No, I don't think his numbers should be higher. I recognize their in the tank and fully understand why. I'm just saying the impeachment thing doesn't ring true to me. It's a serious process, and I would that most Americans treat it that way. Has Bush done anything serious enough to foster impeachment? Not in my eyes, but I understand that there's people who feel that way (for the record I thought the impeachment proceedings against Clinton were ridiculous too). I just don't think that 45% of the country would feel that way. But hey, maybe they don't take impeachment as seriously as I do.

Looking at the demographics It looks like they are oversampling democrats and under sampling pubbies based on the # of pubbies vs dems in the last presidential election. (38% dems, 33% ind, 29% pubbies).

__________________
If the devil can keep you from asking the right questions he never has to worry about the answers.

'pubbies' ... what a connotation that brings forth now...

anyhow, nice spin

__________________
w
a
t
c
h

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
... CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CNN, NYT.
"They have redefined General news."

You don't think that's a valid fact to take into account when considering the results of this poll?

Anything that doesn't agree with his beliefs is spin.

__________________
If the devil can keep you from asking the right questions he never has to worry about the answers.

It doesn't surprise me that the American people want Bush impeached. He is not liked, and the bar for impeachment was set low during the Clinton administration. It's pretty obvious that if a man can be impeached for lying about his sex life, he can also be impeached for lying about the war. Further, given that something like 70% of Americans oppose the war, is it any surprise 46% of Americans favor impeachment?

As far as people not knowing what impeachment means, I think after Clinton most people do, and they realize it's not the same as removing a President from office.

Agreed that the bar was set low by the ridiculous impeachment proceedings against Clinton. Has it ever been proven, however, that Bush intentionally lied about the Iraq War? This might be opening up a can of worms, but I've yet to see proof of it.

Whats' the difference between a lie and not coming across with the truth? It has been well documented that Bush asked his cabinet members for a reason to invade Iraq. That was well before 9/11. Then, there are the number of officials, both Republican and Democrat, who have voiced displeasure at the information (cherry picking, falsehoods) which have come out of the White House. Saying Bush never lied about the Iraq War is the equivalent of Clinton saying he never had sex with that woman ( the definition of sex being the critical factor). So yes, I guess Bush never lied about the Iraq War.

Intel is pretty ambigious in the best of circumstances. Thereis nothing that would constitute a lie.

Interestingly Tenent's accusation of cherry picking is being disputed by a career analyst at CIA who was the lead analyst on Iraq.

see the following op ed from the Wa Po.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062901947.html

__________________
If the devil can keep you from asking the right questions he never has to worry about the answers.

And what is your response to Bush asking for a reason to invade Iraq?