Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Americans Want Bush Impeached Far More Than They Ever Supported Clinton Impeachment

By MARC MCDONALD

When Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced articles of impeachment against George W. Bush on Monday, he drew ridicule from Republicans, apathy from most Democrats, and silence from the mainstream media.

However, polls show that Americans want Bush impeached far more than they ever supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998.

In 1998, when the media was in a feeding frenzy over Clinton's impeachment, polls consistently showed that Americans opposed impeachment. Not only that, but Clinton's approval rating actually increased during the impeachment proceedings. For example, on Dec. 20, 1998, Clinton's approval rating climbed to 73 percent (a higher approval rating than Ronald Reagan ever enjoyed).

An Aug. 17, 1998 ABC News poll is typical of that era. That poll showed that American opposed impeachment by a wide margin of 69 percent to 25 percent.

Indeed, that same poll showed that Americans were sick and tired of the media hoopla over Monica Lewinsky. By a margin of 69 percent to 29 percent, Americans said the investigation of Clinton should end immediately.

By contrast, today Americans do support the impeachment of George W. Bush. And yet the mainstream media ignores this story and most Democrats refuse to take any action.

For example, an ongoing MSNBC "Live Vote" online poll shows that 89 percent of Americans support Bush's impeachment. The poll has drawn over 686,000 responses thus far.

While other polls show lower numbers in favor of impeachment, it's still clear that far more Americans want Bush impeached than they ever supported Clinton's impeachment.

And unlike Clinton (who enjoyed high approval ratings during his impeachment) Bush is clearly despised by most Americans these days. Bush's approval rating remains in the toilet (falling to as low as 25 percent in a recent CBS poll).

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good for you for providing a link illustrating that in real polls (i.e. not the unscientific internet "emotion de jour" poll you cited first) those questioned clearly are not drinking your Kool-Aid. Impeachment cannot be considered simply because you do not like your elected leader. It is used as a last resort to remove an elected official who has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. You know...like committing perjury or other crimes that would land you or me in prision. Even if Bush said "screw it; I am going home till January." He could not be impeached. His approval rating could be zero, and he could not be impeached. First, he would have to commit a pretty severe crime. And don't give me any tripe about an illegal war. This is the cleanest war ever fought. If you cannot stomach this war or any war, fine. Be against the war, but shut up about it being illegal. It is not. You are clearly very frustrated about the current leadership. Just say you are frustrated and that you wish the current administration was already over. Your headline is intended to be controversial, I suppose, but you know it is wrong. The rule of law is far more important than your dethroned and disgraced king, Bill Clinton, just as it is for any president. Have you ever actually read the US Constitution? You CLEARLY have not, or you would be ashamed of yourself. Stop spewing the talking points of the moveon.org fruitcakes, and do your own research. This is a new low for liberal blogs.

Anonymous said...

I recall during the Monica Lewinsky media frenzy, the likes of CNN gave that "story" 24/7 coverage for 18 months. (Yes, this from the same "news" network that ignored and/or downplayed the Downing Street Memos, as well as the Plame case). But what's lying about a blowjob, compared to treasonously outing a covert CIA agent during wartime?

Anonymous said...

Oh please. You're siting as a source an online web poll? Totally unscientific. It's so easy for an organized group to bomb a poll like that.

I do agree that Bush should be impeached. The rest of your post is very interesting and relevant. The impeachment tool was not creatd to go after cases of perjury, but high crimes.

And please, impeach Cheney first.

Anonymous said...

The media's very consistent in ignoring A. the greater story; B. acknowledging the wisdom of the American electorate; C. Pandering to their corporate paymasters and powerbrokers.

Ghoast said...

Remember once upon a time (2004) when (despite the actual results of a very close election) the media (particularly the delusional elements like Hannity and Limbaugh) told us Bush had a mandate from the people?

If a percentage of a percentage point of a majority constitutes a mandate, what does this 89 percent constitute? And what's the over/under as for MSM sources which report it as such?

Anonymous said...

yes, you know our country has hit rock bottom, when a president can be impeached for a blowjob, but not for lying and decieving his country. Beyond unbelievable....

Marc McDonald said...

re:
>>>Oh please. You're siting as a
>>>source an online web poll?
>>>Totally unscientific. It's so
>>>easy for an organized group to
>>>bomb a poll like that.

