Without actually viewing polls on impeachment, Blankley "would guess that something less than 10 percent" of Americans would support impeachment
SUMMARY: After admitting he had not seen any polls on public support for the impeachment of President Bush, The Washington Times' Tony Blankley nonetheless suggested that "something less than 10 percent of the American voting public would look forward to seeing" impeachment proceedings brought against Bush. In fact, two recent Zogby polls have found that a majority of Americans think Congress should consider impeaching the president.
Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley admitted in his February 2 Washington Times column that he had not viewed polls on public support for the impeachment of President Bush, but nonetheless suggested that "something less than 10 percent of the American voting public would look forward to seeing the last two years of the Bush presidency consumed with a Democratic Party-controlled Congress trying to impeach the president during a time of war." In fact, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, two recent Zogby International polls have found that a majority of Americans think Congress should consider impeaching Bush either "[i]f President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq" (November 2005, 53 percent); or ""[i]f President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge" (January 16, 2006, 51.7 percent).
And while a more recent survey found less support than the Zogby polls indicated for impeachment, it nonetheless found that a percentage almost four times greater than the one cited by Blankley would consider evidence of lawbreaking by Bush in his domestic spying program to be "an impeachable offense." The January 22-25 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll (page 18) found that "[i]f a congressional investigation finds that George W. Bush broke the law when he authorized government agencies to use electronic surveillance to monitor American citizens without a court warrant," 39 percent of Americans would consider that "an impeachable offense," while 52 percent would not. According to the same poll, 57 percent of Americans (including 54 percent of independents) said that Congress should "hold hearings to investigate the legality of George W. Bush's authorization of electronic surveillance to monitor American citizens without a court warrant."
From Blankley's February 2 column:
But not satisfied to be a head-in-the-sand, reflexively negative opposition party, an increasing number of Democrats and their supporters in the leftish fever swamps have started calling for President Bush's impeachment.
While I haven't seen any polls yet on the subject, I would guess that something less than 10 percent of the American voting public would look forward to seeing the last two years of the Bush presidency consumed with a Democratic Party-controlled Congress trying to impeach the president during a time of war.
Somehow the Democratic Party -- for 180 years the most electorally successful political party on the planet -- has now almost completely mutated into a party too loathsome to be seen in public, and too nihilistic to be trusted with control of even a single branch of government.
"While I haven't seen any polls yet on the subject, I would guess that something less than 10 percent of the American voting public would look forward to seeing the last two years of the Bush presidency consumed with a Democratic Party-controlled Congress trying to impeach the president during a time of war. " ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think it's pretty evident that Blankley is out of touch with mainstream America. I love it when I can turn these guy's words back on them.
I wonder if he believed 10% of the country was interested in seeing the last two years of the Clinton presidency consumed with a Republican-controlled congress impeaching him over a lie regarding a personal affair...
are opposed to impeachment because they remember the incredibly time- and energy-wasting process directed at Clinton, the poll results are actually much more negative for Bush than the 39% implies.
Blankly seems not to know the facts.
That said, impeachment is not the rode to take. The voting public needs to learn a cold hard lesson. As McCain has stated often, "Elections have consequences." Let the right wing do what they want. The voting public will wisen up eventually. Who knows how bad it will get, or how long it will take.
Yeah, but why should the rest of the world suffer because a small percentage of the folks they share the globe with made such poor choices?
elections have consequences. This is how the system we agreed on works. The rest of the world is unfortunately out of luck. But maybe next time, the voting public; 1.) will get off of their bums and get to the voting booth, 2.) will know the repercussions of voting third party because "there is no difference," 3.) will demand that all votes be counted accurately.
I could go on, but the point is that we are our own worst enemy.
That said, impeachment is not the rode [sic] to take. The voting public needs to learn a cold hard lesson. As McCain has stated often, "Elections have consequences." Let the right wing do what they want. The voting public will wisen up eventually. Who knows how bad it will get, or how long it will take.
On the contrary, impeachment is a perfectly valid road to take. If, as appears to be the case, the president is guilty of crimes committed in the furthering of his own political agenda (as opposed to when it was done against Clinton), then impeachment is the logical next step.
As to when it will happen, Blankley's (has anyone noticed that the man is resembling Jabba the Hutt in a dull gray suit?) greatest fear is the 2006 Congressional elections. If the Democrats take back the House, they can start to work on the agenda that the people actually support.
