You are herecontent / Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq

Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq

For Immediate Release: October 11, 2005

Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq

By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 6-9.

The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."

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

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

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

Impeachment Supported by Majorities of Many Groups

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

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

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

Support for Impeachment Surged Since June

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


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

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

Support for Clinton Impeachment Was Much Lower

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

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

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

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

Support for the war has dropped significantly since June, which suggests that the percentage of Americans who believe Bush lied about the war has increased.

Passion for Impeachment is Major Unreported Story

The strong support for impeachment found in this poll is especially surprising because the views of impeachment supporters are entirely absent from the broadcast and print media, and can only be found on the Internet and in street protests, including the large anti-war rally in Washington on September 24.

The lack of coverage of impeachment support is due in part to the fact that not a single Democrat in Congress has called for impeachment, despite considerable grassroots activism by groups like (

"We will, no doubt, see an increase in activism following this poll," said David Swanson, co-founder of  "But will we see an increase in media coverage? The media are waiting for action in Congress.  Apparently it's easier to find and interview one of the 535 members of Congress than it is to locate a representative of the half of the country that wants the President impeached if he lied about the war.  The media already accepts that Bush did lie about the war.  We know this because so many editors and pundits told us that the Downing Street Memo was 'old news.'  What we need now is journalism befitting a democracy, journalism that goes out and asks people what they really think about their government, especially George Bush."

The passion of impeachment supporters is directly responsible for the new poll commissioned by After Downing Street. After the Zogby poll in June, activists led by urged all of the major polling organizations to include an impeachment question in their upcoming polls. But none of the polling organizations were willing to do so for free, so on September 30, posted a request for donations to fund paid polls ( As of October 10, 330 individuals had contributed $8,919 in small donations averaging $27 each. has commissioned a second poll which is expected soon, and will continue to urge all polling organizations to include the impeachment question in their regular polls. If they do not, will continue to commission regular impeachment polls.


1. is a rapidly growing coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups that was created on May 26, 2005, following the publication of the Downing Street Memos in London's Sunday Times on May 1. The coalition is urging Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war.

2.Here are the complete tables from the Ipsos Public Affairs poll, plus the definitions of regions used by Ipsos and the U.S. Census Bureau.

3. Zogby asked: "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him through impeachment." Here are (complete tables from Zogby)

4. Pollsters have offered various reasons for refusing to poll on impeachment. For example, Gallup said it would do so "if, and when, there is some discussion of that possibility by congressional leaders, and/or if commentators begin discussing it in the news media."

NOTE WELL: The After Downing Street Coalition hired Ipsos Public Affairs to do this poll. Ipsos did not sponsor the poll, but was very helpful, cooperative, and professional. Please do NOT complain to them that they did not do the poll for free. If you feel you must communicate with them, please thank them for being helpful. Please ask the other polling firms to ask the impeachment question.



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Zogby poll asked respondents whether they agreed that "if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment."

The Ipsos poll asked for agreement with "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should _consider holding him accountable_ by impeaching him."

Could "impeach" vs. "consider impeaching" be different enough to tilt the results 6 points? We don't know for sure and it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility. I think the Ipsos number are interesting enough without forcing a statistically invalid "trend" out of them.

Of course it is acceptable to compare Zogby's June poll with the Ipsos October poll. Claiming otherwise was not claimed and certainly was not the point of the comment alerting this site to the error. Where is this quote of "shenanigans" coming from? It wasn't part of the comment.

The Zogby poll showed that 50% opposed considering impeachment in June while the more recent Ipsos poll shows that only 44% oppose it now.

That MINUS 6% opposing impeachment, not PLUS 6%.

It's astonishing the chart has not been revised accordingly, and even more astonishing that the comment could have been so completely misunderstood.

