Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
United States Government Politics

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."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

House Narrowly Avoids Having to Debate Impeachment of Cheney

Comments Filter:
  • by ironwill96 ( 736883 ) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @07:33PM (#21274521) Homepage Journal
    The summary here is misleading (On /. Imagine That!). Sending something to committee is like calling your trashcan the inbox. He introduced something that didn't have enough support so it got referred to committee where it can be squashed into oblivion. Only if he could have gotten an open house vote on it would it have been a "success", now it will die quietly as have his other attempts to impeach Cheney.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ArcherB ( 796902 ) *
      Only if he could have gotten an open house vote on it would it have been a "success", now it will die quietly as have his other attempts to impeach Cheney.

      This thing didn't stand a chance in the House either. It was sent to committee to keep it from being debated on the House floor. Most Democrats are trying to distance themselves from the likes of Code Pink, ANSWER,, Karl Marx and people who see UFO's and try to communicate with trees. []

      This would not only been counter productive in that regard,
      • by hxnwix ( 652290 ) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @11:56PM (#21277263) Journal

        it would have also been seen as a complete waste of time
        Why? I'm not sorry that Kucinich taking away time from such important tasks as granting immunity to telecoms, subsidizing bridges to nowhere, molesting pages, starting wars, curtailing rights, denying net neutrality, approving nominees for attorney general who will not flat out state that waterboarding is torture, commending Rush Limbaugh for calling dissenting military personal "phony soldiers," rolling over to Bush on days that end with y...

        This is one of the few worthwhile things happening in the US federal legislature. My friend, please, for God's sake please stop watching American television.
  • Ya (Score:5, Funny)

    by moogied ( 1175879 ) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @07:35PM (#21274543)
    So basically, house and senate have done the following this year:

    Said they would not give the war anymore money without a pull out date. Decided to "investigate" steriods in baseball(May of been last year, don't remeber). Burned a couple of hours trying to get approval to TALK about *maybe* impeaching the Vice President.

    And what were the results?

    The war is still going on, there is no pull out date.

    A few key players got free publicity for there books. Helped me waste 3 minutes writing a response on slashdot that will be modded to -35, for retard.

    God bless America.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Bongo Bill ( 853669 )

      Helped me waste 3 minutes writing a response on slashdot that will be modded to -35, for retard.
      Please. The only way to get modded that low is to support both the war and Microsoft.
  • by schnikies79 ( 788746 ) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @07:36PM (#21274567)
    I'm sick of finger pointing. Focus on your agenda and work to get it passed. How many democrat bills have been passed vs. how many resolutions against bush and/or cheney?

    If they aren't passing because bush is vetoing, that means they aren't working hard enough to work together.

    It was bullshit when the impeached clinton, it's bullshit now.
  • Spindot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TopSpin ( 753 ) * on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @07:36PM (#21274571) Journal
    Here is another example of how one might choose to phrase a report [] of the exact same event:

    House Democrats on Tuesday narrowly managed to avert a bruising debate on a proposal to impeach Dick Cheney after Republicans, in a surprise maneuver, voted in favor of taking up the measure.
    You see, the Republicans supported Kucinich's latest hail mary because they know it would be an embaressment to the Democrats. With that support the vote passed and the house 'leadership' was force to bury it in a committee.

  • narrow? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Gogo0 ( 877020 ) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @07:48PM (#21274735)
    251-162 to even debate impeachment, and then rather than holding the debate that was voted for, it was decided to move it forward, failing 218-194.

    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.
  • by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @07:51PM (#21274765) Homepage Journal
    Article I: Cheney lied about intelligence regarding banned weapon programs

    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.
    • Hold up, here: He made false statements that helped send us to war, but he's not liable in any way because he didn't make them while under oath? Would he get away with shooting somebody, as long as he wasn't under oath?

      Actually, I guess he already did...

    • In other words (Score:5, Insightful)

      by copponex ( 13876 ) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @08:08PM (#21275007) Homepage
      The deaths of possibly hundreds of thousands of civilians and thousands of our own troops maimed and killed is not technically Cheney's fault, in purely legal terms. Nor the fault of the administration who supported and executed the war. I just have one question for these technical excuses for the immoral conduct of our entire government: where exactly does the buck stop? Who has the integrity to accept responsibility for their actions?

      They LIED about EVERY threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein posed, and not only once and in government reports, but MULTIPLE times while addressing the public. The fact that they weren't under oath is actually more evidence that they knew they weren't just being vague or coy, but completely dishonest. Anyone who claims otherwise is as full of shit as they were/are.
  • by Chazman ( 6089 ) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @07:54PM (#21274815) Homepage
    Please explain to me exactly *WHY* impeachment is not on the table. There have never been a President and Vice President of the United States *MORE* deserving of impeachment. The Vice President falsified an official intelligence report that was to become the basis of deciding whether or not to send this country to war, for crying out loud. The Vice President outed a CIA operative to settle a political score. The President has institutionalized the breaking of the Fourth Amendment on a massive scale and won't even let Congress, let alone the American people, have all the facts about what he's been doing. *NOT* impeaching them both has got to rank as one of the most gross miscarriages of justice in this nation's history.

    Pelosi, Hoyer: GROW A PAIR! Stand up for what's right! Do your job and uphold the Constitution!
  • by Araxen ( 561411 ) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @07:56PM (#21274843)
    Here it is straight from Youtube! []
  • by Rick17JJ ( 744063 ) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @08:10PM (#21275031)

    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.

  • Land of the brave? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cervantes ( 612861 ) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @08:23PM (#21275195) Journal
    So, impeachment is proposed. Everyones going to vote against it.
    And then the REPUBLICANS, see a chance to embarrass the DEMOCRATS, and decide to vote for it.
    Because the DEMS would be shamed to express their views that the VP is a liar and a cheat.
    And then the DEMS, not wanting to admit their shame, bury this in committee.
    So the REPUB VP, a liar and a cheat, gets to keep lying and cheating.
    And even though there's a valid proposal to look into it, no-one is willing to.

    Wow. Land of the free, home of the brave, right?
    • by lamber45 ( 658956 ) <> on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @09:03PM (#21275607) Homepage Journal
      Some of the things a parliamentary body can do with a committee are pretty cool. A couple of examples:

      1. In 1913, the dictator Victoriano Huerta was president of Mexico. He gave the congress an ultimatum: dissolve themselves, or he would dissolve them. The communication was read to a quorum of the body; they referred the matter to a committee and passed a motion to adjourn. Shortly thereafter most of the congressmen were arrested, but the congress was technically not dissolved because they had not acted on the motion.

      2. Just a couple weeks ago, my city council [] voted unanimously to deny an application to erect a cell-phone tower in a certain residential neighborhood. After the vote, the chair of the committee stated that the committee had thought it might be a good idea to develop a master plan identifying areas that actually would be good locations for cell-phone towers within the city boundaries. The council president moved to "receive the report", which means exactly nothing.

      Most governmental bodies (both legsilative and judicial) have a lot of different ways to not do something. Sometimes that's a good thing; both sides in a dispute can be angry at the government until they both grow up, or move to another city, or something.

  • by ngunton ( 460215 ) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @08:38PM (#21275339) Homepage
    I have never heard a clear explanation of exactly why Pelosi and Reid are so against the concept of impeachment. I mean, they actually seem hostile to it. Why is this? The only argument I've seen is that they are somehow "afraid of a backlash" but that seems like a very flimsy reason given the obvious sentiment rising in this country. It seems almost as if the Democrats are somehow actually on Bush's side in some way, and not on the side of "the people" any more. It's almost like the "Opposition party" got taken over by a bunch of Republicans who now take great pains to squelch anything that feels like actual opposition. And they make noises about stopping Bush, but then roll over at every opportunity and give him exactly what he asked for.

    I really, really dislike Bush, Cheney & Co. But I am truthfully starting to dislike the Democrats even more, if that's even possible - because it's somehow even worse to be stabbed in the back by a supposed friend than it is to be kicked in the face by your enemy (which you kind of expect). I feel like this country is now being betrayed just as much by the inaction of the Democrats as by the actions of the Republicans.
    • It all makes perfect sense when you consider that both major parties are in the pocket of big business. You see, this war may be an atrocity for Iraqi citizens, a lost cause for the military and a supreme embarrassment for the American People, but it means only one thing for corporations: profit. The Iraqi oil industry is being privatised, the electricity (what electricity is available, that is) is being privatised.. I wouldn't doubt one bit if they pull a "Chile" and attempt to privatise the water system a
  • Liberal Whining? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by localman ( 111171 ) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @09:12PM (#21275713) Homepage
    This article got tagged as "slashdotliberalwhining"? Are you fucking serious? Conservatives or liberal, you've got to be kidding if you don't think that George Bush and his administration has done more to damage this country than any president in your lifetime. No, seriously: forget about your pet cause, let go of the the party affiliation. Look at where we were five, ten, twenty years ago -- tell me where the improvements have been. By any measure, even conservative social goals, Bush and his administration have accomplished little if any good, and in every other area enormous bad. His approval rating is below what Nixon's was at the point of impeachment. And this article is "slashdotliberalwhining"? Get real.

    I'm a moderate. I respect candidates from across the spectrum. George Bush and his administration have been a goddamn nightmare.

    I don't care what your religious, political, or social affiliation is. If you don't recognize this administration as crap, you are in deep ignorance or denial.

    I love this country. And I could cry over what these people have done to us.
  • by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @10:24PM (#21276453)

    successfully moved articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney to the House Judiciary committee.

    He wasn't successful at all. Heck, the Republicans were voting in favor of the debate. It is more accurate to say: the articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney have been buried in the House Judiciary committee, and will not be seen again.

"You must have an IQ of at least half a million." -- Popeye