Which Member Of Congress Will Be First to Call For Impeachment of Cheney??

[Blackhatjack]

There should be no time wasted in convening a hearing on Cheney and White House involvement, sending out the subpoenoes, and getting them under oath.

THis is directly related to 'lying us into the Iraq war' and deserves immediate attention.

So who will be the first to call for Cheney's impeachment?

And if no one answers the call, why not??

[liberal N proud]

1. No one has the spine to call for the impeachment of any one in the bu$h regime

Everyone is too busy thinking they are protecting their political future by not putting the country through the mess of an impeachment proceedings.
We need to make them accountable for their cowardice.

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. Walter Jones?

:shrug:

Actually, there already has been a member, IIRC. She was shot down on it before she even got to the mic though. Then she lost her re-election.

[Blackhatjack]

3. You may be onto something! Jones has been outspoken against the war...

[Norquist Nemesis]

4. He was also getting himself invited to "forums" being held by Dems

they couldn't have official "Hearings"...anyway, I remember watching him and saying he clearly believes "we were lied to" and he wanted to know why. It was a good 3 or 4 hour news cycle when Mr. Freedom Fries came out against the Iraq Adventure, then a terrorist threat or missing teen in Aruba captured the cameras. /sarcasm

But there's one thing for certain: Unless the Democrats can either 1) Stand together as a united front or 2) a prominent Republican comes forward speaking publicly, then Investigative Hearings in building a case for Formal Impeachment Hearings will not allow the Congress to move forward regardless of public opinion. (sorry for the long sentence)

On the up side, the 'liberal' talk radio is all abuzz that Congress HAS to take action. If the Democrats don't take action, they're done (possibly for a generation).

[leftchick]

5. no one

can't have the Establishment in DC's crimes exposed for all of the world to see.

[riona]

6. All I can say is

being a member of the House or Senate must be the greatest job in the world. Any issue that might possibly cause its loss is avoided....even the Constitution runs a distant second in importance.

[pat_k]

7. Hinchey? Schakowsky? Kucinch?

Maurice Hinchey objected to Pelosi's "off the table" edict and affirmed his commitment to going forward with impeachment hearings, although I can't find the reference. I believe it was between the election and Jan 4 start of 110th.

If Kucinich would, as President, see that Bush, Cheney, et al are prosecuted for war crimes, then it's hard to imagine how he can continue to dodge demanding impeachment now. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x18757">link to video)

And, finally, Schakowsky also refused to bow to Nancy "off the table" Pelosi, but didn't calls for action.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/85997,CST-EDT-HUNT06.articleprint">Dem denials don't end talk of impeachment
October 6, 2006

. . .this response from Rep. Jan Schakowsky, who as chief deputy whip occupies a leadership position for Democrats:

"Whether the president has committed acts that meet the standard for 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' which constitute an impeachable offense, is not defined in the Constitution or in a statute. It is a determination made by the House of Representatives. To that end, I am a co-sponsor of . . . Conyers' resolution to authorize an investigation into whether grounds exist for the impeachment of President Bush based on his manipulation of pre-war intelligence and use of torture."

"Impeachment proceedings are very serious and must never be used for political purposes," Schakowsky wrote. "However, that does not mean that they should never be used. They may be warranted in the case of President Bush in light of the extreme seriousness of the issues involved." She complained the GOP-controlled Congress has been derelict in conducting oversight of "an unprecedented expansion of presidential powers.". . .

[BlooInBloo]

8. Senate: Feingold. House: Kucinich

[tcfrogs]

9. Conyers?

eom

[pat_k]

10. BTW, kick and rec! (Hey, where's that 5rh vote?)

[mmonk]

11. Hagel or Jones maybe.

[TroglodyteScholar]

12. Definitely not the spineless Jim Marshall (D-GA 8)

And although I certainly disagree with the President on many issues, I do not agree with all the reasons you cited, and know of nothing that warrants the drastic step of impeachment.

This is from his response to my letter calling for the impeachment of CHENEY.

:mad: :mad:

[robinlynne]

13. unfortunately there is much more talk of pardoning libby than of even investigating

cheney. I believe Conyers called for further investigation of Cheney.

[Senator]

14. It's "Terrorized Us into the Iraq War"

Lying about "Mushroom Clouds!!" was a simple bomb threat.

It took a nuclear gun to the head of the American People for them to stand by for this war of aggression, greed, and megalomania.

It was the Most Heinous Act of Terrorism in History.

===