That was just one poll that I cited in the article. I also provided a link to a page that offers a roundup of other polls about impeachment.

It is indeed easy for an organized group to bomb an online poll. But note that this works both ways.

I've long believe the Right-Wing is vastly more organized and able to get its way through brute force than the Democrats are.

As an example, just take a look at Wikipedia these days. Although the articles there are technically open to edits by anyone, the Right-Wing is clearly winning the battle there.

The main article on George W. Bush, for example, could have been written by Karl Rove. It's because the Right-Wing is simply more aggressive in editing Wikipedia articles. Amazingly, the Bush article didn't even mention the Plame case at all, until I raised this point myself.

Meanwhile, the main article on Bill Clinton regurgitates every single right-wing nutcase allegation ever made against him. The same goes for other top Democratic leaders' articles on Wikipedia.

Marc McDonald said...

re:
>>>Impeachment cannot be
>>>considered simply because you
>>>do not like your elected
>>>leader. It is used as a last
>>>resort to remove an elected
>>>official who has committed high
>>>crimes and misdemeanors.

OK, so let me get this straight:
Lying a nation into an illegal and immoral war that slaughtered one million Iraqi civilian men, women and children is fine and dandy.

But lying about a blowjob is grounds for impeachment.

What's amusing is how you 25-percenters believe that WE are the ones drinking the Kool-Aid.

Anonymous said...

When one considers all the evidence to date regarding events of the U.S. led Iraq invasion, including last week's Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's report, plus the many writings from those who worked inside the Bush White House, the scope and depth of the lying is staggering.

President Bush and his White House Neo-Con-men (who signed the Project for the New American Century manifesto for world domination at all cost) should be put on trial before the public for the atrocities they have caused.

And Speaker Nancy Pelosi should be investigated for aiding them, saying the impeachment issue over the Iraq War is "off the table", and as she states in a recent letter to me, "I believe impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney will distract us from our mission…". Well, to Ms. Pelosi and all those who are relentlessly enabling this epic tragedy of senseless death, shattered lives, broken families, mind-numbing abuses of our hard-earned tax dollars, savage corporate exploitation; I say, JUSTICE IS NO DISTRACTION! There is no justice without impeachment!

Many in Congress and the Senate had the same intelligence as the White House administration, yet their conclusions were vastly different and, as it turns out, shockingly correct.

The press, which as we now know from Bill Moyers' insightful PBS documentary, "Buying the War", rather than giving us the benefit of being watch-dog, instead served as lap-dog to the Bush White House—providing no real means for adequate public scrutiny.

The Congressional Black Caucus was, and is, a shining example of stewardship of the public interest and welfare. They stood in the House on the eve of the invasion on Iraq and made fact based, rational, and passionate presentations pleading with the President not to invade Iraq.

Sadly, most Americans to this day still do not know about those presentations because the mainstream press never reported that historic event.

Nevertheless, I shall forever remember that night in 2003, while watching C-SPAN—those powerful words, with truth and humanity from Rep. Maxine Waters:

"Mr. President, you cannot substitute a preemptive strike on Saddam Hussein for finding the terrorists. We want the terrorists to be found….

We want to secure the homeland. We are worried that you have been diverted, that you are about to do this preemptive strike without the documentation….

Yes, every country should be able to defend itself, but we are in no danger from Iraq. As a matter of fact, that is probably one of the weakest points on the globe for us to attack. We are not threatened by Saddam Hussein….

What we see and we are witnessing is the mismanagement of America. Someone today criticized Senator Daschle because he talked about the diplomatic disaster. Mr. President, it is a diplomatic disaster. We are watching before our very eyes the mismanagement of our beloved country. Our schools are falling apart. You said you wished to leave no child behind, but, Mr. President, you have not funded assistance to education that will have our children in the best possible situations where they can learn. Our health care system has fallen apart. In my city, in my county we are closing healthcare clinics. We are closing hospitals….

Mr. President, you are not able to tell us what this war is going to cost and what the cleanup, what the revitalization, the reconstruction of Iraq is going to cost. The American people need to know where our dollars are going. The American people need to understand the cost of this war and why….

