As usual, you misinterpret me, then accuse me of lying. My proposed second poll question was not a statement that I thought it was true, just an example of another tendentious way to phrase a question so that the questioner get the poll result he's looking for.

I understood that. I replied to your false juxtaposition having understood that. Your false question was false. Zogby's question was the actual question that needed to be asked based on the reality of the times.

I would welcome any citation you can offer that supports your assertion, "You're pretending that Bush never admitted to haven spied on Americans without warrants,

Well, he finally dropped the "allegedly." President Bush at long last admitted what everyone has suspected for years -- the nation's telecommunications companies closely cooperated with the National Security Agency and his administration to implement large-scale spying on Americans.

Bush was praising the Senate for approving his long-sought update to a foreign surveillance law. Critics say the bill legalizes his warrantless wiretapping program, which was implemented outside the boundaries of the law, and frees phone and internet companies from any responsibility for violating customers' privacy.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Oops_White_House_spokesman_admits_telecoms_0212.html

As for Pelosi, you were unresponsive to my question: Did she misinterpret the will of the people, and did AfterDowningStreet.org really have the pulse of the electorate? I mean, I could as easily dismiss even accurate poll results as "psychodrama", right? I mean, it's presumably just what people feel on any given day.

You wrote that Pelosi took impeachment off the table because, in your opinion, people wanted impeachment taken off the table. Was that just "on any given day" people wanted impeachment taken off the table, or was that from the day she said it right on up to today? That's a rhetorical question in reply to your bullshit.

No, I wasn't unresponsive to your question about Pelosi. I answered it.

look at the question: "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? This is a push poll.

No it isn't. That what Bush had been doing and had admitted to have been doing so that was the legitimate question about what Bush had been doing.

This was not in question:

Rephrased, "If President Bush inadvertently wiretapped Americans without the approval of a judge while listening in on the international calls of terrorists seeking to destroy America, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding himaccountable through impeachment?" you'd get 80% or better the other way. How one frames the issue matters.

Inadvertently? Bullshit. You're pretending that Bush never admitted to haven spied on Americans without warrants, which clearly and unequivocally is illegal. So you're just making shit up once again and pretending that people are too stupid to notice or have memories that die off after a few weeks. Which is undoubtedly true in both cases for many, but not all.

But your assumption that a majorty of Americans wanted to see Bush impeached also has another corollary, which is that knowing that a majority of Americans really did want to see Bush impeached, Pelosi bravely decided to protect him from that fate for reasons that passeth understanding. Do you really think she would do that, or do you think that she misread the mood of the country, or some other conclusion?

I'm not "assuming" I'm verifying.

I'm not interested in what Pelosi's reasons were. I only care about her actions not her psychodramas.

Bush for all the things he did in the name of fighting terrorism (Pelosi took impeachment "off the table" out of political considerations, knowing that the public had very little interest in seeing a president called to account for doing what he perceived as his duty).

-- wgsalter

Actually:

November 2005:

By a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want Congress to impeach 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 Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,200 U.S. adults from October 29 through November 2.

The poll found that 53% 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 through impeachment."

42% disagreed, and 5% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/4421

And:

January 2006

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.

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

And:

December 2005:

It's not scientific, but these numbers are pretty astounding. MSNBC is running a poll on whether Bush should be impeached. The results right now:

* Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more,

there is plenty to justify putting him on trial. 86%

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/12/30/278/00026

try to convince me that the privilege of taxpayer funding, once conferred, automatically becomes an open-ended entitlement.

-- Walfisch

What a lovely invitation for a conversation. You must be the life of the party at gatherings of less than two.