Why isn't Kucinich drawing up impeachment articles for Bush* AND Cheney?

[LoZoccolo]

As I understand it, and as it says on Wikipedia, the impeachment articles are as such:

1. manipulating the evidence of Iraq's weapons program
2. deceiving the nation about Iraq's connection to al-Qaeda
3. threatened aggression against Iran

Wait a second: if Cheney did these things, wasn't Bush* at least complicit in them as well, if not a participant? Why does Kucinich not have the courage to draw up impeachment articles against Bush*?

Some people take the cowardly route of political expedience, while others are heroes who hold criminals accountable for their crimes.

[burythehatchet]

1. Cheney is the Firewall. You can be sure they've insulated the boy king

with plausible deniability.

[mtnsnake]

2. I'm just delighted that he's trying to impeach at least one of them

If he's impeaching Cheney, then I'm putting my faith in him that he knows where to start. Thank goodness that at least one of our candidates is interested in holding the criminal accountable. Impeachment is the only way we'll ever get to the bottom of things.

Kucinich rocks.

[LoZoccolo]

He can't have it both ways!

He can't accuse the others of political expedience and engage in the same expedience! It doesn't fly!

[RapidCreek]

17. Cheney is the real President

Bush is simply a feckless boob they trot out now and then to appeal to 'Mercins.

Kucinich is going after the brains behind the boob. I imagine he figures that pulling the corner stone is much more effective than knocking a stone off the top. If Cheney goes down Bush will follow. Impeachment PROCEEDINGS are the only way they will get to the bottom of things...NOT IMPEACHMENT. It is sad that there is no Democratic Party anymore, save for about 25-30 folks. I'm afraid Dennis is pissing into the wind. It's a shame that he can't get a major media market to cover him...he can get a fucking comedian to...but not MSNBC. It would be so sweet to see him say on a major network..."I don't expect Republicans to vote for my resolution but I expect every last Democrat to....and those that don't will be marked as sympathizers with everything Bush has done...if not complicit in it". Funny how no one even mentions him as a participant in the debates...it's as though he was absent.

RC

[cassiepriam]

3. I wondered the same thing as well.

[dave_p]

4. Answer

"It is very important that we start with Mr. Cheney because if we were to start with the President, Mr. Cheney would then become president.... We'd have to go through the constitutional agony of impeaching two presidents consecutively."

I don't think DK's afraid of doing the same to Bush. I'd be very surprised if those Articles haven't been drafted too.

[LoZoccolo]

11. Constitutional agony?

But I saw this guy at the debates pull out a little book-size version of the Constitution and tell us he was doing this all to uphold it...why not do it fully? Too much agony?

[dave_p]

20. President Cheney

How much of the Constitution would survive a Cheney presidency?

You gripe about Kucinich starting with one Impeachment. What about Democrats who are prepared to let Bush & Cheney serve out their terms?

[LoZoccolo]

30. That is all speculation about what Cheney would do.

I am talking about one's duty here and now, and courage to do what's right despite the political consequences...or something.

What about Democrats who are prepared to let Bush & Cheney serve out their terms?

Dennis should shut up about them, apologize, and return all the money he's gotten out of this stunt, because he's a hypocrite.

[AnOhioan]

5. You are calling Dennis a coward??

Please, get a grip. As Dennis himself says, Impeaching Bush leaves us with President Cheney, much more dangerous than than the chimp, who takes his marching orders FROM Cheney.

If you want to toss the coward name around try aiming it at those in the Democratic Leadership who have ingored Dennis' courage.

[LoZoccolo]

8. He implied it of the other candidates first!

He has no moral authority to do so, either!

[AnOhioan]

16. Dennis has more moral authority in his little finger

than 90% of Congress. But go ahead, continue with your little tirade. It reflects more on you than it does on him.

[LWolf]

19. Agreed. 100%. n/t

[NV Whino]

6. Cheney holds the puppet strings

cut the puppet strings and Bush is a goner anyway.

[LoZoccolo]

9. Sounds like political expedience to me. n/t

[RapidCreek]

18. EXACTLY!!

It's good someone has enough sense to see that.

