge.

Even more worthless and wishful thinking from the kooky left.

Posted by: Doug | April 13, 2006 1:07 AM | Report abuse

you want to know my name, so you can thank the man that shamed you?

wait a couple of years.

but first:

we need to establish a Rudy Guilliani attitude towards our Congress, lawmakers, Administration and bureaucrats including NSA, CIA, FBI and Secret Service...

IF they break the law, any law, not in the line of duty...they get arrested.

parking ticket, tax evasion, hiring illegals, stealing, dui, etcetera...

WE need a group of people passing laws that affect them too, that they are willing to abide by.....

for example we could start with this small change:

enforcing the law against illegal hiring of illegal aliens should be easy....those that have to compete against them, can pretty easily point out the violations, perhaps we should have a bounty, for

turning in those that hire illegals.

It's a lot easier to lock up a few hundred, violaters for a few months with a felony charge that radically alters their ability to bid on jobs or to vote or to not register with local law enforcement...

you wouldn't have to do it for very long...

keep the bounty in place for 5 years.

try it.

Guilliani found that if he arrested anybody commiting any crime in NYC about 10 years ago, that the felons that would have commited the most heinious crimes were already in jail because they were



sound like any congess peoples that you know?

partisan ship is like believeing in professional wrestling aint real, it's for the rubes...

if you know what that is, your father certainly wouldn't have let you get away with what you've done with your life.


Posted by: here's an example of something simple that could work _very_ effectively | April 13, 2006 1:06 AM | Report abuse

c'mon dougie

Bill Kristol; that is your sole source of thought?

True Billy is a conservative, but at best he is another inside the beltway Washington egghead.

Posted by: Doug | April 13, 2006 12:55 AM | Report abuse

Bush should be Censored

After a fair congressional hearing, if the evidence that appears to currently show Bush Lied is true, then Bush should be impeached.

Then Bush can be sent to the Haige for a War Crimes Trial.

If the current Congress takes action, Bush will get a lenient hearing and likely only a censure.

If the next Congress takes action (Remember this congress will be Democratic since there will be a huge landslide against the Republicans this fall), then Bush will be judged much more harshly.

Just so you know, I used to be a Republican.

Posted by: Mark in San Jose | April 13, 2006 12:50 AM | Report abuse

move closer, I can almost smell your fear...



Posted by: I can't hear you sweetheart... | April 13, 2006 12:43 AM | Report abuse

let's talk about PNAC, or any of the points outlined below:

come on ace, let's see if you can do something beside roll your eyes and suck your teeth:

why not arrest father and son, geo. h.w. and geo w., along with their people?

let's see didn't rummy and cheyney start under Nixon, would that be why they're Nixonesque? and when did dear

geo hw start, under Lyndon? hee hee hee

I mean, George W. Bush started an occupation, labeled it a war so he could get war powers...

if you do what he did, it would be called fraud, and you would probably have to pay damages amounting to what the United States has had to spend so far....right?

In a lawsuit, that's the way it would work, right?

By all accounts going into Iraq was part of George W Bushes plan befor 9/11, in fact it's part of Cheyneys, Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, Bill Bennet's...our really inadequate drug czar...that packed our federal prisons with what should have been misdemeanors while murderers had to be let free...

There are two reasons for that. Project for a New American Century, better known as PNAC........which Rumsfield, Cheyney and Wolfowitz signed off on as well as brother Jeb. It calls for preemption.

here's the link:

And the family oil business. Family in this case means bushes, saudi royals, uae, brits, kuwiati's, germans, russian, europes interests.

His father, geo h. w. bush,invaded Iraq during Desert Storm at the behest of the Kuwiati's. What didn't receive a lot of publicity during that time what that he had sent an envoy to Saddam Hussein that had indicated that if Saddam wanted to settle a border dispute that had been festering between Kuwiat and Iraq, that the United States would look the other way.

Saddam, being assured that we wouldn't interfere, attacks Kuwiat.

We lied, we suckered Saddam...we want position.

We have a reason to go in, we have a reason to occupy...and there is money there. Saudi, Kuwiat, and Iraq's oil resources.

We don't take Bagdhad because we're going back. An embargoe ensures that things remain much as they were, plus we're in Turkey, Afghanistan, Kuwiat and Saudi.

China, India start emerging as business leaders...needing oil. We need to control our assests. Make sure that we have enough oil, and that we can predict economies, by controlling others...we can't have them selling oil to who they want to, which might not be it is...Iraq, could only dispose of it's oil as we saw fit because of the embargo....we need to tie up some loose ends.

WE in this case is international monied interests. The US is simply the visible military arm of the Consortium...

Check the oil futures markets, see who's playing it, see if there's any insider trading.

Carlyle, Halliburton?

your children, your money...pulled from the General Fund, which also pays for Social Secuity, that has the seniors getting paid $30 less a month for medicine gets raided to pay for PNAC and Oil interest agendas.

no WMD, no Iraqi connection.

there is a Saudi one, who trained the Saudi military? we did.

is george w. bush running the government?

I doubt it, I'd put my money on his dad and his cronies.

CIA Director in '76, life time politician, working with Zapata Oil before that...

I'm not going to bore you with details but.

It's a family affair and frankly, you're not part of their family. It's not just the United States, it's "who has money," and favors are "invading other countries," giving away your countries assests, "ports, lands, corporate deals," and favors for favors.

thanks so much...impeach, why bother?

want to make a statement, arrest and sell the assests of those involved to pay for their monetary crimes and consider a "war crimes trial."

Posted by: c'mon dougie... | April 13, 2006 12:30 AM | Report abuse

paid panderer

I can't believe I have missed these sites.

You people are almost too easy.

Where to I go to pick up my check?

Posted by: Doug | April 13, 2006 12:25 AM | Report abuse

dear dougie

Your post is almost, not quite, enough to make me want to change my name. If I were you I wouldn’t use my real name either.

I am bored tonight so I will play with you for awhile. Besides, your kooky friends might enjoy this chat.

It is clear you didn't look at earlier posted by me when I clearly pointed out, to a self loathing American bashing liberal, she had missed a few of our country's earlier failings.

That said, what does any of this have to do with our current conversations?

Your point is?

Posted by: Doug | April 13, 2006 12:22 AM | Report abuse

I feel rove behind you the "mail order scam man"

who's willing to sell you what you don't want...

Hey Karl, can you feel me?

Move closer...I think I smell pig roasting...

thanks for letting me know who you work for douglas c.


Posted by: probably a paid panderer... | April 13, 2006 12:22 AM | Report abuse

you seem to imply that the

"As far as the WMD issue that horse is worn out and should be put to pasture. Everyone now agrees the pre-war intel was at best, worthless; both to the current administration and those that proceeded it."

was an intelligence failure.

and what about the British revealing that Bush and Blair discussed inciting an attack by Iraq?

and what about pnac? that just something the liberals made up? preemptive strike?

and what about April Gillespie and suckering Saddam into attacking Kuwiat? by George H.W. Bush...the architect of Desert Storm, who oddly enough didn't take want to pick fruit when it's ripe, yes?

so China, India, and Pakistan begin emerging, the Russians want to put a pipleline across Afghanistan...well, there's a number of developments so you create a

remember the maine,
remember the alamo,
remember pearl harbor,
remember sept 11 kinda situation...

Oh, I would say that's _just_ too far fetched...

the United States would never _stage_ something,

would they?

are you being paid to make statements like this:

"As far as the WMD issue that horse is worn out and should be put to pasture. Everyone now agrees the pre-war intel was at best, worthless; both to the current administration and those that proceeded it."

what utter balderdash, you sir are not a patriot, or a citizen, you're a panderer to power.


Posted by: Dear dougie... | April 13, 2006 12:11 AM | Report abuse


Actually these kooky noise makers are your party now, look at your National Chairman, the good and equally loony Doctor Dean.

Sorry, they are the money in for your party. Lucky for us though. hehehe

Posted by: Doug | April 13, 2006 12:11 AM | Report abuse


All is necessary for you and your like minded friends need do to fulfill your dream fantasy, is for your team to win the House this fall. A really good question would be; why if you were to win would your primary desire and goal be to waste time impeaching Bush?

You and your team of like thinkers have nothing to offer about doing a better job running our country; nothing at all for the rest of us? Give me something other than kooky comments and thoughts.

Nope, and that is why you will fail again and again. Just because you and your kind can't see past last election failures, all you seem to offer is hate and revenge.

Good luck friend.

Posted by: Doug | April 13, 2006 12:00 AM | Report abuse

Sandy said it best. What is wrong with you people?

Look at the person who is introducing your beloved impeachment resolution - John Conyers. The guy is being investigated for having his congressional staff people do personal errands for him - such as babysit his children - while on the public payroll and during office time.

Conyers also has his staff do campaign work at taxpayer expense. And then you people make these ludicrous and insane assertions that "Bush is worse than Hitler" and all this stuff. You should all move to North Korea. Complete insanity. You people are an embarrassment to the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Fran | April 12, 2006 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Blah, blah, blah - more "impeachment" and "censure" drivel from the lunatic left. They help Bush by so viciously attacking him personally that they marginalize themselves to the point where they are ireelevant and can't win any elections. People laugh at this stuff - even people who despise Bush's politics. It's just delusional. What planet are you people on? You are like a football team on the opponent's 5-yard line on first down and your quarterback throws the ball into the stands 4 consecutive times because you almost have a death wish and you enjoy losing elections.

Posted by: Sandy | April 12, 2006 11:41 PM | Report abuse


When anyone starts out a posting with absurd comments and absolute statements such as, “Bush should be censured and impeached. He is the only president who has lied to the American people over and over.” How can you expect us to waste our time reading any further? I didn't, sorry.

Bush could speak forever with deliberate desire to speak falsehoods and never begin to reach the level of Clinton’s deceits. All presidents tell us less than the truth, some are/were less truthful than others.

Sorry I stopped reading your post after your 1st falsehood. It is obvious you don’t know from where you speak.

Posted by: Doug | April 12, 2006 11:36 PM | Report abuse

Doug wrote: Do you wish charges to be filed first? How about bring the matter before a grand jury as a first step?

In impeachment proceedings the House of Representatives is the Grand Jury. Conyer's bill would have the House hear and examine the charges and decide if they are cause for impeachment. Impeachment by the House would actually be like an indictment by a grand jury which would then be tried by the Senate.

Certainly with all we know and all that has been mentioned here the conduct and decisions made by the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense and Attorney General should be investigate with impeachment in mind. Was intelligence falsified to get us into war? Have they disobeyed the FISA laws? Has the administration violated the law of the land over torture? Was the White House involved in smearing critics who called attention to lies of the administration? Was the White House involved in illegal efforts to stop people from voting, impeding civil rights of some voters. Should these charges not be looked into? If they are true would they not be reasons for the House to impeach? That is the question, spelled out, that the poll asked.

It concluded that perhaps a third of the people think this is a legitimate question for the House to ponder. It may well grow to a larger number over the next few months prior to election day.

Posted by: Alan W. Uhl | April 12, 2006 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Bush should be censured and impeached.
He is the only president who has lied to the American people over and over.
Take the case made for war. Even if he says that the intelligence was incorrect, after finding out he kept on lying for almost 18 months. Then persons who were responsible for the reports were not even reprimanded.
CIA leak: It is now very clear that he himself has declassified the information. However for any question he and his administrations answer is "We can not divulge the information because of national security risk. Bush wanted to punish the person who leaked the information to media. What action has been taken against the Scooter Libby, Carl Rove and Dick Cheney who were the primary people leaking the information.
Think about this well informed President. After Katrina, he talked about Mr. Brown, doing excellent job. Well within a week he was a sacrificial lamb. His next appointee Mr. Chirtoff, has been found out to be worse than Brown.
The first reaction to the Dubai Port deal was, "This has been thoroughly evaluated and he will use Presidential veto if rejected by Legislature" Well within a day the white house staff confirmed that president was only informed of this deal a day earlier.
He says the media should be responsible, and should give the positive picture rather than being always negative. However if the media had not given this information, this administration would have kept all secret.

So with all his lies who can believe that, the wire tapping was administrated responsibly. If that was the case why no one could convince the justice department to issue the warrants?
Bottom line, if any US citizen had put the people and the country through all this trouble. They would have been hanged for Treason. The minimum we can do is impeach him, if we can not put him behind the bar.

Posted by: Tom | April 12, 2006 10:58 PM | Report abuse

For those of you that are having problems understanding the difference between a fact and an opinion, let me site this example.

Two families: father, mother, young son and daughter standing on porches 30 miles apart. One family in the city the other in the countryside on a farm and it has begun to rain about 10:00 AM in the morning.

Both families come out on the porch to watch the rain which as just begun. The father of the family in the city turns to his wife and children and says “What a shame, it is raining and has ruined our picnic day.” In the country the father turns to his family and says, “What a wonderful thing, this rain will save our crops.”

Fact is the same for both families, it is raining. How they feel about the rain on that day and at that time is completely different. The rain is a fact; how they view the rain is opinion only.

Posted by: Doug | April 12, 2006 9:43 PM | Report abuse


Sorry to challenge you so quickly on two of your three statements, “You see, like many other Democrats I don't feel Bush is evil or a war criminal.” I agree mostly likely this is a true statement.

You other statements, 1) “Instead, he is just not a very good president.” and 2) “That's not just my opinion, it is a fact, and the historians will back me up unless something drastically changes in the next two years.” on its face is purely subjective and therefore is your opinion only and can not be a fact. As you admit yourself, history will be the real judge of his presidency.

Sorry Venicemenace

Posted by: Doug | April 12, 2006 9:30 PM | Report abuse

On the one hand, I often prefer reading the posts of Dan, Okie, and Doug to the "Bush is an evil Liar and Terrorist!!!" BS. Of course, my favorite posts are from the more moderate liberal types, but that's to be expected since they agree with me.

As far as GWB goes, I voted against the guy twice, even though I really didn't like either alternative. But it is a sad state of affairs in the USA when 30% hates the incumbent president and will do anything to drag him through the mud and another 30% worships him blindly and won't say boo no matter what he does. It's been like this for over a decade now, and it's pretty depressing.

Posted by: Venicemenace | April 12, 2006 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Whoops! I meant to write "that's not to say invading Iraq WASN'T a mistaken idea". Instead, I wrote exactly the opposite. Nice work.

Ann Coulter is evil, that's all I have to say about that.

Impeachment is a HORRIBLE idea. Pretty soon, we'll have a Democrat in the White House and then everyone'll want to impeach him too. It's pointless. If the people REALLY want a president out of office, he'll have the good sense to resign (see Nixon). Otherwise, it just comes off as a misguided partisan stunt that makes the public angry.

And what exactly is the point of censure? What will that prove? I think Feingold et al should concentrate on winning elections in '06 and '08 and lay off the political stunts and parliamentary hoo-ha.

Posted by: Venicemenace | April 12, 2006 9:24 PM | Report abuse


I hasten to add, excepting your post, of course. And I should have typed the word “stupidity.”

Posted by: Doug | April 12, 2006 9:19 PM | Report abuse

To wit:
I don't believe there is any evidence Bush is a liar.

That's not to say his White House isn't guilty of persistent and reckless obfuscation - for example, they tinker with budget numbers like Andrew Fastow, and their projections always turn out to be wrong.

I DON'T think that 9/11 was a Bush scheme, or that he purposefully took us into war in Iraq on evil or false grounds.

That's not to say that invading Iraq was a mistaken idea of how to win the "war on terror" (that nomenclature also strikes me as absurd) and that the effort on the ground has been marked by incompetence that even generals are now criticizing. And yet Bush's only answer is "stay the course". But even Newt Gingrich is now advocating staged withdrawal.

It also makes me question Bush's judgement when he seems so unwilling to replace his subordinates when they are proven to be incompetent. Anyone can see that Rumsfeld is incompetent, even Rumsfeld thinks so, but Bush refuses to let him go. Heavens forbid GWB should admit a mistake! At best, a tarnished henchman (Libby, Brown) will resign keeping some degree of honor. Why are there no consequences for screwing up on Bush's watch?

You see, like many other Democrats I don't feel Bush is evil or a war criminal. Instead, he is just not a very good president. That's not just my opinion, it is a fact, and the historians will back me up unless something drastically changes in the next two years.

Posted by: Venicemenace | April 12, 2006 9:17 PM | Report abuse


Actually, Ann is far to the right of me. She is fun to listen to and nice to view and a good read; even if a bit wacky even for me.

But if you have read my postings here, I have tried to respond by name only to those that seemed way to the left or absent any worthwhile value.

If I have offended any “moderate” (dem/libs), sorry. That said; I reserve the right to challenge stupidly.

Posted by: Doug | April 12, 2006 9:13 PM | Report abuse

"Need I remind you that it was not Americans that tore down the statue of Hussein in Bagdad."

Actually, it was. Admittedly, there were Iraqis clamoring to take it down, but eventually it was hooked up to a tank and dragged off its pedestal. By Americans.

Besides, at this point, that memorable image is about as relevant to the issue of the Iraq war today as the "mission accomplished" banner.

