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.

First and foremost, it is a Republican controlled Congress. Republicans are a very tight-knit group. And I might venture to add, corrupt. They're NOT going to move to Impeach.

Second, Republicans, aka the radical right-wing conservatives, also control the media. The media today is controlled by a handful of right-wing conservatives that own them. Their hands are tied, and we've seen what happens to reporters that venture out from under their thumbs, as in what happened to Dan Rather. If they can succeed in removing an icon like Dan Rather, that's power.

Third, Democrats are afraid. They're in the minority at this point. Perhaps if they win in 2006 and gain a majority in Congress, if that's even possible, the atmosphere might be different. I believe there are many Senators and Representatives that would like to impeach. But we've also seen what happens to people that cross this group of ultra-conservatives - for instance, Valerie Plame.

Some brave souls are stepping up to the plate, like Rep. Conyers, but he's only one person, and even he's not convinced about impeachment, from what I've read. We need to get other legislators on board and encourage them to form a cohesive group. That won't be easy.

Fourth, the ultra-right-wing religious fundamentalists and the radical right-wing conservative Republicans are closely tied together in this poltical quagmire. The religious conservatives can do what mainstream media cannot do, since there are "religious" tv stations which they have free access to. They would never stand for impeachment murmurs because Bush is their hope to overturn Roe v Wade, as well as pass a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

All of this is formidable, especially when paired with a huge conservative population (amazingly enough) that still thinks Bush is "the man".

While I don't think impeachment is out of the question, and there is no President I would love to see impeached more than Bush, I don't think the time is right just yet.

First of all, as someone pointed out, we'd have to go at least seven people down the list before we'd find what most of us would classify as a decent replacement. Cheney is quite possibly even worse than Bush, and I personally believe that he is behind alot of the evil-doing of this administration. Cheney and Rove. I think Bush is evil and corrupt, but I think he's the front-line "pretty boy charmer" that cons the people into thinking he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

One good thing is that it's looking quite possible that Rove might actually be indicted in the Plame case. DeLay is facing money laundering charges in Texas. More and more discontent is coming out of Louisiana where Haliburton has gotten so many of the contracts, from catering to construction. Cheney still owns stock and will eventually derive muchos dineros from them, and that fact is getting greater press.

In short, we need to build up a defense by building up an offense. We need to keep all tales of corruption in the headlines somehow. We need to find whistleblowers. We need to find witnesses. We need to find independent prosecutors. None of that will be easy, but I do think it's necessary to build a case of undeniable corruption. We have to build a case that the people that support Bush & Co will listen to. The greater the rumblings among the people, the more Congresspeople will listen and feel emboldened. None of that will happen overnight.

But in the long run, I'd wait until about the last year of Bush's term. That way, while he might be impeached, whoever succeeded him wouldn't have a chance to do too much damage. Furthermore, if it's close enough to the end of his term, it would hopefully taint anyone who runs on the Republican ticket in '08, and would be a boon for the opposition party.

And you know, speaking of the Plame case, it's quite possible that there are ties to both Bush and Cheney. Think about it. Who would have had access to CIA information? Who would ALWAYS have the means of accessing even the most secret of documents? Not Cheney. Not Dubya. DADDY BUSH. He was, after all, the Director of the CIA for years. Who has ties to the Saudis? The Carlyle Group? Taken all together, Daddy Bush, I think, is the one who provided the information about Plame, either directly or indirectly, to the regime at 1600 PA.

If we could impeach both Bush and Cheney, that would leave us with Hastert. I could live with Hastert more than I could live with Cheney, especially if only for a short while.

Either way, the wheels move slowly for a reason, and as most slow-moving wheels, toward the end they usually pick up momentum and hit hard. We can only hope, pray, and work our asses off for that outcome. Remember, "patience is a virtue." The Republicans learned this after Goldwater, and that's why they're where they're at today, and we're not. It might behoove us to start thinking long-term, as well.

