Comments on: Impeach Dubya.

Impeach Dubya.

crossoverman — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:24:25 -0800

Impeach Bush. Dennis Kucinich has introduced 35 articles of Impeachment against George W Bush on the floor of the House of Representatives.

By: Devils Rancher

Devils Rancher — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:27:15 -0800

Hasn't he done this before, and it got buried? Still, Go Dennis!

By: tkolar

tkolar — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:27:27 -0800

Gosh. That's .... news.

By: Devils Rancher

Devils Rancher — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:28:53 -0800

Oh, hay, Daily KOSFilter.

By: Dark Messiah

Dark Messiah — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:28:54 -0800

Wouldn't this be pretty close to getting expelled on the last day of school?

By: EarBucket

EarBucket — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:29:56 -0800

I know it won't go anywhere, and I know Kucinich is a crazy little Keebler elf of a man, but I'm watching him on C-Span anyway, and it's immensely satisfying to hear someone standing up and saying it: The president's a war criminal. He's guilty of serious crimes against the rule of law and the Constitution, and if our government weren't stacked with the spineless and the complicit, he'd have been removed from office years ago.

By: Citizen Premier

Citizen Premier — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:29:59 -0800

Dark Messiah, do kids behave better when they know school is almost out?

By: Joey Michaels

Joey Michaels — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:30:17 -0800

Hasn't he done this before... Yes.

By: ericb

ericb — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:31:50 -0800

Video [4:56] of Kucinich’s speech.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:34:36 -0800

It doesn't really matter if the motion to impeach Bush is redundant or lacking in potency. As much as possible needs to be on public record about how terrible his administration is.

By: alexwoods

alexwoods — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:35:40 -0800

Yawn.

By: CitizenD

CitizenD — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:36:12 -0800

haven't we been here before? footsteps lead down to the note on the door that says 'i can't stay here, anymore' and haven't we felt the same way? sure in our hearts but afraid just the same to say 'i can' t stay one minute more' i still love dennis kucinich.

By: Devils Rancher

Devils Rancher — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:38:05 -0800

The man does have a point.

By: hellojed

hellojed — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:39:02 -0800

Well, I would have watched it, but The Bachelorette was on at the same time.

By: Mick

Mick — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:39:30 -0800

The problem is that pursuing justice is something the American people are not interested in. Is it a greater mistake to allow Bush to get away with this or to ensure his policies continue under a McCain administration?

By: acro

acro — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:40:58 -0800

Live stream from cspan here... (The previous impeachment proceeding was for VP Cheney I believe.)

By: wabbittwax

wabbittwax — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:40:59 -0800

Kucinich is a crazy little Keebler elf of a man That's awesome. Do these impeachment things not go anywhere because they get voted down or because no one pays attention to them? Or a little from column A and a little from column B? Seems like if CNN was reporting it, it might get some traction.

By: Poolio

Poolio — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:42:34 -0800

Surely this...

By: quarter waters and a bag of chips

quarter waters and a bag of chips — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:42:43 -0800

[this is good]

By: Poolio

Poolio — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:47:35 -0800

Do these impeachment things not go anywhere because they get voted down or because no one pays attention to them? Or a little from column A and a little from column B? They don't go anywhere because the first thing Nancy Pelosi did after assuming the Speakership is take impeachment off the table.

By: acro

acro — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:51:40 -0800

Is there a wiki anywhere with the articles of impeachment?

By: Fuzzy Skinner

Fuzzy Skinner — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:52:14 -0800

This is just to say I have filed the articles of impeachment in congress and which you know mean nothing to anyone Forgive me they were overripe so stale and so cold

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:54:15 -0800

I'm sure Bush is quaking in his boots.

By: null terminated

null terminated — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:54:58 -0800

Of all the irresponsible actions taken by the Democratic leadership with Bush in office, the worst has to be Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table" comment. Not only was it a sign of weakness, but it effectively gave Bush free reign for for the rest of his term. This has resulted in a Congress that has impotent subpoena power and no oversight ability. It boggles my mind that Democrats gave up not only the ultimate political tool, but the greatest responsibility Congress has, which is to impeach when the President violates the Constitution.

By: nightchrome

nightchrome — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:55:11 -0800

The problem is that pursuing justice is something the American people are not interested in. Quoted for unfortunate truth.

By: wabbittwax

wabbittwax — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:55:49 -0800

... the first thing Nancy Pelosi did after assuming the Speakership is take impeachment off the table. In retrospect, not the wisest choice.

By: null terminated

null terminated — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:56:06 -0800

Also, if Kucinich looked like Mitt Romney, he'd be taken seriously.

By: LordSludge

LordSludge — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:56:33 -0800

Also, apparently Scott McClellan has agreed to testify under oath before Congress.

The Judiciary Committee is looking into the use of prewar intelligence, whether politics was behind the firing of eight U.S. attorneys in 2006 and the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson's identity. In addition, the committee reportedly wants to know what McClellan knows about the administration's response to Hurricane Katrina. In particular, was partisan politics involved in the way the Republican administration responded to the disaster.

By: wabbittwax

wabbittwax — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:56:49 -0800

Would it be so wrong for her to go back on her word? She's a politician after all.

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:59:32 -0800

Also, if Kucinich looked like Mitt Romney, he'd be taken seriously. It would surely also help if he behaved seriously. Introducing articles of impeachment that have no chance of passing is an inherently unserious gesture.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:00:35 -0800

Impeachment? He's a lame duck and NOW Kucinich cries impeachment. I bet he'll have his house repainted just as soon as it burns down due to faulty wiring. That'll fix it. Poolio: "They don't go anywhere because the first thing Nancy Pelosi did after assuming the Speakership is take impeachment off the table." Shirts versus skins, people. They're all in the same class. Doesn't matter who wins. After Pelosi did that, anyone who honestly still thinks Dems and Reps are opposing sides on some imaginary line of scrimmage really need to cut back on the lines they're snorting cuz.. damn!

By: cowbellemoo

cowbellemoo — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:04:23 -0800

That little man will go home tonight, sweaty and hoarse, and have fantastic sex with his hot hot wife. I am so proud of him.

By: chipr

chipr — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:04:23 -0800

Impeachment is a bad idea. What we need is for the truth to come out. Richard Clark, in the Frontline documentary The Dark Side (previous thread), had an excellent proposal: a truth and reconciliation committee.

By: adipocere

adipocere — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:04:30 -0800

Rather than all of this song and dance, I would rather see war crimes and the lot brought after the inauguration of the new President. Right now, it seems that if you make it out of office, it's pretty much a free pass. You get to retire, live off of an enormous budget, and it's smooth sailing for you. Rattle McClellan a little bit more, he'll be ratting the rest of them out so fast it won't even be funny. Not just the Bush administration, we should go after all of the back-door wheeler and dealer types who had secret meetings and did something fishy. You know one of those remaining Enron guys would give something up. It will, of course, never happen. It'll be "face the future, look forward." What an opportunity lost for justice. It would have been a way for America to perhaps win back a bit of its lost honor, but instead it will send the same old message: as long as you get out of the way, all is forgiven.

By: empath

empath — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:05:50 -0800

We took impeachment off the table because Bush was effectively neutered and the Democrats are planning on winning in 2008. Then we can air all the dirty laundry and destroy the GOP for a generation.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:07:05 -0800

Bush is the 43rd Presidemt. In an ideal world, Barack Obama would be 46th: Impeach Bush. Impeach Cheney, the 44th President. Nancy Pelosi becomes 45th, and steps down when Obama is inaugurated. Pelosi's district holds a special election and re-elects her.

By: illiad

illiad — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:08:08 -0800

I'm sure Bush is quaking in his boots. It's a shame he's not. Political leaders should be scared shitless of their electorate.

By: nicwolff

nicwolff — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:08:54 -0800

In case you've all forgotten, this is why when you're Dennis Kucinich, demented optimism is the only reasonable position to take.

By: cowbellemoo

cowbellemoo — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:09:51 -0800

Pelosi's district holds a special election and re-elects her. And San Fransisco gets another library! yay!

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:09:58 -0800

I'm content to let Bush go, if we can smack those who voted for him in 2004 on the head, twice, with a rolled up copy of the Constitution that's covered in something hard. Meaning, we can impeach him, them and whoever all we want, but when half the voters are eagerly asking for this crap, we got bigger problems.

By: dobbs

dobbs — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:10:55 -0800

Nellie McKay sings about Dennis. And I'm always amazed at American politics. Blowjobs = impeachment. Bush's evil-doing which results in fucked up economy, numerous deaths and countless lives/families fucked up = yawn.

By: euphorb

euphorb — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:13:19 -0800

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

By: smackfu

smackfu — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:15:52 -0800

this is why when you're Dennis Kucinich, demented optimism is the only reasonable position to take. She's got quite the corpse bride look going on there.

By: Joey Michaels

Joey Michaels — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:18:49 -0800

I've thought that the "we won't impeach" thing smacked of some misguided belief that impeaching Bush would seem to the American people as payback for the Republicans impeaching Clinton. Something about restoring faith in government. I predict that, should Obama win, he will be impeached for lying about blow job level reasons before his term is up. Meanwhile, Bush will have taken up golf again.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:23:11 -0800

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America writes "Introducing articles of impeachment that have no chance of passing is an inherently unserious gesture." Socrates agreeing to drink hemlock rather than admit he was wrong was n inherently unserious gesture. Elazar ben Ya'ir and his fellow Jews killing themselves rather than submit to Roman rule was an inherently unserious gesture. Saint Peter, asking to be crucified upside down rather than renounce a faith in Christ that had no chance of success in pagan Rome, was making an inherently unserious gesture. Nathan Hale, saying "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country", rather than betraying the revolution to the British, was making an inherently unserious gesture. Patrick Henry, risking execution by admonishing that "Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell and George the Third — may profit by their example", was making an inherently unserious gesture. If only we could all be utilitarian calculating actuaries, always ~~striving~~ seriously and solemnly doing only the possible, and never taking the risk to do what is right! What a nation we would never build! What a gloriously bland world we could populate with ant-like purposefulness!

By: maxwelton

maxwelton — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:23:18 -0800

I predict that, should Obama win, he will be impeached for lying about blow job level reasons before his term is up. Make that a long bet, Joey, and I bet you won't find a challenger.

By: Cool Papa Bell

Cool Papa Bell — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:24:09 -0800

Just like you shouldn't enact unenforceable laws, you don't introduce legislative action you know will fail. It makes you look stupid and lowers the credibility smell test of your real arguments. At the legislative level, symbolism sucks.

By: dismas

dismas — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:26:40 -0800

I love Kucinich simply for having the cajones to simply get up and speak for what, four hours at this point? five? about how badly the Bush administration has fucked up everything. It's great to watch, even if I think he's reaching in some of these articles. He's into hour five, I think, and his voice still sounds pretty good.

By: RavinDave

RavinDave — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:35:34 -0800

I'm in a quandary ... now that the issue is laid out on the table, if the Dems in the rarefied strata DON'T support it, then I will have no reason to support THEM or their candidates. Can't advertise yourself at the as the bulwark against rabid conservative corruption if you're not ever going to do anything about their excesses.

By: EatTheWeak

EatTheWeak — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:35:57 -0800

Fucking awesome. Go get'em, Dennis! If nothing else, I'm glad this is all going into the Congressional record. Of course, at this point in the game, impeachment is thinking just a little bit small. I'd much rather see Bush & Cheney squirming at the Hague. Ooh, or better yet, maybe the both of them oughta be retroactively drafted once their terms are up and at last given the opportunity to serve their country in uniform that they missed out on as young men. You fucks wanna play soldier? Go play in Sadr City.

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:37:25 -0800

orthogonality, that was another fine illustration of "inherently unserious," thanks.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:41:00 -0800

At the legislative level, symbolism sucks. The roles of the legislative branch are as symbolic as the executive and judicial branches. If legislators don't defend the symbolic purpose, word and intent of the Constitution, they're not doing their jobs as members of the legislative branch.

By: Ms. Saint

Ms. Saint — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:42:59 -0800

I know it probably won't get anything real accomplished, I know it's useless... But, dang it felt good to see it happen.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:45:03 -0800

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America writes "orthogonality, that was another fine illustration of 'inherently unserious,' thanks." You're the acknowledged master of unserious, so thanks, man.

By: Sam.Burdick

Sam.Burdick — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:52:06 -0800

Cool Papa Bell writes: Just like you shouldn't enact unenforceable laws, you don't introduce legislative action you know will fail. It makes you look stupid and lowers the credibility smell test of your real arguments. At the legislative level, symbolism sucks. So any time there's an unpopular position that is sure to fail you shouldn't even try? I certainly hope your mother doesn't hear you say that. Presumably she enjoys her right to vote. Or perhaps you would like to tell B.B. King that, as a black man, he cannot hold property nor can he vote, nor can his children and grandchildren attend the same schools as white children? Or more recently... would you like to tell the entire state of California that because most of the rest of the USA doesn't like the idea of homosexuals having the right to marry that they should put a sock in it till everyone catches on that gay marriage isn't BAD? We can go farther back in history. An entire nation said that the Colonies of the Americas shouldn't have independence nor can they send representatives to court to have fair and equal justice in taxation and law. That was a damn unpopular (and sure to fail) bit of political symbolism. This is sort of symbolic gesture is how DEMOCRACY works. If you're content to stick your head in the sand and hope that your personal goal gets done when the majority decides that it'll be a good idea without (and here's the important part, with extra imp) YOU DOING A FUCKING THING ABOUT IT you're going to be waiting a damn long time.

By: jtron

jtron — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:57:52 -0800

Shirts versus skins, people. They're all in the same class. Doesn't matter who wins. After Pelosi did that, anyone who honestly still thinks Dems and Reps are opposing sides on some imaginary line of scrimmage really need to cut back on the lines they're snorting cuz.. damn! posted by ZachsMind at 10:00 PM on June 9 [1 favorite +] [!]

So, you think the last 8 years would've been pretty much the same all around had Gore gotten in instead of Bush?

By: TheOnlyCoolTim

TheOnlyCoolTim — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:58:38 -0800

I'm in a quandary ... now that the issue is laid out on the table, if the Dems in the rarefied strata DON'T support it, then I will have no reason to support THEM or their candidates. Protip: the Democrats, by and large, aren't on your side either. No worries, he'll flame out and get himself kicked off from this "shithole" soon enough. It will be entertainment on a grand scale when it happens, too. Mr. President? Way too good at this for that, unless he gets bored. I'm not saying he's Jonathan Swift, but if Jonathan Swift came on this website you'd want him banned for supporting horrible things like baby-eating. Kucinich is a crazy little Keebler elf of a man Yes, and Ron Paul is a fucking nutjob racist, and Gravel throws rocks around like a performance artist. Sadly, they're still better than the people in charge of this country.

By: Caduceus

Caduceus — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:00:03 -0800

The problem with not impeaching is that, unless Bush and company charged as criminals after they step down, which I don't think will happen, we are basically giving all future punishments carte blanche to break as many laws and abuse the Constitution as much as Bush did. If we don't punish Bush, it's hard to make the case to punish any future transgressions.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:01:34 -0800

Dennis Kucinich has introduced 35 articles of Impeachment against George W Bush on the floor of the House of Representatives. Oh, wow. That totally explains all the rainbows and bluebirds I saw today. It was like the heartwarming introduction sketch upbeat dance number from an excrutiatingly happy Disney movie.

By: davidmsc

davidmsc — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:01:41 -0800

This would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Kucinich is a joke. The President will not be impeached (thank goodness). Complete waste of time. Next!

By: c13

c13 — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:08:30 -0800

Oooh wow! 35 articles of impeachment with 5 months to go. Let's show Bush who's the real boss here! I can't wait to read all about it on my new G3 iPhone 2.0 thingy. While they're at it, they should also send an ultimatum to Stalin, Hitler and Chengis Khan.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:11:13 -0800

davidmsc writes "Complete waste of time. Next!" Well, next is likely President Obama. And a Democratic Senate: "the head of the Senate GOP's campaign committee has set a new goal for the party this Fall: Not to lose too many Senate seats. NRSC chair John Ensign [is] saying that the GOP will have succeeded if they don't lose more than eight seats." And an even bigger democratic majority in the House. So, yes, next!

By: RavinDave

RavinDave — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:13:45 -0800

When the GOP discovers that Obama has overdue library books and starts screaming for his impeachment, I hope the "don't rock the boat" crowd recall this opportunity to do the right thing.

By: fingers_of_fire

fingers_of_fire — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:15:12 -0800

I always figured Pelosi made the impeachment is off the table remark 'cuz it neutralized a Republican campaign issue - it would have made it easier for Republicans to paint Democrats as crazy, communist liberals who want to arrest the President. I agree with the upthread comment - she's a politician, if she thought there was the popular support (and political motive) for impeachment, she'd follow it. Much as I think the bastard deserves it, I'm not sure it's such a good idea. Makes it seem a little tit-for-tat, and that's not a road we want to go down, I think.

By: 235w103

235w103 — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:22:08 -0800

If you define tit-for-tat as payback for Clinton being impeached, no, I don't think we want to go down that road. If you define it as punishment for war crimes, well, shit, let's git r done.

By: oxford blue

oxford blue — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:33:47 -0800

Richard Clark, in the Frontline documentary The Dark Side (previous thread), had an excellent proposal: a truth and reconciliation committee. posted by chipr at 1:04 PM on June 10 [2 favorites +] [!] Yes, that's what we need; something straight out of Orwell's scrap paper bin. A 'truth committee' indeed.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:35:48 -0800

oxford blue writes "es, that's what we need; something straight out of Orwell's scrap paper bin. A 'truth committee' indeed." It's not from Orwell; it's what worked very effectively in South Africa.

