Letter from Kucinich - "I do not support Impeachment"

[mikelewis]

I wrote my Congressman a letter and it fortunately, it is Kucinich. The letter was about the lies of this administration and how I believed that lying to Congress and involving the U.S. in an immoral war constituted an impeachable offense.

He wrote me back and this is the text of the letter. I have to retype it since it arrived snail-mail.

Sept. 15th 2005
Dear Michael:

Thank you for contacting me.

Like you, I am concerned that the claims made by the administration about the threat from Iraq were untrue. It is clear now that Iraq did not possess the vast stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Nor was Iraq trying to obtain uranium. Nor was Iraq trying to obtain machinery with which to generate enriched uranium. Indeed, it seems that the UN weapons inspectors had it right: Iraq was largely disarmed and did not pose an immediate threat.

I was one of the leaders in Congress opposing the war in Iraq and opposing the Administration's claims. I have written the Secretary of Defense and the Vice President about the claims they made before the war, and I have demanded Congressional investigation of the Administration's pre-war activities. But I do not support Impeachment.

Thank you again for contacting me. Hearing from you is important to me, so please do not hesitate to contact me again about issues that are important to you.

Sincerely,
Dennis J.Kucinich
Member of Congress

----------------------------------------------------


First of all, I'd like to say that I am proud that people in my neighborhood had the good sense to keep sending Dennis to Washington.

That said, I don't understand why he would say that he does not support Impeachment. That makes no sense. First of all, Impeachment is a Constitutional matter and he has sworn to uphold the Constitution. He has to support Impeachment as it is one of his duties to oversee Impeachment Proceedings. So he must mean that he does not support Impeachment in this case, which again is a bit misguided since the case has yet to be investigated. It was only just recently that the 40 members of Congress, Kucinich included, requested Fitzgerald to expand the scope of his investigation to include a charge of making false statements to Congress by several Administration officials, Bush and Cheney included. So what does "I do not support Impeachment" mean and why even include that line at all?

I believe he's doing a great job representing me in Congress and I hope he decides to run for the Senate seat in '06 but I do have to wonder what he is thinking. When a President openly lies to the people to scare them into war and then repeats those lies to Congress to gain authorization for war, troops and money, I'm pretty sure that's an Impeachable offense. Oh well, enough of that. It was nice to receive the letter and I'm proud of him. Rock on Dennis.

[ixion]

1. I support a frog walk to the Hague for Chimpy and crew

and anything less will be a travesty of justice, IMO.

Sad to hear Kucinich tow the status quo line. :-(

[AnnieBW]

16. Maybe

He just doesn't want to put the country through that kind of mess again?

[ixion]

18. the constant mess that is * is better?

:crazy:

Put us through what? A couple more years of this administration and there'll be nothing left.

[FreedomAngel82]

23. So you'd rather let

a murder go free?

[orleans]

36. how considerate of him (i remark sarcastically)

and what a disappointment!

[SmokingJacket]

2. He could at least explain why he doesn't support it.

I mean, I trust the guy, and he probably has good reasons, but it would help me to know what they are.

[zulchzulu]

21. That would have been nice...although yunno...

If you had a letter saying Kucinich supported impeachment, it might come back to haunt him.

I'm guessing he's playing his cards close to his chest.

[katinmn]

3. I wonder why also.

[melissinha]

4. wah?

of all people!

He makes statements that would ordinarily be followed with a call for impeachment, then for no apparent reason, doesn't say why?

Maybe its about all the hoopla and time that is used to take up the matter while important matters are left behind?

[mikelewis]

10. I don't think it's a time and energy issue

An Impeachable offense of this magnatude demand whatever time and attention is necessary to see it through. Dennis knows this and takes it seriously, I'm sure. It just struck me as an odd thing to say in the context of his letter. Yeah, he lied, people died, money got spent and I demand answers but no accountability? That makes no sense.

[Mass]

5. I can understand why. Kucinich is a smart guy and he knows that

an impeachment in the current situation is not going to help anything. How many people in the line of succession would you need to impeach before you get somebody you would consider as president (even if he is still a Republican).

The way to go is to get a Democratic House and Senate in 2006, so that the course of the country can be changed.

Kucinich is a smart guy and I am happy he is doing this way.

[Lin]

12. Impeach how MANY? As many as it takes to get to an honest republican,

what's that you say?

Jesus $%^&*( Christ if D.K. doesn't want impeachment who WILL?! and WHAT DOES * have to DO before he's held responsible????? WHATISGOINGON????

[Mairead]

20. That would be my guess, too. The line of succession is scary

The Vice President Richard Cheney
Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
President pro tempore of the Senate Ted Stevens
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of the Treasury John Snow
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

Impeach Bush, get Cheney. Would we be better off?

[buff2]

6. ANOTHER phony Democrat out of the closet

All that big talk and rhetoric during the campaign was pure bullshit because he thought he would get nominated for president.Boy,they will promise you the moon until they lose....then they take off the mask because they don't give a shit what we think anymore. Phuckin bastards.