More lies, again. Dan Rather left on his own accord. He left the CBS Evening News to save face, after humiliating himself. He tried to pass fake documents, written in MS Times New Roman, as a letter written in the 70's. I didn't realize that MS Word existed back then. It has already been proven that these documents were fraudulated. Rather is lucky that charges weren't brought against him for fraud, trying to sway election results. That is truly messed up that someone could possibly get away with this. After all of this, the goon won a Pulitzer! It's truly unbelievable!

The point is, that Rather was not removed, he left. You are a typical liberal, who tries to rewrite and revision history, through your own biased and blurred opinion.

Nice try. Next time tell the truth. Truth is based upon facts, not opinions.

Every single response to my posts have been personal attacks. Not a single one has been a rebuttal to the actual factual information, because you know I'm right. I'm not basing this on my opinion. I am an independant conservative. I seek truth and do not accept biased propaganda and lies.

In addition, instead of focusing on everything you hate and/or see which is wrong to you, how about providing a solution to the problem, rather than whining and bitching that things aren't going your way? So far, I have yet to see or hear anything like this from you liberals.

The only alternative solution that I have heard is surrender and acceptance of failure. That, to me is unAmerican and sickening!

umm to qoute you "are YOU high?" every one of your posts does exactally what you're accusing everyone else of... namely personal attacks, hate, "whining and bitching" as you eloquently put it. Until you can participate in a civilized discussion with the grownups please unplug your keyboard and put it back in the box that it came in.

First of all ithink it was right for that person to ask if he was high because we do need to impeachj bush because he has done nothing but pulled us into a hole since he has been the president. You didn;t see us going through all of this when Clinton was the president. So to who ever made that comment that they should be in a civilized grown-up conference, so should they because obviously they don'tb know what they are talking about. I really am a nice person and don't mean to be rude but perople should be able to say what they want without getting critized.

You are so right. It was the anti-Bush liberal-news-media's fault for forgetting to plaster this story all over the television and print media, right?

Do you live in America? I suppose not. You actually live in Fantasyland.

Do you not know the difference between what has been 'proven', and what has been 'speculated upon'?

You are a goofy shmuck. Get off of the drugs, you hippie.

Brent Roos

In Order
Vice President (Richard B. Cheney)
Speaker of the House of Representatives (J. Dennis Hastert)
President pro tempore of the Senate (Ted Stevens)
Secretary of State (Condoleezza Rice)
Secretary of the Treasury (John W. Snow)
Secretary of Defense (Donald H. Rumsfeld)
Attorney General (Alberto Gonzales)
Secretary of the Interior (Gale Norton)
Secretary of Agriculture (Mike Johanns)
Secretary of Commerce (Carlos Gutierrez, ineligible)
Secretary of Labor (Elaine Chao, ineligible)
Secretary of Health and Human Services (Michael Leavitt)
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Alphonso Jackson)
Secretary of Transportation (Norman Y. Mineta)
Secretary of Energy (Samuel W. Bodman)
Secretary of Education (Margaret Spellings)
Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Jim Nicholson)

Chinney rove rumpfelt rice ... they all participated in that lie.

If you want people to even consider your argument debatable, you might want to learn to spell first. Perhaps my six year old neice can tutor you. And I thought all liberals were so much smarter than all of the conservative hicks. Elite, you are not; but probably on pot. Please attend elementary school, rehab, and voter registration before you flap your jaws. I see right through you, you transparent clone.

Intelligent people provide evidence for their arguments. I defy you to present yours.

Brent Roos

You just might learn something, by feeding the elephant.

Maybe you want to learn how to spell "niece" before you criticize other people's spelling.

I find it sad that you are attacking people on this site for not knowing how to spell. You spelled "niece" and "vomit" incorrectly, and have made multiple grammatical errors in your recent postings. It would appear that YOU are the uneducated hypocrite that you accuse others on this site of being.

Your childish name-calling and defensiveness make you out to be desperate in defending your opinion. Please remember that in our democratic society everyone is entitled to voice their opinion. You are personally attacking people for simply stating their opinions. You are entitled to your opinion also; however, your tactics are childish. Your responses lack any credibility due to your inability to engage in intelligent debate versus name-calling and bullying.

