Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

House Narrowly Avoids Having to Debate Impeachment of Cheney

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the sweep-it-under-the-committee-rug dept.

United States 1033

An anonymous reader writes "Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) yesterday successfully moved articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney to the House Judiciary committee. '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."'"

cancel ×

1033 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Before people start asking "why not impeach bush" (0)

heatdeath (217147) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274483)

Think about what that would mean for the next election.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (2, Insightful)

JustOK (667959) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274515)

k. Done. And?

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (3, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274553)

k. Done. And?

...and they'll quickly figure that his replacement (of the current crop, no matter which political party) is just as lousy as he is.

/P

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (1, Insightful)

schatten (163083) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274977)

It isn't that he's lousy, it is that Bush isn't that smart. Bush isn't the one running the country. That would be Cheney's strong arm of influence over Bush in the information that is threaded to him. Bush, we all know, is not that smart of a cookie. Don't second guess Cheney. He's smart, but he does not have the best interest for the public in his policies.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (2, Funny)

gQuigs (913879) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274527)

You don't think America is that stupid...
Never mind. Doesn't Bush have 6 years and 1 day yet? Your only allowed to be President for 10 years.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274617)

Never mind. Doesn't Bush have 6 years and 1 day yet? Your only allowed to be President for 10 years.

Doesn't work that way, unless he gets on as VP for part of the term for whoever succeeds him, then kicks back into office in 2010, or some such similar calculus.

In January 2009 he'll step off to retirement (or whatever), and the new guy will get promptly lambasted by whatever party/ideology the new guy does not represent.

Been this way (at least) since Reagan left, and was operating in fits and starts before that.

/P

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (0)

kd5ujz (640580) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274647)

8 years, not 10. The only one to exceed 8 years was FDR, and that was for ~12 years. Shortest term was 31 days by William Harrison.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (3, Informative)

sssssss27 (1117705) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274739)

Yes but the maximum length that a person can be president for is 10 years. From the 22nd Amendment:

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (1)

orcrist (16312) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274759)

8 years, not 10.

Wrong. The GP is right. Check your facts:
Amendment 22 reads in part:
"1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
Meaning someone (e.g. a former V.P.) can serve up to 2 years followed by being elected twice, for a total of 10 years.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (2, Informative)

eviloverlordx (99809) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274561)

An even bigger landslide victory for the Democrats?

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21274673)

He needs to go to jail for his crimes.

Re:Before people start asking "why not impeach bus (4, Insightful)

Propaganda13 (312548) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274965)

Before people start asking "why not impeach bush", think about what that would mean for the next election.


I do not think that word means what you think it means. You have to impeach and convict to get kicked out. Clinton was impeached. Unless Bush really screws up, I'm sure it won't happen because there's 1 year left before elections and I don't think they push for it.

a little tweak (0, Troll)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274501)

I think they should drop the one with Iran cuz "no threat?...come on! That's ridiculous. Any crazy person with rockets is a threat to me. Anyway, they should replace that charge with reckless endangerment with a firearm. I'm not sure if that actually exists, I just made it up. Maybe just reckless endangerment. Either way, he should watch where he's pointing that shotgun.

Re:a little tweak (2, Funny)

warp1 (231206) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274607)

However, I would rather hunt with Dick Cheney than ride with Ted Kennedy.

Re:a little tweak (1)

AtariEric (571910) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274853)

I can swim. Recovering from getting shot in the face... I dunno...

Re:a little tweak (2, Insightful)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274613)

Iran doesn't have rockets, at least ones that are any kind of threat to the U.S.

Re:a little tweak (3, Insightful)

Sabaki (531686) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274663)

Unlike, say, North Korea. Who we know has nuclear weapons and rockets capable of reacing the US.

Re:a little tweak (1)

Gideon Fubar (833343) | more than 6 years ago | (#21275005)

or possibly japan, or possibly not.

Re:a little tweak (0, Flamebait)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274737)

Iran doesn't have rockets, at least ones that are any kind of threat to the U.S.

But Iran has rockets that can reach US personnel and allies (like say... Europe, Israel, India, Japan and so on... May I suggest you read up on NATO also). Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US? Do we do nothing until NY glows in the dark?

Besides, certain terror groups didn't have rockets that could reach the USA from Afghanistan either and look how that turned out.

Re:a little tweak (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21274935)

Do we wait until they have nuclear tipped rockets that can reach the US? Do we do nothing until NY glows in the dark?

Maybe wait until there is actual proof these nations wish to launch rockets at the US/NATO.

If you are suggesting that the US strikes before there is an actual threat then what is to stop other countries doing the same?

North Korea will have to launch because the US is a threat, same for everyone else.

There IS an alternative to shoot first & invent evidence later.

Re:a little tweak (2, Insightful)

doktorjayd (469473) | more than 6 years ago | (#21275015)

do nothing?

well, treating sovereign nations with a bit of respect rather than attempting to play off regional conflicts in order to control their natural resources ( yes, its all about the oil ), is probably as close to 'doing nothing' as you need in order to ward off the spectre of an arms race ( implied just yesterday by hans blix: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/sydney-peace-prize-for-blunt-blix/2007/05/20/1179601243747.html [smh.com.au] ).

see the problem is, the americans dont want peace, they want peace on their terms, which is to ensure america(ns) are rich and powerful, with scraps thrown out for whoever bends over for them.

its really not that difficult to stop the world going to shit, but how would the rich get richer ( which brings us back OT: please impeach chaney )

Re:a little tweak (1)

DavidShor (928926) | more than 6 years ago | (#21275037)

Of course Archer. The smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud...

Re:a little tweak (1)

powerpants (1030280) | more than 6 years ago | (#21275075)

You've implied a false choice, namely, that either 1) We stop Iran from going nuclear or 2) We get nuked. Nine nations have acquired nuclear weapons and yet they haven't been used since WWII. To claim that Iran will use their nukes against the US (or its allies) is to assume that they are collectively suicidal. This assumption seems rather far-fetched to me, and a lousy basis for a foreign policy.

Re:a little tweak (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21274661)

"Any crazy person with rockets is a threat to me."

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have lots more missiles at their disposal than Iran's government, so.........

After having watched their performance for the last 7 years, I think their sanity is certainly an open question. George W. was also an alcoholic and drug abuser for most of his adult life which also calls in to question his stability. When you have two people who have done nothing positive for their entire reign, and almost single handedly turned America in to a globally hated and despised country you generally have to wonder....what were they thinking. Just observe the fact the U.S. dollar is plunging relative to most other currencies. Markets are ruthlessly efficient at finding truth and the plunging dollar indicates America has been officially run in to the ground by our fearless leaders.

Kucinich is kind of a space cadet sometimes but he was right on trying to get Cheney impeached first. You have to get him impeached before you can impeach Bush otherwise he would take over and President Cheney would be a nightmare come true.

Re:a little tweak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21274839)

I think they should drop the one with Iran cuz "no threat?...come on! That's ridiculous.

Not so long ago, if you believed the mainstream media, it was ridiculous to suggest that Iraq might not have "weapons of mass destruction". Even more recently, if you believed the mainstream media, it was ridiculous to suggest that it would be extremely difficult to set up a stable stand-alone democracy in Iraq.

The current consensus in the mainstream media is that Iran is a major threat (e.g. a "crazy person with [nuclear] rockets"). The thing is, if you actually start laying out specific scenarios, the only way that Iran would get into a major war with the USA (or even Israel, for that matter) is if the USA (or Israel) attacked Iran first. Even if Iran were to get nuclear weapons, it would not attack first because in the end it would lose.

That's not to say that the USA couldn't bring about a major war with Iran (by attacking first) or that the Bush administration is smart enough to avoid provoking a war with Iran. Basically, Iran is like a wild animal that mostly wants to hide but may venture out occasionally to scavenge a carcass. If Iran gets backed into a corner and is forced to stand and fight then things could get very ugly but as long as the USA doesn't back Iran into a corner and force it to fight then Iran is not going to attack on its own.

What Kucinich means by "no real threat" is not that the USA can't (or won't) start a war with Iran but that the USA could avoid a war with Iran if it wanted to.

Lying Scumbag (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21274909)

by "no real threat" Kuchinik means "I'm ignoring that they're actively training and equipping people to kill American soldiers. I deny that weapons with Iranian serial numbers have been used in a large fraction of the lethal attacks in southern Iraq." Kucinik is a lying scumbag.

Why not impeach 'em all? (2, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274513)

I mean, here you have a congress, whose ratings are lower than Bush's, trying to get Bush's VP thrown out.

At this rate I think Gallup will have a historical first - negative numbers for job approval ratings.

/P

Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (3, Insightful)

stox (131684) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274609)

Ever think that one of the reasons why Congress's ratings are so low is because they haven't impeached yet?

Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274655)

Ever think that one of the reasons why Congress's ratings are so low is because they haven't impeached yet?

Possible, but not (IMHO) probable. Given the near-even split between parties, and the fact that "Congress" is counted as a whole (that is, both parties and the lone Socialist in there count as a single entity) in most polls, I sincerely doubt that the big fat criteria has anything to do with impeachment or lack thereof.

