|
Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush Over Wiretapping
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: |
Zogby poll: Majority supports impeaching Bush for wiretapping
WASHINGTON, D.C. — By a margin of 52 to 43 percent, citizens want Congress to impeach President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of Pres. Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
The poll was conducted by Zogby International.
The poll found that 52 percent of respondents agreed with the statement: "If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."
Of those contacted, 43 percent disagreed, and 6 percent said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a margin of error of 2.9 percent.
"The American people are not buying Bush's outrageous claim that he has the power to wiretap American citizens without a warrant. Americans believe terrorism can be fought without turning our own government into Big Brother," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik in a statement.
Responses to the Zogby poll varied by political party affiliation: 76 percent of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 50 percent of independents and 29 percent of Republicans.
Responses also varied by age, sex, race, and religion. 70 percent of those 18-29 favored impeachment, 51 percent of those 31-49, 50 percent of those 50-64, and 42 percent of those older than 65. Among women, 56 percent favored impeachment, compared to 49 percent of men. Among African Americans, 90 percent favored impeachment, compared to 67 percent of Hispanics, and 46 percent of whites.
The new Zogby poll shows a major shift in support for Bush's impeachment since June 2005. In a Zogby poll conducted June 27-29, 2005 of 905 likely voters, 42 percent agreed and 50 percent disagreed with the identical statement asked about in this recent polling.
(1/16/2006)
- Vermont Guardian
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12528
|
And in other news Arlen Specter says impeachment is a remedy if Bush broke the law followed by criminal prosecution.
| quote: |
Opposition: Specter says 'impeachment is a remedy'
Combined News Services
ACCRA, Ghana - First lady Laura Bush said Sunday that the U.S. government is right to eavesdrop on Americans with suspected ties to terrorists, but a top Senate Republican joined a chorus of lawmakers who think domestic spying is on shaky legal ground.
''I think the American people expect the United States government and the president to do what they can to make sure there's not an attack by foreign terrorists,'' Bush said just before landing here to begin a four-day stay in West Africa.
President Bush is concerned that media disclosure of the program will cripple work to foil terrorists, she said. ''I think he was worried that it would undermine our efforts by alerting terrorists to what our efforts are,'' Bush said.
Bush's secret order gave the National Security Agency permission to listen in on international phone calls and peek at e-mails between Americans and suspected terrorists.
Administration officials claim a congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 - a resolution that authorized him to use force in the fight against terrorism - gave the president the authority to order the program.
''I thought they were wrong,'' Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on ABC's ''This Week.''
Specter is one of several Republicans and Democrats who are questioning the administration's authority to engage in domestic spying without court warrants. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has agreed to testify at hearings next month before the Judiciary Committee, which Specter chairs.
Specter also said that although the question of impeachment had not yet arisen for him, he would pursue it if he believes Bush broke the law.
''Impeachment is a remedy,'' he said. ''After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution, but the principal remedy . . . under our society is to pay a political price.''
Committee members, including GOP Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, have expressed doubt about Bush's legal argument for the program.
''We're not going to give him a blank check, and just because we're of the same party doesn't mean we're not going to look at this very closely,'' Specter said. ''And I moved immediately when the matter was disclosed to say that I would use my authority as chairman of the Judiciary Committee to have hearings, and we're going to pursue it.''
http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3406705
|
And in other news, Coulter soon to call majority of Americans and conservatives in congress "traitors." It’s about time conservatives and the public woke up. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
And in other news Arlen Specter says impeachment is a remedy if Bush broke the law followed by criminal prosecution. |
Sorry, but whatever trust I had in Specter was thrown out the window with Alito. Someone like Specter who's supposedly a big advocate of "pro-choice" and turns around supporting Alito who's made it clear in the past that he will do away with Roe v Wade, and who would not admit like Roberts that Roe is settled law, has no credibility as far as I'm concerned. In the end I anticipate Specter will turn around and somehow support Bush on this one too.
In other news, another Republican, Senator mike Dewine of Ohio comes out and supports an investigation on Bush's illegal wiretaps:
| quote: | "I believe the president of the United States has the responsibility as commander in chief, in an emergency, to take actions to protect the American people from being attacked, even when those actions may not specifically be authorized by statute.
However, the president has the obligation to seek congressional statutory authority, within a reasonable period of time, if he finds it necessary to continue such actions. In this instance, the Senate Intelligence Committee has an obligation, in its regular course of oversight, to review this program. Further, the executive branch should brief the full committee on the program so that members can carry out their oversight responsibilities.
As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee I believe very strongly that the unauthorized disclosure of classified information carries great risks and should be investigated when such disclosures occur."
http://www.dispatch.com/print_templ...0117-A5-00.html |
Another Republican. How many is that now? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Sorry, but whatever trust I had in Specter was thrown out the window with Alito. Someone like Specter who's supposedly a big advocate of "pro-choice" and turns around supporting Alito who's made it clear in the past that he will do away with Roe v Wade, and who would not admit like Roberts that Roe is settled law, has no credibility as far as I'm concerned. In the end I anticipate Specter will turn around and somehow support Bush on this one too. |
Maybe it's because abortion laws aren't going anywhere. From the way these proceedings are going, you'd think the biggest single threat to our way of life in the world is abortion. Sorry, but I simply don't believe any abortion laws are ever going to be changed (with the exception of the whole partial birth thing, which itself is a ghastly abomination). Should you not be more concerned with something like imminent domain? Roe V. Wade is obviously a litmus test for you, Opus--imo you're probably wasting more time and energy on that than you should. The christian right may not like it, but I just don't see it going anywhere. It's merely become something we use to draw a political line in the sand. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Maybe it's because abortion laws aren't going anywhere. From the way these proceedings are going, you'd think the biggest single threat to our way of life in the world is abortion. Sorry, but I simply don't believe any abortion laws are ever going to be changed (with the exception of the whole partial birth thing, which itself is a ghastly abomination). Should you not be more concerned with something like imminent domain? Roe V. Wade is obviously a litmus test for you, Opus--imo you're probably wasting more time and energy on that than you should. The christian right may not like it, but I just don't see it going anywhere. It's merely become something we use to draw a political line in the sand. |
Well I tend to see otherwise - I foresee cases being brought to the SC that slowly chip away at it.