Doug, you make some good points, but stop your Coulter-esque generalizing about liberals. Granted there are some idiots on this forum but not every liberal is an numbskull who "hates facts". That's just a knee-jerk comment that is beneath your intelligence. You can't accuse liberals of being idiots when you sink to making vast, unsupportable generalizations.

I don't necessarily agree with you, Okie, et al, but I respect your opinions. Kindly do the same to the liberals out there who are not crazily screaming for impeachment (as the poll Cizilla cites proves, we DO exist).

Posted by: Venicemenace | April 12, 2006 9:02 PM | Report abuse


Another wortless rant.

If you have something to say, please say it or sit back and watch.

Posted by: Doug | April 12, 2006 8:53 PM | Report abuse


Even with the insincere acknowledgements I agree in part with your posting.

Katrina and the weakness of the levies and the newly built of inter-city canals, without flood gates, overseen and demanded by New Orleans Canal Board political hacks, does warrant Federal investigation. Some people there in New Orleans should be jailed.

That more than a hundred plus working school buses, that could have taken most of the residents left behind out of harms way, were left to sit and flood is a disgrace. What a terrible disservice to a local population many of who had grown accustomed to the government taking care of all their needs. The least the local government could have done is take the poor residents to the new boat marina the Local Canal Board had built for the rich and put these people on boats, right?

It wasn’t fair nor reasonable for the city officials of New Orleans to expect many of their poorer residents to sudden accept responsibility for themselves after so many years of being told they weren’t capable of caring for themselves.

As far as the WMD issue that horse is worn out and should be put to pasture. Everyone now agrees the pre-war intel was at best, worthless; both to the current administration and those that proceeded it.

PopulistDemocrat, how could you allow New Orleans to happen to “your people”? Have you learned anything from this disaster? Is this why you won’t turn loose of the Katrina?

Posted by: Doug | April 12, 2006 8:49 PM | Report abuse

It seems that most good citizens who voiced their opinions, (above), forgot something very important.
Our esteemed President (or is it King) doesn't give a damn about what you say or do. All he ever wanted to do is become President, show-up is old man, and get himself into the history books.And to the rest of the country "You can kiss my -----."

Posted by: Gerry5 | April 12, 2006 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Althought I strongly disapprove of this administration not only because I disagree with their affiliated parties beliefs but their overall lack of competence that extends beyond the traditional party lines. I firmly believe that competence triumphs policy any day of the week. Anyways, there should be investigations now about the failure of the Bush adminstration during Katrina but more importantly about their intentional pursuit to lie and alter evidence on WMD's. If it is found conclusive than a censure is warranted and with the conclusive info the public minds will change.

Posted by: PopulistDemocrat | April 12, 2006 8:21 PM | Report abuse


What does this have to do with our discussions here on impeachment? Are you trying to “infer” that you know 1,400 current on duty military personal who wish to have their commander-in-chief impeached?

Run as I said, even the most lib of libs wouldn’t believe this idea. Do you want to know why even they wouldn’t accept your assertions? Because that would mean they aren’t safe in their beds tonight.

Libs love to talk down their government as long as someone else’s butt is on the line protecting their free speech. Careful you don’t scare your fellow travelers.

Posted by: Doug | April 12, 2006 8:14 PM | Report abuse


You may find it interesting that five of the people I work with are recently back from military service in Iraq. I find their thoughts very interesting.

Posted by: Lever | April 12, 2006 8:03 PM | Report abuse

I would greatly appreciate an indepth discussion. I however, must wait for another day as work becons. I have neither wished for nor attempted to interview hese people but rather to listen and on occasion ask a question to get them to clarify a given position.

The key is to listen rather than try to lead. Some of these people I see every couple of years and others are recent aquaintences. All are Americans and all care greatly for this country.

I look forward to discussing this further as time permits. Unfortunately work has me running much for the next few weeks as we are working seven days a week and 12 hours a day. I do look forward to a healthy discusion.

Posted by: Lever | April 12, 2006 8:00 PM | Report abuse


Nicely written:

If you have time to do in-depth interviews with 1,400 workers, of any kind, you are not a worker yourself; so why hold you’re self out to be one?

Tell us honestly who you are and your agenda.

I used the “cult” comment to drag you out for an honest and open discussion.

Posted by: Doug | April 12, 2006 7:45 PM | Report abuse

I spend time working with and listening to these people. You learn much about people and their views from listening.

These people speak of thier own views as well as what they see as they travel the country from job to job and see a greater portion of the poulace than any poll can measure.

They will have worked in nearly all of the United States with the exception of Alaska and Hawaii every two to threee years. This doesn't make them a cult. I would say it may potentially make them some of the most informed people in the nation with regards to regional attitudes on the issues.

A person can learn much by listening and then researching what is heard. Never take someone's word as truth, but rather research for yourself that which you hear.

If you honestly research the issues looking for truth you are not a cult. You are an informed citizen. If you seek to change that which you believe is wrong based upon research, you are a true Patriot.

Citizenship is not only a right of birth or a legal right extended as in the case of legal immigration, it is a responsibility. We are responsible for our country and the direction it takes.

Posted by: Lever | April 12, 2006 7:36 PM | Report abuse


Perhaps you are an illegal alien. Me, I was born here in the USA and I have a valid birth certificate that shows this . . . again the word you libs hate . . . fact.

Posted by: Doug | April 12, 2006 7:26 PM | Report abuse


1,400 people and you know all their views on this one subject, what are you, a pollster?

If you find this many people agreeing with you and only two dissenters, you are not with fellow workers, you are in a cult.

Run and run quickly.

Posted by: Doug | April 12, 2006 7:10 PM | Report abuse

As a whole the comments were decent debate,
thanks to Okie for seemingly setting the tone and content. As has been usual since President Bush's first election to the Presidency, the polls focus ALL POLITICAL
DECISIONS as being a popularity measure of President Bush personally. During his presidency more critical decisions in foreign and domestic issues because of terrible events than most presidencies hve not had to respond with actions and decisions. He did not make the decisions alone. Polls and most critics have been
in the world of "WOULDA, COULDA, SHOUDA."
The conflict with various Islamic groups
have been mostly ignored by past presidents. The disasters of nature in areas vulnerable and unprepared protection have been luckier in the past. The expenditures for entitlements in the future have been poorly planned and untenable for most of my 70 plus lifetime.
Congress doesn't moniter or measure or reform any of the consequences of it's legislative decisions effectively. The press, especially since the 60's, plays gotcha about public officials and immediate reactions to brief news without
context or sufficient background information so that news readers have a common consistant basic reference to express opinions for polls or any particular political question. The news world seems to be a gigantic pop corn machine at frentic work.
Please quit the polling. Use more space in the paper with less political reactions of the moment and more information about the issues to be addressed. Less opinions with entrenched political positions would be welcomed. Better defining of the difficulties of resolving the problems we face for consideration by the readers would be helpful. Too few articles inform.
Quit featuring the views of the same sources...over and over and over again. Interview many more elected and appointed
representatives and administrators working in the governence of this country than your
reporting does now. Get broader perspectives about what you print as news.


Posted by: MAW | April 12, 2006 7:10 PM | Report abuse


Weren’t American troops holding Mexico City when that treaty was signed? Some choice the Mexicans had, right?

I stand by what I said.

Posted by: Doug | April 12, 2006 7:05 PM | Report abuse

I find these results to be highly questionable. I say this because I have occasion to work with people from all over the country and hear their views.Here is a sample. I currnetly am working with roughly 1400 workers who represent every state from Michigan to Louisiana. I have heard on;y two who were supportive of this Republican President and Congress. To me this is far more telling of the national attitude than a simple poll. Poll questions are easily made to mislead or lead the respondent in a given direction. I was actually suprised at the level of disaproval I have seen from solid red state people. Workers from Alabama, Arkasas, Louisiana, Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Misouri, Mississippi, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan are well represented in my workplace. This is a broad area and would tend to show a good benchmark for ideology concerning the issues. The most outspoken against the current Congress and President are the southern state residents.

This has left me wondering how the south stays red. Is it a powerful block who is just good at influencing voters to vote against their best interests, or a matter of voting the lesser of two evils at any given time?

Posted by: Lever | April 12, 2006 7:05 PM | Report abuse


Care to set out the charges you believe should be brought against this president?

Do you wish charges to be filed first? How about bring the matter before a grand jury as a first step?

What about a trial, unnecessary for you?

Your blanket statement just shows your laziness and foolishness.

Posted by: Doug | April 12, 2006 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Doug wrote:

No, I am not incorrect. Read your history. It all began with a trumped up war cause by white immigrants and their slaves brought into to Texas territories. Texans wanted that war, they caused that war and they got their war.

All that followed was natural progression. Like I said, we stole the southwest from

Then Doug, I assume you also read that "on February 2, 1848, The Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo was signed, later to be ratified by both the U.S. and Mexican Congresses. The treaty called for the annexation of the northern portions of Mexico to the United States. In return, the U.S. agreed to pay $15 million to Mexico as compensation for the seized territory."

While we paid $15 million to Mexico, it can hardly be said that we stole the land from Mexico, again, there was already a Native American population living there for centuries so if it was stolen from anyone, it was stolen from the indigenous people, the Native Americans. I stand by my original statement that we are all undocumented aliens.

Posted by: kitsykitty | April 12, 2006 6:57 PM | Report abuse


Good try.

The president and vice president don’t work at the CIA or for it. As for Plane’s front company, it was well known before hand and besides . . . you libs always hate facts . . . she was not covert under the law as written. So who cares her name became known, it wasn’t a life of death matter. If she wanted to stay hidden, she shouldn’t have recommended her grandstanding motor mouth husband off on that trip.

People that know the president don’t talk about his private conversations. Have you forgotten, that is one of the main complaints from your side of the media; the secrecy of the White House? So your “three people who were there statement” sounds like more anti-Bush web chat nonsense

Back to stealing the Southwest, it all began with the first war in 1835 between the . . . I love this part . . white illegal immigrants . . . in Texas and the Mexican government. Like I said, what happened after that 1st land grab was a natural progression of events . . .

See for your history lesson.

Posted by: Doug | April 12, 2006 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Yeah alot of people are against impeachment . I am one of them. He should be arrested along with all the war criminals and sent to jail. Guantanamo? Indict ,convict and hang them all.

Posted by: WARped | April 12, 2006 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Doug wrote:

I agree someone’s head, or heads, should roll in the CIA. And congress also for ever letting the CIA get so run down in its human intel capabilities.

That would be Bush and Cheney with the leaking of Valerie Plame's name and the publishing of the false front company, Brewster-Jennings. Ms Plame was a human intel and she had a network of people working for her on the covert sale of WMD and their components, primarily in Iran.

Doug also wrote:

This president does not tarnish the constitution, he cherishes it.

It has been reported that Bush said, "Don't talk to me about the Constitution. It's nothing but a g--damned piece of paper." Three people present at that meeting all reported that quote.

Does that sound like cherishing to you? If it does, I suggest you try to kick your Kool-Aid habit. You've obviously overdosed.

Posted by: kitsykitty | April 12, 2006 6:35 PM | Report abuse

I too am somewhat surprised at the high number of people favoring impeachment this soon. If everyone was aware of the mechanics of impeachment I believe the idea would grow greatly in favor. Sen. Mark Dayton (D, MN) (who of course is now a lame duck) recently suggested that if we had a parliamentary system with the possibility of a 'no confidence vote' there might be a move to get rid of President Bush. Well this is the precise moment our system most resembles the British's. A vote of no confidence is now in the hands of the body politic and will be until Nov. 7 when the election will move impeachment power back to the House of Representatives. If the voters move to support candidates for the House who will endorse Rep. Conyers' bill, impeachment will be well on the way. I think Madison and Jefferson expected the country would use impeachment much more than has been the case. Perhaps it is time to let the voting public know these coming months are one of those times this particular power of democracy could be made apparent.

Posted by: Alan W. Uhl | April 12, 2006 6:34 PM | Report abuse


No, I am not incorrect. Read your history. It all began with a trumped up war cause by white immigrants and their slaves brought into to Texas territories. Texans wanted that war, they caused that war and they got their war.

All that followed was natural progression. Like I said, we stole the southwest from Mexico.

Posted by: Doug | April 12, 2006 6:26 PM | Report abuse


I see you accept my position on the legality of the international wiretaps. Now you change the subject; fine, its go to you new concern.

The answer is absolutely nothing prevents any government agency employee from abusing his or her authority and position of trust. That said, once they are caught, there can be repercussions.

The quality of the people in these departments and their honor to uphold the laws and the duties of their office is first line of protection. Always has been, always will be.

Posted by: Doug | April 12, 2006 6:18 PM | Report abuse

It is time for Democrats in the House and Senate to get some spine and go after Bush. He is a weak and criminal president, who violates and re-interprets laws at his whim. Censure would tell the nation and this administration that the presidency is not an imperial office, that they do not make laws, and must follow the laws of our land.

Posted by: kevin mcnamara | April 12, 2006 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Doug wrote:

As you left out one of the most important events, we stole most of the southwest from Mexico. If you are going to turn over rocks, turn them all over.

You are incorrect Doug. The United States acquired the northern half of Mexico as a result of the Mexican-American War of 1846-48. This area later became the U.S. states of California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah.

Again these areas also had a Native American population already living there.

Posted by: kitsykitty | April 12, 2006 6:11 PM | Report abuse


Where do I start with this posting?

It is true misstatements were made before the war began. All responsible people agree now that the intelligence on Iraq prior to the war was wrong, badly so.

Say something enough times and people will believe it is a standard Democratic Party talking point line, think for your self.

I also believe we weren’t told the complete truth as to why we went into Iraq. I am willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt given the pre-war intel he had as to the “why now” part. But I truly think, and have since this all began the underlying reason was to change the nature of the middle east.

A full 30% of you will never believe anything the president says. The same 30% that doesn’t believe he won his office fair and square.

I agree someone’s head, or heads, should roll in the CIA. And congress also for ever letting the CIA get so run down in its human intel capabilities.

As for fuel prices, I for one couldn’t be happier that they are rising. Once they get high enough for long enough, we will finally begin to get off oil and on to something we control.

If you read my earlier posting you know your position on wiretaps is all wet.

This president makes mistakes. This president does not tarnish the constitution, he cherishes it. You are confusing him with the trailer trash that preceded him.

Posted by: Doug | April 12, 2006 6:06 PM | Report abuse

I certainly think it's questionable whether or not we're always complying with the Geneva Conventions given the reports of activities at Abu Gharaig, GITMO, and in Afghanistan -- not to mention the President's insistence on being allowed to torture detainees. Whether or not we're legally bound by it is debatable, I'll grant, but I would argue that it is strongly in our interest to do so as we would expect our troops -- if captured -- to be treated in accordance with the conventions. (not to mention the fact that this administration rode in to power deriding the legalisms of the Clinton era and vowed to do what was right)

Your statement, though, gets to heart of why so many of us are troubled by "the war on terror". It's nebulous. How do you know if you've won, or for that matter, how can you define victory? A "war on terror" is essentially a never-ending war because as long as you have determined individuals the risk is always there. That means that all of these changes (Patriot Act, NSA program if Congress legalizes it or if the President persists in flagrantly violating the law) are permanent changes -- a fundamental reodering of the compact between citizens and the government. I don't think most people realize it, though.

Posted by: Questioning | April 12, 2006 5:43 PM | Report abuse


The issue isn’t whether or not the government is monitoring communications; the issue is: can this Administration be trusted with what it finds. The answer is no. Hence; the agonizing.

Based on the fraudulent and dissembled use of intel to support invading Iraq, what is to stop the FBI or the CIA from planting false info on someone they don’t happen to like; say, someone critical of them? Hmmm?

Posted by: roderick whitney stillwell | April 12, 2006 5:42 PM | Report abuse


The POTUS made a false and unsubstantiated statement about Iraq trying to aquire "yellow cake" from Niger.
We know how this admin operates through reverse logic such as say a statement many times and people will believe its true.

Sure the president can say "We are fighting in Iraq to bring democracy to Iraq" Its not true. We are fighting in Iraq to protect the oil fields.

The president a sadly mistaken to think that the American people are stupid to believe everything he says or does and does just the exact opposite of what he says or does.

So by this logic I can assume that we know that Iraq did not try to aquire the supposed "yellow cake" from niger, he won't procescute anyone in the CIA leak, he don't do anything to lower gas prices because we all know one thing for sure that's also true: All the presidents lies lead to Iraq.

As for his illegal and unconstitutional unwarrented wiretaps he should be censured period. He has broken the laws of the U.S. Constitution and for he has tarnished everything that it stands for.

Posted by: Marc | April 12, 2006 5:41 PM | Report abuse


Re: Mexican protesting: As you left out one of the most important events, we stole most of the southwest from Mexico. If you are going to turn over rocks, turn them all over.

Lucky thing we did steal all this land because it now gives the Mexicans someplace worth fleeing to.

Posted by: Doug | April 12, 2006 5:35 PM | Report abuse


No wonder you lefties stay so confused, you can’t read. To the best of my knowledge no one said that Iraq was receiving yellow cake from Nigeria.

As I understood the claim at the time was that Iraq was “trying” to secure yellow cake from Nigeria. Let us begin our disagreement based on facts and substance.

