# Rep. Kucinich reads articles of impeachment. Is there any point? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 10, 2008, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390 "2008-06-10T01:23:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/241 "2008-06-19T23:29:52Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] OK, suppose he just decides on his own, as Commander-in-Chief, that Brazil is a deadly enemy, and they need to be sent the sort of message that only a nuke can deliver? [/quote] If he honestly believes that… Well, we have methods to insure he’s not the only guy in the loop. If his attack is successful, it’s because other people looked at the evidence enough to assure them they weren’t following the orders of a madman. And if that evidence exists, then, yeah, that’s what his job is. > [@](#): > > Maybe not. But if the DA hid evidence that cast reasonable doubt of his guilt, and went all-out for the DP anyway, and the guy was executed, what then? > > I know: the DA wouldn’t be charged with anything, because they never are - but that deserves a thread of its own. If the DA commits a crime (which withholding evidence would be) then he can be charged. But if the evidence could go either way, or even if it slants one way but could be interpreted a second way… then, no, the DA doesn’t get charged. > [@](#): > > As I’ve explained here at length, beginning back in May 2003, our war plan made no provision for leaving troops behind to secure prospective WMD sites when our troops liberated them from Saddam, and they were looted to the ground before our specialized WMD units could see what they contained. > > IOW, the Bush Administration, in invading Iraq, did not act in a manner consistent with its claims that those WMDs would constitute an unusual danger if they fell into the hands of terrorists. And no other explanation fits… like, for example, the prospective WMD sites were clearly NOT, and no securing was necessary; no examination by “specialized teams” was necessary because it was immediately clear they were not dangerous. > [@](#): > > Do we have to argue this all over again? **Bush & Co. did not invade Iraq because of the WMD threat.** (Hell, we even have Wolfie’s word on that.) We _still_ don’t know why they really did invade Iraq. I’m sorry, but I don’t accept that conclusion, and your continual repetitionof it as though it were established fact does you no good. > [@](#): > > No, just morally culpable. Therefore, by your logic, he’s in violation of statute. No. Where in the world did “my logic” compel that result? What I said, above, was that if his intention in your example was simply to murder residents of Rio, then he’s criminally guilty of murder. That’s a clear statement of the way criminal law works. How do you jump from that to some vague theory of moral culpability and then triumphantly assign it to me? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/242 "2008-06-20T00:26:01Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] If he honestly believes that… Well, we have methods to insure he’s not the only guy in the loop. [/quote] We do? > [@](#): > > If his attack is successful, it’s because other people looked at the evidence enough to assure them they weren’t following the orders of a madman. No, really: when the President asks for the ‘football’ and punches in the codes, who verifies that there’s been a rigorous analysis of the threat? > [@](#): > > If the DA commits a crime (which withholding evidence would be) then he can be charged. Exactly. Thanks. > [@](#): > > And no other explanation fits… like, for example, the prospective WMD sites were clearly NOT, and no securing was necessary; no examination by “specialized teams” was necessary because it was immediately clear they were not dangerous. We’ve already gone over this ground. We’re talking about infantry who weren’t meant to do this checking. And no, they didn’t do a check, because they weren’t trained to do so. And the sites left unprotected (and subsequently looted) included most or all of the short list of, what, the 19 most critical (supposed) WMD sites. > [@](#): > > I’m sorry, but I don’t accept that conclusion, and your continual repetitionof it as though it were established fact does you no good. Then you must accept one of the alternatives: that either Bush attempted to betray this country by deliberately leaving WMD sites open for looting, or Rummy did it but Bush wasn’t bothered by it, or the whole lot of them were such morons that they had no idea that their war plan had nothing to do with their justification for war. Maybe there’s another I haven’t thought of, but that seems to cover the waterfront. > [@](#): > > No. Where in the world did “my logic” compel that result? > [@Bricker](#): > > anything that rises to the level of moral turpetitude sufficient to warrant impeachment will already be illegal. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/243 "2008-06-20T00:52:11Z")
Yeah, I got a problem with that reasoning to. Friend **Bricker** claims that only an explicitly illegal act can justify impeachment. And then > [@](#): > > …anything that rises to the level of moral turpetitude sufficient to warrant impeachment will already be illegal… Perhaps I misread, because I cannot take that seriously. It is simply impossible to view the intentional destruction of innocent people as anything but moral turpitude, if not complete moral rotteness. And yet, you assure us that this is not, in and of itself, illegal. And _then_ tell me that “…anything that rises to the level of moral turpetitude sufficient to warrant impeachment will already be illegal…” You see my problem? About the only way out I can see is if you define deliberate provocation of massacre as something _other_ than “moral turpitude”. Which absurdity you are not _about_ to suggest. Right? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/244 "2008-06-20T01:14:26Z")
Anyone remember Willie Horton? **Bricker** ’s just absolved Dukakis. Not responsible. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/245 "2008-06-20T02:06:56Z")
Bricker, what about ‘known or should have known’? If it is clear that the sheriff ‘knew, or should have known’ that Joe Bob would have been raped, as he put him in the same jail cell as Bubba McLargus, who was in for raping Jim Bob and had been heard to say Joe Bob got a purty mouth, would the sheriff be criminally liable? Would he be criminally liable if he arranged things so that all the deputies took vacation time at the same time he did, leaving Bubba and Joe alone in the jail, together? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/246 "2008-06-20T08:13:56Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Anyone remember Willie Horton? **Bricker** ’s just absolved Dukakis. Not responsible. [/QUOTE] Of course not. Did anyone believe that Dukakis should have been jailed for Horton’s release and subsequent crimes? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/247 "2008-06-20T08:15:16Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Yeah, I got a problem with that reasoning to. Friend **Bricker** claims that only an explicitly illegal act can justify impeachment. And then Perhaps I misread, because I cannot take that seriously. It is simply impossible to view the intentional destruction of innocent people as anything but moral turpitude, if not complete moral rotteness. [/quote] How about if I deny your premise that Bush has committed the intentional destruction of innocent people? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/248 "2008-06-20T08:19:59Z")
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath] Bricker, what about ‘known or should have known’? If it is clear that the sheriff ‘knew, or should have known’ that Joe Bob would have been raped, as he put him in the same jail cell as Bubba McLargus, who was in for raping Jim Bob and had been heard to say Joe Bob got a purty mouth, would the sheriff be criminally liable? [/quote] That would seem to fit the deliberate indifference standard, at a minimum. A jury could infer that he had the intention of causing the rape, which would place the act in criminal territory. The key here is intent. > [@](#): > > Would he be criminally liable if he arranged things so that all the deputies took vacation time at the same time he did, leaving Bubba and Joe alone in the jail, together? That certainly sounds like intent to have the rape happen. But of course, if he has other evidence to suggest that the vacation scheduling was a legitimate, if tragic, accident, then that would show he’s not in criminal territory. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/249 "2008-06-20T08:28:25Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] We do? No, really: when the President asks for the ‘football’ and punches in the codes, who verifies that there’s been a rigorous analysis of the threat? [/quote] I admit to having little expertise in this area. But based on Cecil’s classic column discussing Nixon’s last days (unfortunately not yet available on-line), Defense Secretary James Schlesinger was to be informed if any ‘extraordinary orders’ went out from the White House and military officials were to refrain from carrying out any orders which came from the White House outside the normal military channels. I infer from this that the President simply doesn’t press a big red button, with no action required from others. > [@](#): > > We’ve already gone over this ground. We’re talking about infantry who weren’t meant to do this checking. And no, they didn’t do a check, because they weren’t trained to do so. Again, I don’t pretend to be an expert, but couldn’t a basic determination be made – if there’s nothing on-site except a disassembled transmisson for a '57 Chevy Bel Air, there’s really no need for an expert evaluation, is there? And perhaps YOU have already gone over this ground, but unless you’re prepared to post a link to a discussion I participated in, then WE – you and I – have not. > [@](#): > > And the sites left unprotected (and subsequently looted) included most or all of the short list of, what, the 19 most critical (supposed) WMD sites. Which did not, in fact, upon basic examination have any WMDs. So no expert eval was needed. ---
**Author:** ![Carson\_O\_Genic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cdc98d/32.png) [@Carson\_O\_Genic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carson_O_Genic)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/250 "2008-06-20T10:03:55Z")
Elucidator, the tack taken in post #229 is a fruitless one. No need to refer to Gen. Yamashita if you recall Iran Contra. Ignorance claimed by the Executive, ignorance accepted. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/251 "2008-06-20T10:17:48Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Of course not. Did anyone believe that Dukakis should have been jailed for Horton’s release and subsequent crimes? [/QUOTE] Ah, the implication arrows go both ways: if no criminal culpability, then no moral culpability. Seriously, what sort of moral universe is this that you’ve constructed? In the real world, things just aren’t as neat as you lay out. Bush and his henchmen, for instance, created a situation in Iraq where U.S. contractors could kill and rape, yet face no legal consequences. But they didn’t violate any criminal statutes in so doing, so apparently their moral culpability must be minor. Guess the moral culpability of the killers and rapists is pretty minimal too, since they got to commit their acts in an environment where there were no statutes to rein them in. At some point, you’ve got to admit that statutory culpability and moral culpability _just don’t always match up neatly_. You’d like them to, and you believe they _do_. But that’s _religion_, not reality. [QUOTE=Bricker] I admit to having little expertise in this area. But based on Cecil’s classic column discussing Nixon’s last days (unfortunately not yet available on-line), Defense Secretary James Schlesinger was to be informed if any ‘extraordinary orders’ went out from the White House and military officials were to refrain from carrying out any orders which came from the White House outside the normal military channels. I infer from this that the President simply doesn’t press a big red button, with no action required from others. [/quote] That was an _ad hoc_ response to an unusual situation. > [@](#): > > And perhaps YOU have already gone over this ground, but unless you’re prepared to post a link to a discussion I participated in, then WE – you and I – have not. Maybe we haven’t. But it was discussed on this board in detail in May 2003 after [Barton Gellman’s groundbreaking reporting was published](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0511-01.htm), and a few times in the following year, and periodically after that. If you want me to link you to a for-instance or two, I’d be happy to. Or you can open a new thread about whether the Bush Administration really went to war over WMDs. > [@](#): > > Which did not, in fact, upon basic examination have any WMDs. So no expert eval was needed. Cite? Here’s Gellman: > [@](#): > > By far the greatest impediment to the weapons hunt, participants said, was widespread looting of Iraq’s governmental and industrial facilities. At nearly every top-tier “sensitive site” the searchers reached, intruders had sacked and burned the evidence that weapons hunters had counted on sifting. As recently as last Tuesday, nearly a month after Hussein’s fall from power, soldiers under the Army’s V Corps command had secured only 44 of the 85 top potential weapons sites in the Baghdad area and 153 of the 372 considered most important to rebuilding Iraq’s government and economy. > > McPhee saw early in the war that the looters were stripping his targets before he could check them. He cut the planning cycle for new missions – the time between first notice and launch – from 96 to 24 hours. “What we found,” he said, was that “as the maneuver units hit a target they had to move on, even 24 hours was too slow. By the time we got there, a lot of things were gone.” > > Short and powerfully built, McPhee has spent his adult life as a combat officer. He calls his soldiers “bubbas” and worries about their mail. “It ain’t good” that suspect sites are unprotected, he said, but he refused to criticize fighting units who left evidence unguarded. > > "You’ve got two corps commanders being told, ‘Get to Baghdad,’ and, oh, by the way, ‘When you run across sensitive sites, you have to secure them,’ " he said. “Do you secure all those sites, or do you get to Baghdad? You’ve got limited force structure and you’ve got 20 missions.” No “they already checked them,” just “Get to Baghdad” as the overriding objective of the maneuver units, trumping the securing of WMD sites. Anyway, this news is five years old. Whose heads rolled because the sites weren’t secured? If WMDs had been there, they would have been sold to terrorists, or used by Sunni insurgents, years ago. But Bush wasn’t even _upset_ about this. Draw your own conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/252 "2008-06-20T13:40:10Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] How about if I deny your premise that Bush has committed the intentional destruction of innocent people? [/QUOTE] If it were that easy, you would already have done it. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/253 "2008-06-20T13:47:42Z")
I think we should try to examine my point. At what point in the chain does ‘known or should have known’ become a factor? For Abu Ghraib, I suppose the general in charge is as high as you can reasonably go. Assuming, and this is a big assumption, but for the sake of this argument, I’m going to make it… Assuming that there were planned outrages on human beings that violated their rights at Gitmo, how far up the chain does ‘knew or should have known’ go? Considering the torture discussions were held in the public view, and the national outcry (Nation-wide, not entire nation opposed) in regards to civil rights at Gitmo, does it reach the President? I think this is the simplest and most effective logical chain to follow. If there _is_ any validity to this charge, this is how you’d apply it. Bricker? Edit: And, if we can establish that the chain of responsibility can extend that far, we have to examine the Gitmo end, and see if there _are_ any charges that can be applied along that chain. Right now, we’re assuming there are, and then after we see if it will reach to Bush, we’ll try to figure out how big they have to be before you can hook that chain down. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2008, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/254 "2008-06-21T17:19:32Z")
Col. Lawrence Wilkinson, Colin Powell’s chief of staff at the State Department during Bush’s first term, says that of the 100 or more detainee deaths, [25 were murders - the result of torture](http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Wilkerson080618.pdf). (p.6 of testimony.) Not worth an impeachment investigation, of course. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2008, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/255 "2008-06-21T17:36:38Z")
Let me review some old bidding: On April 9 of this year, ABC News [published the following story](http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/story?id=4583256&page=1): > [@](#): > > In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News. > > The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of “combined” interrogation techniques – using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time – on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said. > > Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects – whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding. > > The high-level discussions about these “enhanced interrogation techniques” were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed – down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic. > > The advisers were members of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy. > > At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft. Two days later, [ABC asked Bush about it](http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/Story?id=4635175&page=1): > [@](#): > > President Bush says he knew his top national security advisers discussed and approved specific details about how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to an exclusive interview with ABC News Friday. > > “Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people.” Bush told ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. “And yes, I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.” > > As first reported by ABC News Wednesday, the most senior Bush administration officials repeatedly discussed and approved specific details of exactly how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the CIA. If one finds Wilkerson (correct spelling this time) to be credible, then Bush and Cheney are, at a minimum, guilty of failure to properly oversee the program of torture that they set in motion - a failure that led to two dozen deaths of captives. YMMV as to whether that’s an impeachable offense. But if someone says it isn’t worth taking up Congress’ time to debate that issue, then I’m afraid I don’t understand, nor do I want to, where that person is coming from. This is damned serious stuff. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2008, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/256 "2008-06-21T23:18:26Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] When the President legally commits our military forces to combat, he isn’t criminally responsible for the deaths that occur. [/QUOTE] They just … occur. That’s it? Even people rounded up and imprisoned and tortured, if they die, that’s just something that … occurs? Nobody’s responsible for that, not even those who \*ordered \* it? And you talk about “moral turpitude”. Oh, by the way, why the \*hell \* are you \*still \* sticking with this baseless (but self-excusing) notion that impeachment has any connection at all with the legal system? Haven’t you had the very words of the Constitution saying exactly the opposite, a text you yourself claim to respect highly, shoved in your face enough times to get it _yet_? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2008, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/257 "2008-06-22T00:17:44Z")
Hiya, Elvis! I was worried you were all upset. Now settle down. Okay, Bricker, we’ve got some stuff here. RTFirefly has a pretty good lead pointing to the administration. What can we do with that? ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2008, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/258 "2008-06-23T04:05:34Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] Insane. That’s what this whole discussion is. [/QUOTE] No. Insane is calling the President of the USA a criminal simply because you don’t like him, and you know that he hasn’t committed a crime. Well, maybe insane is a little harsh. Liar might be more accurate. Or a fool. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2008, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/259 "2008-06-23T05:40:19Z")
Well, sure, it would be if the only reason was because we don’t like him. But that isn’t the reason. Lot of us (myself most definitely _not_ included) really did like him, and were dragged to a current dislike by the constant drubbing of fact after fact after fact. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2008, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390/260 "2008-06-23T10:06:37Z")
[QUOTE=Clothahump] No. Insane is calling the President of the USA a criminal simply because you don’t like him [/QUOTE] And I thought it was about all the dead Iraqis, all the people tortured at Bagram and Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, all the illegal wiretapping of Americans, stuff like that. Silly me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rep-kucinich-reads-articles-of-impeachment-is-there-any-point/452390.md?page=14)