Clinton's lies never killed anyone. As far as I know all he lied about was about his sexual encounter with a consenting adult. Bush's lies have killed 2000 troops(Almost) 100,000 + Iraqi civillians and has got our economy into such deep pit that it will take a long time to pull out even if we pull out of Iraq today. The killing in Iraq have no end in sight both of troops and civillians, thus it give Bush the oppertunity to say Mission is not Accomplished contrary to his May 1 2003 "Mission Accomplished" speech, hence he refuses to pull out and this kills more innocents. Hence this is a vicious cycle. The only remedy to this in my humble opinion is to impeach this monkey and replace it with a person with a brain

Yeah, sure. It wasn't the terrorists who killed the 2000 soldiers. It was Bush....are you out of your mind? Has your hatred and bitterness toward Bush escalated into hatred for your own country and the people who protect it? I suppose you assume that Bush is responsible for those who were killed (3000) on 9/11?

Just how much do you know about histroy? Anything beyond your own, short existence? Are you aware that Lincoln, Ted Roosevelt, Truman, JFK, and Reagan were also hated by some, and made fun of seemingly endlessly, during their Administrations? They also happened to be very stubborn, like Bush. How does history look at them now? They are considered some of the finest leaders, in our history.

The stubbornness, can be more clearly defined as: 'does not cave in to political pressure', like the spineless pacifist liberals. I do not find it unreasonable to stay the course. We have not waivered from the original plans. This is exactly in sync with what Bush said from the beginning. "We will not waiver". Pullout is absolutely not an option. The only option is complete victory.

Would you rather, the terrorists that we are fighting in Iraq, be here to kidnap and behead you? The answer to that is obvious. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. The terrorists do not care a single bit, that you hate Bush, They hate you, enough to cut off your head. Would you like to be the next Nick Berg?

The point is, your propaganda, will be short lived. Folks in intelligentsia, know the difference, and consider you to be foolish, constantly changing your position, and putting your feet in your mouths.

John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton, are perfect examples of such flip- flopping, even as recent as today (12/01/05).

Many of the requests and postings here are biased toward liberalism. They demand an impeachment or trial, without any substantiation.

Good luck getting that to work out, or for that matter, getting any liberal agenda to go public via elections. The Supreme Court remains your only hope, and you are going to lose that too, come January.

Have fun!

Brent roos

One particularly blaring fact swirls dervish-like around the entire artiface called "fighting for freedom over there" (and variants thereto). This entire charade at governance by these neo-cons does have its own flavor of "Keystone Kops" and "the gang that couldn't shoot straight". Unfortunately, the net negative eshewed by the Iraq invasion so vastly diminishes to imperceptible any moment of Yale boola boola attaching to the "enterprise".

At some point the casulaties and "downside risk" were "gamed" at the Pentagon and lo! & behold!... the Iraqis took the big hit. At some point someone ran out the models and determined acceptable losses.

At some point, one of these criminals inhabiting the WH came up with a "best case, worst case and expected case" based on shock and awe or something equally horrific.

These guys have the brass to duck the Viet Nam War and then, not only to send others into the breach, but to replay all the stupidity and disaster associated with that earlier criminal act, commonly called the Viet Nam War.

Let's reiterate the question with some added emphasis on key words: "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."

In answer to a question thus prefaced, the fact that 50% of repondants agree is hardly a remarkable or reassuring result. What is remarkable and very disturbing is the fact that fully one-half of respondants either disagree or aren't sure that Congress should even "consider" holding accountable a head of state who takes his country to war based on lies with all of the dire consequences that were and are readily apparent to the rest of the world, if not to Americans.

There is only one possible conclusion and it is this: One-half of Americans are totally unfit to be participants in a self-governing nation, let alone electors in a nation with imperial ambitions affecting the entire world.

I cannot help agreeing with William Rivers Pitt's description of a nation of people overdosed on ideological prozac:

Americans, by and large, have a fundamental need to feel like they are part of something great, above the fray and beyond the rest of the world. They are fed American exceptionalism with mother's milk, and will fight like rabid wolverines to avoid being forced to believe otherwise. Anyone mystified by the public support Bush has enjoyed until very recently, despite the endless litany of disasters that have befallen us, can look to this bone-deep need as the main reason for that support. It isn't just about 9/11. Americans need to feel good about America in the same way fish need water. Americans need to believe, and will thrash around like boated marlin if that belief is undercut. That belief serves as a kind of ideological Prozac, shoving bad thoughts to the background.

