Articles of Impeachment To Be Filed On Cheney

[babsbunny]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/04/articles_of_impeachment_to_be.html

Articles of Impeachment To Be Filed On Cheney
Looks like he's reached his boiling point.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), the most liberal of the Democratic presidential candidates in the primary field, declared in a letter sent to his Democratic House colleagues this morning that he plans to file articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.

Kucinich has made ending the war in Iraq the central theme of his campaign. He has even taken aim at the leading Democratic presidential candidates in the field for their votes on authorizing the war.


Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach the president, vice president and "all civil Officers of the United States" for "treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

[DURHAM D]

1. Well, that should work out really well. n/t

[Systematic Chaos]

3. At least he's trying.

Would you rather the option remain "off the table"? :shrug:

[ClassWarrior]

2. All that visualizing is starting to pay off...

:bounce:

NGU.

[Disturbed]

4. Impeach Gonzo first then

move on to Cheney. After that Impeach Busholini before he has the chance to appoint another VP.

[ClassWarrior]

6. I don't care what order it happens...

...as long as it happens.

NGU.

[az chela]

5. Dennis is the only one who actually cares about ending this war

[dweller]

11. "the central theme of his campaign"

pretty much makes him the 'anti-war candidate' now, doesn't it?


dp

[mikelgb]

7. kck

[symbolman]

8. Nothin like

FARTING IN A TORNADO..

I like the guy, but PLEASE don't gum up the works.. there is NO Majority to pull this off, sorry but it IS politics and these Mayberry Macavellians still have HAND.

Back off for a sec, Conyers has them on the RUN, put the energy THERE, an Insertion point.

Getting a little tired of the Greenies hassling everyone for attention.

[omega minimo]

17. et tu, symbolman?

:wow:

[mmonk]

18. I wouldn't have thought of you

as a politics as usual person. Still don't. What do you think should be done?

[porphyrian]

9. It's funny how everyone becomes an instant political expert when someone does something risky.

And it's funny how many people can't see beyond their opinion when it comes to how something can be done.

Representative Kucinich, history will remember you as a hero, despite those here who still don't get it.

[TahitiNut]

10. Best. Post. So. Far.

:thumbsup: Opinions are cheap in the Peanut Gallery.

[porphyrian]

13. You bet. I've got at least two of them.

;)

[tom_paine]

12. Welly said, porphyrian.

:toast:

[porphyrian]

14. I have moments of clarity.

:toast:

[bryant69]

19. Can't see beyond their opinion?

What does that mean? It would make more sense if you put in their own prejudices, but presumably we all have an opinion on whether this is going anywhere, whether we've thought them through or not. I have an opinion (i.e. that this is grandstanding for his presidential campaign, and isn't likely to go anywhere), but that opinion didn't magically appear, nor does it keep me from looking at the facts. Rather I looked at the evidence and formed my opinion (although I understand that other people looking at the evidence have formed different opinions).

I do agree with your last statement, so long as Kucinich doesn't go the Nader route (which seems possible but not likely).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[porphyrian]

20. You just answered your own question. - n/t

[bryant69]

21. I don't know -I think it's you who are close-minded

If you would look at the evidence with an open mind, you'd see that I was right and you were wrong.

Bryant

[porphyrian]

22. And now you've underlined it and put an exclamation point after it. - n/t

[bryant69]

23. That's right - I'm right and you are wrong.

Why confuse the issue by discussing it? Better to sit back, smugly fold our arms and snipe at each other.

Bryant

[porphyrian]

24. Do whatever you want. My point's made. - n/t

[bryant69]

26. Exactly; my failure to agree with you proves I must be close-minded

Blinded by my own opinion.

What a great point.

[porphyrian]

27. You said that. I didn't. - n/t

[bryant69]

28. That's my intepretation of what you said.

And since you haven't contradicted it, than I guess I must be right.

Bryant

[porphyrian]

29. Right, you can't see beyond your opinion. - n/t

[bryant69]

30. And you can't see beyond yours. - n/t

[porphyrian]

32. That's an interesting opinion you have there. - n/t

[mmonk]

33. I think those not willing to go the impeachment route

are doing so for their own political interests. Is my opinion wrong? Seems to make as much sense as political grandstanding concerning Kucinich (actually more in my mind).

[omega minimo]

25. You go, P!

:hi:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1069705

After her introduction (and an impressive list of committee memberships, including Judiciary) Representative Maxine Waters pointed out that she is also the Chair of the House Out of Iraq caucus. She said that she was in Congress during the Clinton impeachment. “Infidelity pales in comparison to what this president has done.” All the primary reasons for impeachment-- violating FISA law, using torture and using detention/rendition-- are high crimes and misdemeanors.

Rep. Waters said that after 9-11, this administration “fashioned this phony war on terrorism.” After 9-11, people were afraid and that fear was used. “People are afraid and they are being taken advantage of.”

When she discusses why Congressional Democrats are “not moving aggressively to resist this president,” she hears a lot of “He’s the president” and “He’s the commander in chief” as excuses for inaction. So, Rep. Waters says, “Let’s impeach Cheney!”

Rep. Waters pointed out that members of Congress are used to issues “organized into the possible and impossible” and they “view their work in terms of the possibility of success.”

(So, she is faced with the attitude in Congress of impeachment as an exercise in futility and faced in California with a crowd of 1,000 that sees it as vitally important).

The event clearly had an affect on her and the crowd was left with the impression that she would carry the message back to the House and to the Judiciary Committee.

It seemed that from the perspective of Congress, they don’t understand what the public really thinks. “I would think that people are so........”

The crowd filled in the blank during the Congresswoman’s pause: “OUTRAGED!”

“.....outraged, I would think people would be out in the streets...”

[porphyrian]

31. You can't say I haven't been outraged.

;)

[porphyrian]

15. If I say "gun," will this be more important? - n/t

[NashVegas]

16. Smart!

Take out Cheney first, then go after W.

[Norquist Nemesis]

34. Those will be sitting in the Hopper for a while

I admire Kucinich's passion, but at some point he has to start acting/looking like a leader instead of a rabble rouser if he wants to get anywhere.

Do I agree with Impeaching Bush and Cheney? Absolutely! But such a big, bold move like that has to have hefty support from colleagues that are going to stand behind him.

[Kurovski]

35. K&R. (nt)

[bigwillq]

36. Go get him Dennis!

Thank you for your bravery.