Posted by: Doug | April 12, 2006 5:30 PM | Report abuse

This thread mentioned the immigration issue.

Let's remember a little history. You know each and every one of our ancestors, including those who came over on the Mayflower were all undocumented immigrants. When America was "discovered", it already had an indigenous population who neither invited nor wanted us and certainly didn't document us. We then proceeded to cut down their forests to build our homes, hunted their game, almost to the point of extinction as in the case of the Buffalo, leaving less for them to feed their families and finally we killed them and burned their villages. Instead of hiring the Native Americans we brought in other undocumented laborers from Africa to do the work for nothing. We used biological warfare by giving them blankets deliberately infected with smallpox. We killed their women and children. Any who were left, we rounded up and marched thousands of miles to reservations (detention camps). We were far worse acting undocumented aliens than any Mexican.

We've heard a lot of criticism about the demonstrators carrying the Mexican flag. As far as marching with a Mexican flag, how many bars and restaurants and other businesses post Mexican flags when there is a buck to be made from Cinqo de Mayo, or Irish flags on St. Patrick's day, or even more to the point, how many cars in the South sport the Confederate flag?

Posted by: kitsykitty | April 12, 2006 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Response to Wolfie:

You ask: "If Bush committed a crime (which he did) and was removed, wouldn't Cheney (next in line) who also advocated for these crimes be impeachable?" I suspect there are enough guilty parties among the top brass of the GOP to carry legal proceedings pretty far down the line. In fact, that already seems to be underway in the Wilson/Plame case. And I have wondered myself, if that isn't one of the reasons why the Democrats don't push the issue. I mean, would we/they want to exchange Bush for Cheney? For Frist? For Rice? As you said: "What a mess that would be." But given their cowardly response on any issue you can choose (I exclude four or five senators from this accusation), and given the general lack of cohesion in the party, I suspect that I'm giving the Dems too much credit to think that there's an intelligent reason for failing to impeach.

Posted by: Susan H | April 12, 2006 5:25 PM | Report abuse

I agree this war is all about oil
Surely most of the American people relizes this Don't they

Posted by: Madeline | April 12, 2006 5:22 PM | Report abuse


Neither part of this quote from your post is a known truth “. . . George W. Bush for wiretapping American citizens in violation of FISA and the 4th Amendment to our Constitution . . . .” Since your posting is based on misinformation and faulty assumptions, your posting is a complete waste of time.

As long as one party to these intercepts is presumed to be an enemy of the USA and outside our country, most legal minds agree the president may be acting well within his legal war powers as commander-in-chief. A recent appellate court ruling on a similar matter and a ruling of the FISA judges themselves on this very matter would seem to support the president’s position.

That said, the only way we can test if the president is acting within his war powers would be to take the matter before the Supreme Court for their opinion. Something I hasten to point out no one wishes to do. Instead, both parties in congress want to amend FISA to clearly show there isn’t a conflict. Plus one other small point you may wish to consider, no one in authority wishes to stop the program; no one!

Pick another tree to climb up to throw your rocks.

Posted by: Doug | April 12, 2006 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Get in another blog for or against gun control
This is about impeaching the president

Posted by: Madeline | April 12, 2006 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Marc wrote:

I agree on all points except one: The US isn't really fighting in Iraq to bring Democracy to the Iraqis like the bush admin would like you to believe with its high moral platitudes but rather its to protect the U.S. oil interest that we as Americans hold dear.

You're absolutely right Marc, except that our troops and many Americans don't know that. We are trying to form a government that will be friendly to America's business interests and allow us access to the oil for future wars. The military runs on oil to fuel its tanks and bombers.
"Whoever controls the oil controls the world!"

Posted by: kitsykitty | April 12, 2006 5:18 PM | Report abuse

I thought you weren't going to talk to me,

you really don't want know the truth do you?

it's really not so much about laws as intent.

IF there is a clear ignoring, coverup of culpability there needs to be action taken.

for instance, big tobacco....they can spend money forever making sure that you don't get a decision against them, right? Until someone on the inside gets the scoop on they legally killed how many civilians? It's all about being legal with you isn't it? So if I killed you in a fashion that they hadn't passed a law about yet, you'd be okay with that right? I've usually found that people that are sticklers "for the law," are sticklers when it applies to anyone else and are actually usually cowards....that use adherence to the law as their understanding of where to stand to take advantage of or avoid punishment.

your congress are scofflaws, they pass laws that they don't respond to.

their laws are meant to control you, not protect you....

like the bankruptcy laws that they passed as your corporations started outsourcing eveything in the country, which followed immediately after downsizing and looting of American corporations by internationals...

who have allegieance to the wealthy of all nations.

for instance, the president intended to exact or interfere with Valerie Plames husband, and the truth getting out about the Uranium enrichment program being a scam job by this administration.

regarding gun manufacturers:

it's a multifaceted issue.

but essentially, it's the same thing as a tabacco lobby, that trys to keep you from being able to prosecute when, it knows full well that it is contributing to death/criminal negligence and so forth.

looking at the broader scope:

I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that 12,000 deaths affect more than 12,000 people.

it also affects hospitals, crime labs, forensics departments, etc., that could be doing other work...

It also affects neighborhoods which are like war zones, it's hard to get a good life working if it can end suddenly for no reason.

I would assume most of these deaths are also crime related.

have you ever seen the movie "Lords of War," starring Nicolas Cage?

the governments of the world utilize arms dealers as a way of destablizing competition...other countries.

they are exempt from the effects of their actions because they are creating negative situations over there...

when munitions manufacturers make and sell teflon coated bullets to civilians does that aid or endanger the police force?

what use is a shotgun with a magazine that holds more than 3-5 rounds?

if a company makes a weapon whose clear intent is to maim, take human life or to be used to take human life,

and the advertisment for that weapon "implies" that then

hey, as a citizen that is likely to encounter the result of that encouragement to shoot to enjoy killing other people,

I'd like to be able to seek legal redress.

We can not allow gun manufactuerers to make and sell guns as a way of making killing sexy,


I don't want to hear about but it's like this or like that...

the intent of the gun manufacturers is to create a market

that appeals to the criminal or mayhem oriented.

I've had a gun since I was 12, I can shoot the head off of a match at 20 feet.

I can throw a beer can in the air and keep it in the air, using a shotgun with no difficulty as I empty the magazine.

I know guns, I know how to use them and have....

I don't like some punk, pulling up next to me in traffic threatening me with one, because it's being gun manufacturers.


don't like living in


because you want to play cowboy.


Posted by: hello dan, | April 12, 2006 5:13 PM | Report abuse


I agree on all points except one: The US isn't really fighting in Iraq to bring Democracy to the Iraqis like the bush admin would like you to believe with its high moral platitudes but rather its to protect the U.S. oil interest that we as Americans hold dear.

Who are we to dictate how and what type of government Iraq should have? What makes the U.S. moral in saying that we are fighting in Iraq to make Iraq a democratic state when Washington D.C. can't allow its own people to vote on statehood or a senator even a representative: Think about it.

Posted by: Marc | April 12, 2006 5:12 PM | Report abuse

In Re: Doug | April 12, 2006 04:52 PM

“Because he knows the media is reporting misinformation from Joe Wilson…”

Mr. Wilson’s information was proven to be correct. There was no “Yellow Cake” going from Nigeria to Iraq.

Bush knew at the time Joe’s information appeared in the NY Times that it refuted the prevarications and dissembled information used to substantiate the case for war. He did NOT want the truth to be manifest before the 04 election.

His strategem was to superimpose one lie over another and that too has now been "outed".

Posted by: roderick whitney stillwell | April 12, 2006 5:09 PM | Report abuse

A couple of observations:
First, on the demographics: you seem surprised, Chris, that there are two groups that strongly support censure/impeachment. The first is the highly educated. They are the people who are able to understand the issue WITHOUT any help from the media. And the second is the very poorly paid. They are able to understand the lack of respect for civil rights as an UP-FRONT and PERSONAL issue -- one from which they suffer constantly.
Second, a great many Americans still think that the censure/impeachment issue is about whether it is ok/not to wiretap international terrorists' conversations. Given that, it isn't surprising that only half the population thinks the president should be censured or impeached. We have the media to thank for the widespread lack of information. It's true that a huge number of people neither read nor listen to the news, but even among those who DO, there is a lack of focus on the REAL questions at stake. Maybe if the Post and other papers (and the elected officials of the USA) could bring themselves to state, in clear English, that the real problem is breaking the laws of the US; failing to get the very easily come by approval of the oversight committees; and the utter disregard for the civil rights of US citizens, then a few more people might be outraged.

Posted by: Susan H | April 12, 2006 5:02 PM | Report abuse


Yes true but that was during the time of the American Revolution when its was first established. This is 2006 not 1776 and the world has changed a great deal since 1776 and 9/11/2001 changed all that. We no longer fight gainst the british or french those decades are long over. We fight against rogue terrorist states or groups in a hostile global mutinational world.

The 2nd amendment is still stuck in a 1776 world and hasn't been updated since then. Oh, sure some states have concealed weapons laws such as Texas and Virginia on the books but it will take years if not decades to change it nationally on a federal level. We have the millitary, police to protect us. But if all the states were to follow the concealed weapons law this country would turn into the "Wild-Wild West" a world of lawlessness and abandon without law which would be anarchy which will never happen.

Posted by: Marc | April 12, 2006 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Senator Russ Feingold introduced a bill to censure George W. Bush for wiretapping American citizens in violation of FISA and the 4th Amendment to our Constitution. Senate Majority Leader Bill First condemned this as empowering our enemies, endangering our troops in Iraq and sending the wrong message to the world.

I beg to differ. Our troops are fighting in Iraq to try to bring about a democracy. What better example of democracy can we show to the Iraqis than the freedom of the people to criticize the leader of the government? The Iraqi people wouldn't dare to do that under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. What we are doing now in Iraq is showing them the same example set by Saddam; that "Might makes Right!"

As far as most of the world is concerned, America engaged in an illegal war. Showing the world that we are indeed a nation of laws and that those who break the laws of our nation must be held to account would not be the wrong message. It is a message the world should have if we are ever to re-gain respect.

Even more important than what Iraq, our enemies, or the world thinks, it is important to America that we uphold our Constitution, our rights and freedoms and our democracy.

The Republican’s solution to Bush's law-breaking is to revise the law to make the wiretapping legal. This is no solution.

What recourse do we the people have? Are we to simply throw up our hands and allow our freedoms to be set aside?

Censure has not been used to rebuke an American president since Andrew Jackson. Is that a reason not to use this action? This administration has condoned policies that have never been used in American history. They didn’t let that stop them. If the destruction of our Constitutional rights isn’t a reason to use censure, what reason is there?

Censure is a formal statement of disapproval. Isn't this the very least we can do? Demanding accountability by high officials should not be too much to ask by the people in a representative democracy. It is our responsibility as citizens.

If the Republicans in Congress would only remember the oath they took to uphold and protect the Constitution, they would impeach. This administration has been not only dismantling the checks and balances, creating an imperial presidency and making Congress irrelevant, they have been slowly eroding our rights and freedoms. Until we can get rid of all those in Congress who condone the subverting of our Constitution, censure is the only tool we have available. Hopefully we can change that in the 2006 mid-term elections, impeach this administration, and get our country back. It's time to remember that American values are not attacking other nations that pose no threat to us, torturing people and jailing them indefinitely. If all we stand for as a people is opposition to gay marriage, our values and morals are in a sorry state.

To paraphrase a quote from Smokey the Bear, "Remember, only YOU can save democracy

Posted by: | April 12, 2006 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Lesson for Roderick

The president looks at classified material. The president chooses for whatever his reasons, as is his legal right, to declassify part of that information.

Because he knows the media is reporting misinformation from Joe Wilson, he then instructs his staff to “leak” that declassified information to refute the misinformation; all of which is again perfectly legal and a common norm in Washington.

Miss Plane was not covert under the law as written and therefore, couldn’t be “outed”.

Given these facts, where is the error, where is the law breaking?

Posted by: Doug | April 12, 2006 4:52 PM | Report abuse

The goal of the second amendment was not to provide weapons for government but to ensure that the civilians had weapons when needed.

Governments do not need the Constitution to arm themselves.

A part of the Antifederalist belief was that if "the whole body of people are armed" they can defend against the risk of tyranny from a standing army.

Posted by: NoName | April 12, 2006 4:48 PM | Report abuse

A number of posters have referenced the Laplame outing.


When Bush decided to take a leak on Joe Wilson, he:

(a) released classified NIE information that he knew was a put-up job to begin with. He had fabricated it as Waas so clearly details in his New Yorker 'oeuvre' . It had already been proven false and there was much contention and dissention among DIA, CIA and The Pentagon about it. Politically, he could not release the info publicly because the venue for any rebuttal would have moved to a public forum directly involving the him and Cheney, and they would have been "outed" as liars.

(b) Integral to the leak was an attempt to impugn Wilson on the basis that his CIA sponsored mission was a "plum" junket arranged by his wife.

Now; double negatives notwithstanding, how can it not be seen that Bush's "leak" would not result in LaPlame's outing? It was an inevitable. It is not conceivable to posit that his wife arranged a CIA mission (and therefore his findings must be suspect) without implying that she worked for the Agency. That, to my way of thinking, is a 'bone fide' "slam dunk" case

You folks know American Law better than I do; but it seems to there should have been instantanious "linkage" to a criminal statute somewhere in that. Either that, or he was so inept that he felt free to publish classified information without consideration of the consequences. Y'all want this guy to have the authority to lob nukes into Iran tomorrow and then blame the blunder of faulty intelligence; his that is?

If you do, then you must also think its wise to encourage a gambler who has lost his House at the craps table to go back into the "The Mirage" and double up. Trouble is: its your grubstake he's using for chips.

Posted by: roderick whitney stillwell | April 12, 2006 4:39 PM | Report abuse


Who cares about the 2nd amendment the 2nd amendment only applies to "A well amrmed millitia" translation: police, military, coast guard, FBI, ATF. We for a fact know that guns are made for only one purpose: to kill or injure people. Protection's besides the point as the NRA would like to hide behind the 2nd amendment just to justify its own right-wing, patriotic mantra. Or false statements such as if we ban handguns only the criminals will have guns - False almost everyone does.

According to rough estimate there are over 222 million guns in the U.S. each for every man, woman and child. If we can make the gun declaired as a illegal health and life hazzard just like cigarettes and show the dangerous consequences of owning one (get stolen, shot or killed by owners gun) then people will think twice and very hard about owning guns period.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 12, 2006 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Where has Jeeffeerson's reason and the enlightenment gone? Polls show that most people have NOT read the Dclaration of Independence or the Constitution. Too many aare unaware that the creators of the US had learned from Europe that church and state MUST be kept apart! And how many of the creators were deists rather than Christians? History is taught dismally! Our president has revealed that by his expecting a warm greeting from the Iraqis. A review of that history part of the world, and the dividing it up into arbitrary entities was warning enuf. Churchill delivered a speech in 1899 observing the implacability of the people of the area. He was responsible {when he was in Britain's Home Office} for the division, in the 1920's. He ought to go back to Yale, if they would admit him. After he is impeached.

Posted by: jack c | April 12, 2006 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Two comments on the poll; it shows the media is still trying to make its own news when it comes to President Bush and how many Americans don’t understand the need for such a program.

Third comment to go along with the first two; it is truly frightening that so many Americans can be so stupid on matters of such importance.

Posted by: Doug | April 12, 2006 4:36 PM | Report abuse


That was my point. I don't believe the Geneva Convention applies in this case, except that it clearly idenifies the detainees as 'enemy combatants'. I haven't heard that the detainees are being treated not in accordance with those statutes.

Posted by: Dan | April 12, 2006 4:28 PM | Report abuse

dear Okie....

Okie, This isn't aimed at you, rather to the person responding to you...

Making gun manufacturers immune to liability because a weapon they made was used in a crime is not a bad thing.

We do not arrest auto makers because someone is killed in a drunk driving accident. Nor do we hold the alcohol manufacturers liable.

If you want to go after a gun dealer that violated the law during the sale, I'm with you there, afterall, we hold bartenders accountable for serving someone too much beer. However, the gun manufacturers provide a legal product for people to use legally. Or do you plan to dump the second amendment as well?

Posted by: Dan | April 12, 2006 4:25 PM | Report abuse


Don't worry the V.P. stated a few weeks ago that he doen't want to run for potus. Thank God for that!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 12, 2006 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Fair and Balanced,
Thank you for what you have written. I meant it genuinely when I said that I admire your country. If truth be told there is much to admire in what you and your forefathers have built. But as an admirer I must say that it breaks my heart to see what is happening now to your country. It really does. America is THE world leader and there are millions around the world who only wish you well (despite Osama &Co.).I count myself as one of those wellwishers and I want you to succeed.
And by the way Edna....I DO have a valid visitor's visa....and have had one all my lif... and I have no desire to migrate to the USA....I am very happy where I am. But, frankly, I found your comments about immigrants to be offensive as well as uninformed.

Posted by: Romon | April 12, 2006 4:17 PM | Report abuse


How exactly would you propose that a "peace treaty" in the "War on Terror" work? Who signs the treaty on behalf of concept of terrorism?

