ratbastid

Dennis Kucinich has followed through on the promise he's been making for the last few days. He's written up and posted Articles of Impeachment against Cheney, and will be presenting them at a news conference at 5:00 this afternoon.

The articles and related documents can be read here: http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm

In short, there are three aspects: Cheney is accused of 1) manipulating intelligence to sell the Iraq war, 2) lying about a connection between Iraq and Al Qaida, and 3) Forwarding a plan to attack Iran without solid evidence of Iranian wrongdoing.

Couple things seem funny to me about this. First, it's impossible not to put this in context of Kucinich's run for the Democratic nomination. There's a strong demand for impeachment in the middle-to-left segment of the party. Is this a play for nomination votes?

Second, why Cheney and not Bush? I know Cheney's had a historically unparalleled amount of independence as VP, and he's been a key player in the administration in both policy and PR roles. Does Kuchinich think Cheney is really the man behind it all? Or is he just the low hanging fruit? The weak link that will break the chain of the whole administration?

Rekna

I think it is a combination of low hanging fruit and a realization that Cheney is probably responsible for a lot of the missteps. People don't think Bush is all that smart and they believe he is easily manipulated by people around him (Rove and Cheney).


This probably isn't going to go anywhere past the first couple of stages of the impeachment before it is tabled or removed. And if it does get serious it will be come highly partisan and then stall.

loquitur

The fastest thing to improve Bush's approval ratings would be impeachment proceedings against him or Cheney. Kucinich can't really be that stupid. If he thought it would actually go somewhere I doubt he'd have done it.

tecoyah

In my opinion, this is a very well contemplated move, and likely the most damaging to republican chances in 2008. By bringing to light the "deficiencies" of the Cheney handling of his office they will inevitably lower the standing of his boss without actually damaging the credibility of the office of the POTUS directly. Instead it places the abilities of the MAN holding that position in question, and at the same time brings the obvious corruption of administration power to task.
If this manages to go anywhere (highly unlikely) it may very well accomplish something no one has managed, It might force truth from a deceitful group of people....or at the minimum force them to pull a Gonzalez.

Yeah...we all know how Clintons' rating shot through the roof in similar circumstances.

loquitur

Clinton's approvals did skyrocket during impeachment. That's why I said that.

dc_dux

I dont doubt Kucinich in his sincerity that this is the right and justifiable thing to do, rather than having any political motivation to boost his (less than marginal) presidential campaign.

But much like his bill for a cabinet-level Department of Peace and Non-Violence, this impeachment resolution is going nowhere. The next step would be for the House Judiciary Committee to hold an impeachment inquiry hearing. Unlike other committee hearings, to hold an impeachment inquiry requires a majority vote of the full House, and at best, he has a handful of Dems who would vote "aye"

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

Bush could cave without Cheney, or he may be an evil genius. The point is, the only way out of this is to have them both impeached and have president Pelosi choose me as VP.

ASU2003

Would Pelosi become VP if Cheney were impeached?

That would be too funny.

Willravel

I think Bush would choose another VP.

Lizra

I don't remember that happening!? It (impeachment proceedings ) were a bad thing......

__________________
Happy atheist

tecoyah

In truth, his ratings did go up.....though other factors likely led to this. After the impeachment trial was completed his ratings dropped significantly, Though he still enjoyed numbers double the current President.

"President Clinton's job-approval numbers enjoyed an uptick in the first national polls taken after NATO and Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic signed their tentative agreement. Even so, a successful accord may not solve a more systemic political problem facing the President. A growing public pessimism--about the country and where it is headed--exists independent of events in Kosovo and, for that matter, in spite of a strong economy and a booming stock market.

President Clinton's highest-ever job-approval numbers in Gallup Organization polling for CNN and USA Today came in a survey taken on Dec. 19-20, 1998, the weekend that the House approved articles of impeachment against the President. Six Gallup polls taken during the Jan. 7-Feb. 12 Senate trial showed Clinton's job-approval rating consistently between 65 percent and 70 percent, with his disapproval rating ranging from 27 percent to 33 percent. Clinton enjoyed a postimpeachment halo for another month, with his Gallup job-approval ratings in four polls ranging from 66 percent to 68 percent. This is an extraordinary level for a President in his seventh year in office. Ronald Reagan's job- approval rating in the Gallup Poll, at this point in his second term, was only 48 percent; the very popular Dwight D. Eisenhower, the only other post-World War II President to serve two full terms, had a 64 percent approval rating at this point in his tenure.

From mid-March to early May, eight Gallup polls showed Clinton's approval ratings dropping down into the 59 percent to 64 percent range. A May 23-24 poll showed it dropping even more, down to 53 percent, with 42 percent disapproving of his job performance. These were Clinton's worst numbers in the Gallup Poll since August 1996. His lowest approval rating came early in his first term, in June 1993, when only 37 percent approved of his performance, while 49 percent disapproved. In early September 1994, his disapproval rating climbed to 54 percent. Presidents with job-approval ratings below 50 percent tend to fall into the Rodney Dangerfield zone: They get no respect from political opponents, the media, or even other members of their own party."

http://www.cookpolitical.com/column/1999/061299.php

Elphaba

Cheney's popularity according to the polls is less than 10%, and he is largely viewed as the directing influence of all that has come undone, within this administration. Cheney has done nothing to endear himself to Congress, so where will he find support in response to impeachment proceedings? Even Bush has put some distance between himself and his Vice President.

I think Kucinich made this move because he believes it is the appropriate thing to do, rather than for personal political advantage. Politics will be the major motivation in how others respond to this.

I am inclined to think that Cheney, like Rumsfeld, has become a liability for the President, and that Cheney will resign soon due to medical reasons. This only serves as another distraction to far more important revelations and investigations that are not getting enough notice.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

ConspiracyTheor

Yes.
As Nixon chose Ford as his Veep after Agnew was forced to resign.

dc_dux

I think the 25th amendment (which primarily deals with the incapacitation of the Pres) would kick in here as well:

Amendment XXV

Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...ndmentxxv.html

Confirmation by both the House and Senate would make for an interesting scenario, particularly if we were to extend the scenario further with the thought that Bush could nominate someone like say, Condi Rice?

But it aint gonna happen. Kucinich has ZERO co-sponsors for his impeachment resolution.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

If Bush and Cheney were removed from their offices, Pelosi would become president and choose her own vice.

Kucinich would do well to get better press on this and to get more proof. The more proof he has, the more likely he will have important supporters. He's got my vote if I ever life in Ohio.

roachboy

like others have said, i support this idea but without any illusions about its chances of getting anywhere at this point.

but the situation seems kinda volitile: for example it'll be interesting to see how the subpoena of rice drama plays out: if she testifies and and is forthcoming about the administration's political machinations in the run-up to the iraq debacle, then it would seem possible for this to move--but i do not expect forthcomingness---if she testifies and lies, then all bets are off and this could move forward. so i would expect a real fight over whether she testifies.

while i suspect that the causal linkages above are drawn using a spirograph with lots of wishful thinking shapes included, it nonetheless seems to me that the fate of this initiative is a dependent variable...and that if situationally things move in a straight line, it is a gesture more than anything else...btu it is not obvious that the straight line is the only possible line. so i am waiting to see how other things play out.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

Given - you don't think this is going anywhere and given (assuming he has done his homework and knows) the votes are not there, how do you conclude his sincerity is real and not motivated by political reasons?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

Just my opinion, from following his words and deeds since before our invasion of Iraq (which he vocally opposed) and based on conversations with friends on Capitol Hill who know him personally.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

How is it possible not to filter (cherry pick or whatever you want to call it) through tons of data to make a case on anything, yet alone a war? Seems to me it can not be done. Perhaps we can disagree on the importance of certain information, etc., but everyone should have a right to make their case. So he is guilty of picking information that supports his desire to invade Iraq, isn't it up to those against war to do their due diligence? Perhaps they should be removed from any position of responsibility too.

To anyone saying Cheney lied about this please define what you would consider a "connection"? This term is too vague to say he lied.

This can't be a serious point, that would lead to impeachment. Iranian wrong doing...where to start...

You avoid a direct answer to the question. If he knows this is going nowhere, what is the point? Or, do you believe he thinks this will succeed?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

IMO, he based this and many other political decisions on what he believes is the morally correct thing to do (like having a Department of Peace), whether it is politically popular or whether it will succeed or not. Is that so wrong?

I have also said in every discussion here about impeachment, that the evidence is not there. There is plausible deniability by Bush and Cheney on charges like those in the Kucinich resolution.

I believe they should be impeached, but I still havent seen the "smoking gun" that would justify an impeachment inquiry......yet.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

Again, no direct response. In other words your opinion is based on - because he said so - others have said so - and he just a good guy.

I am sure everyone already knows what I think, but just in case. This is a political move, designed for a boost in the polls and a boost in fund raising.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

The_Jazz

Ace, how is it possible to do due diligence without access to the information? Cheney et al spoke of clandestine information without revealing any of the specifics. How is it possible to refute it?

Given that, how could anyone make a case against it? If you're only given the cherry-picked information and none of the conflicting information, you're only left with "feelings" and "suspicions", neither of which are particularly compelling.

Kucinich has always been consistently against the war, and I don't think that he harbors any illussions about being elected President. Sure, these articles further his agenda, but it's an agenda he passionately believes in. What's wrong with that?

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

aceventura3

By not accepting it. You say the following: I will not comit this nation to war based on clandestine information unless and until your reveal it. You also say the following - I know that you ( Mr. Cheney) have put forth your strongest case for war, it is my responsibility to review all the information, pro and con, before I make final judgement. I will to review all intelligence data, and need to have unhindered access to all the people involved in providing the intellegence. Otherwise, my vote is no!

You don't accept cherry picked information. Never. When I buy a car, I don't rely on the salemen. When I buy a house, I don't rely on the real-estate agent. When I buy a stock I don't rely on my broker. I do my homework. Why would Congress buy a war, without doing their homework. Please tell me, and I will drop this. In every discussion about the war, I bring up the same point. I have never gotten a good answer. If Congress was aspleep at the wheel, how can they now say they where lied to, and believe that thinking people will absolve them of responsibility of buying it? At least Kucinich has been against the war from the begining.

I love passionate people. There is nothing wrong with Kucinich, or him doing what he thinks is right for whatever the reasons. When I call politicing - politicing, there has been a problem with that, however, I will continue to call 'em like I sees 'em.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

ratbastid

So what you're saying is that the Executive is fundamentally untrustworthy, and what they say shouldn't be believed without unfettered access to documentary evidence? Because that's PRECISELY what these articles of impeachment say.

aceventura3

I said what I said for all to read. In the words of Reagan- "trust but verify".

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

The_Jazz

Ace, most members of Congress don't have the security clearance necessary to view most of the information. Without making any judgement on whether or not the intelligence was worthy of "top secret" status or not, anyone who sees it has to have gone through the necessary procedures required by law, including background checks, etc. That's not a part of being in either the House or the Senate, although it is to be on the Intelligence Committees. It's not like Congress could just google "Iraq Secret Chemical Weapons" and expect to get credible information of the type necessary to support (or not) the administration's arguement. There is no "Intelligence Consumer Reports" or "The Robb Report on Iraqi Weapons". Using any sort of consumer analogy is one big ol' strawman.

So many Democrats voted by using the "information available at the time". There was no possible way for Congress to do their "homework". The only information that they were allowed, by law, was what the administration was willing to tell them, and even that was supposed to be a major concession on the administration's part. That information proved to be false, and the problem is that the administration knew that. It would be one thing if there wasn't any intelligenct to the contrary, but there was plenty of it. If they didn't know, they should have. Hence the problem.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

pig

ace, i have to say that while i recognize the seriousness of the point you're making, i think that this underscores exactly the problem with this administration, similarly to what ratbastid just pointed out. the idea is for the people in charge to look at the data, and then develop a position...not to take a position, then pull facts to support it. that's the entire problem, in a nutshell. they did the latter...and now its backfiring bigtime. not just on them, but the whole country is catching it for that fuck up.

as for kucinich, i agree that to say he doesn't have political motivations is definitely naive...he's a politician. if this issue keeps the questions about many of this administration's policies and procedures in the spot light and / or motivates others to seriously question them, then i think its a victory. just putting impeachment on the table is a big step.

edit: mega-dittos to jazz too.