Iraq. Afghanistan. The continued freedom enjoyed by Osama bin Laden. Katrina. Abu Ghraib. Frist and insider stock trading. DeLay and a handful of indictments. Rove and Libby staring down the barrel of more indictments. Bush's approval ratings are plummeting, and the entire country is beginning to wilt under the depressing reality that we are, in fact, getting screwed with our pants on. Any conceits of moral authority being put forth by the White House and the Republican Party have been washed away in a flood of graft, death, lies and corruption.

Our supply of Prozac is running short. The belief in American excellence so desperately necessary to the mental balance of the populace is being eroded by the hour, and there will be hell to pay because of it

I agree with the idea above about what's hazardous...Bush, et al may have already compromised constitutional procedure (remember the 2000 election debacle?) and are busy installing their own safety net in the Supreme Court, so strategize carefully. First, go after the obvious crooks - DeLay & pals for money laundering, etc., and make sure it gets lots of smelly press that really removes the rosy halo from the republican party - do a thorough shake-down on the Republican(DeLay)controlled Congress for abiding such criminals and then creating national policy from hypocrisy; then indict Carl Rove & Cheney for treason - go directly from Rove & Cheney's motives for exposing Plame to the lying about nuclear fuel or whatever in Niger, then there is a clear path to lying about reasons for invading Iraq and valid cause for impeachment. The background work and sequence is important in gathering momentum and credibility with the people and those in power who must be influenced by people with momemtum. Remember how it went with Nixon - there was a gathering of momentum after he fired 'independant counsel' Archibald Cox that caused a sharp focusing of attention on the details and led to his resignation. Be patient, methodical and make the press do it's job.

The evil that this administration has caused in the world should be in international court as criminals.

There wasn't any mention of the biggest scandal of all lurking inside the White House, and that is The Carlyle Group.
Think about the millions of dollars Bush has spent flying Air Force One in and out of New Orleans, and even spending a night there to hammer a few nails all for publicity to try to regain his ratings.
I would love to know how many nails he drove and divide them by the total cost of that trip, bet there could have been a house built for each for the cost of every nail he drove, maybe more than one house.
I can't find it but lurking in the hidden NBC files is something about he and Cheney both selling their stock in united and American airlines in August of 2001??
Wonder why every time he gets on the hot seat we get another terrorist threat??
Why are so many of His appointed cabinet members either past or present affiliated with The Carlyle Group.
Look up the National Debt at the time he took office, and look at it now, when he took office we had a surplus of 237 billion dollars, how long did it take for that to become a deficit.
If you do an internet pill I would bet that you will find 60 to 70 percent want not only bush impeached but Cheney, Rice, DeLay, Rove, Frist and a magnitude of others as well.
Oh yes he does talk to God every time he goes off on his tirades off camera, with his "GOD D&@% B$%&@#, and I don't care about those mother f@$%&@$", now I am sure God is hearing him loud and clear, unfortunately for him so did a reporter.
And do you agree that he often sticks his index finger up and points it at heaven?

» parent | reply

Bush, et al may have already compromised constitutional procedure (remember the 2000 election debacle?)

You are of course refering to when George W. Bush won all five of the recounts in Florida? Four, or three, or two weren't enough, eh? Bush won all five of the recounts, and you still claim that he stole the election. Do you claim that he stole the 2004 election, even though he won by a landslide?

Grow up, get off of drugs, go to school, make something of your life.

Brent Roos

Isn't Feeney the name of the guy who asked Clint Curtis, when Clint worked for a software co., if he could write "secret" software to change votes on voting machines? And Feeney knows the Bushes? Like ran as Lt. Gov w/ Jeb or something, then as as Rep.?