Posted by: Questioning | April 12, 2006 4:16 PM | Report abuse

TO unknown.

How can we bring defense to an incompetent POTUS who has no plan at all for getting us out of the mess in Iraq, high gas prices, the new hurricane season, reforming FEMA, the dismal economy and high unemployment rate not to mention the high national debt.

I can't defend a liar who has decieved the people and I as well millions of Americans have lost all trust and belief
in what he'll say or do.

No one will believe the potus except the ignorant and the rich who are but the few that control this nation.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 12, 2006 4:12 PM | Report abuse


Please tell me which of my above statements is an attack on the messenger.

Posted by: Dan | April 12, 2006 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Something that needs to be said here: the president's would-be supporters haven't offered a single argument defending what George Bush has done! Not one of you have even attempted a concise rebuttal.

Instead you are attacking those who point out issues that matter to them.

Is the plan to kill the messenger when no defense is possible?

Posted by: purplehawk | April 12, 2006 4:05 PM | Report abuse

I agree three more years of all the lies, corruption, greed and incompetence must be stopped once and for all. November 2006 is the power device we have as WE THE PEOPLE ourselves can do it!

The signs are clear, the GOP is distancing themselves from the POTUS, high gas prices, uncertanty over Iraq and the hurricane season is yet upon us. There's unchecked corruption and deceit upon every level of government without accountability.

Only the PEOPLE of the U.S. can bring accountable those who think they are above the law and in November 2006 we can do it!
We must act and the time to act is now!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 12, 2006 4:05 PM | Report abuse


It has not yet been proven that GWB lied about the WMDs. Don't use evidence after the fact to make a determination of what was known at the time.

[ducks inflamtory schreeches]

If one believed at the time that the WMD info was credible, then the removal of the Saddam Insane was a reasonable endeavor. Need I remind you that it was not Americans that tore down the statue of Hussein in Bagdad.

Bush can not be found quilty for Geneva conventions violations for GITMO as there are no legal soldiers at Guantanamo. The Geneva Conventions covers the treatment of POWs who are part of Government Militaries. Individual fighters siding with terrorist agencies have no standing under the convention.

And if you think that they should be covered under the Geneva Convention, then they can be held until the formal end of hostilities. Since the hostilities is the war on terror, they can be held, without review, until the peace treaty is signed.

Posted by: Dan | April 12, 2006 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Romon, there are no good answers to your valid questions. But know this. Most of America has dissapproved of this President for a long time. And many of us have been asking, pleading, begging, for an answer to why the President has hijacked our country and taken it to war. History will provide the answers, and I am sure it will not look favorably on the Bush presidency. On his watch, and with a solid GOP majority in both houses of Congress, they have massively ballooned the national debt, the budget deficit, the trade deficit, diverted hundreds of billions in a needless war, watched as energy prices have skyrocketed, watched as not one but TWO great American cities were devastated by human negligence, increased the divide betw rich and poor, tax breaks for the rich, education failing, a complete rejection of our foreign policy, devastation for our troops and the resources of our military, divided the country sharply over political partisanship, and on and on and on....... This is not just me complaining, these are the results of their policies or the results of their negligence, and I cannot see how any historical documentation of this administration will look favorably on ANYTHING they have done, even if it attempts to do so in an unbiased fashion. They had the leadership and they made this country do a flat-out nose-dive from Day 1. We're tired of it, and change is coming.

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | April 12, 2006 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Dear RC.

What whould honestly make me and a million other honest, decent, very intelligent ordinary people ever believe
in their right minds that this incompetent
liar POTUS believe what he say's he'll do but we all know he'll turn around and to precisely the opposite?

We'll he hasn't and he won't prosecute the people responsible for the CIA leak.
I don't believe that's its "In his Power" to do so." That power should rest with Congress and the Justice Department alone.
For the POTUS we all know its just spin and show for political gain he can get any now.

The president has rewritten the constitution and I do believe he doesn't acknowledge that one even exist due to evidence of his arrogant behavior, that there's was once a 17th Century french king who said "estate les moi" for "I am the State".

And that would be King George himself a.k.a George Bush. We all know for a fact, we read the papers and the internet do we, that the wired and wireless taps are unwarrented and illegal and the potus has the nerve to procliam that the constitution has granted him these powers without a legal prescedent? I say there is no legal prescedent for the POTUS in claiming he has these unconstitutional powers. In fact IMHO the elections of 2000 and 2004 were both unconstitutional.

This is in direct violation of the rights to privacy of all U.S. citizens he should be censured for these uwarrented wired and wireless taps and waging an unconstitutional and unjustified war in iraq.

Posted by: Marc | April 12, 2006 3:54 PM | Report abuse

this isn't on the front page of the Washington Post any more?

Chris Cilliza has replaced it with:

Ohio: Parties Battle It Out Early in the 6th District

He used to work for congress, why do you think he's taken _this_ blog out of direct view?

ask him.


Posted by: Have you noticed that | April 12, 2006 3:52 PM | Report abuse

arrest him first.

he's leading the country not bush.

Posted by: you want to avoid Cheyney being president... | April 12, 2006 3:49 PM | Report abuse

another 9/11?

have you noticed that 12 million people are in the country illegally?

and they _all_ have dark skin and hair.

do you know that the entire Pacific coast of Oregon has one border patrol agent assigned to it?

did you know that the 9/11 Commission finding after 9/11 on whether this administration had acted prudently after reveiwing the reccomendations had this to say:

"This administrations _lack of response_ to suggestions that we made that needed to be enacted, put in place, borders on the criminal."

the president has had _no response_ as his response to terrorists....

he _are_ the terrorists

even you with your limited resourcs, with no friends in the CIA, and never having lived within the City Limits of DC METRO,

which means Virginia, DC and Maryland

can understand that

12,000 people can't sneak in if we're keeping terrorists out...

_we_ trained the Saudi pilots to fly the airplanes...

we invaded Iraq, because it fit our agenda.

google "April Gillespie"

google george h. w. bush

timothy mcveigh was an abberation, so was the columbine massacre

_this_ is a little bigger.


12,000 people died from firearms last year...

a couple of months ago, YOUR CONGRESS, passed a law exempting gun manufacturers from being sued for liability, contributing to crime or wrongful death

because you as a citizen need access to saturday night specials, street sweepers and armor piercing bullets as well as teflon coated bullets...

because your congress people care about you.

Posted by: dear okie.... | April 12, 2006 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Of course people are not in favor of impeaching Bush--Cheney would be worse! I think Bush is awful, but his anti-impeachment insurance policy (Cheney) is just too scary.

Posted by: Sigh | April 12, 2006 3:46 PM | Report abuse

One comment Marc It's not just the greedy sheiks in Suadi Arabia But also Mr Bush himself stuffing his pockets with our hard earned dollars

Posted by: Madeline | April 12, 2006 3:40 PM | Report abuse

As Karl Rove says, I've had too much of a good thing.

Of course government should do what it needs to in order to protect its people. It just shouldn't violate its own rules to do so. If Bush wants to spy on Americans without a warrant, fine. But do the right thing and amend the Constitution so that when you do it, it's legal.

Posted by: adam | April 12, 2006 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Well put Marc

Posted by: Madeline | April 12, 2006 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Two comments:

Am I wrong? Didn't the majority of Americans oppose the impeachment of Bill Clinton? Didn't stop that congress.

Americans have been slow to wake up to the evils of the Iraq invasion and occupation, but they have now. Maybe in a few months they'll wake up to the evil and incompetence of this corrupt administration, though I'm not sure that we/they can depend on corrupt congress to respong accordingly.

Posted by: Hazletine Dooley | April 12, 2006 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Well Mr. Morin thanks for the belated poll. Of course, those who use cell phones as their only phone such as myself were not polled. We're smart, independent, and we hate liars in office like Bush.

Thats why your numbers are skewed.

Posted by: Long Beach, CA | April 12, 2006 3:32 PM | Report abuse

What went wrong Adam? You started out so well . . .

I don't defend the Japanese internments in 1942. Nor do I see a clear parallel with provisions of the patriot Act, which is essentially like the RICO statute as used against organized crime. The first responsibility of a responsible government is to protect the people it serves from mass murder at the hands of enemies. I can assure you that, absent the Patriot Act and other measures taken since 9-11, had a second major attack occurred, the same "impeach Bush" voices we see here today would have been screaming "impeach Bush for not protecting us!" By the way, my screen name is geographical. I come from a place that had a very costly act of domestic terrorism 11 years ago next week. Sure wish someone in authority had been eavesdropping on McVeigh before he killed 168 of my neighbors.

Posted by: okie | April 12, 2006 3:28 PM | Report abuse

you don't need to believe the rhetoric about

us needing _wire tapping_

it's not true. And there are warrants available, even warrants that name individuals as being part of a group...

but hey, quakers are not terrorists...

what needs to end is wiretapping without a just reason.

did you forget that the president said that "whoever was responsible for the leak regarding Valerie Plames endangerment will be prosecuted in the fullest"

has been replaced by, "it's within my power."

this administration has passed laws that exempt it from prosecution for laws that it _has_ broken

congress would get a spine if they weren't corrupt too...

arrest a couple of more congress people for


parking tickets, tax evasion, hiring illegals, bribes....

and the tide will turn _away_ from corruption.

Posted by: dear RC | April 12, 2006 3:24 PM | Report abuse

To Edna Boddy

I think that the president should be sensured YES! %100 and Impeached YES! %100 in that order. On the basis of this: his ever expanding unconstitutional powers have gone unchecked on illegal and uwarranted wiretaps, violating the War Powers Act without the Consent of Congressional authority, waging illegal wars on premption based on faulty evidence of WMD we've seen that in Iraq, mistreatment of prisoners of Abu Garhib in violation of the Geneava Convention.

These are the REAL High Crimes And Misdemeanorsthat are harming this country. The administrations all too tight and secretive "Cloak and Dagger" secrecy puts the U.S. at a very dangerous breech of a national security risk becuase if a govenrment keeps every secret known only onto itself the its not only is a great disservice to Democracy but to the honesty and free flow of information to the people of the united states. People have a right to know what for instance the V.P. said to libby in the CIA leaked information on Vallery Plame and that the President hemself leaked part of this information to the press minus what the exchange was between the two.

This is deception and distrotion at it highest levels in govenrment. With all the rampent corruption, incompetence and greed that this administration has foisted on the people of the U.S. and we have three more years of this to continue unless WE THE PEOPLE stand up and act on our courage of our convictions to restore honesty and decency to the PEOPLE of the U.S.A

Just think of it Edna. Do we want another incompetent slow response to another yet to happen hurricane Katrina to continue to wreck the millions of lives into devastation? Do we want $5.00 gasoline prices while all the greedy sheiks in Suadi Arabia to build another multi-billion indoor ski-restort in Dubi? Do we want another possible war with Iran that's bassed on lies and frabrications for waging another bogus war on terrorism?

I say NO and the president can make all the speeches he wants but no one believes him now. All of his political capital has long already been spent and wasted on his arrogance and lies of deceitful mistrust that has tarnished our democracy. In fact what about restoring democracy in the U.S. for a change rather than wasting his moral platitudes on democracy for the people Iraq? Let them have their own civil war and leave us out of it. What right does the U.S. have in dictating what type of government that the Iraqi people should have? You tell me Edna is this what we should all be proud of an incompetent and stupid president of which you so highly tout when he can't even protect the people of New Orleans from another impending hurricane, never the less, our neighborhoods from crime, poverty and prepare ill equiped firemen and policemen to protect the citizens as well?

I for one am not proud of this president, our country has no leader and the answer is clear either Censure and hold the corrupted administration accountable or face the wrath of THE PEOPLE in November 2006. The American People are much more intelligent than the POTUS is and I know they'll make the right decision in november 2006 and when the Democrats take control of both the house and senate then and only then will that be the day that all americans can be truly proud of!

Posted by: Marc | April 12, 2006 3:23 PM | Report abuse

If Bush is going to be censured or impeached, it should be because of the unjustified and unwinnable war in Iraq.

He SHOULD NOT be sanctioned for the warrantless NSA eavesdropping. Until someone has the guts to GET US OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST COMPLETELY (i.e. not just Iraq but all of the region and end our unquestioning support for Israel) we are going to be targetted by Islamic extremists. Thus, we should not let our guard down against domestic threats just to appease privacy absolutists.

Posted by: RC | April 12, 2006 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Just an fyi for okie, I'm in rural NC! And I'm from rural MO.

To go back to my earlier point, Mr. and Mrs. America weren't opposed to the Japanese internment either. That doesn't make it ok.

Gitlow, Schenck, Hustler, Miranda - none of these people are personally defendable necessarily, but I'm sure glad that Supreme Court ruled in their favor. I'm sure that whoever the government is wiretapping is not the pinacle of good citizen American, but it doesn't mean it's a good thing to have the government spying on them.

Posted by: adam | April 12, 2006 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Forgive me for asking some questions that may seem obvious to you Americans, but are most perplexing to persons like myself who are not American, but have always greatly admired the United States and what it stood for....or was supposed to stand for:
1) Edna, you say that your grandfather came from Ireland in 1902 with $5.00 in his pocket and was allowed in and then "had to go through the process". Do you know that I can't get a visa to visit (much less live in) your country if all I have is the 21st century equivalent of your grandfather's $5.00? Or am I missing some greater point here?
2) I thought that America was about truth and justice. I thought that one of the principles upon which your great Republic was formed was that all men were created equal....especially before the law? Assuming that this is in fact so, may I respectfully ask if it is against your laws for a President to lie about the reasons for which he has taken your country into war? Put another way, is it against your laws for a President to lie about the reasons to go to war, which lie causes the deaths of several thousand of your citizens?
3) If it is not against your laws then why not? Shouldn't it be? And if not,why not?
4) And if it is or ought to be against your laws, then is it right to allow that President (whoever he might be)to get away with it? Or is it only wrong when a President lies about whether or not he had sex with a young girl? Put another way, is it that lying about sex is much more serious than lying about going to war?

Posted by: Romon | April 12, 2006 3:13 PM | Report abuse

I like the purge response. It is not just Bush that has to go but all that have supported his unchecked presidency

Posted by: Madeline | April 12, 2006 3:02 PM | Report abuse

I have every reason to support the censuring movement that should ultimately lead to impeachment of President Bush. Mr. Bush is accountable to the people for his actions. His decision to go to war is hurting our pocketbook (since the war is financed by heavy borrowing), he is shortening the productive lives of our young soldiers who have either died or maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan, he is curtailing our civil liberties on the pretext of national security, and he is contributing to terrorism by dividng peoples of the world by sowing the seed of hatred. May God saved this country from this man.

Posted by: Rotsen Bayl | April 12, 2006 2:58 PM | Report abuse

The actions of the Bush administration, ie preemptive wars on false pretenses, torture, walking out on established treaties, meddling where we don't belong, lack of diplomacy, wiretapping, ignoring the environment, etc., have diminished our standing in the international community, and in the words of Harry Taylor, "I am ashamed." I think it's going to take forever, but perhaps censure or better yet, impeachment proceedings, would be a step toward showing the world that the American people do not condone the arrogant bullying (high crimes and misdemeanors) and we could get back on track working with others to make this small world a more peaceful, secure place in which to live, if it's not too late.

Posted by: Jo Simmons | April 12, 2006 2:57 PM | Report abuse

I think you should have asked 1 additional question in the survey. the question is why do you feel he shouldn't or should.

Posted by: Al | April 12, 2006 2:56 PM | Report abuse

it's the level of complicity,

within the Congress

and the Defense Department.

what needs to happen is closer to the level of a purge...

but probably someone in a high office needs to be brought on on "war crimes," either that or indicted in the

war for oil/profit scheme that paralled it.

there needs to be something decisive done, this corruption/work that has been put in place

_here and now_

is almost world destroying.

We can not allow the message to be given that it is tolerable.

We are at the edge of a _moral_ and destructive abyss.

There are enumerous _crimes_

fraudulent assumption of "war powers," would be pretty easy to prove.


Posted by: It isn't the executive you need to fear | April 12, 2006 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Like Lisa, I am also a Texan. There are a few true conservatives left (personally I am almost libertarian--very fiscally conservative and socially liberal. That is a true conservative to me. Get the government out of my pocketbook and my personal life.) I come to very different conclusions, however.

First, just to address her, education here in our Great State outside the heavily immigrant border areas, is quite good for the most part. My school district just outside NASA in the Clear Lake area stacks up with the best in the country. I work as a volunteer frequently for the school district, as does my wife, and most complaints that sound like hers suspiciously come from people in the edu-industry monopoly that don't like mandates/tests. More power to them, I suppose, but don't run down education here gratuitously (and unfairly) without explanation.

As for the foaming at the mouth folks that form such a large part of the this post, I suggest you get a grip. There's much about Bush I dislike, but you folks need to stop spouting inside echo chambers like these until you become convinced all the world is flat. Just be aware that most folks don't share your ideology, and that they possess a much more balanced (and even nuanced) vision than yourselves.

BTW, though an Aerospace Engineer by trade and among those high wage earners/degreed mentioned elsewhere, I am amazed at the gross generalization and unbeleivable snobbiness evidenced here.