By: jtron

jtron — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:36:32 -0800

oxford blue: I think chipr was probably referring to a Truth and Reconciliation Commission like they had in South Africa. Not quite as Orwellian as all that.

By: rokusan

rokusan — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:40:46 -0800

Also, if Kucinich looked like Mitt Romney, he'd be taken seriously. In the very vivid picture in my head, though, Kucinich wears a thong. (sweet dreams to all of you!)

By: dawson

dawson — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:45:04 -0800

Kucinich remind me of Willie Nelson, except for the hair, and the creative intellect, and the voice.

By: dawson

dawson — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:45:50 -0800

has anyone seen an s? I lost an s somewhere.

By: mullingitover

mullingitover — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:47:16 -0800

davidmsc writes "Complete waste of time. Next!" I agree with davidsmc. Wait until after the term is up, then go through the records and start bringing criminal charges. Impeachment would only result in removal from office, and this administration deserves time in federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison.

By: drjimmy11

drjimmy11 — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:00:16 -0800

here's the problem with this: it's not silly or symbolic. it does, however, undermine the future of our democracy and go against everything our government is supposed to stand for. Impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors," usually interpreted to mean violating the constitution. Clicking around a little tells me Kuchinich's case is about Bush "launching the Iraq war." Here's the thing: CONGRESS VOTED TO LET HIM START THAT WAR. That includes most of the democrats. Impeach them. I hate Bush, but to impeach him for starting the war they voted for, and CONTINUE EVEN TO THIS DAY to hand him blank checks to continue, is completely absurd. If Congress can impeach a sitting president simply because they regret a foolish vote they made a few years ago, our democracy is in deep deep trouble. there POSSIBLY might be a case based on wiretapping stuff, or torture, but even that's iffy.

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:03:10 -0800

I always figured Pelosi made the impeachment is off the table remark 'cuz it neutralized a Republican campaign issue - it would have made it easier for Republicans to paint Democrats as crazy, communist liberals who want to arrest the President. That, and the probability of getting the required 2/3 vote in the Senate is exactly zero, so it also achieves nothing.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:13:27 -0800

Bruce Fein: Congress has enough evidence for an impeachment inquiry.

By: tkolar

tkolar — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:14:53 -0800

Impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors," usually interpreted to mean violating the constitution. Clicking around a little tells me Kuchinich's case is about Bush "launching the Iraq war." Uh, not to be all factual or anything but Kucinich's case is about Bush knowingly lying to congress in order to get them to support a war that they wouldn't support otherwise.

By: FormlessOne

FormlessOne — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:16:31 -0800

Torture is "iffy?" Look, simply put, this is political play. Five years ago, when it became apparent that the Bush administration had misled Congress, the U.N., and the so-called Coalition of the Willing into this mess, this would've been useful. Now, it's closing the barn door after the cows have left, been rounded up, bolt-gunned into burgers, eaten, shat out, composted, tilled, seeded with corn, harvested, dried, cracked, and fed to the next generation of cows that just left. The only benefit of this motion is that the public is reminded, rather graphically, of the years of sheer, unadultered evil that led up to this moment. It's meant to boost Democratic polling numbers. While I'm for that, this has as much chance of passing Congress as Ted Kennedy does of passing an open bar.

By: gsb

gsb — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:17:58 -0800

One of the first hope-busting Obama acts as President: pardons for past administration officials... spun as a unifying act.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:26:54 -0800

Impeach Bush or Get Rid of the Impeachment Clause

By: jeffburdges

jeffburdges — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:27:41 -0800

Isn't congress endlessly discussing Bush's misdeeds a hinderance to McCain's campaign? It's also good for the history books.

By: oxford blue

oxford blue — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:59:11 -0800

Remember, you can't spell impeach without peach.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:59:42 -0800

Impeachment shmimpeachment. Public flogging followed by equally public nostril-deep dipping in liquid shit while hundreds of children race RC motorboats around his head would be more appropriate.

By: null terminated

null terminated — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:23:36 -0800

The warrantless wiretapping issue seems is a cut and dry case for impeachment. One of Bush's successes in the last eight years is how he convinced both Congress and the American people that he took the oath "...that I will support and defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." instead of the oath he actually took, "...that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...". Of course, if you're a Republican the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights you care about is the second (and part of the first).

By: fleetmouse

fleetmouse — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:35:17 -0800

Impeachment shmimpeachment. Public flogging followed by equally public nostril-deep dipping in liquid shit while hundreds of children race RC motorboats around his head would be more appropriate. Combine the liquishit treatment with waterboarding: shitboarding. Daily, for the rest of their natural lives. Highly trained professional shitboarders wearing earplugs subject the convicts to a constant tape loop of Chocolate Rain as they ply their trade.

By: rokusan

rokusan — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:39:49 -0800

Highly trained professional shitboarders... Hear, hear. I've had enough of those stinking amateur shitboarders fouling up the place.

By: three blind mice

three blind mice — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:58:21 -0800

The only appropriate thing to do is to try Bush and Cheney under Sharia law.

By: unmake

unmake — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:01:44 -0800

Given how many people/voters support (or have called for) this act, why the umbrage when it finally happens, so late in the game? Complacency rules the day, so what if dissent has its 15 minutes?

By: Fuzzy Skinner

Fuzzy Skinner — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:29:40 -0800

Socrates agreeing to drink hemlock rather than admit he was wrong was n inherently unserious gesture. Elazar ben Ya'ir and his fellow Jews killing themselves rather than submit to Roman rule was an inherently unserious gesture. Saint Peter, asking to be crucified upside down rather than renounce a faith in Christ that had no chance of success in pagan Rome, was making an inherently unserious gesture. Nathan Hale, saying "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country", rather than betraying the revolution to the British, was making an inherently unserious gesture. Patrick Henry, risking execution by admonishing that "Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell and George the Third — may profit by their example", was making an inherently unserious gesture. And Adam who, when Eve asked "Do you love me?" said, "Who else?" never got a dinner!

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:09:01 -0800

JTron: "So, you think the last 8 years would've been pretty much the same all around had Gore gotten in instead of Bush?" No. I'm saying we were never going to find that out.

By: From Bklyn

From Bklyn — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:12:35 -0800

I'm glad he's doing it, whether or not it amounts to anything, at least it is being said and going into the public record. Wouldn't it be great if this whole administration were subjected to the full weight of the law, that that whole 'The wheels of Justice grind slow, but grind exceedingly fine" business? And in the end they were all rounded up and ground exceedingly fine? God - it makes my heart go thump thump. Note to self, cut back on caffein.

By: jamstigator

jamstigator — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:48:48 -0800

I would consider purposely deceiving the American public and Congress itself, in order to advance an agenda of war, to be a 'high crime', and thus worthy of impeachment. How much is the total cost of this war projected to be, if it ended today? Last I read, it was about two trillion dollars. If wasting two trillion dollars of the American public's hard-earned tax dollars through purposeful deception isn't a 'high crime', then what is? The sheer waste is just appalling. Are we safer? Very doubtful. How many Al Qaeda members were in Iraq before we invaded? None or few, and they had no power if there were any. Now there are many, and they're entrenched. How many Al Qaeda members were there in the entire world before we invaded? Whatever that number was, I'm quite sure that it's grown significantly since 2003. We are less safe now, and two trillion dollars poorer. I mean, think about this from Iran's perspective. The night we started 'Shocj and Awe', somebody probably came into the Iranian leaders' offices and told them what was happening. The conversation probably went something like: Flunky: Honored sirs, our greatest enemy, the Great Satan, is attacking Iraq even as I speak! Leader: Allah be praised! You shit me not? Flunky: I shit you not, Revered Leader! Leader: Incredible! The only thing which could make this any better would be if the Americans find and kill Saddam *and* end up being stuck fighting in Iraq for many years, while draining their money like blood from a freshly executed lamb. The one good thing our monumental outlay of cash has accomplished is, yes, Saddam is gone. But heck, if we'd put a billion dollar price on his head, he'd still be dead, but we'd still have $1,999,000,000,000 of that wasted money in our coffers, which we could have spent on domestic security, health care, education, nuclear plants, updating our crumbling infrastructure, shoring up Social Security, paying down our national debt, or all of the above. Bush may have wrecked this country economically for a generation, or longer. Our grandchildren's grandchildren may still be paying for this waste. If anyone has *ever* deserved impeachment, it is Bush.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:48:59 -0800

Uh, not to be all factual or anything but Kucinich's case is about Bush knowingly lying to congress in order to get them to support a war that they wouldn't support otherwise. many in congress wanted to be lied to - they wanted to declare war passive/aggressively without actually having to stick their necks out blatantly for it - this is why impeachment is off the table - too many congresspeople are complicit in the crimes - they knew he was lying and went along with it anyway

By: brevator

brevator — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 03:10:02 -0800

Only those that attempt the absurd are capable of achieving the impossible.