I don't think that we should consider(that much) who will replace bush.
If it can be proven that he intentionally lied to the american people about the reasons to go to war, then he should be impeached.
That is the law of our land. I would think that the whole cabinet would be involved and would all go or be so crippled that they would not function.
We as americans should demand this. History will not look kindly on GW or on us if WE shirk our duty to uphold our laws and insist that they be followed.
Electing a new congress is wonderful and needed, but the fundamental issue is if this president did lie then he needs to pay the price

Exactly thank you for clearer thinking.
All this arguement against impeachment is so self defeating and hopeless. Impeach him for his crimes as the law states. When the people lead the leaders follow.

The flaw in your argument is this: You assume that you are automatically correct that Bush lied. And if he didn't?

You know, if enough people start saying the same thing, eventually people start to believe it. What happens when we eventually find out that another country, (Syria, Iran, Sudan, or others) is housing the weapons cache? Then what are you going to say? There is no doubt in my mind that this is the case. We gave them a full year to hide their weapons. Bill Clinton said the same thing about the WMDs when he bombed Iraq, twice. Was he wrong too? Why didn't we impeach him? Oh wait! Did the weapons just disapear into thin air? We know he had them, and he used them, on his own people.

We are kicking butt over there in Iraq. The liberals need this war to fail, so they can regain power, since they cannot provide another reson to get elected. This is one of the main reasons why I despise you people. It's because you wish failure on your own country, to regain power, even if it means losing a war.

Why don't you want America to be powerful? Perhaps that is the question that needs to be asked.

As far as history goes, who is to say how it will turn out? Don't you consider that winning the War On Terror, will make 'GW' a hero? I suppose that since you hate his being a republican, you will never consider him a hero. Well, you are a very close minded, and unintelligent person, I would say, if this is the case.

Brent Roos

"We are kicking butt in Iraq"! I'm sorry, are you there? Are you a soldier in uniform who is actually in Iraq? Have you buried your roommate that was killed less than 3 feet from you? Have you physically watched first hand your comrades die-before your very eyes. You are in no position to say what WE are doing in Iraq because WE are the ones over here, not you! Look at the numbers. Take your head out of Bush's ashy crack for a moment and look at the numbers. How long has this war been going on? How many American lives have been lost as of 12/24/2006? How many Iraqi children have died? I could go on. Look at the freaking numbers. Its easy to sit on your freaking comfy couch and talk about what WE are doing but YOU arent doing anything. We-the enlisted and commissioned soldiers of this US Military are the ones fighting this war and I can tell you first hand, WE ARE NOT KICKING BUT. We are losing our lives, our limbs, our freaking sanity-all for a war that never should've been. So unless you are in uniform, unless you have enlisted and are here with us doing the actual fighting, YOU are not in any position to say what WE are doing.

I was against President Bush's War against the soverign State of Iraq from the beginning of the chest beating by our, (unfortunatly) ruling class. I had strong feelings of dread and foreboding that our aggression was misdirected and misguided. Admittedly, Saddam was not a nice person, etc. There are alot of them out there! He was extremely intolerant of people who might upset his status quo. No way was he going to allow "terrorists" to operate or populate his country. He was also very "confined", according to all UN reports. His WMD efforts had long since been disabled. All considered, he represented no threat to the World or to the US. So we attack, destroy a Country's infrastructure and economy. We have just liberated Iraq!! No jobs, no electric, no schools, no water, no roads, transportation, freedom of movement!! Not to mention the thousands of innocent souls killed, lives destroyed, in the name of liberation and democracy. (This is before one considers the death and injuries our own troops have incurred simply for the ego of a small group of individuals and some close corporate relationships, who were essentially draft dodgers when their opportunity to "fight and die for their Country" came up.) I am also offended by the fact that no one with the last name of Bush, et al, is currently or will ever be, "in harms way". Was Iraq a hotbed of terrorism?--Hell no!! Is Iraq a hotbed of terrorism?--Hell yes!! Thank you George Bush!! You have accomplished something that terrorist could not have, in their wildest dreams. I guess that makes you the world's most dangerous terrorist.