Grow up, people. Many of you self-desrcribed as NE liberal "enlightened ones" haven't seemed to help the discourse level much, if this area is any example. And your belief that if you could just bring the unwashed masses up to your level of brilliance then we could get rid of all our problems (and the GOP as well, I presume) is an example of your problem.

Despite your not directly spoken beliefs (but easily visible between the lines), there exists intelligence and thougthfulness that actually can disaggree with your opinions. I imagine that is hard for our uber-class thinkers to grasp, but roll it aorund in your superior brains and see if you can conceive of it.

One final small note: The reason to impeach FDR would be his desire not just to pack the Supreme Court (as many say Bush desires), but to actually enlarge it's number of Justices so as to get the resuults he wanted, since many of his pet programs where declared unconstitutional. Imagine that happening today.

And as was already mentnioed, lying in court (a co-equal branch) under oath was Clinton's crime. What he lied about was trivial--and irrelevant. But it was at least in the realm of impeachable. Despite discussion here, a step never to be taken lightly.

--From the unwashed masses

Posted by: SpaceMan | April 12, 2006 2:50 PM | Report abuse

In re: Dan | April 12, 2006 01:58 PM

Your suggestions show that you’ve put some thought into the matter. But the US got into the mess in Iraq by thinking and acting unilaterally. Am I right?

If this resonates with you, then perhaps you can see why the problem doesn’t seem to have a solution that has general support or that even seems feasible. I humbly submit; the absence from your list of the possibility of submitting the entire mess to the UN tells the whole story. It does not seem to be understood, even after 3 years, that the problem with Iraq (and Iran) is an international problem requiring consensus (and compromises) among many nations.

If y’all want to continue to believe there is some special law in physics that allows you to pull yourselves up in the air by your own bootstraps; that the US exists in some other Quantum
State from the rest of the World, well; there’s not much anyone can do to help. In terms of domestic (mental) health, y’all need to get out of the House and stop with the internecine, partisan squabbles and naval gazing.

If you can forgive a feeble attempt at analogy: the US looks a lot like a schizophrenic in crisis trying to solve his problems by listening to the voices in his own head.

Believe it or not; the world truly does wish Americans well. Given even a glimmer of hope, the world will give a lot of support, not to mention goodwill. But, until you’re ready to put a cork in the bottle, stop drinking your own ‘shine’ and come “out’n the holler”, things are just going to get worse.

roderick whitney stillwell
The Boundary Bay Morning Steamer

Posted by: roderick whitney stillwell | April 12, 2006 2:49 PM | Report abuse

What an amazing response to the posting.
I fear this Executive, as, do most of our legislature.

Posted by: Brian | April 12, 2006 2:46 PM | Report abuse

"those who advocate impeachment are flirting with chaos and tragic damage to our constitutional system"

and what was the Patriot Act?

what was allowing Tom Delay to remain in power when he was advocating:

using the Exective and Congress to control the Judicial System...separation of powers, by any other name.

using the church on national television to control the electoral process....seperation of church and state.

do you even support the Constitution and Bill of Rights or just your position on what you want to happen.

In that case you and Tom Delay are much alike.


Posted by: what are you on? | April 12, 2006 2:43 PM | Report abuse

You know this man has lied and been underhanded in all he has done. The only person I know that has gotten away with such use of power is "Hitler"
He was the government and the people were only in a position to follow. I will not follow this man and he is guilty of so much wrong doing that it's laughable to think he is a leader at all. In all of this where is the leader of the 911 attack.
We started a war in Iraq, Where is Oshman. I believe all of this was to divert attention from were it needed to be. This man is a criminal.

Posted by: Madeline | April 12, 2006 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Ugh! This is all so discouraging. We are Americans, how can we allow this to happen. Why are the Dems being so quiet. I can only wonder if they themselves have been wiretapped, and now are being blackmailed into business as usual. Once we let our freedoms go we will NEVER get them back. Democracy used to mean something to me, now it just means i need an aspirin.

Posted by: Catherine | April 12, 2006 2:32 PM | Report abuse

L-word, re the "name calling" conservatives, I don't think it was a conservative who bounced out the ever-reliable "fascist" label.
This entire thread is most revealing, but it still has not answered the basic question re impeachment, which is that the Constitution specifies that a public official subject to impeachment must have engaged in actual criminal activity, NOT simply advocated a policy with which one takes issue. I repeat my original statement: absent an indictment and/or conviction for a genuine crime, those who advocate impeachment are flirting with chaos and tragic damage to our constitutional system.

Posted by: okie | April 12, 2006 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Hi, a note about the impeachment. One aspect of the Clinton impeachment not mentioned is the fact that it allowed the next President to feel immune because of the prior impeachment. President Bush and the Republicans knew people don't like to do extreme measures in succession so there would not be stomach for impeachment in the future. This same logic applies to the mistake in going to war with Iraq over false pretenses. If we ever REALLY need to partake in fighting to protect our national security, there will be less stomach for it and a questioning of whether the information is true. Just like in the Boy who Cries Wolf. That is why, among other important reasons, our national security is in more danger now, than before the Iraq war.

Posted by: Jason | April 12, 2006 2:25 PM | Report abuse

The stats were interesting but I am a 71 year old Democrat who lives in one the redest of states, Nebraska. I have been supporting impeachment since the lies about WMD's. The wire tapping was just one more reason to believe that this president is a great threat to this country and to democracy. He has lied to get us into a war, he has done more than Reagan to ruin the economy and he has done so much to bring into reality the Orwellian fears of "Nineteen Eighty-four."

Posted by: Jerrold Aspengren | April 12, 2006 2:16 PM | Report abuse

well Dan,

a subsidiary of Halliburton won a contract of $380 million to build detainment camps

in the United States, so perhaps, it's not who has, but who will

be arrested?


situation is multilevular.

It has to be viewed as systemic. You have to understand and solve a system of problems.

but they can be lumped into one mass, called corruption.

using position for gain.

Posted by: who has been arrested? | April 12, 2006 2:14 PM | Report abuse

You'd have to have people over there that could give you good intelligence...

not rhetoric that supported administration position.

you should really look at this:

it's signed by Cheyney, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Rumsfield and about 12 others...

it implies that you're being ruled not by George W. Bush.

but by the Defense Department.

the president is acting for his families interests and

using the Defense Department, and is being used by those that work_with and within the Defense Department.

I believe that there is a whole lot of money in's the biggest budget item. It is a large part of the Beltway Bandits money, isn't it?

Honesty, would do more for Iraq, than specific actions.

Let's put it this way:

The majority of American Servicemen, think we were attacked by you think they're treating them nicely?

The majority of Iraquis think that their country has been ivaded because they have oil, are they wrong?

IF the servicemen understood that they were occupiers, not "war" heroes, not avenging forces....perhaps they'd be a little smarter about the way they handled themselves.

There is a disconnect between what the servicemen think is going on and what is going on, and they haven't been breifed.

fact is most of them have done multiple turns in the barrel with no-choice as to whether they wanted to get into it or not.

Like the National Guard Troops.

There's one poster here that had a son sent into combat _because_ they complained.

He was trained to be a stateside medical technician, and sent into combat as a medic, because he complained about being sent overseas....when he was guaranteed stateside as part of his enlistment.

Posted by: leaving Iraq? | April 12, 2006 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Please excuse my ignorance.

Wiretapping, is this physical wiretapping or is it listening in on cell phone calls?

Yes, there is a difference.

The courts have stated that Bush has the authority to listen without going to the FISA courts. How then can he be impeached for doing something the courts say he has the authority to do.

Who has been arrested because they were listened to? I haven't heard of any cases of this happening.

The fourth amendment still protects people even after they have been infringed upon.

There is a legal concept called Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, which states that ANY information that derives from a source in violation of your 4th amendment rights cannot be used against you in a court of law.

Therefore the 4th amendment rights of people are still protected, even after the fact.

Posted by: Dan | April 12, 2006 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Bush is a business man, nothing more. What could be more tempting? billions in taxes every year without question and a public that can't find their own state on a map. If I was in his position i would rob america blind, we are sitting ducks, rich and stupid. We have a government supposedly based on enlightenment thinking and an economic system that is blatantly based on self interest. Who sold us on the idea that these concepts were mutually compatable. The american culture has been blind, selfish and morally bankrupt since its inception. There is no america there is only capitalism.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 12, 2006 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Lo que más me molesta de este "presidente" es la hipocresía con la cual mancha todo lo que toca. Yo quisiera ver otra vez publicadas las fotos de Bush arrodillado y roganda a Dios que le diera luces para tomar su decisión. ¿Recuerdan su famoso pronunciamiento de que él no consultaba a su padre sino a su Padre celestial para tomar sus decisiones? Ahora se descubre que mientras pretendía orar, él ya había puesto en marcha la movilización para lanzar una guerra no provocada, inmoral y cobarde. El hombre es simplemente un político venenoso para quien nada ni nadie es sagrado.

Posted by: Alcides Rodriguez | April 12, 2006 2:06 PM | Report abuse

don't see other rich guys as foreigners.

they see you as foreigners.

YOU don't understand that they need to take advantage of you to


that advantage.


that worked for you, you would't bother to impeach you'd arrest a few people....and don't worry

Tom Stevens, Hastert, Cheyney, and the bushes enmasse would be amongst the orange jumpsuiters....and that would be a good thing.

nothing startles the corrupt than suddenly being treated as an equal.

do that.

arrest and prosecute.


Posted by: ps. your rich guys | April 12, 2006 2:00 PM | Report abuse


The proliferation of 'illegal war' and 'warcrimes' on this thread lead me to ask what people think is a solution to the military presence in Iraq.


What is the best course of action for leaving Iraq?

Should we
1) Remove all troops tomorrow.
2) Begin removing 1 brigade per Quarter.
3) Keep the force in place until the Iraq Government is firmly in place.
4) Create a timetable of mandating the size of force we will have in place on a given date.
5) Increase the size of the force to actually be able to secure Iraq from domestic and foreign insurgents.
6) Some other SPECIFIC response.

Posted by: Dan | April 12, 2006 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Bush should be impeached for his wiretapping. That Nixonesque action is reason alone to be impeached. However, I would NOT remove him from office without Cheney resigning. (See above comments re the devil I know better than the one I don't...)

Also, I'm a college-educated Midwesterner...whose side am I "supposed" to be on according to the polls? My point: there are plenty of Midwesterners who'd love to see Bush out of office.

Posted by: Dwight from WI | April 12, 2006 1:56 PM | Report abuse

The polls are not phrasing the question correctly. The question should be, "IF you did not think it would send 'the wrong message to our enemies' would you vote to censure or impeach President Bush. Then we would realize how effective the propoganda from this administration is in justifiying their continued failed leadership based on the agrument of "everyone's" complicity because the President was granted war powers (plenary powers). Everyday more revelations surface that prove that "everyone's" (congress included) complicity was bought with lies and distortion of intelligence.

Please, please won't some of you Republican Senators and Congressmen find your moral compass and help put a stop to the neo-con ideological lunacy before there isn't a country left to save?

Posted by: Randy Rue | April 12, 2006 1:55 PM | Report abuse

In Re: Miss Cat | April 12, 2006 01:30 PM

“The list of immoral and incompetent decisions/policies of Bush et. al., is now so long that it is sadly humorous because 'they' have gotten away with all of it.”

We appear to be on the same page. Its too long to be appropriate in this thread, but if y’all have an idle moment, you might enjoy the following "sadly humerous" look at 'getting away with it' posting; assuming it is still archived.
“…I shot him fair and square, judge; honest”

roderick whitney stillwell
The Boundary Bay Morning Steamer

Posted by: roderick whitney stillwell | April 12, 2006 1:52 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: lcmoreno | April 12, 2006 1:49 PM | Report abuse

senator from New Mexico, that sees himself as that is what his ancestors were in the 1600's.

Mexican Mafia, hiring _their own_ getting them in and getting a cut?

I've got a restaurant about 2 miles away from me that is owned and run by illegals, probably brings in quite a bit of money, high volume, large top-end, but still fast food....

employs about 120 people in all...

that is a port of entry, a gate way.

for each illegal that acquires enough capital to start hosting, and hiring their own illegals....and getting them in.

most people that work in labor are

temp workers now,

no guaranteed job,

no healtcare,

no vacation.

How do you buy a home, if you can't guarantee your income?

temp workers have moved into the white collar world too...

most of your computer workers are temps now.

IF you don't take care of yourselves and the

other middle-class workers, blue-collar,

_you_ won't have any voting clout when they ship your jobs to India.

does Bush have to worry about that?


who did he want to have take over your ports?

does he have any connection with them previously to that deal? Did his father?

have the Bin Laden family ever been to Crawford Texas?

Who was flown out of the United States immediately after 9/11 while all of the airports were shut down _as if_ it were part of the plan by the United States government? The Bin Ladens.

Who is establishing "Royal Banks" in the United States? The Saudi's...they have money, what do they hold has equity, land, mortgages, influence....

does your president listen when you tell him you don't like your children being killed, or being lied to?

no? well, that means _he_ doesn't care about you and your opinion, because you're not of his class.

he joined the National Guard to avoid combat duty during war time.

he sent the National Guard into Iraq, without combat training, because it suited his needs.

he didn't hesitate to send the very group that he sought refuge in when he wanted to avoid combat, into combat.

why, he's allowed.

that's why when he gets a dui, Poppy bails him out.

when he gets into addiction, alcohol and cocaine....he still gets a clearance.

YOU, couldn't get a clearance with his background.

He gets to be president, and to use his ability to classify and declassify to avoid jail time:

"whoever is responsible for this leak will be prosecuted to the fullest extent!"

yea right.

and his father uses him to pay back favors and arrange some more,

as your country and people get sold down the drain...

and the _really_ unintelligent argue about party politics........

Kerry let him win.

Position, power, influence

that is what politicians are in it for, you are in danger of losing what little democracy you have whilst you prattle about "he did" "she did"

listen clearly,

plutocracy, oligarchy

that's what you have, rule by the few.

Posted by: rich guy from another country can be a | April 12, 2006 1:38 PM | Report abuse

RE: Cillizza, Parsing the Polls
It's completely impossible to determine, from the results of the cited poll, exactly what percentage of poll participants would support a Bush impeachment. That's because the pollsters neglect to explain what "impeachment" means under the U.S. Constitution. I would guess that most people polled consider that "impeachment" is synonymous with "removal from office." And poll respondents may well feel they don't know enough to endorse removing Bush . But what if they understood this: An impeachment merely states a charge and prepares the way for a trial. The House of Representatives votes (up or down) on whether there is enough evidence to put the President on trial. If the House DOES impeach, the Senate conducts a trial, which results in another vote on the actual charges. (Here is where the removal from office question is decided.) If those polled understood that impeaching Bush would compel him to actually answer questions (!!!) about his conduct in office, I hope the polls would show resounding support for this undertaking. We do want to know, don't we, whether our President presided over the presentation of questionable/false evidence to sell the Iraq war to Americans ? (At phenomenal costs in human life and limb, as well as dollars.) Do we care whether or not he approved illegal wiretapping of American citizens? If we are paying attention, we want answers from this President, in the only forum that requires him to respond truthfully. Impeach him. He can always exercise his Fifth Amendment rights not to incriminate himself.

Posted by: Maia Krache | April 12, 2006 1:36 PM | Report abuse

It may be that the ultimate challenge will be how the Dems or others will position themselves against what has become a theocracy without appearing as the anti-Christ. For the most part those who support Bush do so because of his public proclamation of his faith and don't seem to care a wit that he is morally depraved. Odd for a group who 'fundamentally' ground their decision-making in their faith. Seem like a digression from this discussion??? Then refer to the recent WP article about "How the Republican Party became God's Party." This makes the parsing process more complex which isn't mentioned in this discussion. If Bush were to be impeached he would be made a martyr and that seems far worse to me, but I still feel he should at least be censured, otherwise it will seem that sexual impropriety is the only criteria for a Congressional slap-on-the back-of-the-hand-with-a-ruler.

But, to me more importantly is what the Dems are NOT crafting an alternative to the travesty of this administration that offers disaffected Republicans and Democrats a home with a solid foundation instead of the house of cards they seem to be living in now; an alternative that offers US citizens something they can sink their collective teeth into and care about enough to get out the vote and create the change they wish to see. Harry Reid and the rest of them, save a few, need to stop with the Bush basing....what good is preaching to the choir? Enough with the Bush bashing and get focused on recapturing the middle and doing something about the middle which is almost right of Nixon these days. But then most of the Dems are in that higher income bracket and benefit from some of the Bush policies...hmmm.....

Personally, I am disgusted with the seemingly complacent Democrats, save a few, in Congress who appear to have just rolled over on some incredibly meaningful votes. When are they going to stand up and borrow the line from "Network" and proclaim they are "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore?" This from a lifelong 'card-carrying' liberal..... When are they going to walk the talk of the values their party is supposed to endorse and protect? The so-called middle seems to have become the quagmire or quick sand that swallows the possibilities of real change because it lacks definition. It seems that the Dems, save a few, have become afraid of taking a loud and decisive stand no matter the political risk.

The list of immoral and incompetent decisions/policies of Bush et. al., is now so long that it is sadly humorous because 'they' have gotten away with all of it. I think the seminal moment was the depraved response to those who have and continue to suffer from Katrina and Rita. If 'they' can get away with that, then it seem they can get away with anything. In our own country this is how our citizens are treated and yet we are supposed to be the model for human rights. Perhaps a call for trail in the Hague for war crimes is appropriate....crimes against our own citizens let alone the tens of thousands dead Iraqi civilians, the 2323 dead soldiers and tens of thousands wounded whose lives and families are forever changed in ways most of us could never imagine.

For anyone who wants to take a watch....Iran will be the excuse that Bush et. al., will use to withdraw troops from Iraq so they can save their so-called faces since they can't seem to do it for the right reasons.

Miss Cat from Ozland

Posted by: Miss Cat | April 12, 2006 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Great! People are talking. It's about time. The egregious acts of this administration are only beginning to surface. There's a lot more to come. Soon everybody will be on the impeachment bandwagon, and not just to get rid of Bush, who is only the frontman for the gang of criminals that has taken over our nation to pursue their own ends at the expense of the rest of us. Wait till the truth about 9-11 comes out. Because if you believe that a bunch of Bedouins living in caves in Afghanistan, trained on tiny planes at tiny airports, managed to hijack 747's, perform a crackerjack piece of flying even experienced pilots would have trouble with, and hit specific buildings not once but TWICE, then I have a bridge I can sell you. Listen to the witnesses at the time who heard explosions go off inside the buildings. Watch the buildings fall inward, exactly as buildings exploded on purpose do. Ask where Norad was when those planes invaded the most protected airspace on the planet. If you want to know who arranged this tragedy, all I can say is what every cop knows--look at who benefits, and that's your chief suspect. Who went from a joke to a master "protector of our country?" Who pushed a prepared agenda to invade other countries, committing mass murder for mass profit under trumped up ideological excuses and massive fear-mongering? Just think about it, instead of buying what you've been told. After all, this administration has told the truth about nothing else; why do we believe them about 9-11, the very act that brought them to power? Time to wake up, America, and take back our country! Put these people in jail, where they belong!

Posted by: Shaman | April 12, 2006 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Who do you thinks wants the illegals to be here.

The blue collar and low income people that have to compete with them?

or the people that hire them instead of Americans for 1/2 pay, and don't have to provide them with insurance?

I'm not partisan. But it's employers/owners, people with money that want the illegals to come in.

It's your leaders. Who do you think these people work for? Who is trying to grant them amnesty?

Who is Attorney General Gonzales working for? Who does it benefit to have ranch hands that you pay 2/3 of what you pay anyone else?

What most of you white collar people tend to not understand because you're not _there_ is that

illegals are a ploy to make peasants compete with peasants...

your peasants have to compete with Mexicos peasants and reduce their standard of living as a result.

pay in Mexico is $4 a day....they're not here for the citizenship, they're here for the money.

Mexico is lobbying the United States for know why? Because the Mexican illegals send a good portion of thei money home.

What you're doing in offering Amnesty is outsourcing.

outsourcing all of the jobs that require a physical presence to Mexicans.

I've seen entire work crews of illegals, I've seen Apartment complexes being built 1/2 of a mile from Tysons Corner by an entire crew of illegals.

Painters, Heavy Equipment operators, Carpenters, Electricians, HVAC workers, Concrete Workers...

not a burger flipper amongst them.

Think about it. I'm a rich guy from another country, why should I hire my crew from Americans...I'll just buy some land and have _my people_ build what I want at Mehico's rate.

It's nice that you want to call people liars or not check your facts, but I've given you some facts.

I worked in Washington for 30 years.


Posted by: Dear Edna | April 12, 2006 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Re: “Dame” Edna Boddy on Immigrants @ 01:04 PM;

So you believe the folks who got into YOUR country illegally should be given the “bums rush”?

How do you think the Iraqis feel? Its just my first impression; but, that sounds a tad hypocritical to me. Or better yet; overarchingly arrogant.

roderick whitney stillwell
The Boundary Bay Morning Steamer

Posted by: roderick whitney stillwell | April 12, 2006 1:18 PM | Report abuse

While I agree with W_Lanier - especially about "Okie" (who I don't agree with on all the issues.), one trend I do see in perusing through this thread is how obvious it is to spot the conservatives. They are the ones who immediately resort to name-calling ("you guys are a collective joke") or turning the political specter into some sort of game ("Democrats just can't handle it that they lost.")

Of course the wrestling analogies help as well.

Posted by: Lword | April 12, 2006 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Internationally, the Bush administration has put the US in greater disrepute than any other in its history. Around the world, the US is largely regarded as a rogue state and the Bush administration are regarded as international was criminals. In order to re-establish its reputation as a respected member of the international community, the US purge the gang of political criminals from their positions of power and hold them accountable for their crimes.
It should be remembered that it was the US itself that established at the Nuremberg trials that waging pre-emptive war against another sovereign nation is in and of itself a war crime, punishable by the death penalty.

Posted by: Canadian Jack | April 12, 2006 1:18 PM | Report abuse

If deliberate lies to take us to war, are not grounds for a trial in the Senate, what is?
If violations of the 4th Amendment re phone and email wiretapping is not a cause for impeachment hearings, then what is?
If proposing to start the war by painting American planes with UN markings then baiting Saddam in the hopes that he would shoot them down, is not grounds for impeachment, then what is?
Is dereliction of duty (Katrina) a "high crime and misdameanor"? I'm not sure...but if you claim to be all powerful as Commander in Chief, then should you not be held to that standard during times of national emergency?
Is GITMO a "high crime". I think so, and would include it in the indictment.
Does it matter if the Senate is unlikely to convict? Does it matter if the House is likely to send to the Senate? Of course not. What should happen are televisied committee hearings where the total truth comes out, drip by daily drip. When those in control of Congress see the public outrage, watch them vote for a trial in the Senate.

Posted by: John Hibbs | April 12, 2006 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Bush is just the front man. If we make him go away then Cheney will have the total control that will seal our fate as a democracy.

The good news from this poll is to show that the people of this country who voted for Bush because they couldn't in good faith vote for Kerry in 2004 are sending a message. Enough!

His lies, the lies of his staff, all still given with the earnest look and down home "aw shucks" venacular, are not flying anymore.

Censure is the most that we should ask for, but the pressure of a potential impeachment is necessary to be kept.

Posted by: Bill Allen | April 12, 2006 1:12 PM | Report abuse


Yes it is amazing that the American people are not more on the side of impeaching this president. Especially people from his own party.

As for the comment about how the numbers stand up against Clinton. More people are for this 45% than the 17-20% that were in favor of Clinton's impeachment.

It's amazing how the right loves to have their eyes shot out (pardon the pun Cheney lovers) and not realize that not only is he tapping your phone but he started a war on false pretenses. He caused the deaths of 2500 brave and selfless Americans, for what I ask. All Clinton got was a b.j. Cant recall the Constitutional violation there or how many people died because of it.

Posted by: BigB | April 12, 2006 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Folks, you're a big collective joke. There will be no censure, no impeachment, no substantive action whatever taken as a result of any efforts by the left side of the aisle. Why? Not a single "better idea" has been articulated by the Dems about anything. News flash - "We can do it better" is not an idea. Neither is "we don't like it".

Listening to the Dems claiming outrage and ignorance about terrorist surveillance practices is most laughable. Ever see the pro wrestler who, when caught by the ref trying to gouge his opponents eyes out, stands with his hands in the air saying "not me - I don't know what you're talking about". That's your guys.

Posted by: J. Flynn | April 12, 2006 1:07 PM | Report abuse

to sucker Saddam Hussein, her name was April Gillespie.

There was a mention of it in the Times magazine while I was working for a company that sold security products to the Saudi's. I talked to my people about it and they said it was business as usual.

Remember Noriega, Oliver North, Fawn Hall, cocaine? Who was running things then?

If you want to cure a disease, sometimes you have to kill the infection....if greed and corruption is an infection, you have to cut it out.

Cunning Ham, Delay, Cheyney, the bush familys....

NSA wiretapping, fraudulently acquired war powers, changing the Constitution, nullifying the Bill of Rights with a "Patriot?" Act....

what do you need?

as Judge Judy would say, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining...

wake up.

Posted by: the agent that george h. w. bush sent in | April 12, 2006 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Reading through these many posts, I am impressed at the general level of discourse and the focus on issues of the Constitution and law, as well as political practicality. I am also happy to see little of the rude language and name calling that has all-too-frequently been the hallmark of "citizen" response. My hat is off to almost all of you, and particularly to someone named "Okie", who seems to have set the tone early.

Posted by: W_Lanier | April 12, 2006 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I am glad to see that the numbers for NOT for impeaching the President are the highest.
I don't care what the issue is the Democrats just can't handle it that they lost the election. They are going to go to any length to try to find something to get the President on.

The Democrats are so use to "LIARS" like Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry that they can't handle someone who tells the truth and tells it like it is. I am proud to be a strong supporter of President Bush. He has done a couple of things I don't agree with, but nobody is perfect. My main issue is the Border. I think that it should be closed and ALL ILLEGALS should go back where they came from. If they want to be here, let them go thru the correct process. My grandfather came here from Ireland in 1902, with $5.00 in his pocket. He had to give the address of where he would be staying and with whom he was staying. He went thru the process before becoming a United States Citizen.

Edna Boddy
Waterville, Ks.

Posted by: Edna Boddy | April 12, 2006 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how these numbers stack up against those who think Nixon should have been impeached, or those who thought Clinton should have been impeached. the worse the crime, the worse the punishment, or not. Perhaps it is all a matter of American pride - tough to impeach the guy you voted for, unless it is so obvious that you have to for conscience sake. At this point, Bush does not yet have the ability to offend the American conscience to the point of impeachment. Can't think of what could do that, other than sexual scandal.

Posted by: Wonder | April 12, 2006 1:03 PM | Report abuse

I would be curious if in this poll any of the following types of questions were asked and how they relate to the results you have presented:

How concerned are you ( Very...Not at all) of the President wiretapping without a warrent based on his determination of best interest for national defense?

How concerned would you be if national defense included people who strongly disagreed with his policies?

How confident are you with the Presidents determination of national defense?

How much more confident if the court had to approve his determination?

Posted by: Barney | April 12, 2006 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Judge C.

'The kind of cr*p that Bush has pulled is well above the "high crimes and misdemeanors" that Clinton was guilty of (a single lie to Congress, if I recall).'

Clinton was not impeached for lying to congress, he was impeached for committing perjury in a civil trial against him.

Lying to congress is not in and of itself a criminal offense. It only becomes a criminal offense (perjury) when placed under oath.

Posted by: Dan | April 12, 2006 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Okie: liked your original post so I'm going to tell you that we have flamers representing both extremes here. Wait'll CHE/che posts a chunk of somebody else's manifesto here. We'll all ignore it as we did the 'fascist' comment.

Lisa: there are conservatives in TX? I thought there were only rape and spend Republicans. Conservatism died out long ago; the shell that remains may still use that label but only the unthinking still believe that it represents the policies inside of it.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | April 12, 2006 1:00 PM | Report abuse

why not arrested along with his people?

I mean, he started and occupation, labeled it a war so he could get war powers...if you do it, it's called fraud.

By all accounts going into Iraq was part of his plan befor 9/11.

There are two reasons for that. Project for a New American Century, better known as PNAC........which Rumsfield, Cheyney and Wolfowitz signed off on as well as brother Jeb. It calls for preemption.

here's the link:

And the family oil business. Family in this case means bushes, saudi royals, uae, brits, kuwiati's, germans, russian, europes interests.

His father, geo h. w. bush,invaded Iraq during Desert Storm at the behest of the Kuwiati's. What didn't receive a lot of publicity during that time what that he had sent an envoy to Saddam Hussein that had indicated that if Saddam wanted to settle a border dispute that had been festering between Kuwiat and Iraq, that the United States would look the other way.

Saddam, being assured that we wouldn't interfere, attacks Kuwiat.

We lied, we suckered Saddam...we want position.

We have a reason to go in, we have a reason to occupy...and there is money there. Saudi, Kuwiat, and Iraq's oil resources.

We don't take Bagdhad because we're going back. An embargoe ensures that things remain much as they were, plus we're in Turkey, Afghanistan, Kuwiat and Saudi.

China, India start emerging as business leaders...needing oil. We need to control our assests. Make sure that we have enough oil, and that we can predict economies, by controlling others...we can't have them selling oil to who they want to, which might not be it is...Iraq, could only dispose of it's oil as we saw fit because of the embargo....we need to tie up some loose ends.

WE in this case is international monied interests. The US is simply the visible military arm of the Consortium...

Check the oil futures markets, see who's playing it, see if there's any insider trading.

Carlyle, Halliburton?

your children, your money...pulled from the General Fund, which also pays for Social Secuity, that has the seniors getting paid $30 less a month for medicine gets raided to pay for PNAC and Oil interest agendas.

no WMD, no Iraqi connection.

there is a Saudi one, who trained the Saudi military? we did.

is george w. bush running the government?

I doubt it, I'd put my money on his dad and his cronies.

CIA Director in '76, life time politician, working with Zapata Oil before that...

I'm not going to bore you with details but.

It's a family affair and frankly, you're not part of their family. It's not just the United States, it's "who has money," and favors are "invading other countries," giving away your countries assests, "ports, lands, corporate deals," and favors for favors.

thanks so much...impeach, why bother?

want to make a statement, arrest and sell the assests of those involved to pay for their monetary crimes and consider a "war crimes trial."

Posted by: IMPEACHED? | April 12, 2006 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Response to Karen: "The liberals in the Northeast like to portray anyone uneducated as being from the south, but the highest percentage of high school dropouts come from the big LIBERAL cities."

You couldn't be more wrong.

I live in Texas having gone to school in 3 other states and the education here is appalling and largely ineffective. The statistics are good, though, since dropout percentages are calculated on a base of pre-K through 12th grade rather than a base of high school students, as they are in other places. In other words, the numbers have been skewed to make it look good. Like the unemployment numbers and so many other numbers by which we judge the health of our society and our democracy.


Posted by: Lisa | April 12, 2006 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Censure? Yes, absolutely!

Impeach? For one reason and one reason alone I must say NO and that reason may be stated in two words: Dick Cheney.

Posted by: kjaba | April 12, 2006 12:49 PM | Report abuse

I am afraid that shrieking "fascist" is less an argument than a sign of mental instability. Honestly, lefties: you are becoming a caricature of yourselves. I repeat: holding a point of view different from yours does not make one a fascist or liable to criminal action or imprisonment. Unless of course one is a Stalinist . . . and frankly, I am becoming genuinely concerned at the widespread prevalence of the totalitarian instinct in so many on the political left. God help us if the Howard Dean/Michael Moore gang ever took power.

Posted by: okie | April 12, 2006 12:49 PM | Report abuse

BigB is right. A new history began on September 11, 2001. In fact, I'm sure that years-and-years from now, our calendar system, textbooks and even our tomes of spiritual guidance will reflect this dawning of a new age. Why wait? Let's just calle this year 4 P.S. (post-september 11).

We have no use for any other sources or lessons of the past. Fortunately, our leaders are well ahead of us on this.

Posted by: The Lword | April 12, 2006 12:45 PM | Report abuse


I think you should read the facts and pull the wool from over your eyes. If your going to claim that someone should read the facts then you should stipulate what your comprehension of the facts are.

One caveat though. Try to limit your comprehension to something beyond trash radio and Faux News.

Posted by: BigB | April 12, 2006 12:38 PM | Report abuse

To the above:

Your words echo your inability to think; remember to ignore all facts and do not allow your perceptions to be colored by your native intelligence; continue to mindlessly accept RNC talking points without question.

Posted by: original thought hurts my brain | April 12, 2006 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Of course Karen gets it wrong again. Most high school drop outs (74%) are from the southern RED states as are 70% of welfare cases 71% of abortions and 69% of divorces all in "Christian Bible Belt" RED states. True family values Republicans. How about those great education systems in MS AL and AR?

Posted by: Larry | April 12, 2006 12:31 PM | Report abuse

How hard is it, America? The Bush Administration is comprised of thugs, cronies, liars and criminals. Throw the bums and their GOP enablers out...the sooner the better.

Posted by: SoonerThought | April 12, 2006 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Getting back to CC's request:
"The most ardent opponents of censure were respondents with a high school degree or less (43 percent favor/55 percent oppose) and those who make between $75,000 and $100,000 (36 percent support/62 percent oppose)....Otherwise the idea of impeaching Bush was resoundingly rejected -- most strongly by voters over 65 (a 44-point spread against impeachment) and those making between $75,000 and $100,000 (a 59-point anti-impeachment margin.)"

Disclosure: I make over $100,000/year so you think I'd be one to oppose this based on the supposed financial advantages that Bush's presidency has accrued to me. However, off the top of my head I can't think of anything significant that Bush's presidency has done for me. I would recommend that pollsters find and interview the multi-millionaires who have reaped fantastic benefits (many, many times my annual salary) from Bush's tax policies and especially his stock-related policies. I'm sure that you'd find 100 percent opposition among that group.