/god, i love being able to type "mega-fucking-dittos"

additionally, as for the political aspects; don't forget that its just as likely that such a move will lose him votes instead of gaining them. while a lot of people may think cheney is the spawn of satan, we tend to do a bit of rally-round-the-flagpole when its a question of military engagement. at least until it gets really bad, and frankly with the insulation most americans have from this war we're not at the point of losing faith completely on a national scale.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

aceventura3

I know we are drifting off topic a bit, but I will be brief.

Psst! I want your vote to comit our country to a multi-billion dollar, bloody war that will cost American lives. I can't tell you exactly why I came to that conclusion, but Iraq is really, really, bad, oh and they are connected to other really, really bad people - trust me.

What sould the average person do with that? What should elected officials do with that? What should the media do with that? I know I am simplifying this, but perhaps some folks in Congress should have insisted on seeing what Cheney and Bush saw, and report back to the rest. Oh, wait, they did that. Sorry.

I thought the decision at the time was the correct decision, just like millions of others including people in other countries. I thought the reasons given where clear, and I understood them. We did not go to war simply based on the weapons of mass destruction issue or the "link" issue. I was not lied to. My support of invading Iraq was not singularly based on statements by Bush or Cheney. I guess that was not true for the folks in Congress who voted for the war but were against it based on what they think are lies.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Elphaba

Kucinich speaks for himself in the link below. I totally missed the most important reason of all...Iran.

Link

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

roachboy

ace:
first off it is beyond ironic that you claim that you would not rely on cherry-picked information in the purchase of a car, but you seem to have relied on it when you decided to support the bush administration and its lurid little colonial adventure in iraq. but wait--you are inclined to trust the administration and so you assume their information is in general truthful--but you are not inclined to trust the car dealer because, well, "car dealer" is just a name in a sentence which does not and cannot refer to anyone in particular.

the answer seems to me obvious--in the run-up to the iraq debacle,congress--republican controlled congress--was presented with manufactured evidence, tendentiously constructed evidence, false evidence from an administration which the then-majority supported politically and which the then-majority was inclined to trust. in 2003 conservatives, like their proxies in the then-majority in congress, were inclined to trust the administration.

there are no objective rules that can obviate the fundamental role played in even the most tightly regulated administrative apparatus by trust, by personal relationships and the expectations built across them.

you seem to want the iraq mess to devolve into mush now because it suits your political purposes to dissolve it into mush.
but you know full well that congress reviewed "evidence" presented them by the administration. you know full well that while a thorough review was possible, it did not happen, and that a good explanation for why it did not happen is the trust the then-majority had in the good faith of the administration--it is just like, say, academic articles--it is always possible that one's footnotes could be wrong or made up--but generally, no-one checks. why? the name of the author is functionally a guarantee against such problems.
why? because of the assumptions about the nature and integrity of review processes in refereed journals--but the broader social context of academic work in general informs this assumption. here too, one;s relation to evidence is fundamentally rooted in one's assumptions about the writer or speaker.

and when it turns out that the rules have been violated, the fault lay with the writer or speaker. the writer is the person responsible for the selection and ordering of information--if the information is fucked up, it is the writer's fault--BEFORE it is the fault of the readers who believed the article was true.

but this is self-evident, ace.
i really do not see what your arguments are geared toward accomplishing.
was congress remiss in accepting the administration's case? yes. whose fault is that? the administration's first and foremost, because they put forward the false evidence and then relied on (an abuse of) trust/credibility.
is congress responsible for the iraq debacle? in part yes--but congress is not responsible for being lied to by the administration.
but you already know all this, ace.
i think you are being disengenous.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

I went to Kucinich's websit and read on of the documents used to support his case. Here is what Chaney said about Al Qeada.

http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI1A.pdf

There is a clear seperation between Al Qeada and Iraq, I am not sure how the above supports the impeachment, I need some help with it.

Many factors went into my support of the war, including our failure to take Sadaam out of powere during the first Gulf War against Iraq.

At this point - if I were sincerely against the war, my efforts would be focused on ending it, not retreading what got us into the war. If my concern was with Iran and statements coming from the White House on Iran, I would focus my efforts on setting the record straight. To focus on impeachment is either an error in judgement or purely political. But that is just me, Kuncinich is different and clearly smarter than me, I am sure he has a grand plan that I can not see at the moment. A plan that will be more meaningful than just a stunt to get publicity.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

ok so now the argument is different.

as for "taking out saddam hussein the first time"--there was no mandate for that. it couldnt have happened. you're dreaming if you think otherwise--as were those fine fellows at theproject for a new american century when they cooked up the idea of a second war--as much a fuck you to the united nations as one against iraq--to right the percieved wrong done to amurica and the john wayne for which it stands.

on the second part---in a way i almost agree with you: the debacle in iraq should be ended. this is a priority, and there should be a showdown in the coming days over this, if bush vetoes the bill that the senate just passed.

but this does not obviate the obvious fact that the administration presented a false case for war in the first place.

the fact of the war in iraq is also a very considerable political liability for the united states internationally, and much is at stake in generating the impression--if not the reality--that the system can correct itself.

so the administration absolutely should be held to account for the fact of the war itself. period. whether this can extend to impeachment or not, i dont know--i doubt that kucinich's articles will go anywhere at the momentm, but like i said earlier, the situation is not stable and parameters may well change.

on iran: the idea of invading iran is pure and simple lunacy. the only reason to even consider such a move is transparently about the administration looking to prop itself up. but the consequences will be a fiasco that will make iraq look like a day in the park. there are no justifications for any such action in any event. ahmadinejad is in an even weaker political position than is george w bush: there is not reason to not expect that his government will fall WITHOUT an american action--though of course (again parallel with the american administration) the best thing that could happen to a weakened reactionary is a nice little war.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

ratbastid

I'm stunned at this attempt to put the blame for the administration's falsehoods on the Democrat members of congress, who a) weren't the ones who lied and who b) were in the very marginalized minority at the time.

"Yes, your honor, I sold the child the poison. And YES, I told him it was candy. But HE'S the idiot who ate it!"

Elphaba

Ace, I have read others challenging your "proofs" as mere cherry picking, but I've seen it for myself with this bit:

Ace, you plucked one paragraph from a six page interview (Cheney in Bahrain, 2002) that was just one among the 16 citings you had to choose from. I believe this form of debate to be fundamentally dishonest, and I now understand why your positions have lost credence in this forum.

Anyone interested in a full presentation of Kucinich's articles of impeachment should use the following link:

http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

dc_dux

As a matter of fact, Kucinich does have a plan. He introduced a bill (HR 1234) with his 12-point plan to end the US occupation of Iraq back in Feb.

The elements of his plan are here (link).

He has also made numerous floor speeches about Iran, often to correct a Bush lie (like Iran is the major source of arms for Iraqi insurgents) or the bellicose rhetoric from Cheney about Iran nuclear capability. Here is just one brief sample from last Sept:

"Iran should not have nuclear weapons; and, along with the United States as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, should work with the community of nations to abolish all nuclear weapons, as is the express intent of the NPT.

"However, this Administration is trying to create an international crisis by inflating Iran's nuclear development into another Iraq WMD hoax. There they go again.

"Today, the House will consider a bill [H.R. 6198, the Iran Freedom Support Act] which will give the Administration a pass on covert activities it has already undertaken in Iran to attempt to destabilize the government. Additionally, today's bill will enable another Rendon-type propaganda machine to feed the US media a steady stream of lies, all to set the stage for a war against Iran.

"Think about it: this, without a single hearing on Iran in this Congress. Think about it: this, while the State Department and DOD are ducking even classified briefings.

"There is a Chinese proverb that says: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Will Congress be fooled again into supporting still another war against still another nation, which is not an imminent threat and which has no intention nor capability of attacking the United States?"

(Congressional Record - pdf)

Wow...another Dem who can multi-task.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

host

IMO, articles of impeachment should be drawn up in the house for Bush and Cheney, immediately. George Tenet should be subpoenaed as a key witness, and kept in custody of the congress, in a "safe house".

Benjamin Ferencz should be enlisted by the house impeachment committee as their counsel, since the main charge agains the POTUS and his VP involve crimes against the US Constitution....willful violations of international treaties that the US senate has ratified, past POTUS's have signed, and that the US has been an enthusiastic party to, and enforcer of....for many years.

I've detailed my support for the above in a new thread, here:
<b>Poll: George Tenet's New Book: Is US in Iraq Similar "Aggressive War" Charged at Nuremberg</b>
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=116872

I don't know what more any of you, or anyone in congress with respect for the US Constitution, and of the principles that we in the U.S. all hold dear, would need before you would take Kucinich and his charges more seriously.
I'm puzzled....are you worn down by cynicism....IMO, this is "it". Tenet lays it out simply and precisely in his new book:
I've never been discouraged from calling what happened in Iraq, what it is....a crime of "War of aggression"....what was described by US prosecutors at Nuremberg as the "ultimate crime against humanity"....because it spawns so many other crimes, once such a war is pursued.
Nothing will happen unless each of us can admit to ourselves that our elected leaders seem to have done this....ordered it....knowing that it was avoidable and not justified by an "imminent threat". It's time to drop the cyniscism...time to shit or get off the pot !

aceventura3

I don't think there were falsehoods.
I think people who voted for the war knew all of the reasons they supported the war and had opportunities to take stands against the war before we actually went to war. To now say it is "Bush's war" without taking their fair share of the responsibility is wrong in my opinion. I don't consider our Congress child like, they are responsible adults.

It is true I have my bias' and put more time and effort into researching those things that support my point of view. I have stated that many times, and in my posts above I state that "we" have a responsibility to do our own homework.

Regarding the quote I cherry picked - I simply read the first submission. I did not go through each one, yet. However, if Kucinich is presenting his best case, and he leads with what I read, he made an error because most won't go through everything if there is no compelling proof to start with. I am going to read the rest.

However, the question is on the table, how can anyone read what Chaney said and believe he directly connected Al Qeada and Iraq? Why was that document used? Perhaps I missed something.

It is a given that members of Congress can multi-task. Do you think it possible that a Democrat can have an agenda to gain publicity or do things for purely political reasons?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

uh...ace? isn't any gesture by any politico always done at one level or another because it feeds into the public image of that politico?
it seems a structural feature of being a politico at all.
this seems to me like one of those variables that effectively cancels out as you move to solve an equation that initially involves it.
of you are making a particular claim about kucinich that goes beyond the above--and it is obviously possible to do so in certain cases--then why not just make the claim?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

My question to DC has a history to it. I have no problem with people doing what they think is in their best intrest or doing things for political gain, good often comes from it. For some reason when I say a democrat has a political agenda ( perhaps because of my level of certainty or my tone), many seem to take offense to the comment. However, it is what it is, and I do agree that people can be motivated by multiple reasons.

I just read the second exhibit posted by Kucinich.

Here is were Cheney talks about weapons of mass destruction:

This is strike two in my book. Please can someone point out the lie?
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI1B.pdf

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

host

ace.....the impeachment charges against Cheney are a cumulative reaction to things like.....this:
<b>Curiously, on June 17, 2004, VP Cheney seems to have denied his own Nov. and Dec., 2001, publicly televised, videotaped, and officially archived statements:</b>
3 weeks later, last September, when some of the the determinations about Iraq of the Senate intel. committee were finally released, Mr. Cheney spoke to Tim Russert and said the opposite of what the Senate intel. report and the CIA had concluded. Cheney did the same thing this week, on April 5.....telling the same long disproved falsehoods that he told last September, and many times before that:
That was Cheney, this week, and this was Bush, himself, in 2002 and 2003:
....and Bush again, here:
From my Sept. 12, 2006 post:

Posted May 2, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=63
Posted May 2, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=64
Posted June 26, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=22
Posted Sept. 9, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...93&postcount=7
Posted Sept. 15, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=47
.....and this article:
Mr. Bush was talking about "take threats before they fully materialize"......and when the "Zarqawi was there" declaration is exposed as a lie what remans to justify the invasion of iraq aside from illegal aggressive war?

Note how the Bush administration reacted to Sen. Levn's damning September 8, 2006 statement:
The following is a compilaton of their reaction to Levin and the senate committee report.......

....and Cheney was "at it" again a month later:
ace....consider this: