Kucinich sets 5 PM for announcement of Articles of Impeachment against Cheney

[Navy Pride]

I think its great that a nut like Kucinich is the voice of the democratic party.........

 

[M14 Shooter]

He isn't, but his party is, and at this point, they stand to be huge losers in the election. Bush won't be running in 2008, but he will definitely be the major issue, and the slaughter of the GOP at the polls will be all his fault.

Indeed.

And what does -all- of this hinge on?

The progress of the war.

IF, by the election, the war is obviously going much better, even to the point where we are 'winning', who do you suppose will suffer/benefit in said election?

 

[reaganburch]

A top aide has confirmed that Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D - OH-10) will introduce articles of impeachment against Vice President Richard Cheney on Tuesday, April 24th.

The aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, spoke at length about Kucinich's plans, and offered insight into why Kucinich chose to go after Vice President Cheney first.

Kucinich's aide compared the current situation to the 1970s, when Congress went after Spiro Agnew first, before setting their sights on Nixon. The difference, the aide said, is that back then "the charges against Agnew were pretty spotty. If Nixon had been as popular as he was in 1972, they wouldn't have been able to touch Agnew. But in 1974, the conditions were right that they could put some pretty weak charges against Agnew and make them stick."

The Aide said that "Congress feared that Nixon would then appoint John Connaly of Texas to the VP job, so they held the threat of filibustering any nomination that didn't meet with their approval." Take too long to find a good candidate, and Nixon gets impeached and Carl Albert, then Speaker of the House, becomes president. "That's why Nixon nominated Gerald Ford, who was well-liked in Congress and who would follow Congress' lead rather than stirring the pot further". Thus satisfied, the Senate held off the filibuster and approved Ford as Veep, whereupon Nixon stepped down to avoid being prosecuted.

The aide suggested that the same holds true today: remove Cheney first, "since we really don't want Cheney to be President. So remove him first, and then set your sights on Bush." If Bush recommends a competent replacement for Cheney, so be it. Get the job into competent hands. If Bush offers yet another toady/Neocon, the Dems can bury the nomination in committee, proceed with Bush's impeachment, then put Speaker Nancy Pelosi into the presidency after Bush's conviction.

link

In other words, a coup d'etat.... In the United States of America, someone in Government is verbally stating plans for a coup d'etat....

 

[Stinger]

We have to say "no more!", we have to regain control of the government.

Who is "we" and how would "regaining control" manifest itself?

 

[AndrewC]

According to the Constitution, the President/VP can be impeached for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Article I:
How is this an impeachable offense?


Article II:
How is this an impeachable offense?

Lies that lead to the death of thousands of people. Yah, you are right. I think he deserves a pay raise for that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Lies that lead to the death of thousands of people. Yah, you are right. I think he deserves a pay raise for that.

OK, so - you admit that he isn't being accused of treason, bribery, a high crime, or a misdemeanor.

Thanks.

 

[danarhea]

Indeed.

And what does -all- of this hinge on?

The progress of the war.

IF, by the election, the war is obviously going much better, even to the point where we are 'winning', who do you suppose will suffer/benefit in said election?

Dream on. I choose to listen the generals who say we won't win, the BIPARTISAN Iraq Study group, which Bush ignores, and all of the other experts who are telling it like it is.

Kinda reminds me of the Soviet Union, when they were telling the world that they won in Afghanistan, as the Afghans were cutting Russian troops to pieces. That was with half a million men. For us to even have a chance at winning, we will need at least as many men as the Soviets sent to Afghanistan, but it won't happen. When a president makes a decision to wage a war "on the cheap", and asks his people to support the war by going shopping instead of making sacrifices, the war is already lost before it has even begun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Dream on. I choose to listen the generals who say we won't win, the BIPARTISAN Iraq Study group, which Bush ignores, and all of the other experts who are telling it like it is.

You didn't answer the question.

IF, by the election, the war is obviously going much better, even to the point where we are 'winning', who do you suppose will suffer/benefit in said election?

 

[danarhea]

You didn't answer the question.

IF, by the election, the war is obviously going much better, even to the point where we are 'winning', who do you suppose will suffer/benefit in said election?

Your question is a true red herring, but I will answer it anyways. The GOP would benefit. However, pigs flying is not a complete impossibility either, but is almost as improbable as winning the war in Iraq. However, dreams are important for good mental health, so dream on, and while you are at it, say your final goodbyes to the Republican party. :mrgreen:

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your question is a true red herring, but I will answer it anyways. The GOP would benefit.

And the Dems would suffer.

Why do you suppose the Dems are, therefore, not doing what they can to make sure we are -not- winning next fall?

 

[danarhea]

And the Dems would suffer.

