Kucinich threatens to add more articles of impeachment

[someguy]

http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/18/kucinich-threatens-60-impeachment-articles-if-judiciary-doesnt-act/

Rep. Dennis Kucinich warned the House Judiciary Committee that it would be wise not to ignore the 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush last week. If the committee does not act within a month, he plans to introduce even more articles.

The Ohio Democrat and former presidential candidate tells the Washington Post’s Sleuth blog that he’s not giving up his fight to kick Bush out of the White House.

Kucinich tells us he’s giving the House Judiciary Committee 30 days to act on his resolution proposing 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush or else he’ll raise even more hell on the House floor. Thirty-five articles was just the tip of the iceberg. If Judiciary does nothing, he’ll go back to the House floor next month armed with nearly twice as many articles.

“The minute the leadership said ‘this is dead on arrival’ I said that I hope they believe in life after death; because I’m coming back with it,” Kucinich vowed in an interview with the Sleuth this week. “It’s not gonna die. Because I’ll come back with more articles. Not 35, but perhaps 60 articles.”

Elected on a platform of holding the president accountable, the newly Democratic Congress has nonetheless been unwilling to even consider impeachment. A Kucinich-sponsored measure to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney was referred to the Judiciary Committee last November; the Committee has done nothing with it.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has declared impeachment “off the table,” and Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has been unwilling to cross her. House Democrats simply do not believe they have enough votes to actually impeach Bush or Cheney, and they are unwilling to dwell on the issue with just a few months left in the current administrations’ term.

Kucinich told the Sleuth that he plans to sit down with Conyers this week to try to convince the chairman to consider at least one article of impeachment, which accused Bush for waging a war “based on lies.”

For Kucinich, impeachment is more than simply a political windmill at which to tilt, he says. It’s about preserving the sanctity of the republic’s founding document.

“What we’re witnessing here,” he says, “is the not-so-slow-moving destruction of our Constitution.”

GEE DENNIS THANKS FOR COMING TO THE RESCUE SO QUICKLY

[Scarfather]

Well, first and most importantly, you're right. He's a little bit completely too late. Bush should have been impeached in March 2003. To even bother now that the damage is done is meaningless.

That said, considering the extremely telling complete media blackout of this happening, it's not like it's going to even work now.

[mel1ssa]

interesting. on the one hand, i have to give it to guy -- he (seems to be) sticking up for something he (seems to strongly) believe in. and someguy - to your comment, it is curious that he has waited this long. of course, i don't know his constituency or re-election status, so this could all be a ploy for him to use in a future race.

i will say, and perhaps it's the way this article is written, there is something in here that vaguely reminds me of my 3-year old stamping his foot when he doesn't get his way. you know, like he doesn't get the message that 'no' is 'no'.

but, hey, it is part of his job to do such things. i would be interested in hearing him explain why he's taken this long or why he is doing this now.

[Cop No. 633]

Well, first and most importantly, you're right. He's a little bit completely too late. Bush should have been impeached in March 2003. To even bother now that the damage is done is meaningless.

That said, considering the extremely telling complete media blackout of this happening, it's not like it's going to even work now.

I heard Kucinich when he read his first 35 articles of impeachment on an independent radio station. I doubt I would ever hear that brought up on any news program. How many people actually watch C-Span? It's like watching Lifetime, CNN and Bob Ross at the same time for most people, including me. The TV "news" is probably the biggest farce being pulled on the public. Have you seen the daily 10 o'clock news on TV? It's down right appalling. Most of the stuff they talk about is crime related so they could scare people into staying home all the time. There's always a major threat they choose to dwell on and then they show you the lion who took in a baby Gorilla as a cub of her own. Awww...

[The Postmaster General]

Yeah, it isn't like K-Head hasn't pushed for impeachment. All he is saying now is that this all should be resolved at some point, and not just ignored. There is probably political maneuvering as well, but no one can't say the guy doesn't have sprite in him. He's probably just looking for some stuff to do because he's a real activist, and isn't the tip just to ride out issues.

[Homyrrh]

Everything else aside, is it worth impeaching the president who has seven insignificant months left in his term? Is it worth the distraction? Is it worth the bureaucracy? The wasted time?

It wouldn't seem so.

[QUENTIN]

I think it is important to establish precedent. Bush should be tried for war crimes (so should every American president of the last 50 years besides maybe Carter) but that will never happen. So how else can we discourage future presidents from misleading us into war? Right now there will be no repercussions or consequences for all the immoral, illegal, horrible things Bush has done in his presidency that are worth impeachment. That's just a bad precedent to set, I think impeachment should have been 5 years ago but had no chance then. It still has little to no chance now, but it is a good idea, even if it's mostly symbolic, to establish to future leaders that "You can't get away with this."

