ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Monday, November 07, 2005

Delusional DUers

The folks at DemocraticUnderground (aka DUers) are all atwitter over this news posted at The Raw Story, a great source for all of your lefty news.

Zogby poll: Majority of likely voters support considering impeachment
if Bush lied on Iraq, 51-45 percent
John Byrne and Miriam Raftery

Impeachment support is greater among all adults than likely voters

A new poll of likely voters by Zogby International has found that a majority of Americans support Congress considering the impeachment of President Bush if he “did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq,” RAW STORY has learned.

The poll, to be released this afternoon, finds that 51 percent of likely voters want Congress to eye impeachment, while 45 percent do not. It was commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a coalition of progressive groups seeking a Congressional investigation of the events leading up to war in Iraq.
Advertisement

Among all adults surveyed, the numbers were higher: 53 percent supported impeachment, while 42 percent did not. The poll, which has a +/- 2.9% margin of error, interviewed 1,200 U.S. adults from Oct. 29 through Nov. 2.

Not surprisingly, Democrats supported the consideration of impeachment by a broad margin (76 percent) while Republicans opposed (66 percent). However, 29 percent of Republicans told Zogby pollsters that they supported Congress examining impeachment over Iraq.

"These results are stunning," AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik said in a statement. "A clear majority of Americans now supports President Bush's impeachment if he lied about the war. This should send shock waves through the White House - and a wake-up call to Democrats and Republicans in Congress, who have sole power under the Constitution to impeach President Bush."

Whites were more likely to oppose impeachment proceedings, while Hispanics and African Americans supported them. Asians who took the poll were more likely to oppose impeachment, though only 21 answered questions about their views.

Also notable: 46 percent of those who considered themselves "born again" said they would support Congress considering impeachment.

The House of Representatives has the sole authority to impeach a president. Democrats, however, have not touched the issue, and they do not constitute a majority in the chamber.

Zogby last polled likely voters on impeachment in June. At that time, 42 percent supported considering impeachment, while 50 percent opposed.

Another poll of American adults conducted in early October by Ipsos, the agency used by the Associated Press, found that 50 percent supported Congress examining the issue, while 42 percent opposed.

RAW STORY placed calls to some of the more liberal members of the House, among them Reps. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Bob Filner (D-CA), John Conyers (D-MI) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). None of the offices returned calls for comment.

Fertik, who also runs Democrats.com, has also set up ImpeachPAC, a political action committee aimed at supporting Democrats who say they will seek impeachment.

Of course, impeachment will only happen if the GOP turns on Bush or if the House switches to the Dems in 2006. But even if that were to happen, would they have the cojones (and be deluded enough) to go for it?

I think it would be great...
  • First, it would establish for once and all the facts surrounding our delayed removal of Saddam.
  • Second, it would create a perpetual chaos in our government, permitting future presidents to be impeached for policy decisions based on information available at the time which later turned out to be incorrect.
  • Third, it would finally solidify the fact that the Democrats pine for the status quo in our foreign policy and specifically in the case of Saddam. They love to coddle dictators and continue the practice of realpolitik which created the very environment in the Middle East that resulted in 19 youths crashing planes into the World Trade Center.

And don't let the Dems get away with the meme that "Yes, Clinton believe that Saddam haed WMDs, but at least he didn't take us to war!" The obvious retort to such idiocy is that:
  1. Clinton established the policy of regime change in Iraq, meaning that he was positioning US foreign policy for such an eventuality if Saddam failed to comply.
  2. Bill Clinton didn't have to respond to September 11th...

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Comments (2)
Anonymous said...

I keep forgetting 9-11 = Sadam

St Wendeler said...

Actually, 9/11 means we don't tolerate belligerent regimes that have obtained and used WMDs in the past. He had ample opporunity to prove to us that he did not have WMDs - he failed to do so, against the demands of the United Nations. Thus, serious consequences were imposed on him.

Regards,
St Wendeler