/P

Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (5, Insightful)

letxa2000 (215841) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274783)

Ever think that one of the reasons why Congress's ratings are so low is because they haven't impeached yet?

Nope. Probably because they're the most useless Congress we've had in over a decade. They haven't done anything useful, they pulled a bait-and-switch on their arguments for why they should be elected last year. i.e. "Elect us and we'll get out of Iraq... oh, sorry, you voted for us but now you also need to give us the presidency. We couldn't do anything before and we still can't do anything."

No, the reason why Congress's approval ratings are so low is because they've shown the public what they have to offer, and they don't have anything. The Democrats should've tried to lose 2006 so they'd have a chance in 2008. In 2008, the Republicans have Bush dragging them down but Democrats have the Congress dragging them down even more. It's entirely possible the Democrats peaked in 2006 and won't be able to get the job done in 2008. By the time the election comes, they'll have had 2 years in Congress and nothing to show for it. Not a good way to go into a presidential election.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (1)

canUbeleiveIT (787307) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274975)

Not to mention that one of the things that this country needs more than anything is a cohesive energy policy--something that neither party has been willing to tackle. Oh well...Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21275023)

By the time the election comes, they'll have had 2 years in Congress and nothing to show for it. Not a good way to go into a presidential election.
Not that anything they pass really matters. Unlike former Presidents who veto and are forced to explain why they disagree with a bill, Bush has vetoed only a couple of bills, starting years into his Presidency. Instead, he writes signing statements that basically say "I don't care what you passed. I don't agree with it. This is how I interpret this law, instead."

So Congress is effectively neutered by the expansion and corruption of Executive powers. Things won't get better until we get a President that considers the Constitution more than "just a goddamned piece of paper", to quote our current President.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (3, Insightful)

hwyengr (839340) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274631)

It might have to do with the fact that being unpopular isn't illegal.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21274633)

Congress' rating is low because they have sat by and allowed evil to grow.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (5, Insightful)

the phantom (107624) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274657)

Congress' approval rating is a meaningless metric. The approval rating of congress is almost always bad. It is rarely (if ever) higher than the president's. However, if you ask people about their particular senators and representatives, their ratings are generally much better. Remember, it is not my representative that is the problem -- just everyone else's.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (5, Insightful)

demachina (71715) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274809)

I think the congressional Democrat's numbers are low because they have completely failed to rein in the Bush administration, which is what the Democrats were put in power to do. They were installed to get America out of Iraq, instead there are more troops there now than there were during the election with no end in sight. The Democrats cry they don't have the votes to override a veto which is B.S. All the Democrats have to do is not allocate funds for Iraq which takes a simple majority and then the troops come home. That's why the founding fathers gave them the power of the purse.

Impeaching Cheney would have done nothing but improve the approval rating of Congressional Democrats. He is widely despised throughout the nation for having suckered the nation in to Iraq, and for promoting the use of torture which has turned America in to an outlaw nation.

Impeaching him for Iraq and Iran is off the mark. He should be impeached for:

A. single handedly pushing authorization for torture which was done entirely by his office and his aides
B. single handedly pushing authorization of illegal spying on American citizens without a warrant also lead out of his office

Those are both slam dunk grounds for impeachment because they are both clearly illegal, unpopular, unnecessary and were just plain stupid.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (1)

Cassius Corodes (1084513) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274967)

Not to mention that business of helping national security by outing a CIA Spy to the world. I think the democrats are complete cowards for not willing to do anything with "risk". Trying to run a government while being risk averse is like trying to run an train without an engine - a recipe for getting nothing done.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (0)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274969)

>I think the congressional Democrat's numbers are low because they have completely failed to rein in the Bush administration, which is what the Democrats were put in power to do.

Bullshit. America voted Bush in AGAIN in 2004. After everything, after the war. There's no big anti-bush mandate. America is a conservative country with conservative voters following a conservative agenda. Just because the moderate party has a slim majority doesnt mean its time to clean house. Americans dont want that and the democrats certainly do not have the power to do so.

Im so sick of hearing whiners say stuff like 'what has the congress done to kick out bush' after theyve voted him in twice and supported his wars. If you dont want a Bush in office then stop voting republican, this includes ron paul supporters too.

As long as the republican party holds all this power in america you will have all these problems. Poor conservatives have no idea whats going on they just vote on hot button issues like abortion and "id like to have a beer with him."

Sorry, theres no mandate. No big revolution. Just a moderate party with a little control. They have to work with the republicans to get -anything- done, thus no impeachments or big traditionally democratic bills in play.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (1)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274835)

I mean, here you have a congress, whose ratings are lower than Bush's, trying to get Bush's VP thrown out.
At this rate I think Gallup will have a historical first - negative numbers for job approval ratings.


I'm not a government geek, but I believe in parliamentary systems, this is called a failed government, and they give up and start again.

I can't find the word for it, but there I believe that in the parliamentary system, there is a point where they say, lets try this again.

I thought of a bumper sticker to day.

In small letters (imprison)

Bush Cheney 08

80% of the bush/cheney people will cheer, the rest will laugh.

Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274929)

I can't find the word for it, but there I believe that in the parliamentary system, there is a point where they say, lets try this again.


In Canada it's called a vote of non-confidence, and results in an election being immediately called. However, it requires a confidence vote to occur, which typically only happens on select issues (such as the budget). But it is a handy fallback, particularly in the case of a minority government, such as that which is currently in power in Canada, as it forces the parties to cooperate to some degree (and, as a consequence, also slows them down immensely, which can be nothing but a good thing).

Re:Why not impeach 'em all? (1)

zestyping (928433) | more than 6 years ago | (#21275043)

I think you're talking about a Vote of No Confidence.

!technology (-1, Troll)

telchine (719345) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274519)

As facinating as this is, can someone explain to me what place this article has on a technology news site?

Re:!technology (1)

Palshife (60519) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274545)

"Stuff that matters."

Re:!technology (1)

realdodgeman (1113225) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274563)

Yeah how could something as irrelevant as this end up at politics.slashdot.org? It is outrageous!

Re:!technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21274659)

can someone explain to me what place this article has on a technology news site?
This isn't a technology news site. Or at least, not just a technology news site. "News for nerds, stuff that matters" means roughly "stuff the editors find interesting". Always has. They're interested in technology but they're interested in other stuff too.

Re:!technology (1)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274715)

This isn't a technology news site. Or at least, not just a technology news site. "News for nerds, stuff that matters" means roughly "stuff the editors find interesting". Always has. They're interested in technology but they're interested in other stuff too.
Indeed. Nerds occasionally happen to be lawyers, political scientists, military strategists and so on. This article at least has some intellectual fibre, unlike even some technology related articles.

Paris Hilton (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21274795)

Then how come we never see anything about Paris Hilton on here?

Re:Paris Hilton (2, Informative)

physicsboy500 (645835) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274849)

What do you mean? [slashdot.org]

Stuff that matters (4, Informative)

physicsboy500 (645835) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274755)

Please, before you post something like this, consider Slashdot's FAQ [slashdot.org]

From the FAQ:

Why did you post story X?

Slashdot is many things to many people. Some people think it's a Linux site. To others, it's a geek hangout. I've always worked very hard to make sure that Slashdot matches up with my interests and the interests of my authors. We think we're pretty typical Slashdot readers... but that does mean that occasionally one of us might post something that you think is inappropriate. You might be interested in my Omelette rant. [slashdot.org]

Personally, I have a pet peeve when people post comments saying things like "That's not News For Nerds!" and "That's not Stuff that Matters!" Slashdot has been running for almost 5 years, and over that time, I have always been the final decision maker on what ends up on the homepage. It turns out that a lot of people agree with me: Linux, Legos, Penguins, Sci (both real and fiction). If you've been reading Slashdot, you know what the subjects commonly are, but we might deviate occasionally. It's just more fun that way. Variety Is The Spice Of Life and all that, right? We've been running Slashdot for a long time, and if we occasionally want to post something that someone doesn't think is right for Slashdot, well, we're the ones who get to make the call. It's the mix of stories that makes Slashdot the fun place that it is.

Re:Stuff that matters (1)

PatPending (953482) | more than 6 years ago | (#21275059)

Slashdot has been running for almost 5 years, and over that time, I have always been the final decision maker on what ends up on the homepage.
5 years? (Time to update the FAQ)

Re:!technology (1)

lottameez (816335) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274937)

what place this article has on a technology news site?

Well Dennis Kucinich is clearly from outer space. Have you seen his ears? Total trekkie, totally nerd-chic.

Umm, going to committee is NOT Success (5, Informative)

ironwill96 (736883) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274521)

The summary here is misleading (On /. Imagine That!). Sending something to committee is like calling your trashcan the inbox. He introduced something that didn't have enough support so it got referred to committee where it can be squashed into oblivion. Only if he could have gotten an open house vote on it would it have been a "success", now it will die quietly as have his other attempts to impeach Cheney.

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success (3, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274689)

Only if he could have gotten an open house vote on it would it have been a "success", now it will die quietly as have his other attempts to impeach Cheney.

This thing didn't stand a chance in the House either. It was sent to committee to keep it from being debated on the House floor. Most Democrats are trying to distance themselves from the likes of Code Pink, ANSWER, MoveOn.org, Karl Marx and people who see UFO's and try to communicate with trees. [cleveland.com]

This would not only been counter productive in that regard, but it would have also been seen as a complete waste of time.

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success (1)

phayes (202222) | more than 6 years ago | (#21275035)

This would not only been counter productive in that regard, but it would have also been seen as a complete waste of time.

It seems to me to be completely in line with the actions of the current congress: Waste time & be counter productive.

Re:Umm, going to committee is NOT Success (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274709)

Personally, I wish they would stop wasting time with that horseshit and instead spent time growing balls and forcing those that the Bush administration has claimed are immune to testify.

They have the power, they're just being a bunch of fucking pansies. The American public didn't vote for those douchebags to sit in office and do jack shit. They voted for them to fix the numerous wrongs and restore the balance of power. Unfortunately, all that they've proven is that the Bush Administration can make shit up as they go along and not be held accountable for any of it.

A different committee though? (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274865)

Seems to me that the committee that should be looking into the VP is the Senate Ethics Committee. The VP is also President of the Senate, and he seems to consort with criminals.

Ya (5, Funny)

moogied (1175879) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274543)

So basically, house and senate have done the following this year:

Said they would not give the war anymore money without a pull out date. Decided to "investigate" steriods in baseball(May of been last year, don't remeber). Burned a couple of hours trying to get approval to TALK about *maybe* impeaching the Vice President.

And what were the results?

The war is still going on, there is no pull out date.

A few key players got free publicity for there books. Helped me waste 3 minutes writing a response on slashdot that will be modded to -35, for retard.

God bless America.

Re:Ya (1)

notamisfit (995619) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274637)

True enough. Congress seriously dropped the ball on the troop funding issue. Bush can only sign or veto what Congress puts in front of him. Ultimately, however, if they had stopped the war, what would be their talking point for 2008?

Re:Ya (1)

statemachine (840641) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274787)

Dropped the ball? They put bills in front of Bush which he vetoes. In this case, there's nothing that Congress can do but override (and the Republicans have been blocking all but the most recent override attempt). Without an override, or approval from the President, bills go nowhere.

And guess what? That means that the "war" doesn't get funded. Or anything else that Bush vetoes. This is obviously what Bush wants because he hasn't compromised yet.

Re:Ya (1)

notamisfit (995619) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274883)

The House controls the purse strings. Funding for troops, funding for materials, even the lights and catering bills. Nancy Pelosi could quite simply have frozen Bush out, debating "America's National Color" or somesuch bullshit, and ground the whole Washington machine to a halt until Bush agreed to a concession.

Re:Ya (1)

statemachine (840641) | more than 6 years ago | (#21275099)

Nancy Pelosi could quite simply have frozen Bush out, debating "America's National Color"

1) The House is not the Senate. Only in the Senate can one filibuster.

2) Do I like what Congress is doing all the time? No. But I see that the current Congress has done more compromising than Bush. Maybe too much, but by your measure, they have been getting things done. Perhaps you want a repeat of the Republican controlled House in the '90s that hated Clinton so much that they refused to compromise at all and ground the entire U.S. Government to a halt?

The Democrats have shown that for better or worse, they're willing to compromise. While the Republicans have shown that they absolutely will not. Now, which is the more mature party here?

Re:Ya (1)

letxa2000 (215841) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274863)

If a Democrat becomes president, we won't be pulling out of Iraq. And the Democratic front-runners are starting to hedge their bets because they know they won't pull out. They want Bush to pull out the troops so the failure becomes his problem. But be under no illusion, the Democrats don't want to be responsible for a troop pull-out in Iraq. Everyone knows (but no-one wants to say) that as bad as things are in Iraq, things would be even worse if we leave--including us. And while they'd be happy to see Bush make that mistake, they aren't going to do it themselves.

So, no, the Democrats aren't going to do much in the way of promising an Iraq withdrawal. They aren't going to do it if they win and their main men (and woman) are already starting to shy away from that battle cry.

Which leaves Democrats with the same thing to talk about issue-wise as usual: Nothing. Because when Democrats run on the issues instead of appealing to emotions, Democrats lose.

Daily Kos Also had summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21274549)

Check out this post [dailykos.com] for another summary of the articles and the events that took place in the House.

Honestly? (1)

EaglemanBSA (950534) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274555)

Iraq...Iran...Pakistan....anyone else we can piss off before congress does anything?

Re:Honestly? (3, Insightful)

PatPending (953482) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274725)

Turkey--and you can thank Pelosi for that one.

Please get something done (2, Insightful)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274567)

I'm sick of finger pointing. Focus on your agenda and work to get it passed. How many democrat bills have been passed vs. how many resolutions against bush and/or cheney?

If they aren't passing because bush is vetoing, that means they aren't working hard enough to work together.

It was bullshit when the impeached clinton, it's bullshit now.

Re:Please get something done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21275051)

I would consider bringing a criminal to justice "getting something done". This needs to happen before the two dipshits and their cohorts get us stuck in Iran, too. But what's another war, eh? We'll just protest peacefully (or as I like to say, "irrelevantly") when it starts, and then we can all feel real fucking swell that we did something to stop it... after the fact... maybe slap another anti-bush bumper sticker on my Prius, just to show you all how fucking serious I am.

The whole administration and every congressperson that authorized these wars should be tried for war crimes, not simply removed from office. Our government needs to learn that there are personal and immediate consequences for their deceptive politicking, ignorance, and corruption.

Spindot (4, Insightful)

TopSpin (753) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274571)

Here is another example of how one might choose to phrase a report [go.com] of the exact same event:

House Democrats on Tuesday narrowly managed to avert a bruising debate on a proposal to impeach Dick Cheney after Republicans, in a surprise maneuver, voted in favor of taking up the measure.
You see, the Republicans supported Kucinich's latest hail mary because they know it would be an embaressment to the Democrats. With that support the vote passed and the house 'leadership' was force to bury it in a committee.

Re:Spindot (1)

bstoneaz (661994) | more than 6 years ago | (#21275039)

They don't know it would be an embarrassment but they sure do think it will be. Going forward and having Bush and Cheney claim executive privilege would really be another black eye for this administration.

draft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21274585)

lets start a campaign to draft Geoff "mandrake" harrison as president ......

boy (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274627)

Sure am glad our Democratic representatives are doing what we elected them to do, which is defending Bush and  Cheney.

I'm one satisfied voter.

No surprise that the move gets 'comittified' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21274667)

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.
Yeah, because those Democratic leaders have their hand behind their back with fingers crossed when they criticise the War. I wonder if it ever occurs to these commentators that US foreign policy (and that of most democratic nations) is practically independent of which party is in power, or public sentiment. It has much more to do with whose support those politicians need to get in order get elected and at the same time avoid assasination.

narrow? (3, Informative)

Gogo0 (877020) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274735)

251-162 to even debate impeachment, and then rather than holding the debate that was voted for, it was decided to move it forward, failing 218-194.

sounds weird and not all that narrow. its split down the middle (more or less), just like the parties (more or less). is anyone suprised??
and how many abstained from voting or just didnt show up?

3-4 is narrow, 24 (four less than the difference in parties) is not.

Re:narrow? (1)

Ender_Stonebender (60900) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274911)

There are 19 Representatives listed as "Not Voting" on the thomas.loc.gov. They also break it down by individual representatives, so you can find out if your representative voted yea or nay. Just search for "impeach Cheney" - the one you want will be the second result.

Ender

Re:narrow? (1)

Gogo0 (877020) | more than 6 years ago | (#21275095)

very interesting, thanks for the link.

in case anyone else is interested, it breaks down as follows:
Ayes Noes PRES NV
Democratic 214 5 13
Republican 4 189 7
Independent
TOTALS 218 194 20

Summary of the accusations (5, Informative)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274765)

Article I: Cheney lied about intelligence regarding banned weapon programs

Whether the result of lies, a lack of willingness to believe contrary viewpoints, or maybe even idiocy (I think he's too smart for that, evil or not), the accusations carry no mention of where he made statements under oath. Statements included are from two press interactions, five interviews, and a speech. While in some cases very public, there are no cases there where he was speaking under oath.

Article II: Cheney lied about connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda

Again, there was no oath taken for the occasions mentioned. Four speeches and five interviews are mentioned, but again, at no time during these was he under oath.

Article III: Cheney has threatened use of force against Iran

Three cases where he said that no options are off the table and one where he explained the placement of an extra carrier in the Persian Gulf are used as evidence here. Every president for the last few decades has used carriers to send messages to other countries, and saying that no options are off the table is application of diplomatic pressure. He never said that if Iran doesn't stop, the US will flatten it.

Impeachment is for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." He has not committed treason as defined in the Constitution ("levying War against [the Untied States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"); he is not accused of taking bribes; and it's unlikely that misdirection of the sort listed would come under a "high Crime" or "Misdemeanor," or else every person subject to impeachment could probably be pulled from office for making a political statement that someone on the opposing party doesn't like.

I wasn't especially fond of the idea of Clinton's impeachment, and I don't think Cheney warrants it here. This is a waste of time given that a) it's unlikely to garner enough House votes to continue even if it does get past committee, and b) it's essentially impossible for it to get a conviction in the Senate.

Re:Summary of the accusations (1)

Steeltalon (734391) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274905)

"Whether the result of lies, a lack of willingness to believe contrary viewpoints, or maybe even idiocy (I think he's too smart for that, evil or not), the accusations carry no mention of where he made statements under oath. Statements included are from two press interactions, five interviews, and a speech. While in some cases very public, there are no cases there where he was speaking under oath."

See, that's the funny thing about any time that Bush says that XXXX can testify "but not under oath". The only thing that it successfully does is make him look like an obstruction and an asshole. The fact is that it's illegal to lie to Congress, anyway... Oath or no oath.

So, the significance of whether he lied to the American people outside of oath may just make him a jerk. The fact that he may have lied to Congres... that constitutes a violation of the law.

Re:Summary of the accusations (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21274917)

[quote]
Article I: Cheney lied about intelligence regarding banned weapon programs

Whether the result of lies, a lack of willingness to believe contrary viewpoints, or maybe even idiocy (I think he's too smart for that, evil or not), the accusations carry no mention of where he made statements under oath. Statements included are from two press interactions, five interviews, and a speech. While in some cases very public, there are no cases there where he was speaking under oath.

Article II: Cheney lied about connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda

Again, there was no oath taken for the occasions mentioned. Four speeches and five interviews are mentioned, but again, at no time during these was he under oath
[/quote]

It is quite interesting that you are defending his actions based on him "not being under oath".
I don't know about you but I certainly feel that our elected leaders should not be given
impunity to LIE to us whether under oath or not. He is the Vice President of the US for Gods sake.
How can anyone say it is OK for the VP to lie to the American people and simply dismiss it as nothing
for the lack of an oath.

Re:Summary of the accusations (1)

Etrias (1121031) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274951)

I think it's a sad state of affairs when we have to expect our politicians to tell the truth only when they're under oath. Ah, but that's the dreamer-me.

I mean I enjoy the Prime Minister's Questions in front of the House of Commons as much as the next person (where they can absolutely lie and at times expected to), but I'm not sure I can remember anything that Cheney ever got correct.

Re:Summary of the accusations (4, Funny)

Donniedarkness (895066) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274991)

Hold up, here: He made false statements that helped send us to war, but he's not liable in any way because he didn't make them while under oath? Would he get away with shooting somebody, as long as he wasn't under oath?

Actually, I guess he already did...

In other words (5, Insightful)

copponex (13876) | more than 6 years ago | (#21275007)

The deaths of possibly hundreds of thousands of civilians and thousands of our own troops maimed and killed is not technically Cheney's fault, in purely legal terms. Nor the fault of the administration who supported and executed the war. I just have one question for these technical excuses for the immoral conduct of our entire government: where exactly does the buck stop? Who has the integrity to accept responsibility for their actions?

They LIED about EVERY threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein posed, and not only once and in government reports, but MULTIPLE times while addressing the public. The fact that they weren't under oath is actually more evidence that they knew they weren't just being vague or coy, but completely dishonest. Anyone who claims otherwise is as full of shit as they were/are.

Re:Summary of the accusations (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 6 years ago | (#21275041)

It can be a misdemeanor to mislead people about the case for war. Think about how many people have died as a result of this, troops, civilians and how much money has been spent. All simply because Cheney and others wanted to flex their muscles and remind the world that the US has a strong military force.

Not Tech News. (0, Offtopic)

jo7hs2 (884069) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274777)

I fail to see how this article is relevant to the purpose of this site.

Re:Not Tech News. (1)

physicsboy500 (645835) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274939)

Please refer to my point above [slashdot.org] .

Re:Not Tech News. (1)

Nonillion (266505) | more than 6 years ago | (#21275009)

Well, in the remotest of sense they do use semi technical terms like tubes and dump trucks.

Posturing, blah... blah... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21274801)

Let's see....

Is Kucinich running for President? Yes
Is he frontrunner for the Dem's? No
Does he need to improve his profile? Yes
By submitting these articles, is he taking 'initiatives' the public would want taken given the certain ambiguities that remain, with regard to why we are now in this mid-east Debacle (impeaching those who lied to the American People)? Yes
Was there any chance for these articles to come to fruition? NO CHANCE IN HELL!!!

Its political posturing people....

Move along, nothing to see here.

On a sideone, he's at least smart enough to score a trophy wife, right?

What was that phrase again? (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274807)

Oh yeah.

Schauden Freude.

Dan but that Kucnich is one wild and crazy guy. Watch for HR333, coming to a committee far from you!