[Homyrrh]

Five years ago? Theoretically, at the least, Iraq didn't have to become a clusterfuck.

I understand the establishment of "precedent", but again, the tardiness of the issue has to be observed before all else.

[QUENTIN]

Five years ago? Theoretically, at the least, Iraq didn't have to become a clusterfuck.

I understand the establishment of "precedent", but again, the tardiness of the issue has to be observed before all else.

We had no reason to go into Iraq, an unjustified, illegal war is grounds for impeachment alone, even if the war had ended up going swimmingly it would still be illegal to be there and he'd still be a criminal.

And huh? Provide reasoning for why the "tardiness of the issue has to be observed before all else" No, it's better late than never. Bush needs to be impeached, there are only 7 months left in his presidency and it has never been more likely to pass than now so for the next 7 months they have to try to do it. There's no tardiness there, he has to be impeached during his presidency, why does it matter when? There is no statute of limitations on his crimes.

[Homyrrh]

So then what happens after his impeachment? After the hearings? After the bureaucracy? After a Democratic congress doesn't impeach him on basis of what they've already expressed? You guys have a punching bag in office, the primary reason that Obama will be elected!

Why get rid of your turtle on the post?

[QUENTIN]

"you guys"? I'm not a Democrat, hate the party though not nearly as much as the Republicans, and don't much care for Obama. This shouldn't have anything to do with that.

What it does have to do with, directly, is that the POTUS should not be allowed to get away with lying to the American people and Congress in order to start an illegal war. You can't leave the precedent that there will be no consequences for that. If Bush isn't impeached, then future presidents know they have essentially no limits on their powers and the worst fate they could suffer is low polling once they're already lame ducks.

[SpoonMan999]

"you guys"? I'm not a Democrat, hate the party though not nearly as much as the Republicans, and don't much care for Obama. This shouldn't have anything to do with that.

What it does have to do with, directly, is that the POTUS should not be allowed to get away with lying to the American people and Congress in order to start an illegal war. You can't leave the precedent that there will be no consequences for that. If Bush isn't impeached, then future presidents know they have essentially no limits on their powers and the worst fate they could suffer is low polling once they're already lame ducks.

Read McClellan's book, in there he describes that they never lied about the intelligence they were receiving the just exaggerated it. Which is still not an acceptable thing to do in order to start a war but the fact of the matter is Saddam wanted people to think he had WMD's in order to scare them away from him...he got the opposite.

[Homyrrh]

"you guys"? I'm not a Democrat, hate the party though not nearly as much as the Republicans, and don't much care for Obama. This shouldn't have anything to do with that.

What it does have to do with, directly, is that the POTUS should not be allowed to get away with lying to the American people and Congress in order to start an illegal war. You can't leave the precedent that there will be no consequences for that. If Bush isn't impeached, then future presidents know they have essentially no limits on their powers and the worst fate they could suffer is low polling once they're already lame ducks.
Heh, I was just mentioning why anyone anti-Bush--liberal, Democrat, libertarian, centrist, etc.--should want him in office. As a matter of prinicple, he lied. He got caught. But as a cop-out, I believe this has happened before to slightly more popular diplomats.

Seems they're are nevery any partisans on this board...

[SpoonMan999]

Heh, I was just mentioning why anyone anti-Bush--liberal, Democrat, libertarian, centrist, etc.--should want him in office. As a matter of prinicple, he lied. He got caught. But as a cop-out, I believe this has happened before to slightly more popular diplomats.

Seems they're are nevery any partisans on this board...

There really aren't any true partisans out there, only some who claim to be.

[QUENTIN]

Do you guys mean non-partisans or am I not understanding you?

Anyway, Scott McClellan is the last thing from a reliable source. He still likes and admires the president. Just because he slightly criticized aspects of his administration doesn't mean he's not still a douchebag lackey apologist. I'll take the Downing Street Memo (the smoking gun for guilt) and the word of Col. Lawrence Wilkerson and the vast majority of the intelligence community over that unrepentant liar and puppet.

Also, as I said EVERY American president of at least the last half-century should be tried for war crimes (Carter is the only possible exception) and would be found guilty in a fair world, so this isn't Bush centric. Bush is just the most egregious and flagrant example and if he leaves office without any official reprimand or legal stain on his record, we can expect more of the same from future leaders who will be terrified of having an affair but have no trepidation about illegally bombing the hell out of people.

[Homyrrh]

Do you guys mean non-partisans or am I not understanding you?