Why do you suppose the Dems are, therefore, not doing what they can to make sure we are -not- winning next fall?

Really? Was it the Democrats who, against the advise of the military, thought they could wage a war on the cheap and win? Was it the Democrats who told us to go shopping instead of making sacrifices in what was supposed to be such an important war? Was it the Democrats who called everyone who disagreed with them, Liberals and Conservatives alike, supporters of terrorism? Was it the Democrats who made up lies to try and create heroes out of Lynch and Tillman? Was it the Democrats who told everyone that Saddadm and al-Qaeda worked together, when our own intelligence said the evidence for that was shaky? Was it the Democrats who created a command structure so screwed up that incidents like Abu Ghraib and the Haditha massacre happened? Was it the Democrats who said you are either with us or against us? Was it the Democrats who turned the United States from one of the most respected nations in the world to one of the most hated?

One thing I liked about Ronald Reagan was his willingness to accept blame. I admired the way he stood up and took responsibility for Iran-Contra. Reagan was a man who could be trusted. You, sir, are no Ronald Reagan, and if finger pointing to avoid responsibility is what the Republican party has been reduced to these days, it is going to be a long twilight for them, and then an even longer darkness. Stick a fork in the GOP. It is done.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Really? Was it the Democrats who, against the advise of the military, thought they could wage a war on the cheap and win?

Again, you didnt answer the question.
I'll re-phrase, because the original was not clear.

The Dems know that if the war is going well next fall, their will fare poorly in the election. Why do you suppose they are NOT presently doing what they can to make sure that we are NOT winning the war next fall?

They have, after all, put their entire stake on the war being lost and they simply cannot afford to allow any other outcome

 

[danarhea]

Again, you didnt answer the question.
I'll re-phrase, because the original was not clear.

The Dems know that if the war is going well next fall, their will fare poorly in the election. Why do you suppose they are NOT presently doing what they can to make sure that we are NOT winning the war next fall?

They have, after all, put their entire stake on the war being lost and they simply cannot afford to allow any other outcome

Actually, I DID answer your original question, which was who would benefit if we won the war. I told you that Republicans would, and also told you that pigs had a better chance of flying. Then you changed the question by posing a red herring which implied that the only reason Democrats were against the war was because they wanted to beat Republicans. If that were truly the case, then why are few Republicans bashing Bush over this too? They also want to beat the Republican party next year? :rofl Changing the question was a dishonest tactic, invoked, I might add after I had posed my own statement. You did not address that, but instead, tried an end run around it by posing your red herring.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, I DID answer your original question, which was who would benefit if we won the war

Yes, but you did not answer the question that followed - though you quoted it when you responsed.

Then you changed the question

No, it was a follow-up question, asked after you admitted that the dems would suffer if the war was going well.

So, again:
Why do you suppose the Dems are not doing what they can to make sure we are not winning next fall?

 

[Ikari]

It depends on the type of success. Had, when we originally went in, everything had gone according to Bush's wet dream in that we would be greeted as liberators, we would deliver a stable self-standing democracy, and the war would have paid for itself; than the Republicans would have greatly benefited.

If success at this point would be achievable (which it pretty much isn't) wherein changes had to be made, the war drug on longer than expected, all the original reasons we went to war were false but we still ended up bringing a stable self-standing democracy to Iraq at the cost of 1000's of American lives and billions of tax payer money it would end up being close to a wash. Republicans would benefit slightly, but success wouldn't have come about without pressure from the Democratic Congress, so the Dems wouldn't suffer much of a set back.

If the war continues on its track, that is a firestorm of violence which persists in Iraq, a government which can't stand without an American presence, continued skyrocketing costs, a continued terrorist breeding ground, further loss of American life for something which is not about American liberty, continued mishandling and incompetence, and a war with no conceivable end in sight; then it will be the Dems who come out smelling of roses. Does that mean that the Dems have a vested interest in failure? Not so much, while the Republocrats would love to keep the issue open so they can continue to use it as political fodder; there is not much interest in actual loss of the "war". Rather an understanding that all was not as it was said at the beginning and we have gotten ourselves into a fight in which the American people will soon tire as the Administration can't convince the people through its actions and rhetoric that we hold any amount of moral higher ground.

 

[niftydrifty]

guys, m14 shooter has a point. despite all the evidence, despite all informed opinions to the contrary, there is maybe a chance that we might just win this thing. yknow, the terrorists might throw down their guns, wave the white flag. it could happen... anything is possible.

i admit i doubted, but m14 sounds like he knows what he's talking about. the Dems want to end the war so the Republicans won't win, not because most of the world believe it can't be won. not because most of the nation believes the war is not worth the cost. not because most Americans want the troops to come home. not because most Americans believe it was a mistake to be in Iraq in the first place.