I'm just upper middle class and should be identified as such. My tax bracket hasn't changed dramatically during Bush's tenure. My guess is that this bracket includes a large number of Republicans with delusions of greater salaries (stupidly, I might add, given the odds against it) who are thus sympathetic to the really wealthy who have benefited the most. Bush and the GOP commonly target such people (read 'suckers') regardless of their income level.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | April 12, 2006 12:29 PM | Report abuse

The anti-impeachment vote is understandable if the poll respondents took *successful* impeachment into account and realized that "President" Cheney would be a horrific circumstance.

With a better vice president, the results might be different.

Posted by: Julie | April 12, 2006 12:27 PM | Report abuse

To the above:

Your words echo your ingnorance and hate; read the facts, not distorted by your leftists masters.

Posted by: deaner | April 12, 2006 12:26 PM | Report abuse

I'm all for censuring (and impeaching) that moron in the White House -- except for this:

When Republicans see that Bush is likely to be censured (or impeached) if and when the Dems retake Congress, it will catalyze a bigger Republicn turnout.

That, in fact, is probably why you don't see Democrats in office supporting either. They (and I) don't want Republicans to realize what's in store for Bush if Democrats win back the House & Senate. They're not being mealymouthed, just cautious.

Posted by: Stan Spiegel | April 12, 2006 12:23 PM | Report abuse

It is not "Domestic Spying" policy. Bush (as Carter in '78 and Clinton in '98) authorized tracking of INCOMING calls from terrorist entities to the US. This is sound intelligent defense of our remarks that that very incoming traffic has died off because of being tipped off by the Democrats has indangered our nation for politacal gain. No one complained when Carter or Clinton did simular actions with executive orders. It is amazing to see how many sheep believe the lies told by the left leaning press perpetuated by politicians. Amazing, the ignorance of a liberal. Or is it just blind hate, to a point they would sell thier country short to push rubbish....

Posted by: deaner | April 12, 2006 12:23 PM | Report abuse

It would be interesting to see Chris, or the Post, start a blog/forum asking what Americans think would happen to the country if this Admin was given early retirement to Leavenworth.

How would such a statement affect America’s ability to inspire trust when pursuing it’s legitimate business interests abroad?

What affect would this have on promoting the desirability of, and trust in, democracy in other nations?

How would it affect the ability of the US to hold sway in diplomatic negotiations; i.e. advance the interests of peace?

How would this affect the arguments and intentions of terrorists hell-bent on destroying the country; and the need to spend trillions vainly trying to protect America against them?

The reason I suggest this is that I think, indeed I am convinced, that the general population doesn’t even begin to appreciate what enormous benefits would derive.

Right now, the country appears to be cannibalizing itself, mortgaging it’s future, in some vain and deranged quest labeled “National Security”. Even by conservative estimates, the country is going to be in debt to the rest of the world $10 trillion by 2010[1] ; that’s $33,000 per capita (not including illegals) and is borrowing $2 billion a day just to keep the economy from collapse. The media keeps saying the economy (the family finances) is growing, but it doesn’t want to look at the monthly balance on the American Express Statement.The family is living off credit.

The US has dropped to 37th place in the world in just the last 10 years in terms of educational standards. General Motors and Ford are on track for Chapter 11 in the next 2 – 3 years. Now, these things, which have emerged during this Administration, do not comport to “National Security” to my way of thinking.

What about you; eh?

roderick whitney stillwell
The Boundary Bay Morning Steamer

[1]Deficit Forecast by "Center on Budget Policy" and "The Concord Coalition"

Posted by: roderick whitney stillwell | April 12, 2006 12:22 PM | Report abuse

I wish they had provided a follow-up question concerning impeachment - "If not, why?" Now that would be an eye opener.

Posted by: Joyce | April 12, 2006 12:20 PM | Report abuse


Public opinion for censure was higher before Congress moved forward in December 1998.

Dec 1998
Should Clinton be impeached?

36% YES
62% NO

Should Clinton be censured?

54% YES
39% NO

Clinton Job Approval

Posted by: RMill | April 12, 2006 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Those of us here in San Diego who are virulently against senior Bush administrators are and their illegal war in the Middle East and on US citizens (sic.)here are at the same time heartened by these figures and thoroughly disgusted that the Congress has not already taken Judiciary action against the Dubya cabal.

Posted by: Julian Peabody | April 12, 2006 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Bush must be stopped before his criminal regime plunges the USA into a civil war.BUSH is a Fascist who wants to rule the world.


Posted by: DR. ROY HARRIS | April 12, 2006 12:11 PM | Report abuse

The American voter is loathe to take any dramatic actions or do something that will worsen an already bad situation. This, I think, explains the current lack of support for impeachment. However, as American' see their children or their neighbors children killed in Iraq and read in the paper that the entire reason for that war was based on a pack of lies that was sold to the American people and the Congress, I would expect that the calls for impeachment will increase into the fall. Everyone, at least you Washington insiders, seems to think that the scandles surrounding this Whitehouse have about played out, but there are a crop of new ones that are about to explode. To wit:

The E.U. is activly investigating the illegal involvement of U.S. money and influence in their elections. A lot of this money and quite a bit of the campaign tactics used have been traced back to the the Bush WHitehouse. This may not seem like much, but the European voters will not take kindly to the fact that their "democratic elections" were manipulated by a U.S. President and that he was aided by some large U.S. corporations in this. Expect an explosion.

The economic indicator statistics have been manipulated by the Bush WHitehouse for quite some time now. The favorite "game" has been to drop from the unemployment statistics anyone who has lost their unemploymenet benefits, but also people in training programs or who are even involved in job search programs. They count as employed anyone has makes any amount of salary. All of this, while pushing the envelope a bit, is "business as usual". What is not, is that this Whitehouse has added foreign quest and their estimates of illegal workers as part of the employment figures. They discount the 20% of U.S. engineers unemployed by adding in all jobs created at offshore American facilities, even though none of those workers are U.S. citizens. In recent days, actually during the past 4 months, the Bush controlled Commerce Dept has been wholesale inventing figures.

The nuclear weapons program just announced in Iran was NOT native. It was almost entirely sold to them by various Indian companies who, in turn, got it from the U.S. via their guest workers. I keep waiting for the press to start investigating the roll of foreign engineers and guest workers in the wholesale export of U.S. technology and equipment. We have thousands of documented cases of workers from China, known to be members of China's intelligence community working on U.S. top secret military contracts. Indeed, that underwater missile being tested by the Iranian's was gotten from a U.S. defense contractor. The control board for that missile - the actual, literal circuit board - was hand carried out of this coluntry by a Chinese "guest worker".

The sad fact is, U.S. corporations are more responsible for weapons and systems being available to enemy goverments and qctual terrorist organizations than Iran or North Korea or any other country or group of countries is ever going to be. There are direct ties to this Whitehouse with those same corporations.

U.S. intelligence analysis' have, for quite some time, been based on nothing more than surfing various websites and chat rooms. In particular, nearly all of our estimates/analysis of the Arabic world is based on simply reading translations from chat rooms and editorials. At the same time, their idea of a clever ploy to mislead radicals has been to set up and monitor a site (JihadUnspun) which the entire Arabic world knows about. The Post, with a little spare change, could hire a college student to surf these same sites, and, using a freely avilable online Arabic web page translator, could do as good a job as our entire intelligence community costing many billions of dollars.

I could go on and on and on, but I think you get the idea and the voting public is, too. It may take a few more months, but I do not expect George Bush to leave office in a dignified manner....I think there will be a groundswell of public opinion to impeach him, but in the end I expect him to resign. Now, I don't have many good thing to say about Democrats, either; they seem to be a collection of spineless cowards, fruitcakes, and opportunists, but at least they aren't out and out traitors to this country.

Posted by: Mike Brooks | April 12, 2006 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Why in the world would we want to impeach Bush? To get President Cheney? No thanks - I'll take the devil I know. We will just have to wait until 2008 to try again to elect someone who is not ridiculously incompetent and dishonest.

Posted by: Sensible | April 12, 2006 12:07 PM | Report abuse

forget impeachment...lets have a recall vote.

Posted by: John Loeper | April 12, 2006 11:58 AM | Report abuse

If Bush is to be impeached or censured on anything, it should be for his failure to enforce the current laws on immigration. Bush insistance on a guest worker provision, amnesty in other words, is both treasonus and an insult to working class Americans .

Posted by: Anthony | April 12, 2006 11:54 AM | Report abuse

I support both the censure and impeachment of G.W.Bush. I am true to the polls that I am a liberal and in the Northeast with a higher Education and in the income bracket that supported both these measures. Does anyone find it interesting that those who support impeachemnt and censure are the same people that the republican party and Bush are suppose to represent. The wealthy educated class in the major cities and financial centres are the very ones so anti republican and Bush. The poorer and less educated people are the ones that seem to be for republicans. The irony is in supporting the republicans they are voting against thier own interest and they should be supporting censure and impeachment of a President that has systimatically violated the law and the constitution

Posted by: PKK | April 12, 2006 11:45 AM | Report abuse

To okie and Adam,

I think that you forgot, and that seems to be par for your wing, but remember that we now live in a post 9/11 world. You should not be looking in the past to justify actions. Remember, post 9/11 thinking and world. According to Karl Rove or the rights talisman, pre 9/11 thinking will not work for policy justifications or matters.

Thought I'd pass that along since it's either FDR, Truman, JFK, Carter or more so Clinton's fault that the world is so bad under the Bush administration.

Remember "right" post 9/11.

Posted by: BigB | April 12, 2006 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Adam, I would quote Justice Jackson's statement that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Get outside Manhattan or Berkeley and I think you will find that most Americans are hardly in a tizzy over the concept of listening to phone calls to or from those who would murder us all.

Posted by: okie | April 12, 2006 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Intrepid Liberal Journal & FairandBalanced?

Just a word to the is CENSURE not CENSOR. Are you sure you know what you're advocating? Think about it.

Posted by: censure good-impeachment bad | April 12, 2006 11:32 AM | Report abuse

With comments like these, how can such "parsing" possibly ontinue?It would seem that the US Population has lost its will to recognize, digest, examine fact and logic.

Posted by: EARL THOMAS | April 12, 2006 11:10 AM | Report abuse

How do the poll numbers with respect to censure or impeachment compare with the poll numbers at the time that Congress decided to begin impeachment proceedings against Clinton?

Posted by: David | April 12, 2006 11:08 AM | Report abuse

What's with this $75,000 to $100,000 group? Beyond their income bracket, what characteristics do they share? It seems odd to find them sharing the views of "high school degreed or less" as opposed to the views of others nearer their income level.
In this Bush era of working class wage stagflation (or deterioration)in the midst of giant productivity gains, are they a subgroup that has benefitted economically? (Are they evidence that "trickle down" works for at least a limited few beyond the rich?)How large a group is this in comparison to the whole?

Posted by: Curious | April 12, 2006 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Exactly right, okie. FDR is the frame of reference here. Had I been around then, I would have loved many or most of FDR's policies and been scared to death of the amount of power he was consolidating in the executive branch.

There is a parallel here. What I see as the biggest problem for Bush is the wiretapping issue. That seems to me to be on its face a clear violation of both the letter and intent of the 4th Amendment. Agree with the program or not, it seems to go against a clear Constitutional protection. As soon as a president is able to muddy the waters as far as potentially violating Constitutional protections, I worry about what might be next.

FDR should have absolutely been impeached and removed because of Japanese internment camps. He consolidated power in other ways, but that's the best example I can think of in which he violated Constitutional rights, and it was inexcusable.

Both of these things were done in the name of safety and security with little to no regard for liberty or the Constitution. But then, like now, one party was in control, in the midst of war, and Congress will again stand by and watch as the President takes more power and further marginalizes the legislative branch.

Posted by: adam | April 12, 2006 11:07 AM | Report abuse

I was initially against the censure move. I thought it might be counter productive to the things that are trying to be corrected internally. Then, after the news came out that w had more or less released classified information (at the time and not following procedure) to benefit his political ambitions I moved to the camp of just wanting the guy removed.

All of my suspicions were confirmed of this administration. They are in the office of the president for the money they will make and can make their friends and to promote a policy that is not beneficial to America, they are self serving. It became clear that they started a war to either have control of a natural resource or to have a hub in the middle east (or both) in order that w's messianic vision of his presidency can be fulfilled.

Nothing he has done, with exception of invading Afghanistan, has been in the best interest of the US. If he says that he released classified information over Iraq intel because it was, "in the public's interest" then he should declassify the energy meetings.

Everything he has done has not been in the interest of the US. We are about to be in another war just in time for mid-term elections. It could be argued that Iraq was initiated to make him look like a war time president so he would be re-elected. We now know that when it was discovered that their reasons for going to war were proved false by the intel community Karl Rove covered up that fact in order that his guy would be re-elected.

It is now time to prevent this man from achieving his messianic vision. It is scary that he thinks this way. Although America might not want it and might feel sorry for the man, but it must be said that this is in the best interest of a nation that is on the brink. This man is not who he said he was and we should make him pay for the lies and deceit that he has put forth to the American people by impeaching him.

Posted by: BigB | April 12, 2006 11:02 AM | Report abuse

In a very real way, Bush is already being censured by the American people. By a substantial majority, they no longer believe him to be honest.

I am no fan of polls as a predictor of future electoral outcomes. But, the fact that Bush's approval numbers have experienced such a stedy decline and has him now in the mid to high 30s, is evidence that the American people have reached some pretty damaging conclusions about this guy--not just as a President but as a man as well.

I remember nearly gagging every day back in that period after 9-11 when Bush hineysmoochers like Rush Limbaugh were touting the "connection" that this President had with the people because of his honesty, straightforwardness and regular guy image. I gagged because I knew that it was a manufactured image that was not in keeping with any number of excellent biographies that had been done on Bush that revealed him to be brittle, thinskinned, vindictive, preachy, and intellectually lacking. Virtually all of the bios I read from sterling authors like Kevin Phillips, Gail Sheehy and others included a chapter on Bush's propensity to hide information that reflects unfavorably on his competency and his character.

There is no need to revisit his covered up military record, his youthful indiscretions or his record of addictions. You won't find much you can lay your hands on because all through his life he has benefitted from his priviledged upbringing and a cadre of sycophants in every community he has worked and lived in who were more than willing to expunge records, destroy paperwork and pull all kinds of strings to ensure that thetruth about him would be hidden.

Posted by: Jaxas | April 12, 2006 11:02 AM | Report abuse

I don't agree with your judgment that 33% support for impeachment means that voters "resoundingly" reject impeachment. That's substantial support given how little attention the media has devoted to it. Furthermore, one might very well expect that if the censure option were taken off the table then the impeachment option would pick up substantial support. Furthermore, a lot rides on how the question is worded. Consider these two questions:

Q1. Do you support impeachment for Bush?
Q2. Do you support impeachment for Bush because he lied about WMD?

Even though the second question is narrower, it will draw more support because Q1 is abstract whereas Q2 is more vivid. It makes a great deal of difference how the question is worded.

Posted by: BZ | April 12, 2006 10:58 AM | Report abuse

For RMill.
You say that elections are the solution, but in this country, due to gerrymandering, big campaign contributions from business, and dirty tricks (see New Hampshire phone bank incident) most elections are not competitive. My recollection is that the incumbents win over 95% of them. People dislike Congress but like their Congressman (or woman).

Some politicians have to see a downside to an action like warrantless wiretapping, leaking a CIA officer's name, etc., otherwise they will do everything possible in order to get their way. If you want Iraq, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc. to become business as usual, the best way to do that is to do nothing. That is what we are doing. On the other hand, if a future President would like to start a war for reasons that benefit him but not the country but sees that George Bush was impeached, he is more likely to have second thoughts.
We should clean up our own mess. The world would thank us for it.

Posted by: ACounter | April 12, 2006 10:55 AM | Report abuse

One thing everyone has missed is that we don't really KNOW what the President has done. When the Democrats take back either house of congress they will hold the power to subpoena the White House and get actual Answers from them. I think we will see a very different take on what has been going on when we have all the facts. Impeachment won't be stretch in say 10 months.

Also Karen have you ever been to one of these so called "liberal" universities? Most of the presidents staff (and the president for that matter) attended Northeastern private colleges. Does that mean that they are liberals? The reason that higher educated citizens are socially liberal is because they can think through a complex problem such as poverty, homlessness, or gun control and realize that the liberal approach is the most sound. As opposed to just repeating GOP spin.

Posted by: Andy R | April 12, 2006 10:54 AM | Report abuse

the first line should have read:

Those who are in favor of censure 'regarding' illegal surveillance. Not censure 'and' illegal surveillance. Oops.

Posted by: scootmandubious | April 12, 2006 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Some quick additional comments re the interesting replies: Adam, if presidential seizure of power is the benchmark, FDR should have been the first impeached. To those who suggest that "lying" is impeachable, I would note that lying under oath is . . . impeachment should and must be reserved for actual crimes, not bad manners. (In that sense, I agree that the impeachment of Clinton was marginal.) And yes, Johnson is the historical analogy, not Jackson; he was not a very effective president, but he was right to seek to continue Lincoln's reconstruction policies, and to oppose the punitive ones advanced by the radical Republicans. That he failed (partly because of impeachment for policy differences) left this nation sorely divided for at least two generations and prompted a century of brutal segretationist policies in the South -- not a trivial result of a misguided impeachment attempt. I repeat: mob rule ("angry people in the streets" as one poster put it) is unhealthy. So are efforts to bounce duly elected people out of office because you disagree with them. And I would say the same re a hypothetical President Kerry.

