Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
United States Politics

35 Articles of Impeachment Introduced Against Bush 1657

vsync64 writes "Last night, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) spent 4 hours reading into the Congressional Record 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush. Interestingly, those articles (63-page PDF via Coral CDN) include not just complaints about signing statements and the war in Iraq, but also charges that the President "Sp[ied] on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment,' 'Direct[ed] Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens,' and 'Tamper[ed] with Free and Fair Elections.' These are issues near and dear to the hearts of many here, so it's worth discussing. What little mainstream media coverage there is tends to be brief (USA Today, CBS News, UPI, AP, Reuters)." The (Democratic) House leadership has said that the idea of impeachment is "off the table." The Judiciary Committee has not acted on articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney introduced by Kucinich a year ago.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

35 Articles of Impeachment Introduced Against Bush

Comments Filter:
  • by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @07:59PM (#23738649) Homepage Journal
    than Kucinich ever could. Many historians consider Bush to be one of the worst presidents in US history. And the funny thing is that Bush still believes that history will prove him RIGHT.....

    Plus, the Democrats are looking to rout the Republicans in November at least in the Senate and House(President is still a bit up in the air), doing something showboating like this can only benefit the Republicans.
    • by kharchenko ( 303729 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @09:01PM (#23739741)
      History is often a poor and indecisive judge. The Republican party will not dissappear and there will be plenty of people (including Bush himself) who will spend the rest of their days writing books on just how right they were. And while the general opinion of him and his sidekick will be certainly low, they will essentially carry no responsibility for their actions, and will spend the rest of their lives basking in the narrow but numerous circle of cronies. A very well-provided circle, I might add.
      • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @09:56PM (#23740593)
        What happens in the Middle East over all, but specifically in Iraq. If Iraq stabilises and becomes a flourishing democracy, it'll be attributed to Bush's visionary leadership. The flaws and the problems will be slowly forgotten, replaced with the idea of a leader willing to stand up and do the right thing and free people. He'll be hailed as a great president. If Iraq stays the same or degenerates, he'll be remembered as a failure, who screwed things up and was a really shitty president, maybe even the worst.

        A quote from a Bond film (which may have been somewhere else first but that's where I heard it) is "The line between genius and insanity is measured only by success." Well, there's some truth to that. Something that is "An insane stunt," when it fails can then become "A brilliant feat," when it succeeds. Success or failure often clouds how we evaluate the situation that lead to something.

        Thus it will most likely be for Bush. The Iraq war has been the major thing of his presidency, so it's outcome will likely shape how he is judged. Doesn't matter if it's outcome really has nothing to do with his actions, or is even in spite of his actions. If it comes out good, he'll likely be held up as a great president, if it comes out poorly he'll be held as one of the worst.
  • Sex vs. Violence (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheDarkener ( 198348 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @08:07PM (#23738779) Homepage
    How interesting is it that attempting to impeach a president because he got a BJ and lied about it gets so much more publicity than one who kills thousands in an unjust war, breaks the constitution, and effectively turns a "free" country into a police-state. /me weeps for the future
  • by Minwee ( 522556 ) <> on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @08:12PM (#23738877) Homepage
    Is that I finally have a good reason to use the phrase "Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D'OH!)" in casual conversation.
  • Kucinich... (Score:5, Funny)

    by crhylove ( 205956 ) <> on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @08:13PM (#23738905) Homepage Journal
    ... is awesome. He's the only candidate I would have bothered driving to the polls for, despite the fact that when I got there diebold would have just erased my vote.
  • by spirit_fingers ( 777604 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @08:18PM (#23738981)
    While I applaud Dennis Kucinich for introducing his articles of impeachment in the House, I also realize that there's zero chance that the House will do anything but sit on them. The current Congress is filled with chickenshit liars and cowards. These are mostly the same spineless toadies who voted for Bush's fascist Patriot Act and his bogus Iraq War. There's no way they're going to impeach him. If they did, they'd only be implicating themselves. After all, they colluded with Bush to make it all happen. They rubber stamped his belligerence at almost every turn, most Democrats included. And to the ones who said they didn't know that Bush was lying to them when they voted for the Iraq war, I say BULLSHIT. The rest of us knew. The rest of us sat in disbelief in front on our TVs every night while the Big Lie was played out for us. A few of us protested against the inevitable nightmare. The Congress and the corporate media ignored us. And only now, when it's popular and risk-free to do so, do they cry foul.
  • by McDutchie ( 151611 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @08:37PM (#23739359) Homepage

    On a related note...

    A BBC investigation estimates [] that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

    For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the BBC's Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources.

    A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.

    The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.

    (more [])

  • by el_munkie ( 145510 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @09:20PM (#23740035)
    After the 2006 election, Nancy Pelosi's first action as Speaker of the House was to take impeachment off the table. Why would she do that when the vast majority of the Democratic base clearly wanted it? Because, even if it had succeeded, it would have hurt the Democrats' chances in 2008. The first interest of the Democrats was to ensure that they remained in power, or solidified their grip on power. An obligation to the Constitution and their constituents was a second priority. And before anyone thinks I'm taking sides here, I'll say that both major parties do this.

    Why are they doing it now, when Bush has only seven months left in office rather than a year and a half ago? Election year theater.

    And that's why I cringe when people say "We really need to get the Democrats the White House and majorities Congress in 2008" or something to that effect. They have no interest in you, the country, or anything but power and money.

    Kucinich is an exception among them. We need more like him, but he is an anomaly.
  • by thelandp ( 632129 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2008 @11:24PM (#23741679)
    Don't forget to impeach Cheney at the same time. If the president is removed from office then the VP would take over.

    Remember: no bush, no dick.

    (damn I was all set for +5 insightful and had to spoil it down to +5 funny with that last line ...)

I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.