[NoodleBoy]

8. yep, all that big talk about immediately pulling troops out of Iraq,

guaranteed basic income, Department of Peace, that nearly perfect progressive voting record, it was all done by some DINO who lives in the pocket of the lobbyists.

Give me a break. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a dirty, evil Republican mole.

[mikelewis]

15. Seriously man, chill out. Dennis is a good guy

There's other places on the net you can go and bad-mouth him. He's my Congressman and I'm beyond proud of him, Calling him a Phuckin Bastard is very low class though I do feel your frustration. Not a day goes by that I don't grow nauseas over something some Congressman or woman has said but we have to have a little bit of loyalty to those who have served us so well over the years. If you don't feel the loyalty, at least have a bit of respect.

[PurityOfEssence]

31. The term "virtuecrat" comes to mind when contemplating you

Dennis is a truly decent and extremely courageous person. His stances on the major issues show a consistency that is above reproach. If he's not up to snuff for you, YOU are the problem.

To waste time on a vendetta that CAN'T SUCCEED is idiotic, especially when the energies of legislators can be better spent indicting these fucks and getting them to testify under oath.

There is NO WAY that 2/3rds of the Senate will vote to convict anytime soon, and to waste time on impeachment would sap the strength from inquiries that could truly shed light on the uglinesses of these monarchists.

[LittleClarkie]

32. All that from one sentence when you don't even know his reasons?

And if there is anything I know about Dennis Kucinich, it is that he is NOT a phony. He has his reasons.

I would like to hear them before I decide if I think he is right or wrong. He deserves that much.

Good grief!!

[tkmorris]

35. Buy a vowel guy

Because you don't have any idea what you are talking about. Kucinich walks the walk, no two ways about that.

[MuseRider]

7. Hmmm

that does surprise me. First of all, you lucky person to have him as your congressman! Now, I would write back and ask him why. I would hope that he has some pretty good reasons. It would surprise me if he didn't and I frankly would love to know. I trust his judgement and perhaps it would lead us in another direction that maybe we have not thought about? I don't know. I am kind of disappointed in his response and that is why I would like to know what his thoughts are. Hmmm.

[tulsakatz]

9. why don't you write him back?

he wasn't very clear, in fact he gave no reason at all about why he would not support impeachment. Usually if a politician opposses something, they will at least tell you why. So it just seems odd that he would say he doesn't support and not list the reasons for that decision.

[gratuitous]

11. I'd say write him back

He gave you a respectful response, and from all reports, is one of the good 'uns in Congress. I'd suggest you write him back.

I would lead off the letter thanking him for his response, and then ask what it might take for him to support impeaching President Bush. Then run down your list of high crimes and misdemeanors Bush has committed, from failing to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, to corruption and malfeasance.

Assert that you don't expect every president to be an altar boy, you and the majority of Americans that you know do expect a higher standard of conduct from the person in the Oval Office than might be appropriate for a gangster.

If he's being judicious, and waiting for the results of any investigations before taking a stand on impeachment, remind him that the damage Bush is doing to the country may well be irrevocable, and stopping this criminal regime is important to the well-being of the nation and the world.

[mikelewis]

13. I'm going to do one better, I'm going to send this thread to Cluadia...

She's got a line directly to Dennis. So you just told him that.

[gratuitous]

14. Damn, I should have combed my hair

At least my shirt's buttoned right.

[McCamy Taylor]

17. You're on the wrong track.Impeach over ENRON, the true criminal activity.

You can split hairs from here to the horse come back about what constitues a threat to American security and what constitues intelligence.

ENRON and other energy brokers deliberately price gouged California, wrecking havoc with its economy, killing people who could not pay bills. And, after Clinton tried to put a stop to their scheme by putting in place price caps, they got Enron's long time buddy and stock holder Karl Rove to get newly sworn in president and big campaign benefactor * to roll back those price caps so that the price gouging could resume at a higher, more frenzied pace. Ken Lay recommended changes to the FERC that Karl Rove and * ok'd so that the FERC would not stop the price gouging. Dick Cheney met with Lay in secret and we still dont know what they talked about, but he do know that Lay wanted a gas pipeline through Afghanistan, the Taliban wouldnt deliver it, the US threatened Afghanistan and prior to 9-11 the plans for the US invasion of Afghanistan were already on Condie Rice's desk. We know that when Thomas White was asked how Enron was going to pay its bills he replied "California". We know that everyone within the Bush administration scoffed when the people of California and Gov. Grey Davis pointed out the price gouging that was going on, and the administration refused to do anything about it, instead facilitating it, until a federal judges said "Excuse me, it appears that Enron is price gouging California" this in the summer of 2001. And this is when the financial shit began to hit the fan for Enron. We know that the GOP House Ways and Means Committe chairman came up with a package to give Enron a retroactive tax rebate of tax money it had never paid shortly after 9-11 as part of an economic stimulus package and that administration officials actively lobbyied for this bill, which passed the House easily. We know that Enron might well have survived, if not for the fact that Jeffords had defected, turning the Senate to Democratic control, and the Senators said "YOu want to give WHAT to Enron?" Days after the Senate Dems declined to give Enron tax moneys it never paid to bail it out of its financial problems, Enron collapsed, and all its problems became public knowledge.

Ever since then, Rove and Co. have been covering their trail. The Democratic Senate became the GOP Senate through dirty tricks and Diebold, so that the Enron hearings were shut down. Grey Davis was recalled and Gov. Arnold (Ken Lay's choice) was installed in California. The bogus uranium claim got ressurected so that the US could invade Iraq just one week before the FERC announced that Enron did indeed price gouge California (a story that no one noticed outside California since we had just gone to war.)

Enron was real, criminal activity involving money, kick backs, abuse of power. Investigate Enron and you will find the grounds for impeachment.

[Independent_Liberal]

29. Sounds like a job for the RICO Act...

That's some serious corruption right there.

[Crunchy Frog]

19. He may have a very good reason for his position

I'd like to hear what the reasoning is behind it. I hope you can get him to explaing where he's coming from on that.

I do hope that people here don't jump into a knee-jerk raking him over the coals because they disagree with him on this. (I think the whole lot of them should be impeached, arrested, and sent to the Hague to serve trial for crimes against humanity.)

Congratulations on getting a letter from him anyway.:)

[ducque]

22. the poison pill, duuuh!

Impeachment, sure.

Look at it like the "poison pills" which corporations put in their articles so if they're taken over, the takeover fails.

Cheney was chosen specifically to be Bush's poison pill. If you impeach Bush, guess what you get? PRESIDENT Cheney.

:-(

[eridani]

24. Jay Inslee's take

He spoke at the WA state Dems luncheon last Saturday, and was asked about impeachment. He thinks that it will backfire. He attributes his own election in 1998 in part to general disgust with the Clinton impeachment.

[Freddie Stubbs]

44. There is such a thing as overplaying your hand

Republicans feel into that trap and lost seats in a midterm election (against historical trends). Are Democrats in Congress smart enough to avoid the same mistake? So far, so good.

[AzDar]

25. If GWB is not an example of a President who SHOULD be impeached,

then there simply ISN'T one.

[Generator]

26. Thank you-you said it.

If Kucinich said this but didn't explain why in the letter. Political move? Better fish to fry? But indeed..it takes effort to support impeachment and clearly Kucinich knows that Bush wasn't even RIGHTFULLY elected. I wrote him about the election AND he wrote me back even though I'm in Oregon-and I have big respect for him.

[cassiepriam]

27. why impeach, the fun is just starting....

Watching Jawtick melt down and hit the bottle, the repugs starting to fret about their own behinds, the media beginning to throw a few good jabs, the sheeple beginning to ask a question or two.
It is always a fascinating experience to witness an administration unraveling. If it weren't for the fact that innocent people are dying as we speak, I would quite enjoy the next couple of years.

[Independent_Liberal]

28. Maybe what he meant was...

...he supports investigations into the CIA leak and the WMD deceptions but he doesn't support impeachment unless there's hardcore proof. Just my two cents.

[LittleClarkie]

30. I wish he would have expounded on that point

so we wouldn't have to guess at his meaning.

[burrowowl]

33. Ask him why he does not support Impeachment!

Maybe at this point not realistic!

[genius]

34. Hopefully he means he supports an investigation first.

We're using agreement to impeach as a litmus test for candidates in my area.

[ISUGRADIA]

37. Impeachment is not realistic now with this Congress

DK may support it long term but not now. Any serious attempt now is doom to fail and it would look ridiculous to lose once then try again in 2007 with the Democrats in a better position.

[Marleyb]

38. anyone know what happened with this?

Did Dennis answer?

I have the feeling he doesn't want to impeach Bush to get to Cheney, but the constitution states that congress must pursue impeachment for crimes of this magnitude, there has never been a more appropriate time. There is so much evidence to support impeachment. And then we'll just go right down the list of them, Cheney should be no problem as well as the rest of the gang. We need to go on the offense. Once they realize Bushco is going down, the rats will jump ship. Why are the democrats in congress still enabling Bush? They are allowing a known criminal and liar to appoint supreme court judges that our children and grandchildren will be stuck with? They are allowing Bush appointed criminals to give more money to his cronies. They are allowing FEMA to bury their murders in New Orleans. This is unacceptable.

[formernaderite]

39. If impeachment isn't iron clad...it will only booost Bush's numbers

which is what happened to Clinton. Right or wrong, this is what the democrats think.

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. Which member of Congress does support impeachment?

No one. It is simply fantasy that impeachment has anything but negligible support in Congress.

[Chicago Democrat]

42. Its AMAZING but true.... Perhaps the authorization of war document

somehow esculps him legally. Even so, I would think there would be many many more high crimes to choose from.


Dennis! Whazzup wit the lack of balls?

[SaveElmer]

41. Kucinich is a DINO traitor....

Only opposing impeachment because he wants to suck up to the BFEE. Typical politician with no moral center!!!

Interesting being on the other end of one of these tirades!!!

;-)

[JerseygirlCT]

43. That was a strange letter.

I was thinking you'd get some explanation of why he doesn't support impeachment -- at the least a little elaboration on his position. But they just leave the statement sort of hanging there...