Kucinich wants to know: Impeach Bush/Cheney?

[Jodin]

Prior to Kucinich announcing his candidacy for president, a friend of ImpeachforPeace.org and a major Activist in portland sent us the following…
“My NW Kucinich contact tells me Dennis is going to throw his hat into the ring tomorrow for the presidency. I told him to tell Dennis he’d be wiser to hold off for a month or two and on Jan. 3 hopper the same bill Cynthia McKinney did Friday and he’d have at least 1,000,000 folks behind him. The K-man said: ‘OK. Get the word out to your impeachment people to tell their subscribers to write Dennis a message saying just that.’"

So, here's the deal. Kucinich is asking for people who support impeachment to send him an email letting him know. He's sizing up the support to see if there is enough to make a push of his own.

Kucinich’s email: [e-mail]
Let’s go, Gang!!!

Example:

"Dear Kucinich,
Please support the impeachment of George Bush.
Sincerely,
Your Name Here
Registered Voter
Home Town, Zip Code"

Oh yeah, and Impeach Bush Yourself

[cyclezealot]

1. I favor impeachment eventually.

But, think it wise to inform the American people as to why this is necessry, before running off in a rush. With pending investigations revealing the corruption of the Bushies', it will be easier after the investigations reveal what we all know to be true. The American people expect the case to be presented first.

[puebloknot]

2. If we say "impeach," Dennis will know when to do it! nt

[Jodin]

3. Now.

Impeachment is HOW you show the american people. Support for impeachment, and disagreement with Bush's policies is already twice that of Nixon's when he was investigated through impeachment.

[Kolesar]

4. Prosecutor Fitzgerald could not nail Dick Cheney--how could we build an impeachment case?

This is another way of asking: what could we get Cheney on, besides launching an illegal war of aggression? (My memory of Fitz prosecuting "Scooter" Libby is a bit hazy and I forgot where we left off.) I surely don't want to remove bush from office and then have neocon Cheney ascend to ultimate power. That would be a disaster.

[Larry Allen]

7. By the time we get there

By the time we investigate and impeach Bush, Cheney will have become thoroughly implicated, impugned and discredited. He will be exposed as the primary force behind the crimes, and unable to assume office.

[ShrewdLiberal]

5. Bush is a failure in the vast majority of Americans' and historians minds already...

...so impeachment would just be the cherry on the cake. There's nothing the Chimp-in-Thief can do to save himself from history's judgment. He's a liar, a criminal, a murderer, a thief, a failure.

Kucinich just wants to end the Bush fatigue sooner rather than later. But Bush has put this country through so much disgraceful crap, I don't think many in the country want impeachment, which is kind of ironic, considering the already overwelming Bush fatigue that's set in. It would be more fatigue heaped atop an already chronic hill. Most people already know Bush is a criminal. He's been judged and condemned long ago. His poll numbers reflect it overwelmingly and on a consistent basis. The recent poll showing him ranked dead last behind the recent presidents Reagan, Clinton, Carter, the Bush the Elder, by twice the numbers of his father, shows that he's finished. I'm all for impeaching him, though. He's certainly committed high crimes and misdemeanors multiple times.

[Larry Allen]

6. of course we should

OF COURSE we should impeach Bush/Cheney. We need to right an upside down republic, let every future president know what is unacceptable behavior, and possibly forestall wholesale pardons.

The downside of impeachment is not that it might fail, but that the most egregious crimes might be left out. We must also investigate 9/11. We may not yet know what happened, but we do know that the Bush administration has falsified, misrepresented, manipulated, and covered up.

Cindy Sheehan is right. If the impeachment provisions were not meant for the likes of G. W. Bush, then for whom? The democrats cannot complain that Bush has shredded the bill of rights, and simultaneously shred the impeachment clauses of the constitution.

[Vidar]

12. Well said. Welcome to DU.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. How do we impeach both Bush and Cheney?

I'm serious, I'm asking about legal mechanics. Wouldn't separate charges have to be filed against both men? Wouldn't they both be entitled to individual "trials"? Would the House and Senate have the capacity to conduct two simultaneous proceedings? How would that work?

Because if impeachments have to be handled in sequence rather than simultaneously, I simply would not support impeaching Bush before impeaching Cheney. Of the two, Cheney is far more dangerous. I would not want him to occupy the oval office for one week, let alone six months. If Bush got impeached first Cheney legally would become President, even if impeachment charges were immediately filed against him. He would still have the power of President until he was removed from office. I don't doubt for a second that Cheney would attack Iran, ESPECIALLY if Congress was trying to impeach him.

[Larry Allen]

9. The Cheney argument could have been applied to Spiro Agnew

I don't know about the legal mechanics, but I do know that when things get real serious, the powers that be move in to arrange a soft landing. I'm sure Cheney would rather start WWIII than testify under oath, but he won't have the power to do so. Daddy Bush, the joint chiefs, Gates and many others would prevent it. There are limits to what this country would do to protect a VPs rear end.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Except that Agnew was out before Nixon

Nixon's impeachment got us Gerry Ford as President. Agnew was a crook and a scoundral but not a military adventurist. Nixon's temporary replacement by Agnew would not have dramatically shifted the liklihood of war anywhere on the planet.

Daddy Bush's influence on Junior hasn't done a hell of a lot of good, I think he has less influence on Cheney. Gates is probably a Cheney opponent in the internal power struggles of the Bush Administration, but the SOD serves at the President's pleasure. If Cheney replaces Bush as President it is no longer a matter of anyone protecting a VP's rear end, Cheney would be President, and with that have Presidential powers to act that VP's do not have. Impeachment is a constitutional remedy to constitutional abuses. Joint Chiefs of staff intervention of course, is not.

[Vincardog]

13. WE need to impeach all the malicious NeoConvicts and prevent them

from returning and spreading their poison in any future government.
I never want to see Gonzales or Rummy in any position of power.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Kucinich stated at his announcement that he was opposed to impeachment

He said that it would only make it harder to bring the troops home as quickly as possible.

[cyclezealot]

17. I think he is probably right.

[abburdlen]

18. Impeachment is the way

Dennis is a good guy but I think he's got this wrong. I seriously doubt Congress will vote to cut off funding for the troops in Iraq and there is no way Bush is going to admit he screwed up the entire Middle East and bring the troops home. We will have forces in Iraq as long as this administration is in office. We can wait until 08 or get started removing blight now.

[longship]

14. I'll support impeachment, but not now.

And certainly not during Jan 2007, and likely not until at least Spring.

It's just too damned risky of a move to make right out of the gate. Democrats are wisely scared about this, especially after the Clinton impeachment debacle which is still hurting Republicans, even eight years later. It was a true black spot on our history and will forever portrayed that way.

I know that ChimpCo is different, and richly deserves to be given the boot. But the people are notably scared of impeachment, possibly and regrettably because of the Clinton mess. This is precisely why investigations *must* come first. Then, and only if the people get behind impeachment to the point like that of 1974, should Dems start proceedings against ChimpCo.

Read John W. Dean's latest on FindLaw for insight into another path.
(Look at the top of the Greatest page for link.)

[Fovea]

15. First comes Waxman

and maybe Conyers. Then comes the full house hearings on the counts. Then the vote, and it maybe goes to the Senate to take up.
This won't happen by the end of Jan, unless Dubya celebrates the birth of the baby Jesus by nuking Iran--
while having sex with Gannon and Foley live on Faux.

[longship]

16. Precisely.

But I wouldn't lay any bets that Crashcart or Chimp will ever be impeached, let alone removed from office. It's pretty near inevitable that they'll serve out their terms. Read Dean's article for why. I happen to agree with him. You might not. However, that's probably how it's going to end up.

That's too bad. But maybe we can pick off some of the low-hanging fruit. Impeaching Gonzo would be great.

[mmonk]

19. Impeachment I believe is going to have to be forced.

Otherwise, I'm afraid it will never happen. Otherwise, I believe politicians will continue to lie unchecked by a complicent corporate media.

[Canuckistanian]

20. Yes please, Mr. Kucinich

And make sure the message is "Impeach Bush/Cheney".