"I defy you to present yours". Its funny how you're trying to use fancy verbalage but even more funny just how ignorant you sound. Look up the meaning of "defy" then realize how it makes no sense in your sentence-then maybe you will begin to better understand anyone's opinion or thoughts that might differ from yours. MORON.

You're right! Who better unless they are of a Democratic persuasion.
However the liar must pay the price. We that re-elected him are paying the price right now in family losses,poor economy, lack of world stability. God has shown us the error of our ways in the wind, water and firestorms with more to come. We're on the "eve of destruction."

As a combat vet, I deeply resent troops being sent to do the dirty work and die for lies and corporate profits.

And I am far from alone here in the woods of Arkansas. There are vets everywhere who feel the same damn way...

FUCK bush he aint shit.He is a lier and a decever.I want him out of office by june 7 because thats when im going into the Army.I am 17 years of age joining the armed forces while still in highschool because it would make me feel good that i am doing something with my life and nothing feels better than fighting for what is right and fighting for ur country.I dont want my kids living wit a selfish man as president.So when i join the Army i want to be fight for a good reason.I want it to be a good enough reason that the ppl of the United States of America feel it is right.We the ppl have rights ant we should use them and not let bush and whoever else strip it away. I fell so sorry for the people in the armed forces who have lost thier life and familys and friend of someone who have lost their life in Iraq.there was no real reason for the war or atleast not good enough for war.PPL i am sorry and it does not have to continue, not at all.A president should be liked by most of the U.S. and if not liked than atleast understood by most,expecially his action(war in IRAQ,dont understan niether do any other ppl).His whole term has been B.S..For all u bush lovers out there u need to wake up seriosly.

You know, Bush is probably the worst president America has had for over a hundred years, and the corrupt activities his cabal are involved in are also the most extensive.

A long impeachment ruined Bill Clinton, and the opportunity to publicly parade the infinite shortcomings, jesuitries and thefts of the Bush gang is too good to miss. It can continue right through your next election, and so long as it results in reforms to constrain the kinds of abuses Bush has committed, it will do your country nothing but good.

On a personal level, it might be well to consider that a weak reed like Bush, an alcoholic and serial liar, a man of weak convictions, is likely to fold under pressure. Again, the spectacle will be exemplary for America.

Then again, you may get lucky, and secure a conviction. I'm not too sure about the death penalty but George certainly deserves to end up in prison - married to the guy with the most cigarettes. That would probably be Cheney.

Would you care to be a little more specific concerning Bush's crimes? Death Penalty? Alcoholic? Are you high?

I suppose that in your mind, to be a Republican, is a crime, punishable by death. And I thought liberalism was about peace, love, and tolerance. Let me know when you find a liberal, who isn't a total hypocrite.

I would argue that you are a very unintelligent person, based on your baseless claims. Get a life you goon.

Brent Roos


It truly blows my mind how many stupid (and I really mean it literally) people there are in here! Where do you come up with this nonsense? Is this for real, or is it meant to just be a joke? I'm being dead serious. This is completely asinine! What a bunch of spooks! Read any Micheal Moore books lately? Al Franken? Read any books lately? Try it sometime. You should start with a good history book. It is obvious that you've had your fill of fiction.

Brent Roos

DUDE! You have no clue. You're as ignorant as you are a poor writer.

Would you care to be specific? What's the matter, are you afraid?

Could it be that the truth hurts?

What in the hell makes you a critic, just because you say so? Perhaps you don't like it because you disagree with my writing?

I'll have you know, I am an educated man, though not an elitist liberal. I am only an amateur writer, and the fact that I have an audience is more that you can even handle, it appears.

You are a very angry person, full of rage. You have no ideas to bring to the table, nor anything good to say.

Since you have nothing good to say, all you can say is the bad, logically speaking. By this, I mean that in order for you to convince yourself that your opinions/arguments, are worth a hill of beans, you use anger toward the Republican Party to justify the means for your own lack of progressive thought. You cannot debate like an intellectual, mature, and thoughtful person. Instead, you rant and rave like a primative ape, thus exposing your true spirit. It is not for making our country better, but rather to impose your own belief system upon the rest of us (majority). But, unfortunately for you, in a representative republic, such as the United States of America, the majority wins elections.

Liberals are hell bent on trying to make us look bad, and they will stop at nothing to try to do it. The hilarious irony is, that they are only making themselves look silly.

Brent Roos

While americans work two jobs,go further into debt,and have their Constitution raped and Bill of rights taken away,the Bush administration is leading us into Facism. Vote for a new Congress that represents the people.

Fake polls about impeachment won't work either.

Here's what Gallup says about this poll (scathing, and persuasive, on the question of why this poll question's results should NOT be taken seriously):

Gallup has no trend on an impeachment question asked apart from times of controversy. We know that most people opposed impeachment of President Richard Nixon until very late in the Watergate investigation, and that a majority of people opposed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton even as he was being impeached. So, it is unlikely that a majority or even a plurality of Americans would support impeachment of Bush at this time, given the lack of any congressional effort -- by either Democrats or Republicans -- to introduce articles of impeachment.

Still, it is possible to design some objective questions to measure impeachment sentiment among the general public. Asking about impeachment if Bush lied, and then not exploring the extent to which people believe Bush lied, is clearly not the way to discover what Americans really think about the issue. This tactic is so clearly biased, it raises the question of why Ipsos participated in the effort at all.

The Web site indicated that many activists, led by, urged all of the major polling organizations to include an impeachment question. But when none did, the organization funded the one question on the Ipsos poll. Apparently, the organization intends to continue funding such questions in the future.

Thus, it appears that Ipsos granted the request, because the organization provided the money to include the question on a poll. Ipsos can make the case that its methodology was sound and the question wording itself is not biased. And Ipsos could argue that it has no control over the use to which these objective results might be put.

But that would be an abrogation of responsibility. Ipsos' reputation is being used to support a highly biased interpretation of data. And Ipsos cannot simply wash its hands of the issue. The fact is that a single question of the type that Ipsos included cannot provide a meaningful measure of public sentiment toward impeachment, and for its own reputation, Ipsos should officially disown the interpretation on its own Web site....

If polling organizations do not protect their own reputations, the whole polling industry suffers.

Thank you for a well thought out response to those who would prsent their opinions as fact.

We need to restore the integrity of the United States to the world community as a supporter of human rights, a promoter of an environment which will support the children of the world for the future, as a nation of people for whom truth is sacred. The Bush-Cheney administration further erodes our values and our laws every day. We need people of integrity to run our country for the people --NOT the corporations.

I have believed all along that going to war with Iraq was wrong. And yet, here I am in Iraq, wishing everyday I was back home.

I would like to know the reasons I am here.
Is it because of the war on terror? The war on terror seems to have given the terrorists.

Is it the weapons of mass destruction? So far they have not been found, but more weapons seem to be crossing the borders to support the insurgents cause.

Is it democracy building? Democracy should not be forced on anybody, it is something that should be decided by the people.

I think the reason is more financial. There have been many millionaires created here because of the war, so I don't think they want us to leave.

We here in Iraq deserve an answer.

If he lied and invaded a country on false pretenses, I think he should be impeached.

I just want to say that to me there wasnt a reason good enough to go to war.Killing thousands of innocent people is not right. I think the circumstances to go to war was bogus, first of all there were no weapons of mass destruction. Maybe if Iraq had threatened us in some type of way, then we fight to ensure Americas safety. The U.S has spent over 250 billion dollars on this war. Money that we could have fixed education,health care, or anything with. Instead we decide to enter a war with few reasons. We could have benefited from not going to war, but now we are killing civilians, U.S military is being killed, and spending billions of dollars. This is just my opinion.

I’m a 60-year-old Veteran who made many deterrent patrols on submarines for 25 years preserving the freedoms of Americans. I’m a believer in Teddy Roosevelt’s “Walk softly and carry a big stick.