Now you are stacking the Superme Court to cover your butt in case of impeachment. I, for one, do not think you should be impeached. I think you should suffer prosecution for the murders and mayhem that you are responsible for. Then hanged for those crimes. I would like to see this happen in the Hague, so the whole world could witness the light of justice shined on all your evil crimes. Unfortunatly, I don't believe this will ever come to be. I think you will complete your ambition of destroying our democracy and Constitution, creating a purpetual state of martial law and military occupation in our own Country. This will be accepted by us as necessary to save us from terrorism and the evils of the world. Then you will take everyones resources to pay for your excesses. Then you will declare yourself "President for life", because no one else can "take care of us".

God bless America!! God help America!!!!

Native Americans, ironically, have been fighting terrorism since 1492.

The most honest comment I have seen in a long time. I agree with a trial in the Hague. But, since that will never happen I want him and his groupies impeached.

I'm not a big capital punishment fan, but justice is definitely a higher priority.

I'd like to change the venue, though,to here at home. After all, as his enablers, we've got some reckoning to do.

---The Bikemessenger

Your premise is flawed from the beginning. You call the former Iraq soverign. How is a brutal dictator who gasses his own people the leader of a soverign country? Saddam Hussein ruled by force. What is soverign about that? I defy you to actually use reason and intelligence in your argument.

As far as the WMD argument is concerned, I suppose that if your argumet IS valid, then Hillary Clinton and John F. Kerry, among others, including all but one of the Democrats in the Senate, will be impeached as well. What? You mean you didn't know that they voted for the war, officially? They voted against the war, when it didn't matter (unofficially). So they voted for the war, before they voted against the war. Sound familiar? In other words, when it was convenient for them to make the war political, they jumped right on it. Vietnam anyone? The difference here is that we're kicking butt in Iraq. Morale is high.

Americans Are Neither Anesthesized Or Stupid

They are afraid that impeaching Bush will put somebody worse at the wheel. If the question is rephrased thusly: "Should public servents such as Congressman, Senators, the Vice President, Cabinet Members or the President be caught lying to start a war from which they derive personal benefit, should they all be impeached?" the answers would be entirely different.

Most Americans are smart enough to forsee the bigger problems if just Bush is removed. They don't particularly like or trust Cheney or the rest of the cabinet. There are a number of Democrats who are just as suspect at this point in time because they supported the war, too. The problem is that if you remove all the evil doers in this situation, you're left with Chertoff as a likely President and he's not even an American citizen.

Frankly, I think that we need to sue to remove all of the politicians who have been violating their oaths of office THAT SPECIFICALLY CALL FOR THEM TO PROTECT AND DEFEND the Constitution, then Chertoff immediately gets removed from Presidential authority because the Constitution expressly says that the President has to be an American citizen by birth. Chertoff holds Israeli and American citizenship and therefore would be uneligible for Presidency. This would also get some of the other players who are suspicious as well. Then we could hold emergency elections.

Given this scenario, most Americans would answer differently in my opinion.


I am with you MK. Been looking for someone(S) to pick up the ball and start playing hardball. Maybe we can get this ball rolling. It isnt that difficult for starters, all we need are a few lawyers in the ballpark to write up the petition and start circulating it an old community activist and getting citywide petitions and ballot issues...we can do it with communiques between the lawyers in the park for filing and communicating in a central location. I for one would favor this as soon as possible.
Will continue reading the posts, and will contact whoever gives the greenlight.

Both Rhandi Rhodes and Ed Shultz on Air America have dismissed the move to impeachment. It is incongruous with their stance on most other issues. It is a powerful disconnect and may cause citizens to give up activism or go back to apathetic hopelessness. Other critics of Impeachment along with the “it’s not going to happen

But the poll if written based on a contingency, "IF Bush lied."

I wonder what any poll would say based on a hypothetical of the President
lying about a major policy issue. It's somewhat priming the pump to start
the question with a bad act.

What would the poll say if the question was merely "Should Bush be impeached
for his Iraq policy?"

I've been on the radical left for thirty yrs. There is alot of anger at Bush for the war, rising gas prices, Katrina, etc. But, I also feel that left-liberals live too much in their NPR/Pacifica Radio bubble. There isn't the active support for impeachment that y'all think is out there. Nixon's poll ratings didn't start to tank until a few months before he was forced to resign. And the relative power of progressives in the Democrats in Congress is far below what it was in '72-74.

What do you think that was in DC last Sept. 24? And London? And LA? and smaller versions in every city in America? The ones who showed up (hundreds of thousands) are simply a microcosm of the overwhelming desire of millions to IMPEACH BUSH in this great nation of ours, to KEEP it a great and FREE nation. The silence you hear (and I don't know where you live to hear so much silence) is the new silence that Bush intentionally & with malice cultivated with fear of Patriot Act... but the silence must only be in your hometown. I live in a very conservative area, and people were loudly proclaiming (and honking) their FREEDOM from the lies on Sept. 24th.

Nice, but there weren't hundreds of thousands in Washington, and this has been proven, just like there weren't tens of thousands dead in New Orleans. Nice try, but.......

There's no if's he fucking lied.

From Raw Story.
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is trying to determine whether Vice President Dick Cheney had a role in the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame-Wilson, individuals close to Fitzgerald have confirmed. Plame’s husband was a vocal critic of prewar intelligence used by President George W. Bush to build support for the Iraq war.

The investigation into who leaked the officer's name to reporters has now turned toward a little known cabal of administration hawks known as the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), which came together in August 2002 to publicize the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. WHIG operated out of the Vice President’s office and was chaired by Karl Rove, Bush's senior advisor.

Fitzgerald’s examination centers on a group of players charged with not only selling the war, but according to sources familiar with the case, to discredit anyone who openly “disagreed with the official Iraq war

Assheads, you can't start with a loaded question. "If President Bush lied...." Duh.

hi to marge

Perhaps Congressional Democrats are not pursuing impeachment or voicing any dissent because they know they will end up like the late Paul Wellstone. They are scared.

they're scared of being attcked in the media as nutty

in fact, a number of them have said so

Yes, yes... claims of lying.

Can someone please name the exact crime committed?

Heads stuck in the sand of the past without a vision for the future…and yall wonder why you can’t win elections.

read "Bonifaz to Conyers" at left

Then their neocon hidden agendas replaced the Constitution in September 2000:

The crime is conspiracy to commit mass murder, and then the actual mass murder itself (illegal invasion).

I can't believe the rantings and ravings of the liberals! I laugh at these people. What asinine drivel. There is not one shred of evidence that has actually been presented. The Downing Street Memo? People actuallt take this nonsense seriously? Who is the person that actuallly took the time to make this website? Are you that much of a raging liberal that you will literally try to find any excuse to get Bush out of office? Try coming up with some good ideas about how to move the Nation forward, rather than back to the 60's first of all.

What is the agenda of liberalism? Other than full freedom to kill unborn children? You people make me sick. You hate Bush so bad that you would rather take the side of terrorists than see Bush succeed.

The real news is that we're kicking butt in Iraq, despite the liberal-leaning-agenda-driven news media. Since 1999, there has been non-stop Bush-bashing by these people. Too bad for them, most people don't even trust them to get the news anymore.

You can go and cite your little asinine polls. Do you know what polls really actually matter? See you next election chumps.

~Feed The Elephant~

In response to Brent Roos, you have no clue. You are a typical sheep that follows and buys into the prepackaged propaganda put forth by the Administration. Do a little research beyond the corporate media giants that are owned by the Carlyle Group (which is owned by persons in our administration and others). Or take a look at the mainstream press from other countries around the world (and I'm not referring to Middle Eastern countries, but rather Japanese, German, French, Swiss, Canadian, Australian, and the list goes on and on). They all recognize those of you who by into the administration propaganda as being exceptionally naive, and they are right. Learn to think for yourself and use some common sense.
Since when is it OK to kill tens of thousands of innocent persons, but abortion is wrong. They are both wrong. "Kicking butt" in Iraq is morally reprehensible. These people did not harm us, a very small minority of extremists did. The collateral damage in this war is unconscionable; and justified by someone who claims to be a Christian.

First, of all, thanks for insulting my intelligence. Secondly, thanks for calling me names (asshat?). That proves how intellectually vibrant you are!

