House Narrowly Avoids Having to Debate Impeachment of Cheney 1033
An anonymous reader writes "Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) yesterday successfully moved articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney to the House Judiciary committee. 'Today's resolution from Kucinich (D-Ohio) was essentially the same as the legislation he introduced earlier this year, which included three articles of impeachment against Cheney based largely on allegations that he manipulated intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. The last article accuses Cheney of threatening "aggression" against Iran "absent any real threat."'"
Umm, going to committee is NOT Success (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (Score:3, Informative)
narrow? (Score:4, Informative)
sounds weird and not all that narrow. its split down the middle (more or less), just like the parties (more or less). is anyone suprised??
and how many abstained from voting or just didnt show up?
3-4 is narrow, 24 (four less than the difference in parties) is not.
Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (Score:4, Informative)
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Stuff that matters (Score:4, Informative)
From the FAQ:
Slashdot is many things to many people. Some people think it's a Linux site. To others, it's a geek hangout. I've always worked very hard to make sure that Slashdot matches up with my interests and the interests of my authors. We think we're pretty typical Slashdot readers... but that does mean that occasionally one of us might post something that you think is inappropriate. You might be interested in my Omelette rant. [slashdot.org]
Personally, I have a pet peeve when people post comments saying things like "That's not News For Nerds!" and "That's not Stuff that Matters!" Slashdot has been running for almost 5 years, and over that time, I have always been the final decision maker on what ends up on the homepage. It turns out that a lot of people agree with me: Linux, Legos, Penguins, Sci (both real and fiction). If you've been reading Slashdot, you know what the subjects commonly are, but we might deviate occasionally. It's just more fun that way. Variety Is The Spice Of Life and all that, right? We've been running Slashdot for a long time, and if we occasionally want to post something that someone doesn't think is right for Slashdot, well, we're the ones who get to make the call. It's the mix of stories that makes Slashdot the fun place that it is.
Summary of the accusations (Score:5, Informative)
Whether the result of lies, a lack of willingness to believe contrary viewpoints, or maybe even idiocy (I think he's too smart for that, evil or not), the accusations carry no mention of where he made statements under oath. Statements included are from two press interactions, five interviews, and a speech. While in some cases very public, there are no cases there where he was speaking under oath.
Article II: Cheney lied about connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda
Again, there was no oath taken for the occasions mentioned. Four speeches and five interviews are mentioned, but again, at no time during these was he under oath.
Article III: Cheney has threatened use of force against Iran
Three cases where he said that no options are off the table and one where he explained the placement of an extra carrier in the Persian Gulf are used as evidence here. Every president for the last few decades has used carriers to send messages to other countries, and saying that no options are off the table is application of diplomatic pressure. He never said that if Iran doesn't stop, the US will flatten it.
Impeachment is for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." He has not committed treason as defined in the Constitution ("levying War against [the Untied States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"); he is not accused of taking bribes; and it's unlikely that misdirection of the sort listed would come under a "high Crime" or "Misdemeanor," or else every person subject to impeachment could probably be pulled from office for making a political statement that someone on the opposing party doesn't like.
I wasn't especially fond of the idea of Clinton's impeachment, and I don't think Cheney warrants it here. This is a waste of time given that a) it's unlikely to garner enough House votes to continue even if it does get past committee, and b) it's essentially impossible for it to get a conviction in the Senate.
Here's the video of it... (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJYbgouqlMw [youtube.com]
Re:Paris Hilton (Score:2, Informative)
Frontline special about Dick Cheney on PBS (Score:5, Informative)
PBS recently had a one hour episode of Frontline about Dick Cheney on October 16, 2007. It well researched and went into great detail about Dick Cheney and David Addington's quest to expand presidential power in ways that were both legally and constitutionally questionable. Expanding presidential power was a major part of their efforts to perform domestic spying and to be allowed to use torture on suspected terrorists.
If I remember correctly, that episode of Frontline did not say very much, about the alleged manipulating of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. Most of its criticisms of Dick Cheney were for different reasons than what were mentioned in the Washington Post article.
Re:a little tweak (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:3, Informative)
Bush just this week set a new record in Presidential approval ratings: his approval rating is the lowest Presidential approval rating in Gallup's history [editorandpublisher.com], lower even than Nixon's during the Watergate scandal. 50% "strongly disapprove" of President Bush. Only 31% approve.
In two separate articles, I've seen Cheney's approval rating mentioned as 9% and 11%. I could not find a good recent article citing it, surprisingly.
Congress has an approval rating of 23%. It is important to note though, that historically Congress's approval rating is usually between 20-40% [gallup.com].
I agree, though, that we should throw out both those who have abused their positions, as well as those that stood by and let it happen.
Re:Spindot (Score:4, Informative)
Congress has yet to successfully pass [loc.gov] an appropriations bill this year, and it's already November. The continuing resolution that was passed at the end of September to prevent the government from shutting down expires at the end of next week. Nevertheless, Congress has focused on waging battles on political hotbutton topics like SCHIP instead of fulfilling their annual responsibilities. Miring the Senate down in impeachment proceedings is the last thing the Democrats need, and they know it - otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about the supposed "success" of burying the impeachment resolution in committee, because Cheney would be sitting in front of a bunch of Senators right now.
The Republicans decided that their best strategy would be to call the Democrats' bluff, by forcing the issue into debate and recorded votes. Personally, I disagree with this strategy - the vote to table the resolution was good enough affirmation to me that Cheney doesn't actually merit impeachment, the slightly-more-marginalized MoveOn.org's cries of anguish notwithstanding. But it did move Kucinich's circus into a more prominent position in the national media, and what with the media's feeding frenzy over his UFO comments, the timing was uncanny.
Re:Why is this on /.? (Score:5, Informative)
How did anyone get this idea that Slashdot is not supposed to post political or non-technology stories? For one, the slogan of the site is "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." Second, there is a Politics main section on Slashdot, and the slogan for it (look at the very top of this page) is "Politics for Nerds. Your vote matters." Third, this story came from the Firehose, so it was likely voted up by Slashdot readers themselves.
To me, all this indicates that Slashdot posts and promotes stories that intelligent people might be interested in reading and discussing.
Besides all that, Slashdot gives you the ability to filter out from the front page stories from any section that you don't like, right here: Customize Slashdot's Display [slashdot.org]
Hey, at least it isn't like Digg.
Re:Replacement had Nothing to do with it! (Score:5, Informative)
You may have Nixon confused with Andrew Johnson the 17th president who was impeached. In fact impeachment proceedings failed to make it out of committee in 1867 and then impeachment was successful in 1868. Johnson was acquitted by one vote in the Senate by
Edmund G. Ross of Kansas.
Debate the Republicans want (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:2, Informative)
No, but removing the right of habeas corpus is.
So is knowingly revealing the identity of a covert intelligence officer.
So is spying on US citizens without a warrant.
So is torture.
So is holding US citizens indefinitely without trial.
Need I go on?
Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:5, Informative)
Damn, I love tired old horseshit day on Slashdot...every day.
You do understand that everything in that paragraph you wrote is true, up until 50 years ago, right? Most of the "democrats" you describe were southerners and switched to the GOP in the 60s.
Granted, I don't understand why somebody like Byrd is even drawing breath, but the R and D parties you describe don't exist anymore and have almost zero relevance on today's politics.
Re:Debate the Republicans want (Score:5, Informative)
Where by "significantly in the minority" [americanre...hgroup.com], you mean 54 percent.
Re:Summary of the accusations (Score:2, Informative)
No, you don't. But why are you quibbling about breaking laws (which they have done: see Plame, FISA, using gvt services for partisan gain) when they've broken Amendments?
Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath
No, he wasn't, and no, he didn't. The Republicans impeached him because they wanted to impeach him, just as Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted to invade Iraq. And Clinton did not lie because in the trial, "sexual relations" was defined as intercourse. As blow jobs are not intercourse, he did not lie.
that's called perjury and it's illegal.
Wrong again. At least your are consistent. Even if he did lie, a lie is only perjury if it is relevant to the case at hand. As the judge ruled that whatever happened between Bill and Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case, it was not perjury.
Besides, if we investigated and re-investigated every inch of Bush's life the way Congress did Clinton, and gave a judge $60 million to investigate him yet again, I bet we could do just a little better than a manufactured perjury charge.
Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:3, Informative)
Yep, it's almost as if the grandparent had never heard of Dixiecrats. Southern Democrats. They all turned republican after the Civil rights movement happened, and blacks got to share water fountains with whites. LBJ said after signing the act "Well, we've lost the south for a generation". He was right.
GP can GTFO.
Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (Score:2, Informative)
a bit off on your timeframe (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Are you enlisted? (Score:4, Informative)
Also, I have one other point of contention. We did not "give Land we didn't own to the Jews." The British owned Palestine in every way that mattered after the downfall of the Ottoman Empire (vide: The Sykes-Picot Agreement, The Treaty of Sevres, The League of Nations Mandate For Palestine), and it was the British who went about creating the Israeli state under the auspices of the United Nations Partition Plan, which owed its ideological roots to a British internal policy memo from 30 years before known as The Balfour Declaration. When the Partition Plan fell apart due to squabbling between Arabs and Jews, the Brits pulled out. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq declared war on the Israelis and proceeded to invade them. The Israelis fought like hell using surplus World War II weaponry, and took their country for themselves. The United States didn't give them anything, although individual sympathizers within the country contributed money.
Hope this clears up a few points of, er, factual weakness.
Re:WHAT! (Score:3, Informative)