First of all, one would need pretty solid evidence that a person duly elected by the American people blatantly and maliciously broke the law.
Secondly, there has be evidence of a subjugation of national security.
Lying to get a nation into war, as ugly as it is, is first of all a subjective charge. A good number of Americans believed the Iraq invasion was the thing to do and still do. But regardless of personal viewpoint, the American presidency is wrought with examples of presidents at least bending the truth to get the nation into war. One example is President Polk's "casus belli" of drawing the nation into a Mexican-American war. President Polk wanted the distinction of expanding the nation, and the general who built a fort on the Rio Grande on the border of Mexico on the disputed territory of the Republic of Texas was none other than Zachary Taylor, who would become President. Americans supported Polk's initiative, although he was not truthful.
Should he have been impeached?
As for the first point, the warrantless eavesdropping is close to the edge. But is there objectively enough proof to conclude the President knowingly and maliciously broke the law. To me, Congress shares the blame. They are the ones who, in a frenzy of nationalism, approved an open-ended resolution for the President to use any means necessary (basically) in extending him war powers. That's the main argument the President's men are using, and it's a pretty powerful one.
I think the bar needs to be set high for impeachment. I loathed the GOP impeachment of President Clinton because it passed no real test that I have outlined above. While I think President Bush is closer to the line on both counts, I'm not so sure he's there. I'd like to see time bear out more facts.
Should we wait until they nuke Iran? Or Syria? How LONG should we wait? Maybe when they start rounding all "dirty Lib'rals" up and shipping them off in trains? Or when they get rid of Amendment #22 and anoit Bush "Preznit for Life"? Would that be long enough, ya think?
If EVER there was a President that MUST be impeached, BUSH is the guy.
your convictions, but as bird stated, the bar has to be extremely high for impeachment. Congress, including Dems like Kerry and Clinton, voted for unfettered Presidential power. The voting public agreed with the President and reelected him. It is more prudent to be patient and persistent. So in 2006 and 2008, put up a sign on your lawn, put on a bumper sticker, get your lazy friends and family to vote for the candidates of their choice. Hopefully you and I and the rest of the left can persuade them to make the correct choices. It is that simple.
We just need the investigation to lay out the facts. Though your examples are well taken, the answer to your question is YES lying to take us into a war is an impeachable offense. Two of the watergate felons were idicted for the crime of perpetrating a fraud on the US. I wont bore you with the details suffice to say it IS illegal to mislead a government entity in such a way as to inhibit the performance of its duties. So for instance when Bush sent 12 letters to Congress about the aluminum tubes propaganda and not one of them contained the quite relevant FACT that these tubes had been studied by our scientific experts in the field and they UNANIMOUSLY denied these tubes were likely to be used as Bush was claiming he was arguably perpetrating a fraud on Congress.
As for the wiretapping one of the articles of impeachment written up against Nixon was EXACLTLY wiretapping Americ ans without a warrant.
It doesnt hold water the administration TRIED to get Congress to extend that to domestic use and Congress refused it is simply NOT credible that the resolution gives him powers that Congress specifically denied him at the time
We cannot WAIT for people to "realize the error of their ways" as you suggest. People will come to realize what a horrible mistake they made 10, 20 years afterwards when it all comes out; then you won't be able to even FIND anyone that'll admit that they voted for these criminals. We CANNOT WAIT THAT LONG- the threat is IMMEDIATE AND REAL!
I would guess that Blankley would rather tap into his rectal database for public opinion numbers than have to deal with reality.
"While I haven't seen any polls yet on the subject, I would guess that something less than 10 percent of the American voting public would look forward to seeing..."
- Tony Blankley on TV.
- The Washington Times on their doorstep in the morning.
- A mass wedding performed by the Reverend Sung Yung Moon (Tony's boss).
Ten Percent seems to be the number that wingnuts have agreed upon to marginalize anyone who disagrees with their agenda. The other night I heard a bit of The No-Fact Zone on the radio. A caller was arguing that the war in Iraq was a mistake. O'Reilly then says, "So, you're one of the 10 percent that thinks Saddam Hussein should still be in power?" Try 55 percent, Bill! Several polls have asked the question, "Was the Iraq war a mistake?" Their numbers show that 50-60 percent of Americans agree.
and an overused GOP talking point.
Apparently, one cannot oppose the war the way the Bush Administration has executed it, and advocate Saddam being out of power at the same time.
There were myriad ways of accomplishing such other than the way Bush has chosen.