RC

[havocmom]

7. When confronted by a mad dog, ya cut off the head, not the tail

bush needs to be the last part of the dog to go. He is not the part that thinks and bites.

[LoZoccolo]

10. Some would argue that we should cut off the Republicans from winning in 2008.

Dennis accuses them of not upholding the constitution. And yet you have just said that he is at the same time compromising that for strategic reasons.

[msongs]

12. why don't YOU introduce articles of impeachment? oh wait, you haven't done any

of the work necessary to put yourself in such a position. darn accountability always gettin' in the way.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[LoZoccolo]

14. I didn't imply the rest of the candidates were shirking the Constitution either. n/t

[havocmom]

13. No, that is not what I said. You can misinterpret all ya want

but don't go saying I said something I didn't.

[LoZoccolo]

15. OK then, why is he not drawing up articles of impeachment for Bush*?

Is Bush* somehow less guilty? I would think he is more guilty because I think he can fire the vice-president if he wants to. So why isn't Dennis doing anything?

[dave_p]

21. Did I miss something?

What makes you think he hasn't drawn up articles of impeachment for Bush?

[LoZoccolo]

28. ...beeeeeeeecause he wasn't shown them to us? n/t

[dave_p]

69. ... and shown them to Bush?

Why would he?

[LoZoccolo]

78. To take a stand! n/t

[dsc]

22. No he can't

The VP is elected not serving at Bush's whim. He could have fired him from the ticket in 2004 but once Cheney was reelected he got a mandate to serve four years.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[havocmom]

51. Ask him, not me

Frankly, your constant contentious whining bores me. All too predictable and never constructive so no point in bothering with ya

[LoZoccolo]

52. And yet you return to this thread all by yourself. n/t

[ISUGRADIA]

81. Uh, no a president cannot "fire" his VP

A vp resigns or is impeached and convicted, those are the only options

[RapidCreek]

24. He or she said they are comprimising what?

I didn't read anywhere in the person to whose post you're referring that he is suggesting Kucinich is compromising upholding of the constitution....YOUR saying that for some strange reason.

Mr. Kucinich said he is protecting the Constitution as he is duty bound to do...and if he can best protect it by going after Cheney (and he can) then that is what he should do.

If you haven't made the connection that Cheney is the real President and Bush simply a feckless idiot, that's paraded in front of 'Mercins to charm them with his folksy act from time to time, I pity you.

You nab Cheney and Bush will naturally follow...as he's done throughout his "presidency".

RC

[RufusTFirefly]

23. LoZoccolo's point is legit, but...

... I think the problem is more in DK's explanation rather than his approach. It does indeed sound expedient.

By saying that he wants to impeach Cheney first so as to avoid President Cheney (I get an involuntary shudder even typing that), he is unduly politicizing what should be a Constitutional remedy.

That said, Cheney is kind of the low-hanging fruit. It might actually be easier to make a case to impeach Cheney than it would to come up with one for impeaching his sockpuppet boss. This would be perfectly sound reasoning. Consider all the trips to Langley for example.

So Dennis should've said he's drawn up articles of impeachment for Cheney because the case against him is stronger, not because he wants to prevent Cheney from becoming President, which he already de facto is.

[RapidCreek]

37. I would't say he is unduly politicizing anything...

he isn't doing anything to excess he is doing something to be effective. I hardly see were one could confuse excess with effect.

RC

[RufusTFirefly]

47. Sorry, but

explaining his choice to go after Cheney first because he doesn't want a President Cheney is unduly politicizing. The issue should be whether someone appears to have committed high crimes and misdemeanors or not.

Again, I think the problem is DK's rationale, not his approach. I fully support his efforts.

[RapidCreek]

49. How is it unduly politicizing?

It isn't unduly politicizing if he doesn't want a criminal to be president. That is not without due, quite the contrary. He is doing what he is constitutionally bound to do and he is going about it in a prudent fashion.

RC

[RufusTFirefly]

67. Cheney is a criminal?

You'll get no disagreement from me. Based on what I've read and observed, I think there's abundant evidence to support this. But I am not a lawyer, a member of the House or a member of the Senate. And based on your grasp of the Constitution, I gather that you aren't either.

