Ipsos Public Affairs Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq

This current development in public opinion is something rarely seen in American politics, namely because major polling organizations refuse to poll on impeachment short of a mainstream groundswell. 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."

Zogby was the first to poll on impeachment in June finding 50% of Americans opposed to impeachment and 42% in support. Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company has now polled the issue discovering an 8% net gain toward the reverse.

Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq
AfterDowningStreet.org
For Immediate Release: October 11, 2005

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 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 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 AfterDowningStreet.org 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%).

Now, don't miss the big "if" in the polled 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."

The goal of AfterDowningStreet's grassroot's movement is to pressure a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in the first place. 2003 is slipping away from us fast now as is the current residency of the White House. Frankly, my guess is even if Americans want to know more about Bush's decision making process in going to war, Congress doesn't. At least until it suits their purposes closer to 2006, and I am referring to the Republican incumbants.

Distancing yourself from this President isn't a sprint. It's a marathon. I think a wise incumbant would start running now.

If he purposely lied about intelligence to go to war when he knew what he was saying was untrue, then hell, I'd support it too even though I voted for him twice...but there's a lot of qualifiers there, and no evidence whatsoever that he did. All inteliigence agencies I know of including the French and Russians said pretty much exactly what Bush did.

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."
The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:

50%? I seriously thought it would be a much higher than 50%. Yeah, IF he lied about the reasons for going to Iraq, he should impeached. There is NO grey area in this.....it's all B&W, IMO. But first "lied" should be defined and it has to be proven

Damn, only 50%.....whether you like bush or not this could apply to anyone when throwing in the "IF".

If RANT was president and he lied about reasons for going to war....should he be impeached?

I mean, like holy crap. Only 50%, that really says alot about the people who took the poll, I wonder if "lied" was properly defined before they took it.


[edit on 12/10/2005 by SportyMB]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
If he purposely lied about intelligence to go to war when he knew what he was saying was untrue, then hell, I'd support it too even though I voted for him twice...but there's a lot of qualifiers there, and no evidence whatsoever that he did. All inteliigence agencies I know of including the French and Russians said pretty much exactly what Bush did.

Oh, I totally agree with you. I think we know all there is to know frankly. And people made their minds up long ago on the testimony of Richard Clarke and intelligence outings claiming cherry picking pressure from Cheney. Either you believed them at the time or you didn't. The only thing that seems to be changing is one-fifth of Republicans now appear more open to believing them, at least as regards their growing dissatisfaction with this President.

I'm not an advocate of a partisan witch hunt on any President. I've seen it. It aint pretty. And I'd honestly like nothing better than to watch this ship sink slowly for the next three years taking a defensive Republican Party with it.

But if Republican incumbants continue reading polls (as we know they do), I certainly won't get in the way of them moving more in line with public opinion on this President, the War on Iraq or anything else. Frankly, it's about time.

Originally posted by SportyMB
50%? I seriously thought it would be a much higher than 50%. Yeah, IF he lied about the reasons for going to Iraq, he should impeached. There is NO grey area in this.....

Well, the hold out is really 80% of Republicans that think he should NOT be impeached for lying.

Responses varied by political party affiliation: 72% of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 56% of Independents and 20% of Republicans.

Which is kind of funny when you think about it. I bet Clinton is chuckling at that one.

It is time for Republican incumbants to start RUNNING from this President's sinking coattails. (Of course I hope they don't.)

With the 2006 congressional elections a year away, 48 percent of respondents said they preferred a Democratic-controlled Congress, compared with 39 percent who said they preferred Republican leadership, NBC said.

The 9-point difference was the largest margin between the parties in the 11 years the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll had been tracking the question, NBC said.

Yahoo.com

Don't ya' worry RANT. Just 2 years left and Hillary will be in to
make an even bigger mess of the government than it already is.

Intent must be proven to show that W lied. If he believed he had
the correct facts when he presented them to America, then he didn't
lie. Then he becomes just plain wrong.

LIE is what Clinton died when he shook his finger at Americans
through the TV and said 'I did not have sexual relations with THAT
woman, Monica Lewinski'. LIE is what Clinton did during a sexual
harrassment investigation.

Being wrong and telling a lie are two different things. If W lied then
yes he deserves to be impeached. If he was wrong, then no
impeachment is deserved.

Predictions - Bush won't be impeached.
Hillary will be the next president.

Clinton didn't have sex with Monica, he got head, not sex. Head is foreplay, not sex. That's like saying masturbation is sex.

Second, Bush needs to be impeached on several things, not just lieing about WMDs in Iraq, which there weren't. He needs to be removed for his stupidity. Guy was nearly killed by a pretzel. He was told by the FBI repeatedly that OBL was going to attack with airplanes and what did Bush do? Cut the FBI Anti-Terror funding. That's right, the man who blames the FBI for 9/11 cut MILLIONS from the FBI Anti-Terror funding because they told him OBL was going to attack with airplanes. No republican will read that last part because it criticizes God.

Wait for the spin spin spin! "Well what God really did was SHut up! I'm missing precious Bush Worshipping time!"

[edit on 13-10-2005 by Full Metal]

Originally posted by Full Metal
Clinton didn't have sex with Monica, he got head, not sex. Head is foreplay, not sex. That's like saying masturbation is sex.

This is a flawed argument. Clinton lied about "having sexual relations with that girl". If you were asked under oath in a court of law "Have you ever had sexual relations with yourself?", I would think masturbation would certainly count.

Originally posted by Full Metal
Second, Bush needs to be impeached on several things, not just lieing about WMDs in Iraq, which there weren't. He needs to be removed for his stupidity. Guy was nearly killed by a pretzel. He was told by the FBI repeatedly that OBL was going to attack with airplanes and what did Bush do? Cut the FBI Anti-Terror funding. That's right, the man who blames the FBI for 9/11 cut MILLIONS from the FBI Anti-Terror funding because they told him OBL was going to attack with airplanes.
[edit on 13-10-2005 by Full Metal]

I think a discussion of impeachment is in order here. While impeachment does not require a crime, completing the process and ousting a President DOES. Impeachment without a crime is unjust and reaks of political agenda.

Bush receiving intelligence information from a trusted government source and relaying it to Congress while under oath is not a crime. Cutting funding for FBI terror and/or not responding appropriately to terrorist threat warnings is not a crime.

Having said that, if evidence comes to light in the future which proves that Bush knowingly lied to Congress while under oath (a crime), I would support impeachment.

I favor impeachment on the grounds of treason. Treason meaning he goes against the Constitution.

--Patriot Act is unconstitutional
--Starting a war, especially without Congress declaring war, is unconstitutional
--Wanting martial law/police state is unconstitutional, and it seems he's trying to implement it.
--9/11. Nuff said.