I haven't a clue huh? Carlyle Group, huh? It's true that President Bush is a business man. So? I'm not a conspiricy theorist, so that makes me clueless, huh? And where are you getting your 'research' from? Let me guess. Alex Jones, or perhaps Micheal Moore? Give me a break.

You people come with the same lame arguments, everytime someone calls your bluff. The question I adressed is: What ideas do you have to better run the country??!! The answer is null. And everybody knows it, that's why you fail to win elections. You can bitch and moan all you want. The bottomline is that, with no ideas, besides raising taxes so everyone can become reliant on the government to take care of everyone (ie unvisersal healthcare, social security, etc), you cannot persuade everyday people to give you power.

Liberalism, these days, is defined by radical behavior. When you have groups like the ACLU, which defines child porn as free speech, and yet thrashes Christians for practicing their freedom of speech and expression, how can it not be defined as radical? This group, at the same time, allows religious extremism from radical muslims, and almost seems to encourage it. To make a long story short, these people will only defend freedom, as is defined by them, not defined by the Constitution of The United States of America.

So don't call me a sheep, or the majority of Americans, who obviously feel the same way. It is an obvious cop-out, because you do not provide any progressive ideas about how you might do a better job.

As far as the war goes, there have been some casualties. Saddam Hussein killed over a million people, and they still weren't free. So if we killed ten thousand, well at least it wasn't for nothing. Now, 50 million of them have their freedom. The only entities standing in the way of this are the terrorists, who oppose freedom, and the liberals, who wish failure to the success of the war, because it means that the Bush Administration, as it turns out, isn't a failure. Um, didn't you see the results of the vote last weekend in Iraq? Then did you see the reaction by the (liberal) media? It's so obvious that they want this to fail. For months, all they could say was 'civil war' and such. Well now, they say, after the next election, 'civil war'. They will never, ever admit that this has been a success.

As far as morals go, the difference between abortion and this war, is that, abortion refuses to give life, liberty, and happiness a chance. This war is being fought TO give life, liberty, and happiness a chance. These people never had it before we went there and freed them.

I don't believe that I'm the one who needs to get a clue.

Brent Roos

Finally another person with an actual brain on this site. I am not sure if you have seen me on here before but it seems like I have chased many of the real left-wing goofballs off this site already because they could never respond to the facts that I presented vs. the baseless crap they spewed. Maybe if we keep it up we can chase the rest of them back into their nuthouses.

Keep the fight going!!!!

Richie "The Right Wing Kook" Rich

Hey, no I haven't seen you until now, but I am new here. I appreciate your comments though. I will keep my eye out for your postings. I am pretty sure that they will be 99.9% better than the rest of the crap here.

You are 100% correct about the baseless rantings on this site.

I am called a sheep for presenting the truth, which is based on factual evidence. Whatever. That is only an attempt and a tactic to scare me away, because these people are afraid of my exposing their lies. But, they fail to realize, that it drives me to come back for more. The difference is that like yourself, I have an actual brain, and use it. These libs, like to kill their braincells, with their pot smoking habits. They think it makes them more intellectual, but in fact, make them as dull as a dustcloth.

Good post, my friend.

Brent Roos

Fuck you asshat. Go back to beating your wife and torturing small animals. Better yet, go to Iraq and fight for your king, the lunatic chimp.

I think massacring 100 000 Iraqis for a false reason can be considered a crime...or is it not!
I think sending 2000 American soldiers to their death because at the time the majority of Americans trusted him was a crime...or was it not!

I thought the discussion of whether or not President Bush et al. lied about the war in Iraq was an old argument that was proved true. He did lie! So, what's slowing down movement to impeach?

of congress

great response!

No one wants Dick Cheney as President. After all, it's the whole gang of four: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove that should be put in front of the courts. They all lied in unison. Ah, but which courts??

It is not "If he lied" it should read: because he lied. I agree, and so do millions of voters in this country.

The speed of impeachment is dependent upon the US Congress. If we successfully work for and elect Democrats to the US Congress in 2006 and we can have our impeachment.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Julie Varughese


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.