But if I haven't made myself clear in the past, I will now. I'm not a huge Roe supporter, despite my Left leaning tendencies. If there's one issue I tend to sit on the fence on, it's abortion. I see the argument on both sides, and I think it's just a bit too complex for me to state one way or the other. If pressed I'd probably fall more on the pro-life yard, but with some circumstances and caveats to go with it.
And yes, I am personally concerned with issues like imminent domain. But in regards to Alito, I was most concerned about Presidential and Executive authority, much more concerned with that than Roe. However, I only brought that point up to demonstrate my lack of distrust towards Specter. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
But in regards to Alito, I was most concerned about Presidential and Executive authority, much more concerned with that than Roe. However, I only brought that point up to demonstrate my lack of distrust towards Specter. |
+1 - It's great that Bush can stack a court to rule his criminal actions legal. :nervous: |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
+1 - It's great that Bush can stack a court to rule his criminal actions legal. :nervous: |
FDR anyone??? Occrider made great mention of it in another thread. Clearly one can't just make snap judgements on these issues without taking a thorough look at context. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
FDR anyone??? Occrider made great mention of it in another thread. Clearly one can't just make snap judgements on these issues without taking a thorough look at context. |
Well, if you truly want to put it in to context you might also look at the fact that nothing that Adolf Hitler did during his rise to power was illegal under German law. Let me rephrase that - nothing he did up until (siezing power after) the Reichstag fire was illegal under German law.
| quote: | Hitler had been sworn in as Chancellor and head of the coalition government on January 30, 1933. His first act was to ask Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag so that he could increase the number of Nazi seats in the government. Hitler's request was granted and elections were set for March 5, 1933. Hitler's aim was to abolish democracy in a more or less legal fashion by activating the Enabling Act.
(...)
The March elections were a major success for the Nazis but not to the extent they were hoping for. (The Nazis had hoped to win 50%-55% of the vote.) The Nazis coerced and bribed the remaining parties except for the Social Democrats to give them the two-thirds majority for the Enabling Act, which gave them the right to rule by decree and suspended most civil liberties. Despite considerable pressure, only the Social Democrats voted against the Enabling Act. In the months that followed, all of the non-Nazi parties were either banned or dissolved themselves to avoid arrests and concentration camp imprisonment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
|
|
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Well, if you truly want to put it in to context you might also look at the fact that nothing that Adolf Hitler did during his rise to power was illegal under German law. Let me rephrase that - nothing he did up until (siezing power after) the Reichstag fire was illegal under German law. |
I'm not sure I follow the connection. I thought I said FDR and raising the number of SC justices to 12 from 9. Was it a Hitler related move? I thought it was to push through a lot of New Deal legislation. Please tell me if I missed something. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I'm not sure I follow the connection. I thought I said FDR and raising the number of SC justices to 12 from 9. Was it a Hitler related move? I thought it was to push through a lot of New Deal legislation. Please tell me if I missed something. |
I was putting it into historical context. Groundhog Boy said, | quote: | | It's great that Bush can stack a court to rule his criminal actions legal. |
You countered that with to which I replied that Hitler basically did the same thing under the Nazi's.
You really can't justify current transgressions by basing them on past ones. We are (supposed to be) rationally thinking creatures with high moral obligations. We're supposed to learn from our mistakes, not keep repeating them. The way things are currently going, it won't be long until we're all wiped off the face of the planet by some trigger happy, war mongering, ideologically fanatic . |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
I was putting it into historical context. Groundhog Boy said, You countered that with to which I replied that Hitler basically did the same thing under the Nazi's.
You really can't justify current transgressions by basing them on past ones. We are (supposed to be) rationally thinking creatures with high moral obligations. We're supposed to learn from our mistakes, not keep repeating them. The way things are currently going, it won't be long until we're all wiped off the face of the planet by some trigger happy, war mongering, ideologically fanatic . |
Ah. I think I see where you were going. I don't want to come across as trying to justify anything current by using historical precedent that was clearly wrong. I was merely pointing to a case in history where a president's actions were clearly unconstitutional, though FDR is largely viewed very favorably so people are hesitant to criticize to the extent we see other public officials criticized. Additionally, while Dubya does get to appoint people he sees fit to fill holes in the SC roster, he's not doing anything illegal, rather he's simply filling the voids created by outgoing justices. He'd be derelict on his duty otherwise. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Ah. I think I see where you were going. I don't want to come across as trying to justify anything current by using historical precedent that was clearly wrong. I was merely pointing to a case in history where a president's actions were clearly unconstitutional, though FDR is largely viewed very favorably so people are hesitant to criticize to the extent we see other public officials criticized. Additionally, while Dubya does get to appoint people he sees fit to fill holes in the SC roster, he's not doing anything illegal, rather he's simply filling the voids created by outgoing justices. He'd be derelict on his duty otherwise. |
Okay, now I understand what you were saying.
And yes, Lincoln also suspended habeas corpus. |
|
|
| Shamen DJ's |
The original article stated
90% African Americans favored impeachment
67% Hispanics favor impeachment
70% of those 18 - 29 favored impeachment
Aren't the Republicans worried about these statistics, being an election year. |
|
|
|
|
