bush-impeachment-poll-2

[Doomsday101]

New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping

By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching 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 President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.

The poll found that 52% 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."

43% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.

"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.

Recently White House spokesman Scott McClellan cited a Rasmussen poll that found 64% believe the NSA "should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects." Of course, that is exactly what Congress authorized when it created the FISA courts to issue special expedited secret warrants for terrorism suspects. But Bush defied the FISA law and authorized warrantless wiretaps of Americans, which has outraged Americans to the point that a majority believe Congress should consider Bush's impeachment.

"Bush admits he ordered illegal warantless wiretapping, but says it began in response to 9/11 and was limited to a small number of calls to or from Al Qaeda," Fertik said. "But recent reports suggest wiretapping affected a much larger number of Americans, and a report in Friday's Truthout says the wiretapping began before 9/11."

"The upcoming Senate hearings on White House wiretapping could be as dramatic as the Watergate hearings in 1973. A majority of Americans have already believe Congress should look into grounds for impeachment, yet we have only seen the tip of the iceberg in the Corporate Media. If Bush ordered warrantless wiretapping long before the terrorist attack on 9/11, then Americans will realize that George Bush came into office determined to shred the Constitution and take away our rights," Fertik said.

Impeachment Supported by Majorities of Many Groups

Responses to the Zogby poll varied by political party affiliation: 66% of Democrats favored impeachment, as did 59% of Independents, and even 23% of Republicans. By ideology, impeachment was supported by Progressives (90%), Libertarians (71%), Liberals (65%), and Moderates (58%), but not by Conservatives (33%) or Very Conservatives (28%).

Responses also varied by age, sex, race, and religion. 74% of those 18-29 favored impeachment, 47% of those 31-49, 49% of those 50-64, and 40% of those over 65. 55% of women favored impeachment, compared to 49% of men. Among African Americans, 75% favored impeachment, as did 56% of Hispanics and 47% of whites. Majorities of Catholics, Jews, and Others favored impeachment, while 44% of Protestants and 38% of Born Again Christians did so.

Majorities favored impeachment in every region: the East (54%), South (53%) and West (52%), and Central states (50%). In large cities, 56% support impeachment; in small cities, 58%; in suburbs, 46%; in rural areas, 46%.



Why are these same Democrats not calling for Obama Impeachment since he is continuing and supporting the same wire tapping that was just so wrong under Bush?

[Doomsday101]

http://secure.eff.org/wiretapping

The Obama Administration is arguing that the wiretapping program is a "state secret" and that the courts are barred from ever judging its legality. Even worse, they're arguing that under the PATRIOT Act, the United States government possesses complete "sovereign immunity" against lawsuits for spying that violates federal privacy laws. It's a shocking argument that even the Bush Administration never made.

[Temo]

The survey question is dumb.

[Doomsday101]

The survey question is dumb.

Only thing dumb is democrats calling for Bush impeachment because of wire tapping and turning a blind eye to the very same thing Obama and his justice department are currently defending

[Temo]

Only thing dumb is democrats calling for Bush impeachment because of wire tapping and turning a blind eye to the very same thing Obama and his justice department are currently defending

I think anyone complaining about FISA is dumb (or just ill-informed), either before or after the 2008 amendment that Obama signed.

But the survey question as posed biases the answerer's response. It leads to most people thinking that 52% of Americans wanted Bush impeached, but it doesn't mean that at all. (Also you should probably mention that the survey is from 2006)

[Doomsday101]

I think anyone complaining about FISA is dumb (or just ill-informed), either before or after the 2008 amendment that Obama signed.

But the survey question as posed biases the answerer's response. It leads to most people thinking that 52% of Americans wanted Bush impeached, but it doesn't mean that at all. (Also you should probably mention that the survey is from 2006)

It is from a democrat web site and Obama and his justice department are doing the same thing and are defending it and yet no one in the Democratic Party is hollering impeachment. Hypocrisy at its finest.

[Doomsday101]

The Obama Administration this week released its predecessor's post-9/11 legal memoranda in the name of "transparency," producing another round of feel-good Bush criticism. Anyone interested in President Obama's actual executive-power policies, however, should look at his position on warrantless wiretapping. Dick Cheney must be smiling.

In a federal lawsuit, the Obama legal team is arguing that judges lack the authority to enforce their own rulings in classified matters of national security. The standoff concerns the Oregon chapter of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a Saudi Arabian charity that was shut down in 2004 on evidence that it was financing al Qaeda. Al-Haramain sued the Bush Administration in 2005, claiming it had been illegally wiretapped.

At the heart of Al-Haramain's case is a classified document that it says proves that the alleged eavesdropping was not authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. That record was inadvertently disclosed after Al-Haramain was designated as a terrorist organization; the Bush Administration declared such documents state secrets after their existence became known.

In July, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the President's right to do so, which should have ended the matter. But the San Francisco panel also returned the case to the presiding district court judge, Vaughn Walker, ordering him to decide if FISA pre-empts the state secrets privilege. If he does, Al-Haramain would be allowed to use the document to establish the standing to litigate.

The Obama Justice Department has adopted a legal stance identical to, if not more aggressive than, the Bush version. It argues that the court-forced disclosure of the surveillance programs would cause "exceptional harm to national security" by exposing intelligence sources and methods. Last Friday the Ninth Circuit denied the latest emergency motion to dismiss, again kicking matters back to Judge Walker.

In court documents filed hours later, Justice argues that the decision to release classified information "is committed to the discretion of the Executive Branch, and is not subject to judicial review. Moreover, the Court does not have independent power . . . to order the Government to grant counsel access to classified information when the Executive Branch has denied them such access." The brief continues that federal judges are "ill-equipped to second-guess the Executive Branch."

That's about as pure an assertion of Presidential power as they come, and we're beginning to wonder if the White House has put David Addington, Mr. Cheney's chief legal aide, on retainer. The practical effect is to prevent the courts from reviewing the legality of the warrantless wiretapping program that Mr. Obama repeatedly claimed to find so heinous -- at least before taking office. Justice, by the way, is making the same state secrets argument in a separate lawsuit involving rendition and a Boeing subsidiary.

Hide the children, but we agree with Mr. Obama that the President has inherent Article II Constitutional powers that neither the judiciary nor statutes like FISA can impinge upon. The FISA appeals court said as much in a decision released in January, as did Attorney General Eric Holder during his confirmation hearings. It's reassuring to know the Administration is refusing to compromise core executive-branch prerogatives, especially on war powers.

Then again, we are relearning that the "Imperial Presidency" is only imperial when the President is a Republican. Democrats who spent years denouncing George Bush for "spying on Americans" and "illegal wiretaps" are now conspicuously silent. Yet these same liberals are going ballistic about the Bush-era legal memos released this week. Cognitive dissonance is the polite explanation, and we wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Holder released them precisely to distract liberal attention from the Al-Haramain case.

By the way, those Bush documents are Office of Legal Counsel memos, not policy directives. They were written in the immediate aftermath of a major terrorist attack, when more seemed possible, and it would have been irresponsible not to explore the outer limits of Presidential war powers in the event of a worst-case scenario. Based on what we are learning so far about Mr. Obama's policies, his Administration would do the same.

[Temo]

It is from a democrat web site and Obama and his justice department are doing the same thing and are defending it and yet no one in the Democratic Party is hollering impeachment. Hypocrisy at its finest.

I get your point, I think we're talking about two different things here. I was more annoyed at the survey phrasing. No doubt it's from a democrat website (at least the ones who commissioned the survey were democrats, since Zogby itself is an independent firm), as it's very heavily worded against a favorable view of Bush.

[ShiningStar]

I see your point Temo, valid point.

[TheCount]

I get your point, I think we're talking about two different things here. I was more annoyed at the survey phrasing. No doubt it's from a democrat website (at least the ones who commissioned the survey were democrats, since Zogby itself is an independent firm), as it's very heavily worded against a favorable view of Bush.

I was about to say the same thing, you guys are having two completely different conversations.

[bbgun]

Since when can ex-presidents be "impeached"? To think that they can is a decidedly minority opinion.

[iceberg]

I was about to say the same thing, you guys are having two completely different conversations.

it happens. : )

but it does sound like they wanted bush impeached for what obama is being even *more* covert about. no time to study right now though.

[tyke1doe]

Since when can ex-presidents be "impeached"? To think that they can is a decidedly minority opinion.

That's what I was wondering too. Is there some "retroactive" impeachment? :huh:

[iceberg]

Since when can ex-presidents be "impeached"? To think that they can is a decidedly minority opinion.

some liberals are a little slow it would seem.

i couldn't tell the timeframe of the story, so i had no idea what reference to pull from it but i wondered the same thing bb.

[iceberg]

That's what I was wondering too. Is there some "retroactive" impeachment? :huh:

obama is going to have an "impeach bush" weekend where he'll swear bush back in just for a saturday so they can impeach him by lunch and obama can take the presidency back again.

it's new - but part of our onward movement to ensure justice in our government.

:cool:

[Doomsday101]

This is not a call for Bush impeachment today this was a call by some democrats when Bush was in office because of the wire tapping issue. Obama and his team are also using and defending the same tactics used by the Bush administration but I don't hear any calls of Impeachment or outrage that was shown by democratic members including Sen. Obama himself.

[iceberg]

This is not a call for Bush impeachment today this was a call by some democrats when Bush was in office because of the wire tapping issue. Obama and his team are also using and defending the same tactics used by the Bush administration but I don't hear any calls of Impeachment or outrage that was shown by democratic members including Sen. Obama himself.

do as i say, not as i do.

obama also said everyone must pay their fair of taxes then turned up the most hypocritical cabinet appointments i've ever seen.

he talks a lot, but i don't see him walking the talk. he's quick to blame and shift the focus elsewhere and in pre-internet times that was easy enough to do. with single voices becoming collective voices as time passes and the internet further winds into our society it will be harder to pull this off.

the only real saving grace are the cheerleaders. the ones who say their side is right and the other is wrong so they just play the game and leave common sense at the door.