Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 10:12 AM
Original message
Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney's office refused to cooperate with an agency that oversees classified documents, then tried to abolish the office when it challenged the actions, House oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman said.

The National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office is charged by presidential order with ensuring that classified information and documents are properly handled by executive branch agencies.

According to a letter from William Leonard, director of the oversight office, Cheney's office argued it did not meet the definition of an executive branch agency and therefore was exempt.


110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. RES. 333

Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 24, 2007

Mr. KUCINICH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:

(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction:

(A) `We know they have biological and chemical weapons.' March 17, 2002, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace.

(B) `. . . and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.' March 19, 2002, Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem.

(C) `And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time . . .' March 24, 2002, CNN Late Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.

(D) `We know he's got chemicals and biological and we know he's working on nuclear.' May 19, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(E) `But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons . . . Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.' August 26, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention.

(F) `Based on intelligence that's becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(G) `He is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(H) `And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States.

(A) Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, made multiple trips to the CIA in 2002 to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives accounts.

(B) Vice President Cheney sought out unverified and ultimately inaccurate raw intelligence to prove his preconceived beliefs. This strategy of cherry picking was employed to influence the interpretation of the intelligence.

(3) The Vice President's actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002, and carefully considered by Congress prior to the October 10, 2002, vote to authorize the use of force. The Vice President's actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intelligence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two Federal agencies.

(A) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate stated `Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute it's nuclear weapons program INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result INR is unable to predict that Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.'.

(B) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate also stated that `Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.'.

(C) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate references a Department of Energy opinion by stating that `INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the US Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.'.

The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article II

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:

(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda:

(A) `His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.' December 2, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference.

(B) `His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.' January 30, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to 30th Political Action Conference in Arlington, Virginia.

(C) `We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(D) `We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons . . .' September 14, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(E) `Al Qaeda had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces.' October 3, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney at Bush-Cheney '04 Fundraiser in Iowa.

(F) `He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.' October 10, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to the Heritage Foundation.

(G) `Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services have worked together on a number of occasions.' January 9, 2004, Rocky Mountain News interview with Vice President Cheney.

(H) `I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.' January 22, 2004, NPR: Morning Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.

(I) `First of all, on the question of--of whether or not there was any kind of relationship, there clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to; the evidence is overwhelming.' June 17, 2004, CNBC: Capital Report interview with Vice President Cheney.

(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, a fact articulated in several official documents, including:

(A) A classified Presidential Daily Briefing ten days after the September 11, 2001, attacks indicating that the United States intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was `scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda'.

(B) Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, which challenged the credibility of information gleaned from captured al Qaeda leader al-Libi. The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: `Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.'.

(C) A January 2003 British intelligence classified report on Iraq that concluded that `there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network'.

The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article III

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit:

(1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran as evidenced by the following:

(A) `For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.' March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference.

(B) `But we've also made it clear that all options are on the table.' January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney.

(C) `When we--as the President did, for example, recently--deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.' January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney.

(D) `But I've also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.' February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia.

(2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States as evidenced by the following:

(A) `I know that what we see in Iran right now is not the industrial capacity you can bomb.' Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.

(B) Iran indicated its `full readiness and willingness to negotiate on the modality for the resolution of the outstanding issues with the IAEA, subject to the assurances for dealing with the issues in the framework of the Agency, without the interference of the United Nations Security Council'. IAEA Board Report, February 22, 2007.

(C) `. . . so whatever they have, what we have seen today, is not the kind of capacity that would enable them to make bombs.' Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.

(3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following:

(A) The United States has refused to engage in meaningful diplomatic relations with Iran since 2002, rebuffing both bilateral and multilateral offers to dialogue.

(B) The United States is currently engaged in a military buildup in the Middle East that includes the increased presence of the United States Navy in the waters near Iran, significant United States Armed Forces in two nations neighboring to Iran, and the installation of anti-missile technology in the region.

(C) News accounts have indicated that military planners have considered the B61-11, a tactical nuclear weapon, as one of the options to strike underground bunkers in Iran.

(D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organization.

(E) News accounts indicate that United States troops have been ordered into Iran to collect data and establish contact with anti-government groups.

(4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S. Constitution's adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force.

(A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, `This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States.

(B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, `All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.' The threat of force is illegal.

(C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.' Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal.

The Vice President's deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that the Vice President's recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States.