The Dow Jones may be above 12,000 and unemployment under 5% but Bush will not be able to hide the destructive policies of his tax cuts for the rich much longer

I can honestly say that I have never encountered such arrogant egotistical hypocrisy as that evinced by Mssr. Roos. I suggest that since he obviously revels in baiting anyone who disagrees with his opinions, that he simply be ignored. He and ultra-right wing microcephallics such as Coulter and Limbaugh only flourish and purpetuate in an atmosphere where their juvenile rants are responded to. Their 15 Warholesque minutes are up. They are losing and it drives them to paroxisms of infantile name-calling and vituperative foot-stamping rages. Enough. They are, however, the hod Americans must bear for the right to free speech.
One might have a clearer vision of the phony war in Iraq if you realized that most of the world's oil supply is traded in U.S. dollars. This is essentially the only thing keeping the greenback afloat since Nixon took the U.S. off the gold standard in 1971.
Iraq was to be the first nation to substantially alter its oil policy by selling it for Euros. This could not be allowed, especially since the Euro is proving to be a far stabler currency to international traders.
The U.S. dollar is the globe's de facto currency reserve. Other nations use the U.S. dollar in order to buy oil, goods and services, etc, often borrowing or financing from the World Bank. IMF debt must also be paid off in U.S> dollars which is also often borrowed from the World Bank, both institutions conveniently (and alternately) controlled by the U.S. and Britain.
In 2003 the Bush administration managed to coerce the UN Security Council into adopting Resolution 1483 wherein sanctions against Iraq would be dropped and establishing a joint U.S.- British "Iraqi Assistance Fund" that replaced the so-called "food-for-oil" program. It also conveniently converted Iraq's oil exports back to the U.S. dollar. Voila - the potential nose-dive of the greenback on international currency markets was prevented. It had always been Cheney's intention (and this is documentable) to impose privatization on Iraqi oil. The trick here was that this had to be accomplished before the Iraqis were allowed to vote. It's ironic, and not a bit hypocritical that Bush et al blither endlessly about bringing democracy to the Iraqi people when the very basis of their national economy was yanked out from under them before the first Iraqi ballot box was stuffed.
The problem (aside from the morality) of this persiflage is that it's not legal. Even the U.S. Congressional Research Service reported to Congress in June of 2003 that sale of state assets by an occupying power is a violation of the 1907 Hague Convention. To wit, "Most authorities believe that Iraq will need a legitimate government before permanent changes can be made in its laws, economy and institutions."
To ensure complete control over the Iraqi economy, the Bush regime seized the lion's share of Iraq's cash reserves. These were moved only a month after the fall of Baghdad to a hastily-created "Development Fund for Iraq" currently in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, administered by senior Treasury Dep't official, George Wolfe.
The PNAC cabal has now accomplished two of its major stated goals. Not a single barrel of oil moves out of Iraq without the Bush regime's say-so, and it has prevented a mojor (albiet temporary) shift in nations beginning to trade oil for Euros, thus shoring up the U.S. dollar. The fact that it has cost over 2100 American dead and over 16,000 wounded is immaterial to demagogues and chickenhawks such as Cheny, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc. Indeed, the entire PNAC rat-pack who, in 1997, signed the PNAC statement of "principles" are the very people who gerrymandered the invasion.
If anyone doubts the Bush/Cheney Republicans' long-term goals (and I would hasten to point out that these creatures do not speak for all Republicans by a long shot,) I would point out a few ominous portents. First, there is a movement afoot to recind the Habeas Corpus Act that would allow the government to hold anyone for essentially any reason in purpetuity without formal charges or trial. Making this effort even more dubious is a similar effort to weaken or supplant the Posse Comitatus Act which is the only legislation that prevents government from replacing civilan police agencies with the military. Indeed, in 2002, the establishment of NORTHCOM, the first and only U.S. regional military command to have the U.S. itself as its sphere of influence, seems to be a convenient adjunct to the aforementioned proceedings. It appears to be an outshoot of the Pentagons's old "Garden Plot" scenario, NORTHCOM's mandate tasking it to provide what they describe as "consequence management operations."
These things, combined with Bush's apparent belief that he is above the law or the Constitution with regards to his greatly exaggerated perception of his powers as Commander-in-Chief, do not augure well for the American people.
I would respectfully admonish the President that if he truely wished to bring democracy to Iraq, he might have started by providing true democracy at home as an example.
I now await the inevitable, but amusingly toothless invective of Mssr. Roos...

