Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Politics Government

Resolution To Impeach VP Cheney Submitted 1202

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has submitted a resolution, HR 333, to impeach VP Dick Cheney on charges of "high crimes and misdemeanors." The charges were submitted on 24 April 2007. Congressman Kucinich has posted his supporting documents online, including a brief summary of the impeachment procedure (PDF), a synopsis (PDF), and the full text (PDF) of the impeachment resolution.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Resolution To Impeach VP Cheney Submitted

Comments Filter:
  • by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <barbara.hudson@b ... u d s o n . c om> on Thursday April 26, 2007 @08:52AM (#18883179) Journal

    "Congressman Dennis Kucinich is invited to go hunting with Cheney."

  • Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fishdan ( 569872 ) * on Thursday April 26, 2007 @09:32AM (#18883567) Homepage Journal
    It's an interesting play because the Dems do have enough votes to impeach Cheney -- but the Senate would never find him guilty by a 2/3rd majority. This is of course the same brilliant strategy that the dems have been using for the last 12 years in elections -- fighting and winning the meaningless battles, and losing the important ones -- which is why I despair for the 2008 election.

    In addition, once this road is crossed -- impeaching for , and every time the president/vp is in office, and a different party has a majority in the senate and house, you'll see an impeachment. It's the same thing that happened once the line was crossed with judicial appointments. Partisian politics has made almost every parties' political victory a Pyrrhic one for the American people. We get the shaft, while the politicians get rich fighting each other. We need a 3rd party...

    Finally, does Kucinich this this will help him get elected President?

    • Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zinnian ( 958511 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @09:48AM (#18883765)
      Partisan politics seem to get worse and worse every year. That being said, at least he is doing something. Some of it might be to get attention, but his politics in general have always struck me as more honest then most. I think he's well aware that he isn't going to be a mainstream candidate any time soon. He's WAY too far left for the country at this time. What he does do is make people think, and push the envelope a bit further. The polar opposite of someone like Delay or Gingrich that the Democrats need.
      • by Overzeetop ( 214511 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:00AM (#18883921) Journal
        ...were're just constantly amazed that it is as bad as it is, and presumeit couldn't have always been like this. History tends to disagree - politics has always been a nasty, dirty, hellhole.

        As a centrist, I would prefer neither end of the spectrum in the congress - we don't need a few more far-lefts to outweight the far-rights, we need less of both!
        • Then consensus would be needed to get ANYTHING done. I mean, it's not like we don't have enough laws already...this system could help curb the 'look at me' laws passed to make a politician look 'proactive' but which don't do anything really new.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward
            You really really don't want that to happen. Most likely, U.S. politics will end up being just like France [wikipedia.org]'s, where street protests are a normal part of politics, and where extermists can get quite far (e.g. Le Pen). Worse, you could end up with politics like Italy [ft.com]'s or Israel's.
            • by macro187 ( 1079859 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @11:34AM (#18885465)
              Street protests are a normal part of politics in a democracy, you dough-head. Including in the US. You just don't see it because All Your Media are belong to about 3 people.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by teflaime ( 738532 )
            I too am contantly amazed that anyone wants the incompetent boobs they elect to actually do anything. I alwasy for for the person I think will create the most gridlock so the government can't actually screw as much up!
        • What exactly is a centrist? The right has fought a successful campaign over the last 30 years or so to move the center to the right. What was once moderate left is now considered far left. What was moderate right is now considered centrist. What was far right is now right, and what was once considered bug-fuck insane is now simply far right.

          The whole left right thing is a bit of a red herring anyway. I prefer to skip the shorthand and go straight to candidates' records on the issues that are important to me.
          • by Austerity Empowers ( 669817 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @11:34AM (#18885461)
            I'm not sure, it seems to me that what is right, and what has left, has turned 90 degrees. I used to be on the right, but now I think both parties are bug-fuck insane. The republicans seem to have gone totally fascist. Another 8 years of that shit and we're going back 200 years to a religious monarchy. The democrats are mostly the same, but don't especially like the religion side of things. I think they'll lead us to just a plain old bureacratic dictatorship, that eventually will collapse under several tons of BS.

            No one is out there for personal freedom. No one is out there who can say that the job of the government is to protect citizens from both enemies abroad, and the domestic ones: primarily corporations, especially those with large legal budgets. Really none of the candidates are afraid of the citizens much anymore, we're just tools in a phony holy war of the inconsequential.