In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.Res.333:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. Anyone else find it maddening that Kucinich's work is never taken seriously?
Is it just because he doesn't look like a well groomed used car salesman? If not, what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. It infuriates me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. It is taken seriously by at least six other Congressmen as they have Co-sponsored this.
All I can say is why are there not three hundred Co-Sponsors? And how can any person defend Cheney's actions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. It is MIND boggling. What is Cheney's approval rating now? -12%?
This should be a bi-partisan effort! Cheney is BAD for America!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #5
49. Dick Cheney is a traitor and blatantly violates his sworn oath to
...uphold the U.S. Constitution which is a basis for impeachment
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
33. I wonder if Kucinich even bothered to lobby other Congressmen
to sign on as co-sponsors. I would really like someone to ask him how much leg work he actually put into this or if its just another publicity stunt for his presidential campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
38. There are now seven co-sponors
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. - 6/6/2007

Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 5/1/2007

Rep Lee, Barbara - 6/7/2007

Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - 5/1/2007

Rep Waters, Maxine - 6/12/2007

Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. - 6/7/2007

Rep Wynn, Albert Russell - 5/10/2007

I was hoping my rep was one of them, but alas, he is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #38
50. How many representatives would it take as co-sponsors for this impeachment
...process to take legs and begin running through congress? 5%? 10%? 20%? There are 8 representatives now which is only 1.8% so my guess would be he needs to at least triple that number for this to begin to get momentum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #38
56. Two of which are from the San Francisco Bay Area,
(Lee and Woolsey), but neither rep me as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. History will tell. His Impeachment Resolution is the first in line, after all. n/t
Edited on Fri Jun-22-07 10:35 AM by L. Coyote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
26. true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
32. No, its because Kucinich is a screw up
who can't organize his way out of a wet paper bag. If someone more serious were sponsoring the same bill it would be somewhere by now. Kucinich is great on the issues be he lacks a few things as an organized leader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #32
41. He's organized enough to enter articles of impeachment.
That beats the shit out of the others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #32
44. Having done more than others is comendable, but. . .
Edited on Fri Jun-22-07 10:30 PM by pat_k
. . .half-measures don't galvanize. And he took half-measures on two fronts.

He don't go after Bush and Cheney, which cannot be logically reconciled or justified.

He didn't impeach for turning Americans into torturers and destroying our moral authority to object when Americans are subjected to torture by other parties to armed conflict. Kucinich didn't need a book. He could have done it in 3 pages. Every time Cheney opened his mouth to defend "dunking" he committed a war crime. The torture is the most straightforward, horrifying, and damaging of their offenses against our constitutional Democracy.

As much as I love the man, watching him go half-way has been extremely frustrating. He got so close to doing the right thing. . .so close.

Sadly, a near miss is still a miss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #1
53. It just shows the humongous gap between what Congress is doing
and what they should be doing.

Kooch is doing his job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stellanoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
4. The foolhardiness of not pursuing this matter given the sinister nature of his consistent
deceit, greed, thievery, obsessive secrecy, coupled with his whopping 9% approval ratings (which are probably inflated,) would lead any thinking person to presume that any Congress critter who would not co sponsor this resolution and bring it to the floor and vote for it is on the take and therefore is a co conspirator.

In a just world all those profiting from the war would have to pay reparations to the Iraqis and the vets and their families.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phredicles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. Maybe not actively on the take but certainly complicit in one or more ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
28. 9%??
:wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stellanoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Yeah 9 frigging %
If memory serves is was Reid who said a couple months ago after the VP had made some disparaging remarks about him, something to the effect of "Should I really pay attention to (or be bothered by) the opinion of someone with a 9% approval rating?"

I saw it on the Huff post.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. The impeachment should be a no brainer from either side of the aisle!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stellanoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. In a world that was still rational
it would be.

Why do you think I keep writing these prayers. . .?

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. LOL. True. Ooga Booga Smooga Wooga!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stellanoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. speaking of which
we've got some serious OBSWing stuff to do still.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #39
45. We do. My inlaws go back to Holland on Sunday nd then I have other guests until mid month
Catch me in August and we'll do some OBSW work!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #29
55. reid pulled that # out of his ass
it was a joke

not that it is that far off
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #4
54. precisely -
whether literally or figuratively

"on the take" may not in all cases mean collecting bags of cash - but it DOES mean driven by forces other than the will of the people, It means serving other masters for self-advancement. It means we do not have anything vaguely resembling a representative democracy.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DearAbby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
7. When?
when is it going to be the right time to impeach this bastard? What is it going to take? Why is congress so afraid of this administration?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indie_voter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I wish I knew. This is a massive failure on the part of Congress. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #7
15. It has to be blackmail..
I've always assumed these threats were real since the success of the domestic and POLITICALLY TARGETED anthrax attacks occurred. As far as I know the investigations were closed even though the evidence still remains red-hot. Why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Probably a good guess.
I can picture in my mind, Cheney sneering and threatening each congressperson with embarrassing photos, taken as they were being spied on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. This isn't about photos, it's about threats of bodily harm..
and death. Real mob type stuff.

IMO this administration is much worse than the mafia, so anything's possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #25
43. Fear of bodily harm doesn't get a solder "off the hook" for derelection.
And it doesn't get the men and women we elect to Congress, who take the same oath to "support and defend," off the hook.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #15
42. Armed forces personnel risk death to fulfill their oaths . .
. . .why would be expect less of the men and women we elect to Congress, who take the same oath to "support and defend"?

Blackmail doesn't get them off the hook. Death threats don't get them off the hook. There is only one escape from their dereliction -- the immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
10. An alcoholic President is consumed by a rogue Vice President and Congress
sits around with its collective thumb up its ass.

Mr. Conyers, it is tiresome to request yet again that you move forward with this resolution in your committee.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sicksicksick_N_tired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
11. shit,...I missed the trying to abolish the office part.
No one can convince me that freaky tyrant doesn't have a heck of a lot to hide!!!

Hey, Congress! Go get that criminal!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truth2power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #11
51. A lot to hide...
and my guess it's about 9/11. The ultimate crime. :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demnan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
12. Thank you for posting this
It's refreshing to see a Congressman who actually takes his oath of office to protect and defend the constitution seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SIMPLYB1980 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
13. Rupublican will never help America!
They know that they can never support Impeaching the DICK. Just like Rove and Gonzo, if one of these cards fall the whole house will come down. Still we should get them on record for supporting DICK'S fascist shadow government. I still see a lot of posts on DU about how bad our Dems are lately. It has caused me to not visit this site as often as I use to. I understand your anger about not having Iraq solved already, but without "Republican support" :puke: we are at a stalemate without a veto prof majority. Der Fur suddenly loves his veto pen doesn't he. I see hope. I know its faint, but it is their. Keep the investigations going. Shame the Republics into no longer being able to support their leaders. Shrub's approval rating is now under Carters and is quickly heading to below Nixonian levels. Anyway hears hoping that the republics realize there position is a losing one, and that Democrats can work out their differences and be more united like we were before the last election and Shrub's veto, and we can move this county onto a more progressive agenda. Also I'm not trying to stifle anyones opinions, everyone has to fight this battle as they see fit. Good luck everyone we all need it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
14. Let's get on with it. Get the MoFo out of there!
Enough already, just do it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
partylessinOhio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
16. Dennis Kucinich, Democrat from Ohio, 10th District, seems to be
our last best hope to save America.

We don't have anyone else that has stepped forward and is willing to lead us to the impeachment of the two criminals in the White House.

Why the majority of the others in the House of Representatives are not supporting his resolution, I cannot understand.

We need to demand an answer from each one, why?





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1776Forever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
17. Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney Link ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SIMPLYB1980 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Nice link!
Thanks!:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poiuyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
19. Cheney missed his true calling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. oh that's good!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. yup, that is his true calling alright. I hate these thugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosemary2205 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #19
35. Self delete - wrong location.
Edited on Fri Jun-22-07 05:23 PM by Rosemary2205
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
22. this SOB has to be taken out of office in handcuffs.
stop playing the American people for fools, this has got to stop, no one is above the law!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
24. IMPEACH the S.O.B. already!
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
27. Go Dennis
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BikeWriter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
34. Impeach the bastard, and hold someone accountable today!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosemary2205 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
36. Impeachment and conviction WILL NOT get Cheney out of office
I'm convinced if Cheney is impeached and convicted he will simply refuse to leave office. He will find some sort of legal argument to tie it up in court until Jan 20, 2009. I truly believe the only way to remove Cheney from office is an act of God.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-22-07 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. And then the Dems just have the Capitol Police
Edited on Fri Jun-22-07 10:14 PM by pat_k
. . .go and arrest the newly deposed VP and lock him up in a room somewhere and subject him to "enhanced interrogation."

Guess the last part would be unwise, much as the devil on my shoulder might like it. But as for the rest, just have to make a minor change to http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070518.html">John Dean's suggestion:

Thus, Congress could. . . send fifteen plainclothes Capitol Hill police officers to arrest the Attorney General Dick Cheney and take him into custody. Either the House or Senate, alone, would have the power to hold him until the end of the 110th Congress. In truth, a majority of either chamber of Congress has more power than a president, the Department of Justice, and federal courts to take summary actions against those who refuse to honor its processes. . .


I'll never understand why Dean proposed this scenario for Gonzales when impeachment is the thing to do, but if an IMPEACHED VP refused to leave, it would certainly be the thing to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 03:28 AM
Response to Original message
46. "Ami I sure" BUT OF COURSE K*R -- Out now!!! No more days!

Memo to Bush-Cheney: TAKE A HIKE!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maryland Liberal Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 06:05 AM
Response to Original message
47. Kucinich has Guts
and he has my vote for President - go get em Dennis
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 06:57 AM
Response to Original message
48. I'll sign it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
52. Dennis the only one attempting to save America.
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joey Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
57. I'm furious and what worries me is............
I cannot believe how the republicans are so willing to let Bush and Cheney trample on our constitution. Now I can understand how Hitler took power in Germany. There were a lot of people in Germany at that time who were like the republicans in America today. Bush has it easier than Hitler, because he's got some huge propaganda machines. I, of course, am referring to Faux News, Rush Limbaugh, Tim Russert, Ann Coulter, Evangelicals, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
58. there is not enough evidence to convict, which is why Dennis is not taken seriously
There is not enough here. Either you treat impeachment like a criminal process or a political process. There is not enough evidence for a criminal process and not enough votes for a political process.

Build a compelling narrative for WHY he did it and you might get closer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC