Resolution to impeach Cheney tabled

[Fash]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00_pf.html

On a day intended for moving long-overdue annual spending bills, the House instead spent a good chunk of yesterday wrangling over an entirely different endeavor: a motion to impeach Vice President Cheney.

For more than six months, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), a long-shot presidential candidate, has labored to bring to a vote his plan to send the vice president packing. Kucinich says Cheney lied to Americans in the run-up to the Iraq war, chiefly about evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

But yesterday, the antiwar liberal's seemingly quixotic effort drew unexpected support from Republicans, who saw a golden opportunity to engage Democrats in a debate on the issue.

Kucinich's rambling, 18-page resolution bristles with citations of Cheney's public comments justifying the war. "The best option to prevent an unnecessary war with Iran," he said, "is to impeach the Vice President, the lead cheerleader of the war" in Iraq.

"The Constitution has been under attack by this administration," Kucinich told an reporter during the vote, and his effort is "part of a growing movement" to defend it.

"This isn't about my campaign," he said. "This isn't a Democratic-Republican issue."

But it became a partisan issue yesterday once Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) moved to table Kucinich's resolution. Hoyer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have said they will not back such symbolic gestures, for fear of burnishing Congress's current do-nothing image.

During the subsequent vote, Republicans were far along toward helping kill the resolution when they began switching their "yes" votes to "no's," clearly hoping for a public debate that would have showcased the Democrats' most vocal lefties.

But in the end, Hoyer settled for sending the resolution to the Judiciary Committee. There it is destined for oblivion.

Cheney has not come under such direct legislative attack since June, when Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) pushed to cut funding for Cheney's office and residence, even his lawn service. But Emanuel's proposal was tongue-in-cheek, whereas Kucinich's resolution, as he said, was "urgent."

To touch on our news/opinion discussion from earlier... this is a news article, but damn if there isn't a shitload of opinion and confident speculation loaded into it.

So not to 'burnish their current do-nothing image,' they... do nothing? I don't get it.

Is it really a symbolic gesture? I don't think so... Censure might be symbolic, but impeachment is serious business... If they believe he deserves it I fully support it being brought up, debated, and investigated. That is their job, isn't it?

[Xatrei]

So using accurate adjectives to describe the events of the day is adding opinion now?

Kucinich is a long shot, his resolution is rambling and unfocused (OK, I've not read it, but I've heard it described thusly in multiple outlets), the Republicans did attempt to avail themselves of an opportunity (a golden opportunity even) to engage the democrats on this. The Democratic leadership has repeatedly said that impeachment is not on the table, and it would be purely symbolic effort since there's absolutely zero chance of the Senate voting 60-40 against Cheney or Bush. The measure was apparently doomed until republicans began voting not to kill the debate, and they did so because they wanted to have Democrats defend the pro-impeachment position. That's not speculation, that's their stated reason, even though only the most extreme left members of the house or senate support such action, they wanted to have some dems they could point to and say "look what you get from Democrats" as if it was the party's mainstream position.

Again, I'm just not seeing a bunch of opinion being pushed into this piece. I think when you go looking for the bogeyman, you tend to find him wherever you want to.

[Fash]

Ok.. hey I'm not above being wrong, and I didn't originally bold it like that until afterwards... I was posting it like a normal thread and then it kind of bothered me. You may be right about the bogeyman in this instance, but I stand by what I said in the other thread.

Symbolic... I still disagree. If it comes up and fails, it's not symbolic, it FAILED. Are you saying the only way it wouldn't be pure symbolism is if he was convicted? Uh,..

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

That "news" article is filled with opinion, yes.

[Xatrei]

Symbolic... I still disagree. If it comes up and fails, it's not symbolic, it FAILED. Are you saying the only way it wouldn't be pure symbolism is if he was convicted? Uh,..

No, I'm not saying that it's symbolic unless there's a conviction at all. I'm saying that it is symbolic in a situation such as this, where impeachment is clearly doomed to failure before Articles of Impeachment could even clear the House. There is such an overwhelmingly lopsided proportion of the Senate, irrespective of party affiliation, who oppose impeachment that there would not even be a quorum within the Senate to support hearing the charges, let alone the super majority necessary to convict. In these specific circumstances, the impeachment effort is nothing more than theater. What better way to describe it than as a symbolic gesture?

[Fash]

Ok I understand you more now... I'm just intrigued. Do you agree it's their job? Are they failing in their job simply because they oppose impeachment whether it's deserved or not?

I could see opposing impeachment over blowjobs, but the claims of lying to and deceiving the entire country to start wars?... if not this, what the fuck would rise to the level?

[Aslanna]

I'm confused. I'm sure this was meant to be an opinion piece and not a "factual non-biased news article". But hey I could be wrong!

[Xatrei]

Ok I understand you more now... I'm just intrigued. Do you agree it's their job? Are they failing in their job simply because they oppose impeachment whether it's deserved or not?

I could see opposing impeachment over blowjobs, but the claims of lying to and deceiving the entire country to start wars?... if not this, what the fuck would rise to the level?

*** NOTE: The following is opinion.

I think that if evidence exists to support the argument that this administration willfully lied to support their war agenda, then Congress is obligated to pursue it. However, it's clear that most members of the House and Senate don't believe that this is the case. Even those on the left that oppose the war stop short of this accusation for the most part (with a few notable and vocal exceptions). Even if you happen to believe that Bush & Co. deliberately lied, misrepresented facts or used bogus intelligence to bolster their position, there is the practical matter of not wasting time fighting a losing battle when there are other, important issues that they could be dealing with. I personally believe that, at the very least, this administration played fast and loose with the facts in the rush to war. I personally believe that they are probably guilty of impeachable offenses, and that an investigation is warranted. Such an investigation cannot and will not happen as long as Bush is in the White House or with such slim Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. Lacking an investigation, we can't know whether impeachment is warranted, and at this time I don't think that anyone outside of Bush's inner circle has any idea of what crimes, if any, were committed, and they're certainly not talking. Given the absence of evidence, I personally don't support impeachment proceedings at this time. By the time that we know what exactly happened, these clowns will be long gone and we'll be years into the post-Bush/Cheney recovery, so the matter of impeachment won't be relevant. If we find actual crimes down the road, however, I'd love to see those responsible, regardless of who they are, pay dearly.

[noel]

Here's a factual based article on the same thing. The only opinions are quoted from politicians.

Cheney Impeachment Resolution Sent to House Committee

The House voted today to send a resolution considering the impeachment of Vice President Cheney to the Judiciary Committee, a move that embarrassed Democratic leaders who were forced into the parliamentary tactic to avoid a floor debate on impeachment.

Led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the long-shot anti-war candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, scores of Democrats were joined by scores of Republicans in initially supporting a Kucinich resolution that would have prompted a full debate on impeaching Cheney.

Democratic leaders long ago rejected any consideration of impeaching Cheney and President Bush as an irresponsible move supported only by the far left, so they tried today to table Kucinich's impeachment resolution. After initially having more than enough votes to kill the resolution - the "yea" tally to table impeachment topped out at 291 - Republicans decided they had a chance to politically shame Democrats into a full debate on the sensitive issue. Republicans gleefully said they wanted the debate to show the public how many Democrats would actually support impeaching Cheney, which they consider a move supported only by a fringe element of anti-war activists.

More than 120 members, predominantly Republicans, then switched their votes in favor of holding a one-hour debate on the issue, with a final vote of 251-162 supporting a debate on impeachment. Rather than allow a debate fraught with political risk, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) moved to send the Kucinich resolution to the Judiciary Committee, whose chairman, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), has publicly speculated about impeaching the president or vice president but has declined taking any action since taking the gavel in January.

Defusing any chance of an actual impeachment debate today, the House then voted 218-194 to send the motion to Conyers's committee, with Democrats overwhelmingly supporting the move.

Today's resolution from Kucinich (D-Ohio) was essentially the same as the legislation he introduced earlier this year, which included three articles of impeachment against Cheney based largely on allegations that he manipulated intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. The last article accuses Cheney of threatening "aggression" against Iran "absent any real threat."

"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," Kucinich said on the floor today, reading his resolution. "Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office."

Kucinich, who had 22 co-sponsors for his articles of impeachment measure, predominantly members of the left leaning Out of Iraq Caucus, has been angry that Democratic leaders would not allow impeachment to be considered. He took to the floor today to offer his impeachment articles as a privileged resolution, which under the chamber rules can be offered by any member and must be considered within two days of its offering.

[Nick]

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

Well its good to see some Senators aren't complete pussies. This obviously has no chance of success, because the Senate is full of corrupt, immoral twats.

Still great to see it go down in history though. Anyone with any claim to upholding justice in their country should feel pretty happy this even happened, despite its non-existant chance of success (a shame).

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

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

Well its good to see some Senators aren't complete pussies. This obviously has no chance of success, because the Senate is full of corrupt, immoral twats.

Still great to see it go down in history though. Anyone with any claim to upholding justice in their country should feel pretty happy this even happened, despite its non-existant chance of success (a shame).

Smart man. He made a name for himself playing to young fools like you.