By: kaytwo

kaytwo — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 03:18:47 -0800

Why this is coming out so late: Bush Overstated Iraq Evidence, Senators Report If you're in this thread, you probably care one way or another about this impeachment happening. If you're a citizen, you should write your representative at your earliest convenience so that she has a better idea of her constituents' views on the matter. Seriously, if you haven't voiced your opinion to your representative and are instead voicing it here, it is my humble opinion that your priorities are gravely out of whack. Congress has impeachment power so that they can use it, and you have a Congressional Representative so that you have a voice in whether it happens.

By: flabdablet

flabdablet — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 03:59:05 -0800

Also, if Kucinich looked like Mitt Romney, he'd be taken seriously I did my level best to convince the Kucinich for President 2004 campaign that their boy would stand a much better chance if they'd only put better eyebrows on him. They wrote me off as a loon. Thought I was kidding.

By: valkyryn

valkyryn — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 04:59:41 -0800

This is just silly. Making bad, even reprehensible, foreign policy choices doesn't merit impeachment. Neither does taking a controversial position on the 4th Amendment vis a vis wiretapping. Neither, believe it or not, does getting what you want out of Congress; it's always been the assumption that the Executive is going to try to put one over on the Legislature and that it's the Legislature's look-out to make sure that doesn't happen. As long as Congress continues to give the President all the money he wants for his foreign misadventures, they've got exactly zero room to complain when he does what he wants with it. Congress has the ability to stop the Iraq war, Gitmo, and wiretapping, tomorrow. Hell, they could have done it years ago. It's called "the Spending Power." The Executive can't spend money on anything that Congress hasn't authorized, and since just about everything the Executive does costs money, the President is actually on a pretty short leash. There are a very few things that Congress can't mess with--they can't control the prosecution of crimes, command the military, or engage in much diplomacy--but everything else is subject to their whim. This makes things like Kucinich's articles of impeachment downright hilarious, just like Congress investigating the USA firings. Apparently it's better to engage in useless gestures that anyone with even a cursory understanding of constitutional law knows have exactly zero chance of making a different than to do the very simple things which will actually accomplish something. Congress is the Big Dog in Washington. The fact is that it's been acting like a whipped cur ever since the Democrats took control. Seriously people: when legislatures get annoyed you can get things like, oh, Magna Carta. Introducing articles of impeachment isn't brave, it's cowardly, because it comes with no possibility of success, and thus no risk.

By: MegoSteve

MegoSteve — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:07:17 -0800

Remember, you can't spell impeach without peach. Nor can you spell it without imp. Kucinich Kucinich Kucinich!

By: Civil_Disobedient

Civil_Disobedient — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:10:08 -0800

The warrantless wiretapping issue seems is a cut and dry case for impeachment. Yep.

By: krautland

krautland — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:17:33 -0800

wasn't there a story about one of these articles being forced to come to a vote by republicans to embarrass democrats into voting it down themselves? dennis is entertaining but he's jumped the shark four seasons ago.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:37:45 -0800

Impeachment? He's a lame duck and NOW Kucinich cries impeachment. I bet he'll have his house repainted just as soon as it burns down due to faulty wiring. That'll fix it. I'm pretty sure Kucinich has tried this before. Also I New Mexico filed articles of impeachment as well, apparently individual states are able to file impeachment proceedings. The New Mexico impeachment was voted down without a debate. About the word "Unserious", which isn't even in a lot of dictionaries Also, what makes something "inherently" unserious as opposed to superficially unserious, situationally unserious, exogenously unserious or extrinsically unserious? And what's with the word "unserious"? The only people who ever use that word are blowhard political pundits and people who parody them (like Atrios). We already have perfictly good words that are the opposite of "serious" namely "silly", "superficial", "frivolous". But the people who write that word are so portentous that they can't bring themselves to include a 'light' sounding word, so the word "unserious" gets inserted into our political discourse. It lays bare the utter frivolity of those who consider themselves the guardians of 'serious' discourse.

By: dances_with_sneetches

dances_with_sneetches — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:39:25 -0800

I'm a dyed-in-the-blue Democrat. My grandfather was the state Democratic party chair years back. If GW were a Democrat and did what he did, I would insist on impeachment. I'm supposed to grade him differently because he is a Republican?

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:41:44 -0800

This is just silly. Making bad, even reprehensible, foreign policy choices doesn't merit impeachment. Neither does taking a controversial position on the 4th Amendment vis a vis wiretapping. Wrong. congress determines what is and is not impeachable. Since you're not a member of congress, you're really in no position to dictate. While it's true that congress can cut off funding for things they're unhappy about, impeachment is arguably a better solution. If congress were to cut off funding for the war, Bush could set things up so that our troops were stranded there. On the other hand, if we impeached bush, a new president could withdraw our troops in a safe way.

By: IndigoJones

IndigoJones — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:54:51 -0800

And I'm always amazed at American politics. Blowjobs = impeachment. Bush's evil-doing which results in fucked up economy, numerous deaths and countless lives/families fucked up = yawn. It was the lying under oath more than the cheating on the wife and abusing the silly daughter of a campaign contributer, surely? Clinton was, after all, an officer of the court, and he really should have adhered to some standards of behaviour. One might argue that his low rent actions and unwillingness to just go away in part greased the slippery slope that brought us our current leader's shamelessness. (Then again, he, Bush, might just be nuts.) That said, impeachment for Bush is fine with me. I'd even take up knitting.

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 06:04:55 -0800

I don't think this has been done before, this is the first time the actual legal process of impeachment has been initiated.

By: aeschenkarnos

aeschenkarnos — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 06:51:14 -0800

Y'know ... Steve With The Names is kinda half-right. It is inherently an "unserious" gesture, in that Dennis Kucinich's desired state of affairs will not come about by this means, and he knows that that is futile. But the other half of Steve's argument, that it must therefore be a futile activity, is wrong. As others have pointed out, gestures that are futile in themselves often inspire effective actions through other means by other people. However, the reason normally given as to why it is futile--impeachment is booooriiiiinnnnnggg--is, IMO, outright wrong, and the actual reason why impeachment is futile is nothing other than the political alignment of Rupert Murdoch. Fox won't show it. Fox will, instead, exclaim that it is booooriiiiinnnnnggg, over and over, until it becomes so. Remember, impeaching Clinton wasn't the least bit boring. It was all kinds of fun. It was shown at great length on Fox. In a climate of comparative journalistic political neutrality (but equal bloodlust), impeachment would be a gift from the gods for ratings. But the important thing about Fox and Murdoch is, although they are ridiculously partisan, they are evil. While Murdoch just plain loves Bush's politics, while the concept of a total disregard for truth, humanity and decency appeals directly and personally to Murdoch's foul and twisted soul; if Murdoch has to turn, then he will turn. He won't die for Bush. He won't suffer, much, for Bush. He won't even cost himself more than a few billion dollars, and pretty soon, he'll realize he already has done that, in terms of 1999 dollar purchasing power. If the impeachment of George W Bush became a circus ... and I mean, a total fucking circus, with clowns, and singing, and drums to be banged, and elephants dancing in the ring of fire, and death-defying walks along the narrowest of tightropes, and juggling of all kinds of contradictions, and playing flim-flam with the facts, and astounding feats of memory failure, and communion with the spirits of the dead, and contortions, and, and ... and all the sounds and sights and smells of the circus, buckets of tears and peals of laughter, a new headline twice a day and once on Sundays, every act and revelation served up like popcorn and beer ... oh, what a circus to see! I can see it now, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton strutting around as chief ringmaster in tails and tophat, whip in hand and the will to put that whip to the Repugs' asses like she was whipping for her place in history, her aim to make every one of them who pocketed a dollar he shouldn't, broke a single binding rule, or told a lie when he had even constructive knowledge of the truth suffer to the extent the people's mercy will abide, to make the very devils in hell stick up that damned dead fool Joe McCarthy on a stick to make him watch, to see how he looks like such a lazy, wishy-washy amateur in his attitude to Communists, as compared to hers to the Republicans ... and President Barack Obama tapping his feet along to the music but keeping a nice, safe distance from it all ... That'd be a show even Rupert Murdoch couldn't keep quiet. He would have to buy his tickets, just like all the rest. Ah, what a circus that would be. Let's hope it comes to town. Inherently unserious and all.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 06:56:40 -0800

The warrantless wiretapping issue seems is a cut and dry case for impeachment. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was put into place specifically to prevent illegal wiretapping that was one of the Articles of Impeachment the Judiciary Committee adopted against Nixon.

He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.

Seems to me that breaking a law that was specifically designed to prevent impeachable acts is impeachable. Obstruction of justice was one of the impeachment articles against both Nixon and Clinton. Another count against Nixon could apply to Bush's pardon of Scooter Libby:

endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony

Senator McCain might agree: "We are asked to judge whether the President, who swore an oath to faithfully execute his office, deliberately subverted--for whatever purpose--the rule of law." It was the lying under oath more than the cheating on the wife and abusing the silly daughter of a campaign contributer, surely? Yes. It was lying under oath in a civil case that was unrelated to his duties as president and dating from before he took office.

By: Legomancer

Legomancer — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:03:51 -0800

Metafilter: Why even try this guy for murder? His victim isn't already dead, and even a guilty verdict won't bring him back to life!

By: Guy_Inamonkeysuit

Guy_Inamonkeysuit — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:17:51 -0800

It's true that ol' Dennis is crazy as a bedbug, but he has balls of stone. God love him.

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:18:48 -0800

Yes. It was lying under oath in a civil case that was unrelated to his duties as president and dating from before he took office. Yes, but the lying under oath was the problem, and he did so while he was in office. The matter about which he lied was irrelevant -- he was under oath and had a legal duty to tell the truth. Anyway, the response was in rebuttal to the "because of a blowjob" canard, and your argument doesn't revive that claim. (disclaimer: I didn't think impeachment was warranted, and joined "moveon.org" when that organization still had something to do with "moving on." But there's no reason to try to change history).

By: chunking express

chunking express — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:26:56 -0800

The President will not be impeached (thank goodness). I know! Imagine what sort of example that would set for future presidents.

By: TheOnlyCoolTim

TheOnlyCoolTim — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:41:39 -0800

Congress is the Big Dog in Washington. The fact is that it's been acting like a whipped cur ever since the Democrats took control. Valk.: Congress is whipped! They should take some power. Kuc.: *impeaches* Valk.: I didn't actually mean it!

By: salvia

salvia — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:50:38 -0800

Better late than never.

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:50:59 -0800

Obama/Kucinich '08 Oh, who am I kidding?

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:54:25 -0800

Yes, but the lying under oath was the problem, and he did so while he was in office. The matter about which he lied was irrelevant -- he was under oath and had a legal duty to tell the truth. Oh holy fucking horseshit.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:59:29 -0800

I am starting the think the reason the conservatives impeached Clinton was so that it would so thoroughly undermine the point of impeachment that it would never be attempted again, no matter how egregious the crimes of future presidents. Score one for them, I guess. Although, as soon as Obama becomes president, we'll start hearing impeachment talk about every little gaffe and misstep in policy. I just know it.

By: Flex1970

Flex1970 — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:11:21 -0800

Even if we impeached him, wouldn't he go scott-free(I'm gonna look up scott-free now)? He'd still be able to golf and shit, right? Are there any laws under the constitution that give us power to criminally charge the moron? I'm asking because I'm lazy, but I'm going to look it up also. I just figure someone here knows.

By: Cool Papa Bell

Cool Papa Bell — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:19:12 -0800

The roles of the legislative branch are as symbolic as the executive and judicial branches. Well, I disagree that any of these three branches have a "symbolic" purpose. They have purposes, period. If it doesn't end with a law being legislated, judged and executed, then it carries the exact same amount of weight as "Resolved, Oasis the greatest British band since the Beatles." So any time there's an unpopular position that is sure to fail you shouldn't even try? I certainly hope your mother doesn't hear you say that. Presumably she enjoys her right to vote. You're missing the forest for the trees. It's not about trying. It's about how you try. Kucinich's move is purely procedural and certain to fail. Other forms of struggle, agitation and dissent could presumably work over time. Focus on what actually has a chance in order to get that chance. In other words, you can jump up as high as you can and wish you could touch the moon. Or you could, you know, build a fucking rocket.

By: poppo

poppo — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:21:00 -0800

As long as Congress continues to give the President all the money he wants for his foreign misadventures, they've got exactly zero room to complain when he does what he wants with it. What about we, the people? I'm complaining. As far as I'm concerned, Kucinich is representing me.

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:39:42 -0800

Oh holy fucking horseshit. Oh, I'm sorry. Perhaps you haven't actually read the Articles of Impeachment? You may want to take a moment and review them in order to see whether it is, in fact, literally true that he was impeached for lying under oath. Then let me know if you see anything in there about getting a blowjob. Go ahead, I'll wait. The simple fact is that if Clinton hadn't lied under oath, it would have deprived the Republicans of a basis on which to issue Articles of Impeachment. Of course they were spurred on by his playing swallow the kielbasa in the Oval Office, but the perjury got him into deeper trouble.

By: chance

chance — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:40:14 -0800

Too late. Ship the bastard and his cronies off to Guantanamo.

By: bitter-girl.com

bitter-girl.com — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:43:44 -0800

Dennis! is our congressman (for non-Clevelanders -- every election season, lawns sprout giant DENNIS! signs). I call him Keebler Ramone. Boyfriend calls him Our Little Moonbat (lovingly). But what I'm calling him today is: "Fucking awesome."

By: Foosnark

Foosnark — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:44:28 -0800

Obama/Kucinich '08 Oh, who am I kidding? posted by Sys Rq at 7:50 AM on June 10 [+] [!] That would be so incredibly awesome, new synonyms would have to be invented.

By: caddis

caddis — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:47:17 -0800

You're missing the forest for the trees. It's not about trying. It's about how you try. Kucinich's move is purely procedural and certain to fail. Other forms of struggle, agitation and dissent could presumably work over time. Focus on what actually has a chance in order to get that chance. Define fail. Do you truly believe Kucinich thinks that this will get Bush impeached? This is about communication. He is making a point. He believes the Bush has committed impeachable offenses. Many others believe the same thing. With where the country is right now, if Bush had more than a few months left in office this might even succeed. This effort is about raising awareness of Bush's misdeeds. As orthogonality so eloquently pointed out up thread, symbolic actions have worth, change minds, move people to action. He won't succeed in impeaching Bush, but this will tarnish Bush's already well tarnished legacy even further, and will raise the issue to at least the level of discussion among a lot of people who just are not paying attention, and that is just at a minimum.

By: chance

chance — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:52:21 -0800

If Congress can impeach a sitting president simply because they regret a foolish vote they made a few years ago, our democracy is in deep deep trouble. posted by drjimmy11 At this late date, I think impeachment is pointless, but it would not be based on "regret over a foolish vote". You better go back and review the situation. Bush committed real crimes, war crimes, crimes against the Constitution, crimes against humanity. Treason. The list is staggering. He deserves a criminal trial. The punishment for treason during a time of war is death. Get your facts right.

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:52:31 -0800

Oh, I'm sorry. Perhaps you haven't actually read the Articles of Impeachment? You may want to take a moment and review them in order to see whether it is, in fact, literally true that he was impeached for lying under oath. Then let me know if you see anything in there about getting a blowjob. It's like you're talking but all I hear is mew, mew, mew. The republicans set out to catch Clinton in the most embarrassing lie possible and then went on to make sure we allll knew what Clinton's wang looked like. On the face of it, it might have been about a lie, but you know and I know that shit was about a blowjob. I'm not sure why you're in here pissing on people's legs about this at this much later date, but come on already.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:36:13 -0800

Speaking of FISA: NYT circulates fear-mongering claims on FISA debate

By: ornate insect

ornate insect — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:40:50 -0800

On a related note, a BBC investigation estimates that around $23 billion (£11.75 billion) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq: Henry Waxman who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said: "The money that's gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, its egregious. "It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."

By: Mastercheddaar

Mastercheddaar — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:42:21 -0800

Thank you Mr Kucinich! I don't care if nothing happens from this. It was said. A voice was heard. Let it echo on youtube and Cspan! I am happy I voted for Kucinich now.

By: me & my monkey

me & my monkey — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:44:18 -0800

The republicans set out to catch Clinton in the most embarrassing lie possible and then went on to make sure we allll knew what Clinton's wang looked like. And Clinton made it as easy as possible for them.

By: oaf

oaf — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:50:19 -0800

Gravel throws rocks around Gravel is rocks, thrown around.

By: rmmcclay

rmmcclay — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:01:27 -0800

...thank the stars there's still people like Dennis Kucinich... I fully support his efforts at holding accountable higher government. If people like Dennis don't do it, who will? You? Remember, articles of impeachment are the first step in investigating whether alleged offenses are impeachable. I love America, was born there, but left a long time ago. I hope she makes it.

By: quin

quin — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:11:29 -0800

caddis : This effort is about raising awareness of Bush's misdeeds. Exactly. Succeed or fail, this action demonstrates that at least some of us feel that recrimination is in order. I don't want history to reflect that the worst thing that happened to Bush for his actions were low approval ratings. I want a nice black smudge on his legacy. (Well, I want war crimes trials and then prision, but failing that, I'll take impeachment and a ruined record.)

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:39:43 -0800

Well, I disagree that any of these three branches have a "symbolic" purpose. They have purposes, period. If it doesn't end with a law being legislated, judged and executed, then it carries the exact same amount of weight as "Resolved, Oasis the greatest British band since the Beatles." Haven't you seen swearing-in ceremonies? Rehnquist's robes? State of the Union addresses? Everything about the federal government is steeped in ritual, symbolic of the roles they perform and the personas they embody. A Congress failing to impeach a member of government who commits treason is a failure of Congress, entirely. The ends don't really come into it.

By: sandraregina

sandraregina — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:44:48 -0800

So, are there any major news stories about this? I haven't found any but I am at work and can't spend too much time searching...

By: caddis

caddis — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:48:31 -0800

ARTICLE XIV.--MISPRISION OF A FELONY

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:00:28 -0800

"Wait until after the term is up, then go through the records and start bringing criminal charges." Dude, like Bush isn't gonna give carte blanche pardons to everyone he can think of, for everything he can think of, and some of the things he can't? If he really feels pressed, he and Cheney can swap places for a couple of minutes while Cheney pardons him.

By: jennaratrix

jennaratrix — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:12:02 -0800

He may be crazy, he may be a wee Keebler elf of a man, but god bless him. I just did an informal poll in my office, and only 2 of the 6 people here knew that these articles had been filed. The worst part? I work, um, FOR THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT. What does that tell you about the power of the media? I found out yesterday from one of the news sites I visit, the other person heard on NPR. No one else had heard. This to me is the worst part of this, that it isn't splashed all over the news, that it's not raising debate, that TWO FUCKING THIRDS OF EDUCATED, DIRECTLY INVOLVED PEOPLE DON'T KNOW. That, and the fact that what we were talking about a few minutes ago was the "Bridesmaid's Contract" a co-worker's friend was sent for participation in her brother's wedding. And that conversation resulted in almost 20 minutes of very animated conversation, and the revelation that our President could conceivably be impeached raised barely a "meh." We're halfway down the toilet and don't even know it.

By: mattbucher

mattbucher — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:13:26 -0800

What do you have to do to get impeached these days? Shoot a man in the face? Oh never mind....

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:34:45 -0800

Dude, like Bush isn't gonna give carte blanche pardons to everyone he can think of, for everything he can think of, and some of the things he can't? If he really feels pressed, he and Cheney can swap places for a couple of minutes while Cheney pardons him. of course anyone who is pardoned can no longer take the fifth and refuse to testify before congress - and they can still be prosecuted for contempt of congress or for any lies they tell my bet is that bush and co will cite executive privilege and tie it up for awhile with that - after which, if they lose, they can plead the fifth - pardoning themselves might actually put them in the position where they would eventually HAVE to tell congress what happened that is, of course, assuming that there aren't democratic members of congress that couldn't be accused of knowing about the lies and going along with them this may be why the dems haven't pushed that hard - they know that unless they were anti-war from the start, they're vulnerable, too - hillary clinton as ringmaster? - she wouldn't dare

By: Cool Papa Bell

Cool Papa Bell — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:11:36 -0800

Do you truly believe Kucinich thinks that this will get Bush impeached? This is about communication. He is making a point. And the point he's making is, "I'm a dork lacking imagination, credibility and persuasive power." Gandhi made a point. Dr. King made a point. Kucinich is making an ass of himself and narcissistically distracting everyone from other things that might actually work. A Congress failing to impeach a member of government who commits treason is a failure of Congress, entirely. Agreed, but ... The ends don't really come into it. ... we're discussing means, not ends. These means aren't going to reach your ends. Do something else.

By: cortex

cortex — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:21:31 -0800

[Huge goddam pastejob removed. Post a link, dude.]

By: ericb

ericb — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:24:45 -0800

32,182 words over 6 posts. Huh?

By: bashos_frog

bashos_frog — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:26:58 -0800

Kucinich makes me want to move to Cleveland, just to be near him. That said, a few of those articles are really reaching: ARTICLE XXXII.--MISLEADING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, SYSTEMATICALLY UNDERMINING EFFORTS TO ADDRESS GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE OK, I want climate change too - but that's pretty thin for impeachment. On the other hand: ARTICLE XIV.--MISPRISION OF A FELONY, MISUSE AND EXPOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF VALERIE PLAME WILSON, CLANDESTINE AGENT OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY and ARTICLE XXIII--VIOLATION OF THE POSSE COMITATUS ACT seem pretty solid, and: ARTICLE XXIV.--SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS, WITHOUT A COURT-ORDERED WARRANT, IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT seems like a slam-dunk.

By: bashos_frog

bashos_frog — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:27:47 -0800

to be clear, the climate change I want is change back to the way it used to be.

By: bink

bink — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:08:14 -0800

Obama/Kucinich '08 I'd hit (the lever for) it. Wouldn't it be nice to break the integrity vacuum in the White House?

By: jaronson

jaronson — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:21:43 -0800

Speaking of FISA: NYT circulates fear-mongering claims on FISA debate posted by homunculus at 11:36 AM on June 10 Those of you who wish for impeachment might get something close if we can get Congress to NOT pass a FISA bill that includes warrantless wiretapping and telecom immunity. This administration, the telecom industry, and a number of Senators and Representatives (Republicans AND Democrats!) are going to great lengths to make sure that the public does not find out what was going on with that warrantless wire-tapping. The only way we'll find out is if Congress does NOT pass a FISA bill that includes telecom immunity.

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:33:58 -0800

I'd hit (the lever for) it. oy!

By: WCityMike

WCityMike — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:12:22 -0800

The full text of Kucinich's 35-count bill for impeachment. Which he was required to read out in full, for four hours fifty-six minutes, due to an "agreement" between the Republican and Democratic Parties ... Of course, then he got to go home to his beautiful, intelligent wife, so I have to admit, I don't feel incredibly bad for him.

By: JHarris

JHarris — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:36:59 -0800

bashos_frog: On climate change, I think that's actually a reasonable point. Bush's EPA has doctored reports its funded to remove evidence of global warming. WCityMike: Dear god, interesting reading. I can't help but think that's going to backfire on the Republicans, especially once the Daily Show gets its mitts on it. Four hours and forty minutes is a lot of material for them to playfully substantiate. Hmm. Maybe I'd better start making popcorn....

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:14:38 -0800

That's so cute! kaytwo: "If you're in this thread, you probably care one way or another about this impeachment happening." I could care less one way or the other. Well, I think the entertainment value of an impeachment might amuse me. It didn't help us with Nixon. Didn't help us with Clinton. If anything it'd cause this country to be even more divided than we already are. United we stand, divided we fall. Guess which one of those is happening as you read this? "If you're a citizen, you should write your representative at your earliest convenience so that she has a better idea of her constituents' views on the matter." My 'representative' ? I'd just as soon write a letter to Santa. "Please get me an impeachment this year. And a pony!" "Seriously, if you haven't voiced your opinion to your representative and are instead voicing it here, it is my humble opinion that your priorities are gravely out of whack." It is my humble opinion that your humble opinion stands behind rose colored glasses and a self-hypnosis tape telling you everything's going to be alright. "Congress has impeachment power so that they can use it..." Congresspeople will do what is in the best interests of those that got them in there in the first place, and if you think that's you, that really is SO cute! "...and you have a Congressional Representative so that you have a voice in whether it happens." NO. I DO NOT. Eddie Bernice Johnson is focused on infrastructure, like roads, airlines, and rail. She's also done some good work regarding international issues and environmental concerns. From my perspective, it appears she strives to bridge the gap between those who want to protect the Earth and those who want to exploit it, not that she's always successful but she's the little engine that could and all that. That's all well and good, but it deals with influential people in high places that have access to a lot of resources. She's busy catering to the needs of moneybags. She does not represent my personal interests. I got no bad feelings towards her, in fact I respect the work she's done both where I agree and where I don't. She's a hard working politician. She ain't gonna listen to my opinion. Maybe if I could throw a few hundred thousand dollars her way, I'd catch her eye. Expecting Johnson to take time out for my concerns would be like asking a fireman to climb up on the roof of my house and install my satellite dish - she's a little busy and it's really not her job. My house is not on fire, and she doesn't do dishes. Kay Bailey Hutchison does not represent me. She doesn't even think like me. Any person who dresses like she does and votes the way she does, does not represent me. She happens to be assigned to a geographic region in which I happen to breathe. That's it! She voted against my wishes with regards to mp3s and copyrights. She disagrees with me about abortion and corporate greed and a host of other things. Why would she listen to me about this? Why should I accept as a given that she represents me? She listens to large companies with lots of money. She doesn't give a shit about me. I DO NOT HAVE A VOICE in Congress. And if you'd think about it for just a moment, from a personal level, neither do you. Where you happen to agree with the people who pretend to represent you, it's coincidence. Where you don't, it's cuz people with more money than you convinced them otherwise. So don't go throwing your naive faith in the american political system in my face and expect me to smoke that reefer. I've had enough.

By: bitteroldman

bitteroldman — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:58:59 -0800

Gandhi made a point. Dr. King made a point. Kucinich is making an ass of himself and narcissistically distracting everyone from other things that might actually work. In retrospect, the actions of Gandhi and Dr. King were indeed effective, inspirational and historic, but at the time, I am sure there were a lot of doubters. Look at the monks of Burma a few months back - they tried the same approach only to be set back. At the time though, no one knew if it would work or if it wouldn't. Perhaps the actions of Congressman Kucinich will be all for naught, but it is a step forward. And it is the most ballsy move I have seen. It is a step that no one else dared to make. Everyone talks about what should be done. Congressman Kucinich actually did something.

By: dirtynumbangelboy

dirtynumbangelboy — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:16:49 -0800

It didn't help us with Nixon. Really? It got the goddamn crook out of the White House. While I recognize that creates some issues of its own... it got the goddamn crook out of the White House. Isn't that sort of, well, the point of impeachment?

By: krinklyfig

krinklyfig — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:33:03 -0800

fingers_of_fire writes "Much as I think the bastard deserves it, I'm not sure it's such a good idea. Makes it seem a little tit-for-tat, and that's not a road we want to go down, I think." This is exactly the right reason, but without sufficient political will, nobody wants to bring the hammer down. They might go through the motions like this, but it won't happen until people completely lose faith in Bush. A record low approval rating isn't quite the same thing. That doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. In a just world, he would have been impeached in 2004.

By: krinklyfig

krinklyfig — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:35:48 -0800

ZachsMind writes "I DO NOT HAVE A VOICE in Congress. " Well, then, time to do something about it.

By: Miles Long

Miles Long — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:46:17 -0800

I want to know why people think this has no possibility of happening. People's objections here seem to be "it's useless, so it's a distraction from real issues" Why don't you think it can happen? What makes it such a foregone conclusion? A lot of attacking Kucinich too, which is classic 'smear the messenger' tactics and advances one's argument not at all. What scares me is how little i've heard about this from any non-internet media. Sounds like a big story to me. News media should be all over this. Like flies on rice. Let's have a trial. Bring the information to light, let him defend his actions. The fact that this is not even given a chance- means the system is not working for the people.

By: tachikaze

tachikaze — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:00:45 -0800

Gandhi made a point. "First they mock you, then they fight you, then they accept the truth as self-evident"

By: tachikaze

tachikaze — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:03:32 -0800

to impeach a member of government who commits treason Well, the actual "treason" charge, given it's a capital crime, should take care of that issue.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:04:34 -0800

What scares me is how little i've heard about this from any non-internet media. Sounds like a big story to me. News media should be all over this. Like flies on rice. They should have been all over this, but they couldn't be bothered. They're not much help these days.

By: kyleg

kyleg — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:53:47 -0800

Kucinich is "too little, too late" personified.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:02:37 -0800

krinklyfig: "Well, then, time to do something about it." I used to think that. I used to vote. I used to believe that was doing something about it. I now know that the only way to do something about it is to do nothing. Stop participating in a system that no longer works. When you vote, you're only encouraging the behavior of thieves and vandals. Me: "It didn't help us with Nixon." dirtynumbangelboy: "Really? It got the goddamn crook out of the White House." No. It got one goddamn crook out of the White House. You can't take out just one of the foxes and then say you saved the hen house - you gotta take out all the predators, or they'll just keep eating your eggs. "While I recognize that creates some issues of its own..." That's precisely my point. It didn't help us. Impeaching Nixon helped to divide the nation. Then Ford just pardoned him, making the act of impeachment an impotent gesture. People went on with their lives, but what we now call red states versus blue states? It's not a new phenomenon. Sure, Nixon was removed from office but the damage he caused had already been done, and he lived out the rest of his life in relative leisure and comfort. Some even view him as a hero today - after all he did pave the road to China. Woop de frickin doo. America's been politically psychotic since before the Cuban Missile Crisis. We focus too much on the presidency. There's a hell of a lot of other influences that need to be addressed. The executive branch of power is just a figurehead. We think we're keeping our eye on the ball by focusing on the Prez, but it's exactly the opposite. Watch Penn & Teller - they are a metaphor for power in America and the World. There's also congress and the supreme court, but the influences I'm talking about start with The Fourth Estate (mass media) which used to be run by Hearst and is currently controlled by people like Murdoch and a small handful of others. Other players may or may not include multiple corporate interests (the corporate oligarchy I keep bitching about), then there's organized crime, the Federal Reserve, the DOD, absurdly rich people who are in the spotlight, absurdly rich people who are not in the spotlight, various organizations of influence that do not in any official capacity exist (and anyone who thinks they spot one either gets killed or branded a looney for pointing them out), and finally whoever the fuck we owe those trillions of dollars of debt to - and if you think it's just "to the American people" you got another think coming. The really scary thing is - none of these forces are necessarily organized with the others. I don't think any of them consciously know they're really running the show - and that's cuz they're not. If any of them think they're running it, they're lying to themselves. It's like tying a flock of birds together on long strings and letting them fly of their own accord. They will either kill each other, or eventually learn how to fly in sort of the same direction but they'll never really get anywhere, cuz each bird has their own agenda. But if even three or four of the birds start working together, they can powerfully influence the others to go along, and that's when things get really creepy. Make no mistake tho. We ain't birds. We ain't the string. Maybe, on occasion, we're a feather.

By: eye of newt

eye of newt — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:49:18 -0800

As was mentioned before by caddis, this isn't serious--it is just making a point. I mean, come on: "Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina" He wants to impeach Bush for failing to plan for a hurricane? This is a joke. It makes a mockery of something that should be very serious. Maybe some other, more serious Congressman can start a real impeacment process. It should definitely be done and I think the Democrats are really misreading the public on this one. What the heck does a President have to do to get impeached anyway? Apparently stretching the truth about a blow-job is enough for some but a multi-trillion dollar corrupt war and blatantly going against the Constitution isn't enough for anyone. Who can I write to in Congress to start real impeachment procedings?

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 02:52:59 -0800

I want to know why people think this has no possibility of happening. because the republicans won't vote for it, the democrats don't want to be asked the awkward question of "why did you go along with the war?", and it's an election year

By: WCityMike

WCityMike — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:54:18 -0800

> I now know that the only way to do something about it is to do nothing. Stop participating in a system that no longer works. When you vote, you're only encouraging the behavior of thieves and vandals. That's utter bullshit. Not because of some ideological position of mine that it's moral to vote and immoral not to, but simply because of pragmatics. Do you think politicians actually give a shit about the opinion of those people who stay home on Election Day? No. They're trying to sway the opinion of those who do vote.

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:18:52 -0800

He wants to impeach Bush for failing to plan for a hurricane? Among (many) other things, yes. It's called criminal negligence--criminally negligent homicide, come to think of it.

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:33:30 -0800

He wants to impeach Bush for failing to plan for a hurricane? This is a joke. This is much less absurd than you seem to think, as a number of precautions could have been taken to lessen the impact of this pretty much inevitable event, and weren't.

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:09:10 -0800

The executive branch of power is just a figurehead. You know, ZachsMind, it's that kind of huge overstatement that turns so many of your comments into incoherent rants. Try to state your case in more restrained terms, and it will be more effective.

By: eye of newt

eye of newt — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:18:14 -0800

Yes, but there are a lot of precautions that he should be taking now for possible disasters in the future. There are limited funds--how do you spend them? It is so easy to argue that this is just bad management that there's really no chance you could impeach a president on something like this no matter how much you don't like it. On the other hand there are so many ways that Bush clearly broke the law, from a highly corrupt and illegal war, to the many basic violations of the constitution. This is just Kucinich's public list of all the reasons we don't like Bush. It is not a serious attempt at impeachment. Some Congressman needs to introduce a real attempt at impeachment proceedings. Who will do it? Is Kucinich the only one to even make an appearance of trying it?

By: homunculus

homunculus — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:23:45 -0800

McCain On Whether Cheney Might Serve In His Administration: ‘Hell, Yeah’

By: dirtynumbangelboy

dirtynumbangelboy — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:54:20 -0800

No. It got one goddamn crook out of the White House. You can't take out just one of the foxes and then say you saved the hen house - you gotta take out all the predators, or they'll just keep eating your eggs. Oh, right. Shouldn't bother getting rid of one, that's pointless. Just should have left him in there to continue his crookery. After all, there's more. That's one of the stupidest things you have ever said. The executive branch of power is just a figurehead Oh wait, we have a new contender. various organizations of influence that do not in any official capacity exist (and anyone who thinks they spot one either gets killed or branded a looney for pointing them out), Aha. Stupidest thing ever, right there. The mistake you're making is letting perfection be the enemy of good. Is it possible to completely eradicate bullshit in the White House? Of course not. Is it desirable to stamp it out wherever it occurs? Obviously yes.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:05:02 -0800

Why Is Bush Helping Saudi Arabia Build Nukes?

By: Dave Faris

Dave Faris — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:36:05 -0800

Dear Friend: Under circumstances that can best be described as "suspicious," the www.kucinich.us website was crippled early this morning a few hours after Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced 35 extensively documented Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush. Kucinich Email, as reported by Democracy.com

By: Miles Long

Miles Long — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:29:22 -0800

I want to know why people think this has no possibility of happening. because the republicans won't vote for it, the democrats don't want to be asked the awkward question of "why did you go along with the war?", and it's an election year Democrats have a majority now, right? So the republicans can be outvoted. Also, in the bill itself, one of the charges is 'deceived Congress to get into war'. That sounds like a neat little out for those who voted for the war. Why wouldn't they vote for it? "it's an election year"- This is the sort of vague dismissal i hear most of all. What's that mean? No bills can be introduced in an election year? Bush is about to be replaced, so don't bother punishing the guilty?

By: EarBucket

EarBucket — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:56:37 -0800

Democrats have a majority now, right? So the republicans can be outvoted. Conviction requires 67 votes in the Senate. The Democrats have 51 Senators, and that's counting Joe Lieberman.

By: RavinDave

RavinDave — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:13:24 -0800

Who cares? At the VERY least, he won't be passing out "Get-Out-Of-Jail" cards to his toadies while he's under impeachment and he won't have the time (or juice) to tangle us up in an Iranian war.

By: caddis

caddis — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:45:44 -0800

The House voted 251-166 to send the Ohio Democrat's impeachment resolution to committee, a maneuver that allows the Democratic leadership to freeze the measure indefinitely. The vote largely followed partisan lines, with 225 Democrats voting to punt the measure to committee. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said she would not support a resolution calling for Bush's impeachment, saying such a move was unlikely to succeed and would be divisive. All 166 votes in favor of opening up a House impeachment debate came from Republicans, apparently eager to paint Democrats as political creatures in a time of serious issues. Kucinich voted with his party, against his own measure.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:57:48 -0800

Democrats have a majority now, right? So the republicans can be outvoted. as earbucket said, the dems need 67 votes, but more importantly Also, in the bill itself, one of the charges is 'deceived Congress to get into war'. That sounds like a neat little out for those who voted for the war. Why wouldn't they vote for it? because the republicans will turn right around and accuse those dems who voted for the war of ignoring or even participating in the deception - with, i might add, good reason - i thought it was a crock of shit from day one and said so no, the dirty truth is that congress thought this was an easy, kick-the-bastard-out-and-they'll-throw-flowers kind of war and they figured that lies or no lies, it wasn't a big deal anyway and besides, oil was involved and it would make us feel like we were getting some kind of payback for 9/11 - there's absolutely no way the pro-war dems can allow this - it's too hypocritical - they've voted to fund this mess too many times for them to impeach anyone over it and they know it "it's an election year"- This is the sort of vague dismissal i hear most of all. What's that mean? it means that everyone in the house and 1/3 of the senate is worried about their jobs first and foremost and other things will just have to wait - especially an impeachment that would create a shitstorm against both parties Bush is about to be replaced, so don't bother punishing the guilty? that's why we have a justice system - frankly, our congress has a lot more to deal with than self-destructive vendettas - the american people don't want justice, they want cheaper gas, health insurance, a housing industry that isn't tanking and an economy that's providing better jobs the worst part of that being that they may get very little of all that, even if obama wins and the dems are in control - but the american people will expect to see them trying to fix problems, not trying to hold kangaroo courts - and if i were a congressman, i would fear the fury of a people who thought their problems were being shunted aside for grandstanding show trials we cannot afford to spend much time looking back - because ahead of us could be one rocky road - for the next 4 years, our government needs to be fixing this mess, if possible, and punishing the guilty is somewhere down on the list of national priorities - yes, congress needs to hold hearings - but they need to do other things first - like get elected

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:59:21 -0800

The House voted 251-166 to send the Ohio Democrat's impeachment resolution to committee like i said - no one wants to open this can of worms except the republicans, who have little left to lose

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:31:44 -0800

no one wants to open this can of worms except the republicans And, uh, all the Democrats who actually care about doing their jobs more than keeping them.

By: caddis

caddis — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:10:14 -0800

well that must be zero dems, as they voted 100%, including Kucinich, to table this.....

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:13:05 -0800

Yep.

By: RavinDave

RavinDave — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:51:47 -0800

You keep chirping "including Kucinich". My understanding is that this allows him to bring it back in a month if not committee action is taken.

By: From Bklyn

From Bklyn — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:29:50 -0800

My understanding is that this allows him to bring it back in a month if not committee action is taken. Right, so I'll check back in a month but my money is on this just drifting away.

By: RavinDave

RavinDave — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:53:11 -0800

You're probably right. It will no doubt drift away. Along with my support of any candidate who doesn't come out in explicit support for it.

By: caddis

caddis — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 04:13:55 -0800

yeah, because it is important to pursue a plan sure to fail, and perhaps doom the democrats in the presidential election, just based on principle. I would rather be reality based, rather than faith based.

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:16:23 -0800

Gore Vidal:

Although this is the most important motion made in Congress in the 21st century, it was also the most significant plea for a restoration of the republic, which had been swept to one side by the mad antics of a president bent on great crime. And as I listened with awe to Kucinich, I realized that no newspaper in the U.S., no broadcast or cable network, would pay much notice to the fact that a highly respected member of Congress was asking for the president and vice president to be tried for crimes which were carefully listed by Kucinich in his articles requesting impeachment.

By: RavinDave

RavinDave — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:11:36 -0800

The whole idea BEHIND "getting them into office" is that they will protect us from the excesses of other party and prosecute their illegality. If they abrogate that implicit promise and responsibility what exactly are they running on?

By: eye of newt

eye of newt — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:52:04 -0800

This is a late post, but I discovered that none of the news articles on the net actually listed the 35 articles of impeachment. In fact it was very difficult to find at all except on Kucinich's site. Here they are: Article I Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq. Article II Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression. Article III Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War. Article IV Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States. Article V Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression. Article VI Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of H. J. Res114. Article VII Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War. Article VIII Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter. Article IX Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor. Article X Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes. Article XI Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq. Article XII Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources. Article XIIII Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries. Article XIV Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency. Article XV Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq. Article XVI Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors. Article XVII Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives. Article XVIII Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy. Article XIX Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture. Article XX Imprisoning Children. Article XXI Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government. Article XXII Creating Secret Laws. Article XXIII Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Article XXIV Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment. Article XXV Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens. Article XXVI Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements. Article XXVII Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply. Article XXVIII Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice. Article XXIX Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Article XXX Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare. Article XXXI Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency. Article XXXII Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change. Article XXXIII Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911. Article XXXIV Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001. Article XXXV Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:55:33 -0800

I said: "The executive branch of power is just a figurehead." KirthGerson said: "You know, ZachsMind, it's that kind of huge overstatement that turns so many of your comments into incoherent rants. Try to state your case in more restrained terms, and it will be more effective." *blinks hard* I could have added that the executive branch of power is currently being run by a bunch of assholes, but I was restraining myself.

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:34:03 -0800

That would have at least made sense. See, a figurehead is a powerless front for some other entity. If the Executive Branch is powerless, why are we facing such a huge mess? You can say that the Executive is acting on behalf of some other, not-elected group (which it of course is), but that does not make it powerless. I suppose you're invoking some different meaning for the word. It's asking a lot of your reader to figure out what that meaning is. My point was that your comments often include statements like that one, which make no sense. I don't think I'm the only one who tends to stop reading the comments at those points, because they seem incoherent.

By: Dave Faris

Dave Faris — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:16:58 -0800

eye of newt's message makes me think we need a "more inside" inside.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:32:47 -0800

Interview with Dennis Kucinich Interview with Vincent Bugliosi

By: eye of newt

eye of newt — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:32:15 -0800

eye of newt's message makes me think we need a "more inside" inside.e th Yeah, a little long, sorry. But the little paranoid guy on my right shoulder told me that maybe there is some kind of conspiracy, otherwise why wouldn't any of the news services post these articles of impeachment? And then he told me that maybe they need to be posted everywhere to override this evil plot to keep Bush from being impeached.

By: Devils Rancher

Devils Rancher — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:49:45 -0800

Interview with Dennis Kucinich Hell, yes. That is a moral giant. I love that man, and wish that we had five more as gutsy as him in congress. Go Dennis, and keep going.

By: an egg

an egg — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:28:41 -0800

I am sure that Bush is totally innocent and that in a fair trial would be able to prove it, without a shadow of a doubt. I say that he should be afforded that opportunity.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:18:45 -0800

FISA Cave-In Imminent

By: homunculus

homunculus — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:21:46 -0800

The tragic legacy of a disastrous president

By: homunculus

homunculus — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:09:54 -0800

Former Senator Mike Gravel Calls for Independent 9/11 Investigation and Prosecution of President Bush and Vice President Cheney

By: homunculus

homunculus — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:42:25 -0800

"It is now definitively clear that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is the driving force behind a bill -- written by GOP Sen. Kit Bond -- to vest the President with vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers and to vest lawbreaking telecoms with amnesty."

By: homunculus

homunculus — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:11:55 -0800

Mr. Bush v. the Bill of Rights

By: caddis

caddis — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:43:50 -0800

"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account." General Anthony Taguba