:mrgreen:

 

[Stinger]

Lies that lead to the death of thousands of people. Yah, you are right. I think he deserves a pay raise for that.

Why weren't there calls to impeach Clinton when his administration said the same thing?

 

[Ikari]

Why weren't there calls to impeach Clinton when his administration said the same thing?

Ahh yes. The ol' "Clinton did it" excuse. Y'all had your chance to kick him out, and he should have been kicked out, but you blew it. Don't excuse the sins of Bush by the sins of Clinton.

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Why weren't there calls to impeach Clinton when his administration said the same thing?

Ahh yes. The ol' "Clinton did it" excuse. Y'all had your chance to kick him out, and he should have been kicked out, but you blew it. Don't excuse the sins of Bush by the sins of Clinton.

Ahhh the old, don't ask me a hard question. Well how about it, the Clinton administration stated the same thing why didn't Kucinich call for his impeachment?

 

[Ikari]

It's not a hard question to answer, don't excuse the sins of the present by the sins of the past; it's that simple. Y'all wanna continue this Republican this and Democrat that thing when in reality they are all the same thing. So you point to Clinton and say "Clinton did it" as if that excuses the behavior. Can I go shoot up a school and say Cho did it? I think I'd still be thrown in jail (most likely shot by police before I could even go to jail). There were calls for Clinton's impeachment, he should have been convicted, the chance was missed, you lose. This is, however, clear, that this is the same thing in the case here with Cheny.

Republicans weren't going to try to really impeach Clinton because the Republocrats are on the same side. They wanted to show some form of solidarity and force saying "here we are, we're in charge here look at us". Put on a nice little show for the people and make us think they actually care about us and the integrity of the government. But that's all it was, a show. They couldn't convict Clinton because the Republicans know they do just as bad things as the Democrats and if one side goes after the other it will open a can of worms that would only greatly benefit the people and this country but not the Republocrat's power. Cheny will not be impeached, this is a show being put on by the Democrats to make it look like they care. But they will not convict him of anything because the Democrats know damned well tha they do the same exact crap the Republicans do and they don't want that can of worms opened either. Same exact thing the Republicans did with Clinton. It will go no where and next time a Democrat takes office, they will all be using the "Bush did it" excuse. Meanwhile the people loose control of the government.

Clinton should have been impeached. But if we are to control this government, we don't start making excuses for the present traitors by the actions of past traitors. We don't excuse the criminal actions of one politician by the criminal actions of another. It sucks that we didn't kick Clinton out, but the time to do that is over. Bush and Cheny need to go, to send a strong message to the government that We the People are no longer going to put up with their crap anymore.

 

[danarhea]

Yes, but you did not answer the question that followed - though you quoted it when you responsed.


No, it was a follow-up question, asked after you admitted that the dems would suffer if the war was going well.

So, again:
Why do you suppose the Dems are not doing what they can to make sure we are not winning next fall?

Again, the red herring, but I will answer your so-called follow up question, then I will follow up by lecturing you.

Of course, the Dems are playing politics with this. Most of them voted for the war, and some of them still favor funding the war. This is so that Iraq will still be an issue in the next election.

Now comes the lecture. In response to my statement, which you never addressed, you put out a red herring that tries to define the issue in terms of Republican versus Democrat instead of right versus wrong. That does not surprise me, since you fully support the Republican party, and this is what the Republican party is doing. Rather than deal with issues, Republicans instead have shown how morally bankrupt they really are by refusing to take responsibility for their actions, and by trashing the very premise that Reagan took the party to success with. In doing so, the Republican party has become the very thing they have always hated - Democrats. The best thing that can happen to the GOP now, is for it to be completely destroyed, and then rebuilt according to the very Conservative principles they have abandoned. That destruction will come next year. Have no doubt about it - The GOP in its present sorry-a$$ed state is doomed, and rightfully so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course, the Dems are playing politics with this. Most of them voted for the war, and some of them still favor funding the war. This is so that Iraq will still be an issue in the next election.

Thank you.
Of course, you wont get THEM to admit that.

 

[danarhea]

Thank you.
Of course, you wont get THEM to admit that.

I noticed that you did not respond to the rest of my post.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I noticed that you did not respond to the rest of my post.

Why would I?
You answered my question, and agreed that the Dems are playing politics.
That's all my question looked for.

 

[Ikari]

Why would I?
You answered my question, and agreed that the Dems are playing politics.
That's all my question looked for.

To be fair then, you too are engaging in nothing more than politics. You set up the questions to allow for only one answer and then upon getting that answer refuse to listen to any clarification or expounding that may need to be made for a complete answer.