My sympathies to the people on this site. I thought my blog was the only brent was spewing chunks on.

Life for him in Peoria, must be very boring.

Well, it seems that my comments are now being blocked here too. So you are allowed to slander my name, yet i am not allowed to defend it.

Branedy, why don't you tell your friends how you banned my net ID, because you were afraid to debate with me. I ran circles around you and you know it. You 'banned' me.

You call me names because I am able to make your argument virtually invalid. Get some courage. If you believe in your cause so much, you ought to be able to articulate your ideology in respectable terms which are substantiated by advanced research. Instead you run your mouth, as if your personal opinion is significant at all.
I'm glad that people like you exist, because it just makes my arguments look so much stronger. You see, i use facts, you merely use opinions and speculations. Keep it coming.

Speaking of polls --the presidents poll numbers are down. I suppose this means that he won't win in '08. Am I missing something? Bush isn't running for anything anymore! he already won the election --the polls which actually matter.

And whoever said something about the Carlyle Group: since John Kerry also invests in the group, he is also corrupt --by your logic. Did you vote for Kerry? You voted for Nader? Liar.

The hypocrisy is astounding, yet humorous.

Perhaps you will publish this comment, but I doubt you have the courage to.

It's funny how liberals fight so intensely for freedom of speech, yet censor any opposition to their ideology!


Even if Iraq had WMD's that was no reason to attack Iraq. Many countries have WMD for self defense. During the cold war, the US and Russia maintained that nuclear weapons were an effective deterrent to maintain peace. So why cannot iraq have wmd when it is surrounded by hostile countries with an whole array of chemical and biological weapons? It is NOT a case that Bush lied. Even if iraq HAD wmd's, there was no justification for the invasion. Yes i know about the UN resoutions-but as far as i am concerned the UN is just a tool, like the IMF and "world" bank used to project US deciet. The whole concept of WMD was just a red herring. They know all the tricks. Dont be fooled. Ask yourself = iraq has wmd, so what? It was a non issue my freinds.Use your own brain, please,

Iraq did not threaten anybody. A war of aggression was carried out by the US -the ultimate crime against humanity-as defined by the US sponsered Nuremberg trials. Therefore impeach Bush, better still, hang him like the other Nazi war criminals.

This piece is dedicated to the 100,000 + murdered by the terrorist bush, and to iraq, a country raped and destroyed by the evil which is the US. AMEN.

Not. Backing. Hillary.

by Molly Ivins

01.20.06 - AUSTIN, Texas

I'd like to make it clear to the people who run
the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough
straddling, enough not offending anyone. This is not a Dick Morris
election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear
stand on
the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her
failure to
speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on
flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.

The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a
long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It's about political
courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership.
are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those
times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth
can provide relief.

If no one in conventional-wisdom politics has the courage to speak up
say what needs to be said, then you go out and find some obscure junior
senator from Minnesota with the guts to do it. In 1968, Gene McCarthy
the little boy who said out loud, "Look, the emperor isn't wearing any
clothes." Bobby Kennedy rough, tough Bobby Kennedy didn't do it. Just
this quiet man trained by Benedictines who liked to quote poetry.

What kind of courage does it take, for mercy's sake? The majority of the
American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and
that we
should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want
single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it.
majority (86 percent) of the American people favor raising the minimum
wage. The majority of the American people (60 percent) favor repealing
Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The
(66 percent) wants to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic
but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do "whatever it takes" to
protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) thinks big oil
are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That
is the
center, you fools. WHO ARE YOU AFRAID OF?