PS - It's not hard to embarrass the Congressional Democratic leadership. Just vote for their bills.

rick

Hey, Pelosi and Hoyer! (5, Insightful)

Chazman (6089) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274815)

Please explain to me exactly *WHY* impeachment is not on the table. There have never been a President and Vice President of the United States *MORE* deserving of impeachment. The Vice President falsified an official intelligence report that was to become the basis of deciding whether or not to send this country to war, for crying out loud. The Vice President outed a CIA operative to settle a political score. The President has institutionalized the breaking of the Fourth Amendment on a massive scale and won't even let Congress, let alone the American people, have all the facts about what he's been doing. *NOT* impeaching them both has got to rank as one of the most gross miscarriages of justice in this nation's history.

Pelosi, Hoyer: GROW A PAIR! Stand up for what's right! Do your job and uphold the Constitution!

WHAT! (2, Interesting)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274897)

The last article accuses Cheney of threatening "aggression" against Iran "absent any real threat."'"
Since when did the leader of a country threatening to wipe an ally of the United States off the map not constitute a real threat? I'm not saying we should go to war against Iran but the World at large really needs to grow some balls when it comes to dealing with Iran. They constantly threaten to attack a country which did nothing to them. They are at the same time working to acheive Nuclear technology and say that nobody can stop them.

Re:WHAT! (1)

Lazy Jones (8403) | more than 6 years ago | (#21275069)

They constantly threaten to attack a country which did nothing to them. They are at the same time working to acheive Nuclear technology and say that nobody can stop them.

One could misread this as referring to the US threatening the Iran ...

Re:WHAT! (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 6 years ago | (#21275077)

Israel is more than capable of defending itself against Iran.

However, the mere fact that a country says bad things about us or our interests (or worse, doesn't do what we tell them they should be doing!), shouldn't on its own cause us to spend time and resources to escalate the situation.

absent any real threat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21274925)

What part of "Death to America" do you not understand? It's pretty unambiguous.

Further, in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (which Iran voluntarily signed), Iran has embarked on an enormous covert nuclear program.

2 + 2 = ????

The house avoids even discussing impeachment? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21274941)

Shouldn't these guys have been impeached years ago?
And the US congress can't even get off their fat asses to even discuss the possibility of impeaching even one of these incompetent fools?
And this is with the white house and congress controlled by two separate parties?
I guess officials taking responsibility for their actions is an unknown concept in the US...

Absent any real threat? (1)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274947)

Iran is no threat to America? No wonder our Democratic Congress has worse approval ratings than Bush... they're diluted.

What exactly will this accomplish? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21274949)

Even if you get enough votes together to actually impeach and remove Cheney from office, another criminal will just step up to replace him.

This is a waste of time and resources. Even if you remove both Bush and Cheney from power, or even the entire Bush administration, other criminals will soon step in to take their place. For any real change, we need to go for the root: we have to completely remove every member of this Zionist crime gang from power, not just one or two minor pawns.

What I want to know is who (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274959)

Who made the deal with the pro-impeachment folks to allow it to be tabled in return for not funding the Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan wars in the military budget?

That was a smooth trade.

Too much time on their hands? (2, Interesting)

VoxMagis (1036530) | more than 6 years ago | (#21274979)

I'm sorry - whether you hate the president/vp or not (and for the record I don't) - you have to say that this is a gross waste of time for this congress.

As a republican, I actually had hope when we lost control of the house and senate that perhaps we'd see some movement in government with an aggressive party taking control at a pivotal time in our history. It's not that I wanted much of what the Democrats wanted, it's that I wanted someone to stand up and do something.

I was wrong.

Frontline special about Dick Cheney on PBS (4, Informative)

Rick17JJ (744063) | more than 6 years ago | (#21275031)

PBS recently had a one hour episode of Frontline about Dick Cheney on October 16, 2007. It well researched and went into great detail about Dick Cheney and David Addington's quest to expand presidential power in ways that were both legally and constitutionally questionable. Expanding presidential power was a major part of their efforts to perform domestic spying and to be allowed to use torture on suspected terrorists.

If I remember correctly, that episode of Frontline did not say very much, about the alleged manipulating of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. Most of its criticisms of Dick Cheney were for different reasons than what were mentioned in the Washington Post article.

Mmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21275049)

Another brilliant tactical maneuver by the Republicans punctuating a long string of defeats since '06. When the leftmost wing of the Democrat party grabs the reins, watch out! But the losing side is usually the one with the cleverest tactics, so this may be a flash in the pan. That's a depressing thought, since I HATE Democrats even more than I hate Republicans.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>