Posted by: okie | April 12, 2006 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Those who are in favor of censure and illegal surveillance feel that way because it goes to the question of abuse of unchecked power.

Nobody feels that we should have our hands tied when confronting terrorism suspects. However, those that support censure (and impeachment, for that matter) don't feel that this is about terrorism at all. We already have safeguards in place to conduct surveillance of terrorists.

Many of us suspect this is about a leader going after one's political enemies. If there is no court to check on the warrants, if there is no oversight from Congress, there are no checks to stop such conduct.

The more we know, the easier it is to feel that this administration needs to have these checks-and-balances.

Thus, it is really about how the question is being phrased. I agree with a poster above that including language such as 'suspected terrorists' will skew the poll results.

Maybe some other questions should be asked? Questions such as, "do you believe the Bush administration is using illegal tactics to go after their political enemies?"

The new story about the gay advocacy group, whose mission is to let gays serve in the military, becoming a target of surveillance, should erase any doubt about the phrasing of the questions.

It's not the targeting of terrorists that has Americans concerned, just the targeting of opposing ideologies.

Additionally, imagine how the numbers might differ if there was a unified minority party. We have yet to see the pack mentality take shape on this. Because of the way this is reported in the media, those in favor of censure (or impeachment) are being portrayed as outside of the mainstream. Just look at the language used on Sen. Feingold.

I suspect you will see a rising tide on at least the censure numbers in future polls.

Posted by: scootmandubious | April 12, 2006 10:22 AM | Report abuse

You mention that only Harkin and Boxer have lined up in support of Russ Feingold's courageous stand on censure. However, both Kerry and Leahy have also just recently climbed on board with public announcements of support.

Posted by: IMHO | April 12, 2006 10:16 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Will on this one. While i certainly wouldn't mind throwing the bum out (and God knows there are better reasons this time than there was with Clinton eight years ago), all that would do is bring us a President Cheney and a Republican Party that portrays Bush as a martyr. The Dems aren't doing a bad thing here-- draw out this censure business until it has enough support with the public and the Dems have a big enough voting block to enact it. The way the trends are going, censure is a reasonably realistic goal.

Posted by: Jake | April 12, 2006 10:14 AM | Report abuse

If you're going to start talking seriously about indictments, censures, etc., you need to start with Clinton, Gore, Albright and Berger. Honestly answer this question: where was the first place you ever heard of WMDs being restarted in Iraq? For eight years we listened to countless spin time after time from the Clinton/Gore admin telling us about the growing WMD threat in Iraq:

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

The Dems were completely sold on the WMD angle long before GWB ever came on the scene, and they sold the American public on it too. That's why they won't push for censure or impeachment now because they know their fear-mongering past will return to bite them in the ass (as it rightfully should.)

As for Iraqi civilian deaths, I don't remember hearing any libs or Dems crying over innocent civilian deaths in Bosnia or Somalia when their Skirtchaser-in-Chief Clinton was dropping bombs on those nations and slaughtering those people. When a Democrat is inflicting civilian casualties, the left is silent as they were with the Clinton wars on Bosnia and Somalia. It is only when a Republican causes such destruction that the left tries to disingenuously seize the moral high ground to serve their purely political agenda.

Posted by: JE | April 12, 2006 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Some management styles are above reproach, because there is a strong sense of accountability and no tolerance for even the appearance of impropriety. The Poll is a bit awkward because the courts should decide guilt or innocence, not public opinion. And I suspect, that after censure or impeachment, you will still have Bush loyalists. You have to remember that people are largely motivated by self-interest. The Poll should ask, if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that an impeachable offensive occurred, should there be prosecutorial action? You will find that the ones who still support Bush have an agenda that is not in the best interest of the rest of the Nation.

Posted by: Sam Hale III | April 12, 2006 10:09 AM | Report abuse

I feel sorry for anyone who is a member of the American Media “corpocrisy” drawing a paycheck under the pretext they are a responsible journalist.

Not since the Roosevelt/Hearst era has that ‘profession’ been so willingly compromised, so bereft of moral acuity, and so replete with toadies. Its like y’all are in a fishbowl; all you can see is your own reflection in the glass, magnified by the curvature.

Joby Warrick’s excellent piece this morning in the WP “Lacking Biolabs…” is another example: she threw the ball for a strike, but the tournament was over 3 years ago. Everyone except U.S. ‘mediamites’ knew the score in 2003 and 2004.

To a limited extent, I empathize. Even trying to describe the likes of Bush and Cheney et. al. is now, and ever has been, enough to make a body feel retarded; retarded and indecent… like someone trying to tell a dirty joke at Sunday service, …and dirty;…dirty in the same way a rape victim feels when asked to testify in open court; especially when the defense gets around to persuading the jury the victim really brought it on themselves.

The trouble is, by not saying “NO” when the opportunity was there in ‘04, the media is now “Up the Stump” and doesn’t have a credible rebut ‘under cross’ to refute the claim that the encounter was consensual. The media should be wailing in tears; instead it just sits there like its stunned (retarded).

Not since Hitler laid waste to Czechoslovakia has the world seen such a compendium of violations of the sovereign rights of other nations and international accords. As Hitler made a mockery of the League of Nations, so has Bush despised and ignored the UN. And as now threatens to be the case, Iran is looking much like Poland.

The American people, thanks largely to an effete, self-ingratiating media, were, and are, just as malleable as the ‘Weimar Republicans’ were in 1933. They’ve bought in to the Bush doctrine of “Pre-emptive war”, the exclusive right to commit ‘Prevenge’, with the same complacency that attended “Mien Kampf”. The media has demurred from alerting the citizenry that Bush’s “National Security Strategy” Proclamation of March 16, is a ‘de facto’ declaration of war; world war; and everyone is invited to participate. Chances are; someone out there is saying to themselves, “Well, since you asked… just give me a moment to freshen up and I’ll be right there”.

Concurrently, or coincidentally, the US now boasts concentration camps on 3 continents; some allegedly being secret. The forfeiting of the constitutional right to privacy via warrantless interception of private communications met with some objection, but these ‘neesings’ were pretty easily stifled. The precedent is now set, the practice tolerated, and there is little anyone can to do about it, … and fewer and fewer people daring to bruit objection.

The thing of it is, is: if the US Media wants to forestall the imminent destruction of the country, it should provide a forum for Americans to discuss presenting Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to “The Hague”. Unless the cry comes from the rape victims (y’all) and their families (the people), it just won’t happen.

Censuring, even impeaching the lot, is serious business; but, that’s up to y’all. The people on the rest of the planet want them tried for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.

Please understand, this is not “American Bashing”; ‘lawsey’ no. It should be understood as a sincere and empathetic desire to see Americans save themselves from a deranged and corrupt political administration. If y’all truly believe in “America the Brave”, now’s the time to prove it. Or has the media just given up?

I don’t know if it plays in the U.S., but we have an anti-drunk driving TV promo that runs up here. The “hook” goes: “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.”

roderick whitney stillwell
editor: “The Boundary Bay Morning Steamer”

Posted by: roderick whitney stillwell | April 12, 2006 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Impeachment trials will never happen, nor should it. If the leading reason for the call for Censorship for President Bush is "Lying" then every President from Washington to Bush would be Censored. If Bush's wiretapping was illegal, there would be lawsuits, there have been none. In fact the FISA judges have come out and said that the President has the power to do what he has done. The whole issue of Impeachment/Censorship is a partisan effort to make President Bush ineffectual in his remaining time in office. There is no other reason.

Posted by: CJU | April 12, 2006 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Chris - I think your researchers dropped the ball on this one. Both Leahy and Kerry have also said they will support Feingold's censure motion.

Posted by: anon | April 12, 2006 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Pushing forward on censure and impeachment would be destructive. It would be far better for the Democratic party to work on recapturing the middle.

Posted by: KAM | April 12, 2006 9:57 AM | Report abuse

The most wealthy are in the $75,000 - $100,000 range? Egads, that's a teacher or police officer salary in NY or D.C. THe most educated are the PhDs at the left-wing colleges that always seem to end up on the pollers call list. Please, please go after censure and impeachment. It will be a republican dream. It will send Bush's numbers in the sky. Maybe the uneducated are the illegal immigrants who are about to become citizens because of Bush. The liberals in the Northeast like to portray anyone uneducated as being from the south, but the highest percentage of high school dropouts come from the big LIBERAL cities.

Posted by: Karen | April 12, 2006 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Good point, NR. I am in exactly the same bost. Do I think he deserves it? Yes, he has broken the law, apparently willfully. Do I think it's good for the country or good for democrats to impeach him? No. I wish, but it would just give republicans fodder to once again distract from the real issues facing america like the war, poverty, debt, terrorism and give them the bogeyman they need to keep fear in power. Gay marriage anyone?

Posted by: will | April 12, 2006 9:54 AM | Report abuse

The best and most decisive measure of repudiation will come in November. If there is true discontent regarding this issue (and others), there should be a remarkable turnover in the mid-terms. Congressional censure will not happen regardless as Republicans will never allow it to come up before then.

Posted by: RMill | April 12, 2006 9:49 AM | Report abuse

In response to Okie:

Surely you must mean Andrew Jackson (who was censured), rather than Johnson. Johnson has been almost universally derided as one of america's worst and most ineffective presidents. Secondly, people taking to the streets motivating congressmen to impeach is the essense of a constitutional democracy. If elections were the only recourse to get rid of a president guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors there would be no need for that constitutional provision calling for impeachment. I think your real beef is with idea of impeaching this president. Not the unseemliness of having angry people in the streets. And athough I think the president committed impeachable crimes (in regards to the wiretapping) and should be censured, I too regard impeachment as a step too far. If Bush committed a crime (which he did) and was removed, wouldn't Cheney (next in line) who also advocated for these crimes be impeachable? What a mess that would be.

Posted by: Wolfie | April 12, 2006 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Not that I'd every do such a thing, but a quick digression. The '08 race will be the first in over a half-century without an incumbent or veep running. I think the wide-open nature of this will expand an already too long nomination/campaign process.

That, has people already thinking Bush is out to pasture. Combine that feeling with the hangover from the Clinton impeachment and it seems to me a lot of Americans (even many among the 47% strongly disapprove crowd) just don't have the stomach for another set of hearings and senate trial. He'd have to be found responsible for Natalee Holloway's disappearance to change that.

I may be wrong, but it wouldn't be the first time. Personally, I don't mind the discussion, but I'd like to see Dems more focused on life after Bush.

New on EWM: an homage to the golden girl. "In Her Dreams: Coulter Converses with God."

Posted by: The Eyewitness Muse | April 12, 2006 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Bush should be impeached for lying to the American people to start an unneeded war.

Posted by: mack patton | April 12, 2006 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Initially, I was opposed to both censure and impeachment. But, with new revelations coming out every day now exposing a level of dishonesty on Bush's part and a tendency to encourage others to deceive and cover up, I now find myself warming to the notion of a censure.

I still think it would be difficult to secure an impeachment. Although I believe Bush broke the law, he could make a case that he believed that he was protecting the national interest and the American people from another attack.

I don't really believe Bush's motives were all that noble but, it would be difficult to sell the American public on an impeachment. Censure however is another matter. More and more people are coming around to the view that the Bush administration needs to be accountable from the top down for its dishonesty, for its incompetence and for its generally cavalier attitude to the public's concerns.

Posted by: Jaxas | April 12, 2006 9:37 AM | Report abuse

The censure question was probably worded as well as it could be: "As you may know, Bush authorized wiretaps on telephone calls and e-mails of people suspected of involvement with terrorism, without first getting court approval to do so."

However, I could complain about the "suspected ties to terrorism" bit. We don't know who has been targeted for eavesdropping.

And we know that the Pentagon is spying on domestic activist groups.

So, while this question is fine for now, although a bit generous towards the administration, the Post should be fully prepared to ask this question again, without the "related to terrorism" bit.

Posted by: LM | April 12, 2006 9:31 AM | Report abuse

The questions are framed badly, especially in regards to buying into the Bush spin on illegal wiretapping. Also, I think it is pretty impressive that a near majority wants to censure and a third want to impeach. Imagine how those numbers would be if papers like the Post actually did their jobs and called illegal activities illegal, immoral wars immoral and stopped writing editorials with outright lies. Of course your dismissal of the impeachment numbers is par for the course.

Posted by: Greg in NY | April 12, 2006 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Okie: I agree completely but point out that if all this had happened with Kerry in office and the identical GOP control of Congress impeachment proceedings would be well underway. The kind of cr*p that Bush has pulled is well above the "high crimes and misdemeanors" that Clinton was guilty of (a single lie to Congress, if I recall). Asking for sanity from the minority party seems a bit unfair when their colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't appear to have any.

The need sanity from the majority party extends well beyond issues involving impeachment. The rape and spend policies of the GOP are coming home to roost. $4/gallon gasoline, anyone?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | April 12, 2006 9:24 AM | Report abuse

I don't think this is as simple as policy differences, okie. In part, sure it is, but I think that, in least in the case of the Feingold measure, it's an extremely important Constitutional question.

The concern that I, and many others have isn't so much what Bush is doing, but how he is doing it. He's consolidating power in the presidency, and if history is a guide, once the president has power, it never goes away again. Bush's philosophy of presidential power is very different from how I read the Constitution. As a liberal, I don't like Bush, but that's neither here nor there. As a student of political science, and as an American, I'm concerned about the consolidation of power in the executive branch.

Posted by: adam | April 12, 2006 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Might stop and think about this one -- the concept of impeaching an elected leader over policy differences has a pedigree, but it is hardly an American one. That's the theory that made all those Latin American countries such farcical banana republics for so many years. People who contemplate coups like this ought to think of the long term consequences, like every future president being impeached whenever the opposing party has a Congressional majority. And remember, we did this once before, with Andrew Johnson, and he came out looking a whole lot better in the history books than the radical Congress that pursued him. Elections matter folks -- if you don't like the guys in power, vote 'em out next time, but stop with the pitchforks in the streets game. That way lies chaos.

Posted by: okie | April 12, 2006 9:03 AM | Report abuse

I think it's a pretty badly designed poll. I am strongly anti-Bush, but if you asked me "should he be impeached (which of course really just means accused)?" I would say "no" because I think it's unwinnable and as such would be bad for the Democrats.

Now if you ask me "does he DESERVE to be impeached," I answer an emphatic "yes." But the way the poll asks it, I would simply be swept up in the "don't impeach" category.

Posted by: N R | April 12, 2006 8:44 AM | Report abuse

The extremely wealthy and the extremely uneducated think he shouldn't be impeached, by wide margins. You could knock me over with a feather. So those who aren't equipped to understand what's happening, and those who are raking in money from his tax cuts, don't want him impeached. But those who took on the discipline of learning how to think clearly, and don't stand to reap a windfall as he auctions Washington, D.C. off to the highest bidders, want him out of office. If decency, disinterest and reason made any difference in politics in this country, Bush would already be serving a life sentence.

Posted by: Pineywoods | April 12, 2006 8:42 AM | Report abuse

the only poll parsing I see here is that the level of disgust from former lukewarm supporters seems to be rising. If nearly a plurality supports censure a change in the fall would probably result in it. In terms of impeachment it should never see the light of day, what high crimes and misdemeaners have been committed, probably none regardless of the railing that goes on for it. Asking it as a poll question is a good idea though because many people realize what an awful idea impeachment in general is and how devatating it is to the country in the very rare occasions it has been used.

Posted by: Chet | April 12, 2006 8:26 AM | Report abuse

Thoughts and reactions? Yeah. Bush should be censored... then impeached... then removed from office... then tried for war crimes at The Hauge for over 30,000 civillian deaths in an illegal war... then he should be dropped by helicopter into the main town square in Baghdad, you know, the one where they staged the toppling of Saddam's statue, you know, "BUSH Square"! ...And then see how strong a leader he is without his big bad US Army and his big bad neocon henchmen. He WILL get his come-uppance, its just a matter of when and how.

Conyers and Feingold are two Patriots of the highest order. My many thanks to them for standing up to the mainstream Democrats and of course the GOP.

We need to get America back on track, and it is obvious that the Democrats are the party to do it, especially those Dems who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative and NOT the other way round.

As for my reaction to the numbers? They are pretty much par for the course imho. It was nice to see such broad support for Censure. It just goes to show that The People are once again ahead of The Politics in this country. If only we lived in a Democracy.

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | April 12, 2006 8:09 AM | Report abuse

I'm amazed at how much of the public already supports impeachment and censorship. The Democrats are mealy mouthed and not forcefully advocating their position with unity. They cowardly run from both Conyers and Feingold. Meanwhile the GOP abandons their oversite responsibilities and are aided and abetted by a compliant and comatose media.

The truth will continue to drip out on everything from domestic surveillance to Bush's deceptions leading up to Iraq. Also the Plame affair. These numbers will change drastically.

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | April 12, 2006 8:00 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company