I listen to people like Rahm Emanuel superciliously explaining
politics to us clueless naifs outside the Beltway ("First, you have
to win
elections.") Can't you even read the damn polls?

Here's a prize example by someone named Barry Casselman, who writes,
is an invisible civil war in the Democratic Party, and it is between
who are attempting to satisfy the defeatist and pacifist left base of
party and those who are attempting to prepare the party for successful
elections in 2006 and 2008."

This supposedly pits Howard Dean, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi,
by "a string of bad news from the Middle East ... into calling for
premature retreat from Iraq," versus those pragmatic folk like Steny
Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman.

Oh come on, people get a grip on the concept of leadership. Look at
war from the lies that led us into it, to the lies they continue to
on us daily.

You sit there in Washington so frightened of the big, bad Republican
machine you have no idea what people are thinking. I'm telling you right
now, Tom DeLay is going to lose in his district. If Democrats in
haven't got enough sense to OWN the issue of political reform, I give
up on
them entirely.

Do it all, go long, go for public campaign financing for Congress. I'm
serious as a stroke about this that is the only reform that will work,
and you know it, as well as everyone else who's ever studied this. Do
the goo-goo stuff everybody has made fun of all these years: embrace
redistricting reform, electoral reform, House rules changes, the whole
package. Put up, or shut up. Own this issue, or let Jack Abramoff
continue to run your town.

Bush, Cheney and Co. will continue to play the patriotic bully card
just as
long as you let them. I've said it before: War brings out the patriotic
bullies. In World War I, they went around kicking dachshunds on the
that dachshunds were "German dogs." They did not, however, go around
kicking German shepherds. The MINUTE someone impugns your patriotism for
opposing this war, turn on them like a snarling dog and explain what
your country really means. That, or you could just piss on them
as Rep. John Murtha did. Or eviscerate them with wit (look up Mark
Twain on
the war in the Philippines). Or point out the latest in the endless
of bad news."

Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as
Republican-lite. If the Washington-based party can't get up and fight,
we'll find someone who can.

I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I'm sorry that your vote counts because I would vote for hillary clinton with no reservations. she's very intelligent has experience in this sort of management. and I'm sure would she would unite the world with ease to where it was when bill clinton was president. Which would be a tremendous feat for most anyone else after Bush get's done with his harmful and killing ways.

Never have I ever read such a dumb-ass as roos..but then he is a far right wing idiot.

This poll is useless. Bush did not lie. He was most certainly wrong, but he was hardly alone in that mistake. He had the company of every country in the world except Iraq. Every major investigation of the intelligence leading up to the war has concluded that the President acted on the information he received. The Iraq war certainly could have been handled differently. But it is not going to get better because a bunch of people are focused on the past.

If you really want to be amazed, look at the poll that shows that only 68 percent of Americans want Bush's new Iraq strategy to succeed. The poll clearly shows how many sad soul's are so filled with hatred for our President that they would rather see the US lose than see Bush succeed.

The books listed to the left of this article are nothing but lies and deception. They have no credible basis.

after it was over & Dad was fird after 4 yr. Goerge W. was helping his Dad the newly X-president in to a car Goerge W. looked back at the camera man and said, "The Amercan people will pay for this " [ the firing of his dad } I saw it on TV live that day But here we are payiny daily Am I the only one that saw that 20 seconts in history

It is an unspoken part of the trust of the people, that a president not ask us to give the lives of our young to an unjust cause. Vietnam was one of those wars that was sacrificing our children with no plan on winning. Afghanistan is also one of those wars, though just. Iraq was an invasion of a country, and our claiming of, 'Not out to invade anyone, so you have nothing to fear from us.' falls on deaf ears. No one believes we are not trying to take over the world anymore, they have seen us ignore the rest of the world and do whatever we want. We live in a world, not just a country anymore. Maybe what we need is a one world government so we do not have anyone to fight with anymore, or to blame for all our problems.

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.