• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

42% of Americans say Bush should be impeached if....

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
From Zogby site. Link to full story below. I think that 42% will grow and grow... (my emphasis added)

“President Bush’s televised address to the nation produced no noticeable bounce in his approval numbers, with his job approval rating slipping a point from a week ago, to 43%, in the latest Zogby International poll. And, in a sign of continuing polarization, more than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.The Zogby America survey of 905 likely voters, conducted from June 27 through 29, 2005, has a margin of error of +/-3.3 percentage points.
Just one week ago, President Bush’s job approval stood at a previous low of 44%—but it has now slipped another point to 43%, despite a speech to the nation intended to build support for the Administration and the ongoing Iraq War effort...."

“In a more significant sign of the weakness of the President’s numbers, more “Red State” voters—that is, voters living in the states that cast their ballots for the Bush-Cheney ticket in 2004—now rate his job performance unfavorably, with 50% holding a negative impression of the President’s handling of his duties, and 48% holding a favorable view. The President also gets negative marks from one-in-four (25%) Republicans—as well as 86% of Democrats and 58% of independents. (Bush nets favorable marks from 75% of Republicans, 13% of Democrats and 40% of independents.)”

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007
 

Jeannie

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Location
Who Cares?
Of course he misled the American people with his reasons for attacking Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that has already been stated, no weapons of mass destruction, no proof of helping Bin Laden, no nothing. Bush attacked Iraq out of a personal vendetta stemming from the Gulf War, and his father's failure to unseat Hussein. That was painfully apparent when Bush, Jr. announced on national television that 'this man tried to kill my father', (not a direct quote as I cannot remember his exact words). But, in spite of this, he was re-elected by the American people.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
2,603
Reaction score
0
Sorry you are factually wrong. That evidence does exist. The 911 Commission itself reported on efforts by Saddam Hussein to make contact with Al Qaeda for the purpose of providing support and training. How can you say that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What in the heck did Saddam use to gas hundreds of thousands of his own people? Cheese Whiz? What about those implements used in the creation of nuclear weapons that were found buried in the back yard of one of Saddam's nuclear scientists? That's not evidence found in Iraq? What about the artillery shells containing sarin gas? That's not evidence? What about the documents detailing Saddam's weapons program? Not evidence? What about the statements from Saddam's scientists that they were ready to reinstitute their weapons program the very moment that UN sanctions were lifted and the inspectors were gone. Not evidence?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
While some may disagree with the current Administration, President Bush is 100% better then former tag along Kerry............


and as with many polls they take a "sampling within" thier demographics, and use questions that "lead" to an answer they favor.

"Where voters live has some impact on their perceptions. The President’s job rating remains relatively strong in the South, with 51% rating his performance favorably;"

But yet the head of the polling company chimes in with

"Pollster John Zogby: “The nation continues to be split down the middle but there appears to be a deep and growing concern about how polarized we are. The President tried to address the situation on the ground in Iraq and hoped to allay the fears of the nation. It looks like that did not happen. Meanwhile, opposition to the war reveals that Americans are just as hostile and intense as they were the day after the 2004 election. The message seems to be pretty clear for Mr. Bush: lay off the partisan rhetoric and work to find compromise solutions.”

if they were so hostile and intense as the day after the 2004 election, then why is it a true sampling,? BUSH WON. again, maybe if it was a true sampling it would have shown that like the polls on election night that showed Kerry won, oops, they were wrong then too,

"
Gallup's formula assumes that 9 of 10 of those voters would support Kerry, based on analyses of previous presidential races involving an incumbent.

• In Florida, 30% of registered voters said they already had cast their ballots, using early voting sites and absentee ballots. They supported Kerry 51%-43%.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
passin thru said:
Sorry you are factually wrong. That evidence does exist. The 911 Commission itself reported on efforts by Saddam Hussein to make contact with Al Qaeda for the purpose of providing support and training. How can you say that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What in the heck did Saddam use to gas hundreds of thousands of his own people? Cheese Whiz? What about those implements used in the creation of nuclear weapons that were found buried in the back yard of one of Saddam's nuclear scientists? That's not evidence found in Iraq? What about the artillery shells containing sarin gas? That's not evidence? What about the documents detailing Saddam's weapons program? Not evidence? What about the statements from Saddam's scientists that they were ready to reinstitute their weapons program the very moment that UN sanctions were lifted and the inspectors were gone. Not evidence?

You're so full of bull. Al Qaeda contacted Saddam for support. Saddam never responded to their request. If you have proof otherwise, from an unbiased source, please post it here.

I can say there were no WMDs because the United Nations inspectors found none. Bush had two different weapons inspectors in Iraq after the invasion. David Kay was the first, can't remember the second one's name. Both of them have said that they found no WMDs. That one piece found in a back yard was never, ever identified reliably as part of a WMD. The sarin was so old and weak that it was not a danger to anyone. (And if Bush had been willing to listen to professional military men and sent troops to secure weapons sites, that shell would not have wound up on the street). Your other questions are pointless. Bush, himself, called off the hunt for WMDs last year. Why? Because every official who went into the country looking for WMDs came up empty handed. The war is based on a lie.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
2,603
Reaction score
0
First I asked you some questions and you danced around them without answering or completely ignoring them if you had nothing.

I guess you did not read the report, so why try to talk to you when you have your mind already made up for you by liberal talking points. Heck even Sadam admitted to having weapons, that's what the UN resolutions were about.

Go back to your liberal hog slop.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
passin thru said:
First I asked you some questions and you danced around them without answering or completely ignoring them if you had nothing.

I guess you did not read the report, so why try to talk to you when you have your mind already made up for you by liberal talking points. Heck even Sadam admitted to having weapons, that's what the UN resolutions were about.

Go back to your liberal hog slop.

You're still full of bull. I answered some of your questions and pointed out that reliable authorities (if you call Bush reliable) have said there were no WMDs in Iraq. You want to pretend you won this one, go ahead. But you didn't. My talking points are facts. Where are yours?
 

Latest posts

Top