Cheney needs to be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. You, I, and DK can't simply brand him a criminal and use it as a rationale for impeaching him first. That's a circular argument that rests on an unduly politicized assumption. And a decidedly undemocratic one, I might add. Presumed innocence applies to heartless, self-aggrandizing scum too. I'm sorry you can't see that. And I'm sorry that an issue we are in fundamental agreement on is getting waylaid by DK's slightly hamfisted way of framing it.

[Hart2008]

25. Technically, the VP is not in the Executive branch, but the President of the Senate

Thus removing the VP is more closely analogous to an expulsion from the Senate. The only constitutional power of the VP is to break ties in the Senate.

[IndianaGreen]

26. Yeah, right! Your Goddess of Peace Hillary is not for impeaching anyone!

Tactically, I can see Dennis's point. There is a lot of evidence that Cheney was involved in fixing the intelligence in the run up to the war, not to mention his role in outing Valerie Plame.

Cheney is an easy and popular target for impeachment. His removal from office will remove the most influential evil voice in the Bush regime.

If we were to impeach both Bush and Cheney, Democrats could be accused of staging a coup to install Pelosi in the White House. A false charge, to be sure, but one that would distract us from impeaching the American Darth Vader.

[LoZoccolo]

29. "easy and popular"

If it looks like political expedience...

[IndianaGreen]

31. Political expedience are those Democrats that did not raised their hands on impeachment

and Nacy Pelosi blocking HR 333, the impeachment resolution, from even getting a hearing.

Getting beyond the institutional cowardice of the Beltway Democrats, impeaching Cheney is easy because there is a preponderance of the evidence that he broke the law and abused power. It is also popular because Cheney is far more unpopular than Bush.

[LoZoccolo]

32. So he should shut up about them already and apologize for his hypocrisy. n/t

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

34. None of them have to call for impeachment.

They didn't accuse people of not upholding the constitution because of political expedience, and try to do so in a politically expedient way!

[RapidCreek]

35. What is he doing that is politically expediant?

I guess I don't understand. Websters gives the following definition for political expedience...stresses judiciousness and tactical value but usually implies some lack of candor or sincerity.

What has Kucinih DONE that is politically expedient? He has every intent to file papers and every intent to try and impeach Cheney...it is certainly judicious and tactical...and I guess I fail to see how there is an implication of a lack of candor or sincerity. That's two out of three...and the third that is missing is the defining attribute.

The people to whom he leveled his accusation speak of how "terrible" the vice president is but do nothing about it...and that's politically expedient.

[LoZoccolo]

36. He is trying to impeach Cheney but not Bush*.

All the reasons I've heard so far have to do with how it is more practical to just impeach Cheney. They are up and down this thread.

[Bjorn Against]

39. Well if his chances for success are better by going for one at a time...

Then he should go for one at a time. Bush can come after he takes down Cheney, sure I would like it if he could go for both but he is going for what he sees at the best opportunity to win popular support for his proposal. In order to have a chance at this succeeding he needs to rally the public opinion to his side. Bush can come later, I think Cheney is a great starting point.

[RapidCreek]

41. So what is your point?

That is judicious and tactical and it hardly lacks sincerity. You don't know what his plans are regarding Bush....he hasn't expressed any. He has stated why he is NOT going after Bush at this juncture and he is not doing it for tactical reasons. There is no lack of sincerity in his plan, however. He is doing what any good prosecutor does....he's following the shit up the hill. It stops were it stops.

RC

[LoZoccolo]

44. And everyone who isn't pursuing impeachment of Cheney says that...

...their actions are judicious and tactical, and they get accused of shirking their duty to the Constitution. Dennis cannot have it both ways!

[RapidCreek]

48. They are that's true...but they're doing NOTHING to protect it.

and there in lies their lack of sincerity and subsequently their political expedience. It seems a pretty simple concept to me.

Dennis Kucinich called a spade a spade. I recognize that's not currently politically correct, it's correct, but not politically so, hence his lack of political expedience. Perhaps you should pen a letter to the individual whom your so incensed Mr. Kucinich besmirched and ask them why they do and say things which are judicious and tactical but lack sincerity in following up on these things which they are constitutionally bound to follow up on.

Again I will say to you that Mr. Kucinich is engaging in a course of action which is judicious, tactical and sincere as a heart attack and that my friend doesn't add up to political expedience.

There is no both ways in what he is doing or saying. There is in what those he accused of political expedience are doing, hence his well founded accusation.

RC

[LoZoccolo]

50. "Tactical" alone adds up to political expedience.

The kind he is repudiating the rest of the candidates for, and which makes a hypocrite of him.

[RapidCreek]

53. Actually it doesn't

It must be accompanied by insincerity...which Mr. Kucinich has failed to display and those who he accused of political expedience have not.

I'll refer you once again to Websters definition word for word.-POLITIC stresses judiciousness and tactical value but usually implies some lack of candor or sincerity <a politic show of interest>.

RC

[LoZoccolo]

54. The other candidates sincerely want big gains in 2008.

Obviously they want to win the Presidency, at least.

[RapidCreek]

57. How does being a chikenshit = a Presidency?

Personally I'd think that'd be a quality we'd want to avoid....particularly in a man or woman who is sworn to protect and uphold the constitution. Then again, perhaps you'd prefer to live in a dictatorship sans civil rights. We're not far from one right now. I'd think you'd want to bring any chance of that to a screaming halt both presently and in the future.

Sycophants were the building blocks of the Third Reich.

RC

[LoZoccolo]

58. It doesn't.

How does chickenshit = upholding the Constitution?

[RapidCreek]

62. It doesn't

and that is why Kucinic rightly accused his fellows of political expedience.

RC

[LoZoccolo]

63. That's hypocrisy, then.

I'm gonna end this one, though; this is useless. Threads get locked when they drag out like this, and I think my post is just too good to let that happen. Suffice to say I don't get why Dennis Kucinich gets a license to let political considerations get in the way of doling out punishments, while the rest of them don't. If you want to respond to the OP with that, maybe we'll talk, but I still haven't gotten that and don't think this is productive until I do.

[Zhade]

75. Well, let's be honest - you don't know what he's doing about b*s*.

The word I would add to your petulant diatribe is "yet".

[Bjorn Against]

38. It is smarter to go after one of them at a time...

Once Kucinich gets Cheney he can go after Bush. If it looked like Kucinich was going for a President Pelosi the Republicans could easily spin it as a power grab. If he gets Cheney first then Bush can appoint a new VP and it will be clear the Democrats won't take the Presidency until they legitimately win it in 2008, it won't be seen as a power grab and that will make it much easier to win public support.

[LoZoccolo]

40. Smarter? We're talking about duty here!

The other candidates say it's smarter just to let them continue to sink themselves so we can win 2008. Dennis is supposed to be putting the Constitution ahead of all that!

[Bjorn Against]

42. I don't want to let them continue to let this country sink...

Kucinich is moving towards getting rid of these tyrants a lot faster than anyone else in Congress is, if it were practical to go for both Bush and Cheney at once I would be all for it but I want this to succeed. I think the best chance of success is to go after Cheney first and rally the public opinion behind you, once you can get Cheney down Bush is next. That is the duty Kucinich is trying to fulfill, he is using strategy to fulfill that duty. I wish Kucinich could get them both impeached immediately but unfortunately it is not that simple.

[RapidCreek]

43. Yes we are

If he stands a better chance of nailing Bush by nailing Cheney first then he IS doing his duty. Any decent prosecutor would tell you the same thing.

RC

[martymar64]

82. Kucinich is making a move in the right direction, yet you whine . . .

Would you prefer if nobody does anything, perhaps "keep our powder dry"?

I think he's doing a great thing, impeachment is long overdue. Getting rid of Cheney will deprive Bush of much of his power.

It sounds more like you have some unknown personal beef with Kucinich. Is that it? Or is it the idea of impeachment that sticks in your craw? You might want to ask yourself that.

If any other candidate did the same thing I would back their effort 100%. But alas, they would rather listen to Beltway pundits than what people all over America are screaming for. It's mighty sad when our own side is trying to undermine one of our own champions trying to do the right thing.

On a personal note, I could care less about his internal motivations pushing for impeachment. For me, what counts is that he's tryng to get that evil bastard out of office. Why can't that be good enough for you?

[MadHound]

45. Because Kucinich is no fool, he's taking out a good part of the brains behind Bushboy

Meanwhile what are those other "heroes":puke: doing?

Oh, yeah, sitting and spinning.

One of the more pathetic attacks I've seen on Kucinich.

[mmonk]

46. For one thing, to make it easier for people to get on board

since a lot of them privately would like to see the VP go. Second, he kept the articles simple, the number down (you could really produce a book of articles) for the same reason. Still, there is a lack of courage or will.

[Alexander]

55. Here's a good reason or two...

1) Because it helps us slightly in the Senate, without Cheney there to break the 50-50 tie.

2) Because Cheney doubtlessly knew more about the plans regarding the Iraq invasion, the CIA leak scandal, the possible rigging of votes in Ohio in 2004 and the attorney firings.

3) Nixon was impeached under "abuse of power" and "obstruction of justice". These same charges could be easily applied to Bush, but especially so to Cheney.

4) Because both Bush and Cheney need to be brought to trial, but we should be getting the nastier bastards first, then the complicit criminals, like Bush. You don't go after a pickpocket if another guy just broke into your house.

[LoZoccolo]

56. Why not go after Bush* too?

You have given three reasons for impeaching Cheney, and then go on to say that impeaching Cheney "should" happen first. My original question was why did Kucinich think this "should" happen.

[RapidCreek]

59. It's called prosecutorial technique.

RC

[LoZoccolo]

60. Now that we know what it's called, let's work on why he's doing it. n/t

[RapidCreek]

64. Why do you think he is doing it?

Really, think about your answer. Before you do...think about this...how well insulated do you think a Carlisle Group former board member,is insulated. How would you go about legally breaking down that insulation?

RC

[LoZoccolo]

61. Wait, wait, I didn't even ask you. n/t

[Alexander]

79. Oh, so he's not allowed to answer?

[Hart2008]

66. Cheney is not part of the Executive Branch per US constitution. He is Senate President.

Impeaching Cheney is comparable to expelling a Senator. The only difference is his is a national office. The U.S. Constitution puts Cheney in the Legislative Branch, not the Executive. In modern times the VP has become more active in the cabinet, but the Constitutional role of the VP hasn't changed. The VP is President of the Senate with no other constitutional Executive Branch role.

[martymar64]

84. Ask Kucinich why.

He could give you a better answer about what he is thinking. We're not mind readers here.

[Hart2008]

65. You are forgetting the Presidential pardon power

You can't squeeze the underlings into giving up the masterminds when the masterminds can pardon the underlings and end the prosecutions. See Bush, the elder, in Iran-Contra.

Impeachment is a requirement to justice here.

[LoZoccolo]

68. Kick - are you reading this, Dennis?

:kick:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

70. Cheney is the brains of the outfit

If Bush alone is impeached, then Cheney becomes president, and then we're really in trouble.

If Cheney is gone, Bush will be like a dummy without a ventriloquist.

[LoZoccolo]

71. Sounds like someone is putting strategy ahead of justice! n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. That's rich, coming from a staunch DLC supporter

:eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

73. Maybe Dennis will join soon. n/t

[Zhade]

74. Because Cheney was in charge of the OSP and thus the lies for war, and b*s* just repeated them?

Because Cheney was responsible for outing Plame, and creating the Niger yellowcake lies?

Because b*s* is an incurious moron who does what Cheney tells him to do?

Because Cheney's the one who's been involved in illegal government schemes since Nixon, not b*s*?

Do you even know his history, and what he's done?

[LoZoccolo]

76. I don't think the rest of his history plays a part in all of this.

The impeachment articles give three basic charges. If there were more things he should be charged with that are a factor in this impeachment, Dennis needs to include them as well. Unless he's leaving them off for reasons of political expedience, which again would rob him of some of the moral authority he's used against his opponents.

[Hart2008]

80. Dennis? Isn't it for the House Judiciary Committee to decide the charges now? n/t

[Clark2008]

77. You can't prosecute the mentally challenged?

:shrug:

[yurbud]

83. If Cheney and Karl were both gone, Bush would flop around on the floor flip a fish out of water.