Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq
Passion for Impeachment is Major Unreported Story
The strong support for impeachment found in this poll is especially surprising because the views of impeachment supporters are entirely absent from the broadcast and print media, and can only be found on the Internet and in street protests, including the large anti-war rally in Washington on September 24.
The lack of coverage of impeachment support is due in part to the fact that not a single Democrat in Congress has called for impeachment, despite considerable grassroots activism by groups like Democrats.com (http://democrats.com/impeach).
"We will, no doubt, see an increase in activism following this poll," said David Swanson, co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org. "But will we see an increase in media coverage? The media are waiting for action in Congress. Apparently it's easier to find and interview one of the 535 members of Congress than it is to locate a representative of the half of the country that wants the President impeached if he lied about the war. The media already accepts that Bush did lie about the war. We know this because so many editors and pundits told us that the Downing Street Memo was 'old news.' What we need now is journalism befitting a democracy, journalism that goes out and asks people what they really think about their government, especially George Bush."
Support for Clinton Impeachment Was Much Lower
In August and September of 1998, 16 major polls asked about impeaching President Clinton (http://democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls). Only 36% supported hearings to consider impeachment, and only 26% supported actual impeachment and removal. Even so, the impeachment debate dominated the news for months, and the Republican Congress impeached Clinton despite overwhelming public opposition.
As I've often said, if the media is so "liberal," explain to me why impeachment hasn't been a topic of discussion for the past two years?
Explain to me why the PNAC ("Project For A New American Century") has never been mentioned, let alone seriously explored/explained.
Explain to me the pre-invasion war drum beating, not only by all the major television news networks, but also by both the New York Times and the Washington Post -- both supposedly "liberal" papers? Explain to me why Judith Miller still has a job?
Explain to me why it was almost never pointed out (and remains so to this day) that most Bush administration officials (ex-Reaganites) supported Saddam Hussein, sold him arms and biological/chemical weapons agents, and provided him with crucial intelligence, all during his worst crimes.
Explain to me why the U.S. support/organization/funding/training of the mujahadeen in the 1980s (again, by the very people who now occupy the White House, and by the president's father) was seldom discussed after 9/11 (with notable excpetions, I grant you).
Explain to me why the government's failure and denials on 9/11 was not considered a "scandal" -- which also remains true to this day. And, again, the word "impeachment" never even uttered.
. . . . . . . .
In short, let me just say that if you actually believe the media is "liberal," I can only offer you my pity, and request that you check out (for starters) FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting), Media Matters, FreePress.net -- or, better yet, Project Censored.
Then get back to me, and if you still believe in the "liberal media" myth, I can recommend a good psychiatrist who deals with self-delusion.