          • by plasmacutter ( 901737 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @11:37AM (#18885521)
            with the success of the right wing campaign to reclassify righ as center and center as left.... there are no candidates representing the actual left, which make up the majority of the population, hence low voter turnout.

            maybe instead of allowing news pundits in the ivory tower to scare them off their populist positions, candidates for the left should plough forward and see what kind of interest they can develop in the 250+ million people who didn't vote in the last few elections because the only candidates to choose from were a corporate schill and a corporate schill who happens to be christian.
          • by christurkel ( 520220 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @11:42AM (#18885633) Homepage Journal
            You nailed it. The political spectrum has been moving right but the social spectrum is moving left (gay marriage, medicinal pot,etc) and thus you have this tension, this sharp divide between red state and blue state.
            • by Paulrothrock ( 685079 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @12:09PM (#18886153) Homepage Journal

              The idea of a "red state" and a "blue state" is fallacious. Almost every county in the past presidential election broke right down the middle, except for a few counties in the heart of Kansas and Utah which were solidly red and some in California and New York that were solidly blue.

              So that tells me that the divide is less between states and more between people. The red vs. blue idea is counterproductive, and is only peddled by talking-head pundits (for whom I have zero respect) to create conflict and thereby create a news story.

        • by Watson Ladd ( 955755 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:39AM (#18884507)
          The Democrats are a far-right party by the standards of the rest of the world.
          • by DragonWriter ( 970822 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @03:10PM (#18889279)

            The Democrats are a far-right party by the standards of the rest of the world.

            More accurately, at least by the standards of the developed West, the Democratic Party is mostly a center-right party and the Republican Party a far right party. The relatively exclusionary electoral system in the US that produces alienation and low turnouts tends to suppress participation mostly on the left (this follows the experience in most of the West, where more participation tends to pull the system to the Left more, and less pulls it to the Right) and skew the entire political spectrum to the Right; also, the US leans culturally more the Right than most of the West before that exclusion, perhaps in large part do to the degree of religiosity and particularly the uniquely strong cultural influence of Protestant Fundamentalism in the US.

            That the US also has geographic distortions in its political system which tend to give more political power to regions that tend (overall) lean to more to the (for the US) Right, compared to those that lean, overall, more to the local Left combines with the other sources of distortion to produce a particularly right-leaning trend in government in the US.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by SengirV ( 203400 )
          I don't know. I'd say it's getting worse when you attempt to impeach the other's sitting president back to back. Maybe if Hillary is elected in 2008, then 3rd time will be the charm.
      • Re:Unwinnable (Score:4, Insightful)

        by rblancarte ( 213492 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:12AM (#18884085) Homepage
        Doing something? Yes.

        Doing something well? No.

        This is one of the biggest problems that the democrats have had since, well as long as I can remember. The GP post was spot on. But add to this the fact that the Dems biggest issue is that they do things so directionless. Actions for the sake of actions, without really having a plan how to make them go or what to do once they have gotten there. You look at the republicans, their biggest strength is the fact that they can come together and have a goal, as a whole party (can you say "Contract with America"?) and then work as a group to make it happen. The Dems strike me more as just a bunch of guys who are on the same team, but seem oblivious to each other.

        What will kill this is that it has no legs. It has no public support. I mean, if Kucinich really wanted to give this a shot, he and the Dems should have made a stink about everything they are going after with the specific point of getting this very well talked about in the public. Let the masses get a bit angry about it, and better yet get the feeling of an action such as this. If it has some merit, it will start to gain support. THEN, once it really has legs, go after it full force where people will KNOW that this is really going on.

        Hell, right now, hitting the Times front page - NOTHING, which means that this move is pointless. Without the public talking about this, you might as well not even try it.

        • Re:Unwinnable (Score:4, Informative)

          by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:19AM (#18884207) Homepage Journal
          The problem isn't that the general public isn't supporting it. The problem is the mainstream media can's say the word "impeachment" without almost laughing. They talk about it like it's a silly passing throught. If they took it seriously they'd report it seriously and discuss it. The general public would easily support it being Cheney is hated even more than Bush. But most of the public doesn't know anyone is actually working towards impeachment hearings while in fact a lot of work has been going on across the country. The mainstream media needs to properly report it.
          • The problem isn't that the general public isn't supporting it.

            The problem is that nobody takes Kucinich seriously, even within his own party. He's maybe not quite as ridiculous as Ralph Nader or Jesse Jackson on the list of "hopeless ideologues who continually run for President," but he's definitely on that list. Hell, he gets regularly ridiculed by Jon Stewart, who is practically the mainstream Democratic party's mouthpiece on national television. He is, in general, a loose cannon, and I doubt that earns him many friends on either side of the aisle. (Well, some Republicans might secretly like him just because of his entertainment value, and because he creates things they can point at and use to condemn Democrats in general with; e.g. his proposals to ban handguns make for great NRA campaign fodder.)

            None of the real players in Congress are going to touch this, because they don't want to be associated with him. He's practically famous for introducing feel-good bills with no cosponsors, that get him a little media attention and then get tossed in the circular file in committee.
        • Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)

          by radtea ( 464814 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @11:58AM (#18885959)
          Hell, right now, hitting the Times front page - NOTHING, which means that this move is pointless. Without the public talking about this, you might as well not even try it.

          This is the question the rest of us are asking: what will it take for the American people to wake up?