Anyway, Scott McClellan is the last thing from a reliable source. He still likes and admires the president. Just because he slightly criticized aspects of his administration doesn't mean he's not still a douchebag lackey apologist. I'll take the Downing Street Memo (the smoking gun for guilt) and the word of Col. Lawrence Wilkerson and the vast majority of the intelligence community over that unrepentant liar and puppet.

Also, as I said EVERY American president of at least the last half-century should be tried for war crimes (Carter is the only possible exception) and would be found guilty in a fair world, so this isn't Bush centric. Bush is just the most egregious and flagrant example and if he leaves office without any official reprimand or legal stain on his record, we can expect more of the same from future leaders who will be terrified of having an affair but have no trepidation about illegally bombing the hell out of people.
Said what I meant, meant what I said. Often seems most people are wavering centrists if anything. Anytime someone accuses someone ofleanng either way, it's "No, I'm an informed, open-minded voter."

[Brando @$$ Fat]

I'm going to miss being the anti-establishment come January 2009.

[Homyrrh]

I'm going to miss being the anti-establishment come January 2009.
On the contrary, vice versa. :(

[QUENTIN]

Said what I meant, meant what I said. Often seems most people are wavering centrists if anything. Anytime someone accuses someone ofleanng either way, it's "No, I'm an informed, open-minded voter."

Well then that makes even less sense to me, although I certainly know what you're talking about. People don't like to self-identify as belonging to a group that they then have to defend or take flack for. Being informed and open-minded makes me an extremely progressive, far far left-leaning voter and citizen compared with the rest of this country. I'd never claim to be centrist or without affiliation, although I don't have a party affiliation because they're all far too conservative and interested in maintaining our miserable status quo. I think many if not most of the schmoes are openly some form of liberal and obviously our forum's conservative schmoes don't hide that either so while many may not label themselves "Democrats" or "Republicans", they don't hide their leanings.

[Homyrrh]

Well then that makes even less sense to me, although I certainly know what you're talking about. People don't like to self-identify as belonging to a group that they then have to defend or take flack for. Being informed and open-minded makes me an extremely progressive, far far left-leaning voter and citizen compared with the rest of this country. I'd never claim to be centrist or without affiliation, although I don't have a party affiliation because they're all far too conservative and interested in maintaining our miserable status quo. I think many if not most of the schmoes are openly some form of liberal and obviously our forum's conservative schmoes don't hide that either so while many may not label themselves "Democrats" or "Republicans", they don't hide their leanings.
Well it was a gneralization. Basically just saying, as a blanket, people refuse to commit to identifying with parties OR labels.

[mel1ssa]

And huh? Provide reasoning for why the "tardiness of the issue has to be observed before all else" No, it's better late than never. Bush needs to be impeached, there are only 7 months left in his presidency and it has never been more likely to pass than now so for the next 7 months they have to try to do it. There's no tardiness there, he has to be impeached during his presidency, why does it matter when? There is no statute of limitations on his crimes.

i agree. if he did something that is truly worthy of impeachment, then those who truly believe he did it should pursue it. it is their job -- the job their constituency put them in -- and to do any less simply because they 'don't want to make waves' or 'don't think it's worth it' is pretty reprehensible. it actually makes them not qualified to hold the position they are in.

[mel1ssa]

Well it was a gneralization. Basically just saying, as a blanket, people refuse to commit to identifying with parties OR labels.

homyrrh, once again i like your point, if nothing else for the fact that you speak it when few others will. (i'm a little worried about this, because you are always so definitive!). now allow me to spin it a little...

refusing to pick sides could mean cowardice, laziness, or apathy. but... it's not that easy. the parties have aligned themselves with issues where there simply is no clear winner. i wonder if they all sat around a room and said:

'dibs on national security!'
'dammit! fine, we'll take the ability to relate to the common man and... oh, hell, we'll take health care'

and so on.

it's all very binary to me, and i refuse to fall into either party's ploy to draw me in and keep me. i can make up my own mind each and every election, thank you. (that's a fist-shake to the parties, homyrrh, not you).

[SpoonMan999]

refusing to pick sides could mean cowardice, laziness, or apathy. but... it's not that easy. the parties have aligned themselves with issues where there simply is no clear winner.

I think it could be cowardice, laziness, or apathy on occasion. However, I feel that more often it's simply the fact that the parties are trying to hard to be the extreme opposite of the other with absolutely no middle ground anymore. I think many people, myself included, feel that one particular group doesn't cover all of our needs and thus do not consider ourselves part of said group. Though, come election time, we typically vote for whoever covers most of our needs and wants.