Mr. President, we must raise these questions. We must raise these questions because we are patriots. We are folks who love this country. We are folks who have stood by this country no matter what, and we will continue to stand by this country. We will continue to stand by our soldiers. But, Mr. President, you are going to have to account for the leadership that you are giving, and I say to you and all those who are advising you, be it Wolfowitz, be it Secretary of State Colin Powell, be it Condoleezza Rice, be it Karl Rove, or any of those in the inner circle, you are going to be held responsible for what takes place in this world, what takes place with this preemptive strike, what takes place with our soldiers and our families…."

It is now time for us, all of us, to speak up in the name of justice. Our laws say we are entitled to impeachment proceedings, and our morality demands it.

Because we were fooled into war with Iraq, there are so many in this country who weep at the mere sight of the empty chair at the dinner table, knowing their loved one will never return to break bread in the sacred fellowship of family.

Indeed, justice is no distraction! There will be no justice without impeachment!

Marc McDonald said...

re:
>>>Sadly, most Americans to this
>>>day still do not know about
>>>those presentations because the
>>>mainstream press never reported
>>>that historic event.

I have to admit: I'd never heard of this before myself.
The Congressional Black Caucus and Maxine Waters are true American heroes.
I find it sad how these people (who were right all along about Iraq) rarely have their views presented in the MSM. And yet the MSM gives us endless hours of ill-informed blather from morons like Bush, Cheney and the rest of the NeoCons, (all of whom have been proven wrong about Iraq over and f*cking over again).

Anonymous said...

lol
In 1964 a gallon of gasoline was 30 cents or three dimes. From 1796 to 1964 our country minted dimes, quarters, and halves made from 90% silver. Silver does not lose its value like Federal Reserve Notes that are backed by nothing more than faith in the well being of the US economy. Today three silver dimes are worth 3.80 Fed Notes or US dollars and today will still purchase a gallon of gasoline. Silver and other precious metals like gold are excellent stores of wealth as they don’t lose value. If you kept Fed Notes all these years they are worth 8 cents in 1964 dollars. In 1913 dollars they are worth 4 cents. The dollar devalues because the Federal Reserve creates money out of thin air to fund our Federal governments ever increasing debt, which in turn increases the money supply diluting its value.

Anonymous said...

When has it been proven that Bush lied about Iraq? Even if he had, did he do so under oath? Last I checked lying in of itself is not a crime, lying under oath on the other hand is. It's called perjury, and yes it is an impeachable offense.

The Constitution is pretty clear on this issue. Impeachment for: treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Armitage outed Palme, not Bush, indict him for that crime, and Bush had authorization to invade Iraq going back to 1998-The Iraq Liberation Act. Try again.

Marc McDonald said...

re:
>>>When has it been proven that
>>>Bush lied about Iraq?

Outside of the cult-like 25-percenters who still support Bush, I think most Americans believe Bush lied our nation into an unnecessary war.

As for the 75 percent of us who disapprove of Bush, I guess we're just misinformed, right? I guess we need to stop reading and just get all our news and views spoon-fed to us by Rush Limbaugh, right? (After all, he's right and everyone else is wrong and misinformed, correct?)

I recall Bush repeating dozens of times in the lead-up to the war that Iraq had WMDs and posed a danger to America.

What Americans didn't know then (but Bush did know at the time) was that U.S. intelligence agencies were far from being in agreement about this.

Bush should have sat down and listened to what his intelligence agencies were telling him instead of rushing the nation into war.

But the reality is, it's now become clear that Bush wanted to invade Iraq even before 9/11.

The fact is, Bush's case for war was a pack of lies.

But it's clear that Bush didn't care. He and the rest of the NeoCons were so arrogant that they really believed the Iraqis would greet us with flowers and the whole war would be over in a few months (in which case few people would even bother making a fuss over the lack of WMDs).

re:
>>>Bush had authorization to
>>>invade Iraq

Bullshit. No nation has the right to invade another nation. Period.

I find it interesting how NeoCons like yourself (who despise the U.N. and want the U.S. to withdraw from it) suddenly become big fans of the U.N. when you think it suits your arguments.

Warmongers such as yourself and your hero Bush have a big hard-on for war because you've never been anywhere close to a battlefield.