          Here in Canada we are having a major flap about Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan following NATO protocols for the war there and turning their POWs over to Afghan forces, in possible violation of the Geneva Conventions and international treaties on torture. There's some evidence of incompetence in the government's handling of the problem, but so far little or no evidence of wilful wrongdoing. And yet the Minister of Defence is likely to be out on his ear over it, and it could well be a significant issue in the next election.

          In the U.S. you have a government that has suspended habeas corpus, lied to the public for the purpose of invading a peaceful nation that had no ability to do you any harm, and continues to spend your children and grandchildren into poverty.

          Why don't you care?

      • Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Informative)

        by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot <slashdot AT pudge DOT net> on Thursday April 26, 2007 @11:16AM (#18885121) Homepage Journal

        Partisan politics seem to get worse and worse every year.
        No, it doesn't. It's actually far better than it used to be, back when the sitting Vice President hired a newspaperman to slander the sitting President, just because they were from different parties. Thomas Jefferson not only hired James Callendar to lie about John Adams, he himself lied about Adams' plan to peacefully end the Quasi-War with France -- even though he agreed with Adams' plan! -- in order to make the plan fail, just so he could have a better chance to win the presidency himself.

        Of course, some of this was after Adams' party, the Federalists, voted to make it illegal for Jefferson's party, the Democrat-Republicans, to criticize the Federalists. And people went to jail for it.
    • Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CelticWhisper ( 601755 ) <celticwhisper AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday April 26, 2007 @09:52AM (#18883813)

      We need a 3rd party...
      We have them. Plenty of them. Just having them isn't enough if people don't vote for them. Spread the word, get people to look beyond the Republicrats, and then we have a chance to really shake things up.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by harks ( 534599 )
        Is it just me, or do all the third parties seem a bit too extremist to be taken seriously? They've all got something just completely unworkable, like a $16/hr minimum wage or privatizing all roads and education.

        I'm not sure the solution is another party. I think the solution is a fundamental change to our government that reduces the necessity of parties. Like instant runoff voting.

        Also, something needs to be done about gerrymandering. I don't have the exact specifics, but 90-something percent of House
        • Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Quiet_Desperation ( 858215 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:22AM (#18884255)

          Also, something needs to be done about gerrymandering.

          I've been preaching anti-gerrymandering for years. If there is ONE problem you had point to as truly fundamental, that's it. Here in California we have term limits on state offices, but the way the districts are drawn, you just get another extremist when the previous extremist has to leave.

          We had a ballot initiative to change the redistricting process, but people are so stupid that voted against it. From what I gathered after the election, it was one of those initiatives people voted against because they didn't understand it, or they turned off their mind and listened to whatever ideological sewage source they favor.

          Also, the Big Government groups and unions ran their typical "this proposition will eat your children and torture your pets" types of ads complete with ominous music. For fuck's sake you;d think society would have evolved an immunity to that crap by now. It's constantly parodied and made fun of, but droves still fall for it like brainless lemmings.

          Is it any wonder I'm a total misanthrope? :-) Seriously, I consider any other view on humanity to be hopelessly ignorant.

          I find less than 1 in 10 people even know what gerrymandering is. If anyone has a solution to stupid, ignorant voters coupled with evil politicians, I'd like to hear it, cuz I'm out of ideas.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by truthsearch ( 249536 )
            I looked up gerrymandering just to make sure it means what I thought it means. I found this very interesting and humorous...

            ORIGIN early 19th cent.: from the name of Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts + salamander , from the supposed similarity between a salamander and the shape of a new voting district on a map drawn when he was in office (1812), the creation of which was felt to favor his party: the map (with claws, wings, and fangs added), was published in the Boston Weekly Messenger, with the tit

        • Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)

          by rblancarte ( 213492 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:23AM (#18884263) Homepage
          It isn't just you. I also have to agree, they all run on way out their platforms. You forgot walling off the border.
          Another problem is that they are currently seen as nothing more than extreme versions of our current 2 parties. And then we had elections recently where they were seen as taking away votes from candidates that had a chance/might have won.

          I think more parties would really help. Just look at France where they had 5 candidates for their Presidency. It gives more options and better representation of the people.

          What the 3rd Parties need to do is be smart about making inroads. Don't go after the Presidency right off the bat, it is a waste of money and energy. Work in roads in more local government and at the congressional level. Once the party has good support, THEN start making a run at the Presidency with viable candidates. Eventually that would help them break through.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by lawpoop ( 604919 )
            The problem is that our simple-majority, winner-take-all electoral system pretty much guarantees that there will only be two parties. If you were interested in seeing a conservative agenda in 1992, and you voted for Ross Perot, it was almost as bad as voting for Clinton. There was no way that Ross Perot could get enough votes to win, and all you were doing was taking your vote away from Bush Sr., who would more likely govern the way you'd want to see. The same thing happened with Ralph Nader voters in 2000.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Rolgar ( 556636 )
              I'd like to see primaries be up or down for every candidate, or vote for up to your top 10, and no party ballots, and all states vote the same day. Then instead of getting candidates fighting for the extremist positions within their parties' fringe to cobble together enough votes to win the primary, several or most of the candidates will be trying to go to the middle and trying to pick and choose issues from both sides of the political spectrum to pick up support from more than half of the voting public.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by AndersOSU ( 873247 )
          Gerrymandering is no doubt a very serious problem, especially in states like Texas, California, and Ohio. It is interesting to note that of the three examples I just gave, one is a red state, another a blue state, and the third a swing state, so everyone is doing it.

          However, a big part of the reason that so few house races are close is because large swaths of the country vote the same. It's a fact of life that a Dem isn't going to be elected to the house in Nebraska unless he's a football player or someth
        • Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Interesting)

          by swillden ( 191260 ) * <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:49AM (#18884681) Homepage Journal

          Like instant runoff voting.

          A change to the voting method might be a good idea, but not instant runoff.

          It's easy to demonstrate mathematically, and easy to see in the places that have implemented IRV, that IRV doesn't reduce the political value of parties, nor does it effectively enable more than two parties to compete or allow voters to safely choose their preferred party rather than one of the big two. As soon as a third party gains enough votes to threaten one of the major parties, voters risk putting the major party candidate they hate most in office if they vote for the the third-party candidate.

          To see intuitively how that happens, you just need to note that the rising third party will draw its support from the ranks of the major party that is most similar to it, thus effectively strengthening the major party that is most different from it. Yes, voters who vote will the third party will rank the closer major party as their second choice, but if the third party gains enough power, it will knock this major party out of the running in the first round, then lose in the instant runoff to the other major party.

          What IRV does do is allow third parties to rise in power and prominence to the point that they can have a say in the debate, even though it doesn't allow them to actually win. That's a good thing, but the effect is limited by the fact that the third party is unlikely ever to win unless it can so thoroughly defeat the more similar of the major parties that it effectively becomes one of the two top parties. And during the transition era, from third party to major party, it strengthens the major party most different from it.

          But assuming we could muster the political will to change the system, there are options other than IRV that don't suffer these weaknesses. The best known voting methods use the Condorcet pairwise evaluation method, and it can be shown mathematically that those methods do an excellent job of reflecting voter will in elections. Condorcet methods can even satisfy a slightly-weakened form of Arrow's Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives axiom, which means that if you can accept that weakening of IIA, they're perfect voting systems.

          The downside to pairwise evaluation is that while it's actually straightforward to understand and implement (simpler, in fact, than IRV!), it's conceptually complex. IMO, the best of all possible options is also the very simplest: Approval voting. In approval voting, you have a list of candidates and you mark all you find acceptable. Whoever gets the most marks wins. In some formulations if no candidate gets at least 50% approval then the election must be run again with a new slate, but that's optional. The weakness of approval voting is that it doesn't allow voters to rank their preferences, so there's information that is lost. The strengths are that approval voting does a perfect job of reflecting the information it is given, without any ambiguities or paradoxes; does not support a two-party system; does not penalize individuals for supporting other parties; and is dead simple to understand.

          The other approach that seems to work reasonably well for empowering more parties is the proportional representation system. The downside to that is that it means you are truly voting for a party rather than for a person, and I and many other Americans prefer to vote for the man, not the party (excepting where they both suck, which is increasingly the norm).

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by C0rinthian ( 770164 )
        Don't look at me, I voted for Kodos.
    • by wonkavader ( 605434 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @09:55AM (#18883849)
      Woa -- I think you're off base here on two levels.

      One -- If you can't win, you still have to do it. You cannot let crimes go, even if you cannot succeed in convicting. The problem is not this president/VP. The problem is the next one. To not impeach is to say "if the congress isn't dominated by the other house, you can do anything you want."

      Two -- Cheny's not the target. Cheney's going to have to defend himself, and his interactions with the president will come out. It's at least possible that real solid evidence against the president will emerge.

      This isn't stupid, it's both the right thing to do, and may help land the big one.

      Besides, even Republicans hate Cheney. He's an easier target.
      • by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @11:00AM (#18884845) Journal

        Two -- Cheny's not the target. Cheney's going to have to defend himself, and his interactions with the president will come out. It's at least possible that real solid evidence against the president will emerge.
        Tha'ts it, in a nutshell. Impeachent proceedings are the only way that the Bush administration can be forced to testify under oath.

        I think Kucinich is not only headhunting, he's hunting for truth... where that truth leads is anyone's guess.

        To blame the Dems (not that you did) for politicization of impeachment is a bit off... the administration and their allies can cry foul all they want, but it seems to me that Bush & Co have been acting like they have a get-out-of-jail free card simply because Clinton was impeached. Not only that, but if there were not impeachable actions taken, it would be a moot point -- so any finger-pointing needs to be directed at the administration, not it's critics.

