Articles of Impeachment against Richard Cheney

http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdf

You know, other than looking funny, Dennis Kucinich is interesting. I'm not much of a person to agree with him, but I certainly know one thing: he is principled. Some may say this is a cheap political move to get recognition in another presidential bid that will ultimately fail for him. I disagree. I think he's searched his conscience and firmly believes that Dick Cheney has abused his office and the Constitution gives him the authority, nay the responsibility, to rectify the situation.

His reading of Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution ("The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors") seems to be a reasonable one given his perspective, a perspective that has been surging in popularity, and I feel reasonability as the Bush Administration has continued.

While the articles introduced by Rep. Kucinich cite "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" as the basis for impeachment, I feel even a case regarding Bribery would be reasonable given the situation. Black's Law Dictionary defines "bribery" as "the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions as an official or other person in discharge of a public or legal duty." Considering Vice President Cheney's ties to Haliburton and the many no-bid contracts the company received, I feel that this has offered value to Cheney for decisions made by the executive branch, a branch of government he is an integral part of.

Bush and Cheney only have a few months left in office. As such, I find it exceedingly difficult to believe Kucinich is NOT just playing politics. The vice president is universally unpopular, and calling for his impeachment is nothing new, nor is providing evidence that he ought to be impeached. The problem is, the evidence is flawed, marked by a loose reading of the constitution. Cheney has not overstepped his boundaries. The no-bid contract was not illegal, and I have yet to see definitive proof that it is. I would have loved for this document to have dissuaded me, but it didn't.

As to the vice president's "deceitful" methods...the Clinton administration had much of the same intelligence, and spouted much of the same rhetoric. The difference was that they failed to act on it. Naturally, any president or administration that acts upon flawed intelligence is bound to be unpopular, but the "lies" are blown out of proportion. I see nothing in this document that attests to Kucinich's principles, just his willingness to play to liberal voters.

No, Kucinich isn't principled...he's just a crazy moonbat.

quote:

Dennis Kucinich is interesting

Well of course he is. I mean, usually the molemen exist in secrecy and abide by a mutually agreed upon code of silence between themselves and us on the surface. Kucinich decided however that he would rebel against this and gain political office, with no heed for what the elder molemen thought.

(Yes this is a "he sort of looks like gollum" joke except stretched to its absolute limit)

quote:

Considering Vice President Cheney's ties to Haliburton and the many no-bid contracts the company received

Similar contracts did occur under previous administrations.

I feel as if your assessment of the situation is a bit off. You say Kucinich is playing politics because the vice president is universally unpopular. However, if this were a good political move, you would see virtually every candidate joining on with Rep. Kucinich's resolution. However, in the first Democratic Candidates debate, when the candidates were asked to raise their hands if they supported the resolution, no one raised their hands (except maybe Mr. Gravel, I forget). I find it hard to believe that other candidates, especially top-tier candidates Obama and Clinton, likely with paid consultants considering this very issue, would not have jumped on if this were a good political move. I also think it's safe to assume that Rep. Kucinich would be thrilled to receive his party's nomination, so we must assume that he will either (a) work in his best interest for this goal or (b) work on his principles. Even if Rep. Kucinich is not aiming to gain his party's nomination, then the only other thing he is doing is using the primary process as a mouthpiece, in which case he would be advocating his own views (see: b).

As for the legitimacy of the arguments in Rep. Kucinich's resolution, I will agree that Article I is not well supported. I feel like I read something recently that said that Congress has discovered and known that the intelligence presented in the lead-up to the Iraq war, concerning the presence of WMDs, was manipulated to mislead, but I cannot find this report and probably read it on some blog that is a less than reputable source of factual information.

However, in Article II I begin to see some legitimacy to Rep. Kucinich's claims. Article II refers to the claims made by the current administration (specifically claims by Vice President Cheney) that Iraq and al Qaeda were collaborating to bring harm to the United States. I will agree, of course, that Saddam Hussein was not exactly the most friendly towards us and will accept he might have aimed to bring harm to this country, and also of course that al Qaeda has goals of destruction of us, the "great Satan," but this does not make a link. In fact, in the lead up the Iraq War, the intelligence community, in the National Intelligence Estimate, assigned "low confidence" to the likelihood that Saddam Hussein would collaborate with al Qaeda to attack the United States (From FactCheck.org,a nonpartisan, non-profit website that does as its name says). Additionally, the 9/11 Commission, in its assessment of the lead-up to the Iraq War, found no "collaborative relationship" between the Iraqi dictator and the terror group. My assumption is that the intelligence the commission had at its disposable was not markedly different from that available to the administration and Vice President Cheney before the invasion of Iraq. I feel that this is safe to make, especially considering the National Intelligence Estimate's assessment of this issue.

I have no real assessment of Rep. Kucinich's claims in Article III, concerning Vice President Cheney's "threatened aggression" against Iran, "absent any real threat to the United States." What I will say is that aggression towards Iran is not a wise move at this point. We are already spread quite thin, with military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan currently, and Iraq further spiraling into violence that is showing little sign of stopping. Additionally, while I do not have any hard evidence to currently back this, I am sure that scholars agree that Iran will be able to manage itself, without threatening the United States, because of sane leadership and a rising, educated population. Claiming that dictators are "crazy" is an oversimplification of the issue. Leaders look to grandstand to get attention, but in the end are looking after their own self-interests. Additionally, like I said, the educated population in Iran is growing, which spells trouble for any dictator.

Regardless of my own, simplified, and possibly even inaccurate (like I said, I do not have the facts necessary to make a good assessment of the situation in Iran) views on Iran, Rep. Kucinich has made a legitimate point in Article II, one that should be considered. While it may initially appear that Rep. Kucinich is playing politics, the fact of the matter is that this is unlikely, because playing in such a way will clearly not win him victory, and if it does not clinch victory, there is no point to making such statements except if one believes them.

Also:

quote:

Originally posted by Sharpshooter005 quote: Originally posted by Dude Love Considering Vice President Cheney's ties to Haliburton and the many no-bid contracts the company received Similar contracts did occur under previous administrations.

Just because other administrations did something does not mean that it is ethical or legal.

quote:

Just because other administrations did something does not mean that it is ethical or legal.

I never said this, merely that the fact it was allowed to just be shrugged off in the past does somewhat make it look like this is more politically motivated than it is a matter of ethics.

Then again maybe I'm just cynical like that, who knows.

quote:

in the first Democratic Candidates debate, when the candidates were asked to raise their hands if they supported the resolution, no one raised their hands (except maybe Mr. Gravel, I forget)

I was at work slightly later than I'd expected and missed the entire debate. The only case of Gravel raising his hand/not raising his hand in defiance of the other candidates was some question about the institution of an official language (as I recall Gravel raised his hand), or at least thats the only clip I saw played that corresponds to what you've described.

quote:

What I will say is that aggression towards Iran is not a wise move at this point. We are already spread quite thin

Damn, I misconstrued this initially as part of a Kucinich quote. I thought he'd actually said something which was...very rational.

In any event, his exact definition of what constitutes bribery seems like it could be challenged fairly easily. I can't help but think that, even if this is being done with only the purest intent and I've wildly misjudged Kucinich, that its mainly symbolic.

That was my own extrapolations of "bribery" in order to look at the issue from two angles: the "HE LIED" angle and the "HE'S GREEDY" angle. When I was thinking about it, I knew it was just musing and would never stand up to legal scrutiny.

With only a few months left, I really don't see the point in impeaching the guy.

This is a waste of time, and resources for our government.

The efforts this guy wants to undertake would have it's energy better directed for revoking Bush's war privileges given to him by the republican congress in '01.

We need to get out of Iraq, and refocus our resources in effective homeland security.

quote:

revoking Bush's war privileges given to him by the republican congress in '01.

Remember when the Democrats won the house and senate in '07 on the platform of getting us the hell out, whatever was necessary to accomplish that?

That was fun, didn't last particularly long, but for a couple of seconds it was fun.

It was funny to watch Olbermann turn on the Dems. There's video of it on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyW9vJL97z0

Death to the Great Satan America!


etc etc etc I'm voting for Sharpton.







Also its pronounced Dick.


















Also I'm really enjoying this Olbermann thing.

quote:

etc etc etc I'm voting for Sharpton.

Gimmick candidates are fun yeah

Well I wouldn't be voting for him if I didn't routinely confuse him with someone Friday Night Stand Up who does nothing but joke about how "WHITE PEOPLE BE LIKE DIS, BLACK PEOPLE BE LIKE DIS"

Oh you can actually vote?

This..this democracy thing needed to be beta tested more I'm pretty sure.

That's the fatal flaw, really; I've always favored Monarchy over this voting nonsense. No wasting time with petty infighting, and that way at least politicians really do get executed.

I hate monarchy also.

I guess what I actually favor is democracy, but with some shadow government correcting it if it goes awry. And they're SO mysterious that they actually have like a secondary shadowy cabal running things indirectly, and the secondary one dosen't even realize theres a primary group above them who are influencing their actions also.

Hell you could have 3 or more levels of this, the more shadowy and secretive the more awesome it gets. Like you have to go up high enough to find someone who actually knows about the-@@@@***SYSTEM ERROR: CONNECTION LOST***@@@@

quote:

Originally posted by Sharpshooter005 quote: revoking Bush's war privileges given to him by the republican congress in '01. Remember when the Democrats won the house and senate in '07 on the platform of getting us the hell out, whatever was necessary to accomplish that? That was fun, didn't last particularly long, but for a couple of seconds it was fun.

Yeah, you gotta love the brick wall of veto, eh?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Fortnight quote: Originally posted by Sharpshooter005 quote: revoking Bush's war privileges given to him by the republican congress in '01. Remember when the Democrats won the house and senate in '07 on the platform of getting us the hell out, whatever was necessary to accomplish that? That was fun, didn't last particularly long, but for a couple of seconds it was fun. Yeah, you gotta love the brick wall of veto, eh?

Just keep saying "no deadline no funding" over and over. Drive right into that gridlock and start hammering on your novelty horn.

edit: And "BUT THAT WOULD GET USED AGAINST THEM POLITICALLY" Oh god heaven forbid they try to capitalize on their momentum and...get this..outspin the inevitable opposition. Instead of going "mean president didn't let it pass we're sowwy everybody we tried "

Technocracy. That's what's needed. Enlightened Despotism, just without the negative connotations of a despot.

What about some gigantic roulette wheel set up in the middle of the capitol building

Or wait...no..the price is right wheel. We just place words on it instead of numbers then do what the wheel lands on. I mean it worked for bob barker, he's been alive and employed since the dawn of the universe.