        The OP should remember that it's not just the right, but the duty, of the public (and their representatives) to question elected officials.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by metlin ( 258108 )

      We need a 3rd party...
      They're called Libertarians. Not that there aren't others, but at least these guys genuinely care for your freedom.
      • Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Watson Ladd ( 955755 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:44AM (#18884603)
        No, they do not. They care only about freedom from state coercion, not from economic coercion. (It's the difference between positive and negative freedom)
      • Sort of. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Valdrax ( 32670 )
        True in a way, but they unfortunately go so far as to disregard the need for checks and balances in massive inequalities of private power. Libertarians are simply under the delusion that a perfect free-market system is "fair" and allows anyone with enough gumption to rise to the top and ignores the inherent interest of those with financial clout in tilting the system to be as biased in favor of their offspring as possible. Basically, Libertarians only care about your freedom from government and your freed
    • Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sadler121 ( 735320 ) <msadler@gmail.com> on Thursday April 26, 2007 @09:57AM (#18883883) Homepage

      We need a 3rd party...

      No, we don't. We need to get rid of all parties. The American political system was not built for parties. If you read the Federalist papers, and other writings, the founders where very weary of parties, or 'factions'. Specifically in Federalist Paper number 10 where Madison declares that the system of checks and balances set up in the Constitution is meant to limit the power of factions to rule of the majority, giving rise to wait has been describe as tyranny of the minority.

      Get rid of parties and you will get rid of a good deal of the crap that has come into the Republic.
      • Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)

        by lawpoop ( 604919 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @11:27AM (#18885341) Homepage Journal
        "The American political system was not built for parties... the founders where very weary of parties"

        The American political system, however unintentionally, was de facto built for two parties. However weary the founder were of parties, they did institute a system that creates the perfect environment for two parties. It's the natural outcome when you combine a simple-majority, winner-take-all system with human nature. People naturally form groups of all kinds. You can't prevent political parties from forming without throwing out our rights of free speech and free association. Because a simple-majority election means that any 3rd party candidate is a throw-away vote, we now have a 2 party system.

        If we want more than two parties, we have to adopt one of the electoral systems found elsewhere in the world, where 3rd parties have actually won seats. If we want no parties, well, we have to think of a new system and try it out, see if it works. Wash, rinse, repeat.
      • As wary as Madison was of parties, he failed to understand two fundamental things.

        First, parties are inevitable. From an economic standpoint, they represent a pooling of resources that is more efficient for campaigning than individual candidates all going it alone. From a social standpoint, they are the result of likeminded individuals coming together for the same goals -- political bent in many ways is tied strongly enough to personality types and the background of your upbringing that it was inevitable
    • Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Absimiliard ( 59853 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:03AM (#18883961)

      In addition, once this road is crossed -- impeaching for , and every time the president/vp is in office, and a different party has a majority in the senate and house, you'll see an impeachment.
      Road already crossed thanks. As with most partisan political things in this day and age the Republicans got there first, with the most.

      Personally I'd rather impeach over 'high crimes and misdemeanors' than blowjobs. But hey, I'm only fiscally conservative, all those socially conservative memes went to my born-again brother.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Blakey Rat ( 99501 )
        Uh. Lying under oath is a pretty serious offense. I'd be more concerned if a President *wasn't* impeached for an accusation like that with good evidence behind it. It doesn't matter which political party is involved.
    • Re:Unwinnable (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GOD_ALMIGHTY ( 17678 ) <curt...johnson@@@gmail...com> on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:20AM (#18884223) Homepage
      It's an interesting play because the Dems do have enough votes to impeach Cheney -- but the Senate would never find him guilty by a 2/3rd majority.

      Maybe that's why Kucinich can't find any co-sponsors. Not one.

      This is of course the same brilliant strategy that the dems have been using for the last 12 years in elections -- fighting and winning the meaningless battles, and losing the important ones -- which is why I despair for the 2008 election.

      No, this is Kucinich's brilliant strategy, not the Dems. It's been working for Kucinich though, he keeps getting re-elected. Not that the Dems don't have a record of dropping the ball, and not that the media doesn't play Steno Sue for the GOP enough, but why the hell would the actions of Representative Kucinich make you despair? He's been doing this crap for years, sometimes people agree with him, sometimes they roll their eyes. When he can't get any co-sponsors, they're rolling their eyes.

      In addition, once this road is crossed -- impeaching for , and every time the president/vp is in office, and a different party has a majority in the senate and house, you'll see an impeachment. It's the same thing that happened once the line was crossed with judicial appointments.

      Personally, I think Cheney and Bush have done more than enough to be impeached. Between the Abramoff corruption, fraudulently pursuing a war, the aftermath of Katrina, the US Attorney scandal and outing a CIA agent, the Federalist Papers make it clear that these two meet the criteria. Politically, I don't believe it's feasible right now, nor would it be well timed, given the number of investigations that are currently underway. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if during the course or after some of these investigations finish up that it became more politically feasible. There's a year till the primaries are done, there may be a lot of incumbents that need to distance themselves from this administration even more.

      Partisian politics has made almost every parties' political victory a Pyrrhic one for the American people.

      The American people wouldn't know objectivity if it slapped them in the face. BTW, what is this supposed to mean? The Dems political victory in October finally started to clamp down on the obscene amount of fraud and corruption after 6 years of a Rubber Stamp Congress.

      We get the shaft, while the politicians get rich fighting each other. We need a 3rd party...

      Dude, lay off the bong and get out of your dorm room. We get the shaft, because we don't fucking organize. Everybody loves to sit and whine about what's fucking wrong with politics, but the vast majority of you don't meaningfully participate. When is the last time you actually went to a Dem or GOP party meeting? You know, the one's where they plan and talk about who they're going to support and what they're going to do to get people elected. Every political meeting I attend, it's the same group of people, every rally, every candidate meeting, every fund raiser. Political power is simply laying there for you to grab, but very few people actually are willing to put in the work it takes to make the changes you want. This is not some new uncharted territory we're in, people have been successfully changing things around this place for the past 200 years. Really it would be hard to make this any easier, especially for WASPs.

      If you don't like that the Democrats keep screwing up, then go take over your local Democratic Party. If you think you know better and you weren't around to mention that when it mattered, what use is your knowledge?

      Finally, does Kucinich this this will help him get elected President?
      No. But it will raise him money for his re-election campaign and maybe he naively believes it will get the ball rolling or something. Whatever, I have to go roll my eyes now.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Watson Ladd ( 955755 )
      Have you even seen a daily newspaper in the past year? This isn't about partisan politics. This is about lying to get us into a war. If our leaders are being manipulated, democracy fails. Just because the Democrats are impeaching a Republican doesn't mean they are wrong.
    • Re:Unwinnable (Score:4, Interesting)

      by peacefinder ( 469349 ) <alan...dewitt@@@gmail...com> on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:37AM (#18884467) Journal
      "It's an interesting play because the Dems do have enough votes to impeach Cheney -- but the Senate would never find him guilty by a 2/3rd majority. This is of course the same brilliant strategy that the dems have been using for the last 12 years [...]"

      It's worth noting that Mr. Kucinich ain't exactly part of the Democratic leadership. He's as far off the Democratic reservation as Ron Paul is off the Republican reservation. Whether this reflects prudence or cowardice among the leadership is left as an exercise for the reader.

      "Finally, does Kucinich this this will help him get elected President?"

      He's playing to his national base, which is solidly anti-war* and pro-impeachment. This action may not be sufficient for him to win the Presidency, but it is necessary for him to do this to have any chance at all.

      [*: It's worth noting also that Kucinich has been against this war right from the start. And if I recall correctly, he's one of a very, very small number of people to have voted against the mis-named patriot act.]
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hxnwix ( 652290 )
      What would you have the Democrats do? By your rationale, they shouldn't hold the executive branch accountable for anything, since they don't have the power to override the president's veto.

      If Nader were speaker of the house, your loser logic would be just as applicable.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by xappax ( 876447 )
      In addition, once this road is crossed -- impeaching for , and every time the president/vp is in office, and a different party has a majority in the senate and house, you'll see an impeachment.

      Fine with me, I wish they would impeach more often, regardless of party. Even if it does consume a lot of government time, money, and public attention, the overall effect of regularly dragging our politicians through the coals for their misdeeds is priceless.

      As citizens, we need public officials to fear us, and
  • Yep, it will fly... (Score:3, Informative)

    by WED Fan ( 911325 ) <akahige@@@trashmail...net> on Thursday April 26, 2007 @09:51AM (#18883801) Homepage Journal

    ...but the problem is, this guy has less crediblity than the late Henry B. Gonzalez (D) San Antonio, TX who, on an almost monthly basis called for a Reagan impeachment all through the 80's.

    This is nothing more than a political stunt, and only half a degree more effective than the Olympia city clownsil (Washington) passing a resolution calling for the impeachment of Bush.

    • by dynamo ( 6127 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @03:44PM (#18889843) Journal
      Dennis Kucinich has more credibility than the whole white house put together. What the hell are you talking about? He's the only one who didn't have to completely switch loyalties on Iraq, he voted against the patriot act before putting it down was cool -- that's just the slightest beginning, I will leave it at that to avoid a flame war here..

      But bottom line, check your facts, and his voting record. You owe an apology.
  • by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:12AM (#18884089) Journal
    Perhaps Mr. Kucinich's altruism would be a little less suspect if he wasn't simultaneously running for president himself?

    I'm not saying that he's not doing this for the very best of motives, but if one begins by presuming a purely malignant motivation for whatever Cheney's done, it would then be naked partisanship to assume anything but an equally malignant motivation for other politicians, no?
  • by justanyone ( 308934 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:20AM (#18884219) Homepage Journal
    The original announcement was to be Tuesday at noon.
    Cheney went to the hospital for a knee-blood-clot "emergency" in the morning.
    So, Kucinich delayed it until 5 pm when it was obvious there was no emergency with Cheney's health.

    The newsday got slammed with several other big stories:
    - EU says Wolfowitz should go;
    - UN says Bagdad surge not working;
    - House passes War-funding with timetable;
    - Cheney speaking at BYU (Utah) commencement w/ lots of protesters;
    - Very Conservative (not neocon) New Hampshire voting for Civil Unions

    So, yesterday/today is news-dense. The impeachment resolution had to compete.
  • Wow (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:24AM (#18884281) Homepage Journal
    Now that is an impeachment worth reading. The synopsis alone is a solid piece of attack.

    Let's see if your congresscritters have enough spine left to do follow the facts. Though I fear we will soon find out how much money Haliburton is willing to throw around in order to keep their sock puppet in office.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TopherC ( 412335 )
      I read the impeachment summary too, and liked it. But I don't think this will go anywhere. I'm jaded. I remember when this news came out, slashdotted in the NY Times I think, well before the 2004 presidential election. I remember thinking that this was an impeachable offense, and telling other conservative friends and family members about it. They did not believe me, and/or they didn't think it was really that bad. At least it wasn't nearly as bad in their opinions as the accusations in "Unfit for Com
  • by amper ( 33785 ) * on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:33AM (#18884411) Journal
    I urge all Slashdot readers to write their respective Congressional Representatives and voice their opinions. I have just done so.
  • by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:45AM (#18884615)
    The resolution would be "H.Res.333", not "H.R.333". If you want to read it in non-PDF form directly from the Library of Congress, look here. [loc.gov]
  • by nadamsieee ( 708934 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:57AM (#18884785)

    Not that I don't trust a politician to faithfully present God's honest truth or anything, but here is the actual text of the resolution:

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.res .00333: [loc.gov]

  • by ahfoo ( 223186 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @10:58AM (#18884817) Journal
    I've been following this story since last week when the plan was leaked and then through Wednesday's postponement due to concerns about Cheney's physical status and through yesterday's news conference. What blew me away was the total lack of coverage it was getting in any press. In particular NPR really made me feel let down. I listened to Morning Edition and All Things Considered non-stop for days and did not even hear the slightest mention of this while I sat through literally hours of interviews with neocon assholes like freaking William Kristol.
          What a sad indictment of what has become of the broadcast media. The above posts that mention the re-alignment of the "center" way off to the right is clearly evidenced by this example. NPR has no time to even mention the beinning of an impeachment of Cheney but, on the other hand, there's plenty of time for a pleasant chuckling interview with Billy Kristol on the brighter side of McCane's chances on this so-called left leaning media outlet.
  • by gsfprez ( 27403 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @11:12AM (#18885039)
    Practically everything that was said regarding Iraq's WMD prowess was also said by

    George Bush
    John McCain
    John Kerry
    Bill Clinton
    Hillary Clinton
    Robert Byrd
    Sandy "nothing in my underpants" Berger
    Madeline "Kim Jung Ill seems a nice guy" Albright
    Carl Levin
    Ted Fscking Kennedy
    Al Gore and a HOST of others...

    It begs the question why Kusinich is picking on Dick only?

    Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
    - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
    - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton.
    - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
    - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam H
    • by GOD_ALMIGHTY ( 17678 ) <curt...johnson@@@gmail...com> on Thursday April 26, 2007 @12:24PM (#18886397) Homepage
      Your attempt at false equivocation is completely dishonest. The Democrats have used a strategy of containment since Clinton was elected in 1992. It worked, there were no WMD to be found. Attempting to equivocate the fraudulent rush to war with a reasoned effort to contain a known danger is bs. Are you seriously going to argue that the interests of the United States have been served by the actions of this administration? And what freedoms or other traditions are Conservatives conserving if it is ok for the government to use my tax dollars to lie to me? How are the claims of the Bush administration not fraudulent? They were the ones advocating for war, they were the ones making the claims that a change in the course of action must be taken. Ineffective defense against fraud might lose you an election, but it is not grounds for impeachment, commission of said fraud is. The Democrats gave up their responsibility to criticize unsound evidence, but in the light of the fact that they were the minority party and could not win in either the House or the Senate their political expediency and deferment to a extremely popular president during an election season is reasonable. However, the Democrats sin was accepting the evidence as presented by the administration. Since then, they have repeatedly (except for Hillary) stated that they should not have trusted the Administration's claims and that doing so was a mistake. Again, all of the quotes you have about Iraq possessing WMD from 02/03 are based on information promoted by the White House that had no integrity. Quotes before then are based on a strategy of containment, not invasion.

      Show me the evidence from an actual intelligence agency that says Saddam had weapons in 2002 or 2003, hell anytime after 1998. Other than the rockets that exceeded the allowed range (which were destroyed before the war by inspectors and had no WMD warheads), Iraq possessed no capabilities to threaten the US or it's neighbors. The Democratic strategy of containment was working until Bush decided it wasn't good enough for his delusions. It's the same thing in N Korea, the !Clinton policy of the Bush Administration has managed in 2007 to get the same agreement Clinton got in 1995, but now Pyongyang has a couple more warheads it can sell to real terrorists. How did Bush's actions advance the interest of the United States? Why did we invade Iraq? To what purpose are our soldiers and treasure being spent?

      I'd really like someone to show me a person with actual intelligence credentials that believes invading Iraq was a good idea. Defectors provided by "heroes in error" over at the INC don't count, they have been exposed as frauds. Plagiarized thesis don't count either. Show me the CIA approved intelligence, show me the mid-level analysts who actually believed Saddam was capable of building nukes, would in a million years team up with Al Qaeda or provide them with WMD or would be stupid enough to attack the US with the amount of US military power already pointed at him.

      I want something that didn't come out of the the White House Iraq Group, the INC, the Office of Special Plans @ the Pentagon and that wasn't a delusion with no evidence (Atta in Prague). I seriously challenge you to come up with something.

      What Bush and Cheney said:

      DICK CHENEY: (Speech to the VFW 8/26/02) Many of us are convinced that Saddam Hussein will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon.

      DICK CHENEY: (Speech to the VFW 8/26/02) But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.

      DICK CHENEY (MEET THE PRESS NBC 9/8/02): It's now public that in fact he has been seeking to acquire and we have been able to intercept to prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge and the centrifuge is required to take low grade uranium and enhance it into highly enriched uranium which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb."

      PRESIDENT BUSH (Discussion with Congressional Lea
  • by lamplighter ( 73104 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @11:39AM (#18885567) Homepage Journal
    Let's look at the articles objectively (if that's even possible). Did Cheney commit any crimes, according to Kucinich? Note that lying in a political speech is not a crime (nearly every politician in the country would be behind bars if it were). Neither is lying to Congress, unless it's under oath, and we know how fervently the Bush Administration opposes testifying under oath. It's also not a crime to break a solemn promise, like the oath of office an elected official takes. These may be reasons not to reelect somebody (except that America did), but they're not crimes.

    Article I: Cheney lied about Iraqi WMDs. Reprehensible, yes. Cynical and morally bankrupt, yes. Criminal, unfortunately not.

    Article II: Cheney lied about a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. But again, not a crime under any law.

    Article III: Cheney's been rattling his saber at Iran. It may be foreign policy by sledgehammer rather than Xacto knife, but there's no law against this either.

    So although I would really, really like to see Cheney removed from office, Kucinich's articles of impeachment don't contain any actual crimes for which he could be tried. Not that that's stopped impeachment proceedings before, but there was a better case against Clinton, because he actually testified under oath. We have some truly reprehensible people leading our country, and they should be stopped before they get us into even more trouble, but unfortunately this isn't going to do it.
    • The requirements for impeachment are not criminal. Impeachment was designed as a way to prosecute political crimes, incompetence and unethical leaders. Criminality is most certainly grounds for impeachment, but it is not required. The Federalist Papers list a number of reasons to impeach a President, included (#10) is the replacement of skilled civil servants with incompetent or corrupt ones (Ahem, "Heckuva job Brownie!" or Al "I don't recall" Gonzales). Violating the oath of office is exactly why you impeach someone. Impeachment is a political trial, not a criminal one, you're arguments have no weight.

      The idea that there was a better case against Clinton is ludicrous. The Clinton impeachment was a setup funded and run entirely by dedicated professional political operatives. After 10 years of hounding the Clinton's, the best they could get was a married man lying about cheating on his wife? Whitewater, nothing, Sock's the cat's Christmas list, nothing, Travelgate, nothing, sexual harassment, nothing. The GOP congress issued over 1100 subpoenas during the Clinton administration and Clinton respected Congress' role, even allowing for a Special Prosecutor. The Bush administrations comical claims of executive privilege and the fact that Karl Rove is a walking Hatch Act violation who had a hand in leaking classified intelligence information for political purposes are grounds enough.

      You are right that Kucinich won't get the job done though. This is par for the course for Kucinich, that's why I've got my bets on Waxman and Conyers in the House and Leahy in the Senate. Their investigations should provide all the proof needed for both political and criminal prosecution.
  • by Un pobre guey ( 593801 ) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @12:39PM (#18886695) Homepage
    Congressman Lantos,

    Please support H Res 333, the articles of impeachment of Vice President R. Cheney submitted by Congressman D. Kucinich, in the most vigorous terms possible. The invasion of Iraq was an international crime, and I do not need to describe to you the colossal human, economic, and social costs that have already accrued, and that will increase in the future with the inevitable multi-faceted blowback that will result.

    Please make this your top priority and do everything in your power to recruit your colleagues in its support, and to ensure the successful impeachment of Mr Cheney.

    Thank you very much!

You can measure a programmer's perspective by noting his attitude on the continuing viability of FORTRAN. -- Alan Perlis