You seem to intend this as criticism, but I’m hearing the equivalent of “your mother drinks iced tea on summer afternoons.” 
Well, it’s obvious that a stunned nation has yet to throw off the shock and really start getting excited about these mighty articles of Impeachment! A quick survey of the normal news websites I look over in the morning shows no mention of these momentous events on their front pages (not even Fox…I assume it’s because they are to shocked and in disarray after this mighty blow).
A quick google search (Kucinich Impeachment) does get a few back page hits on MSM sites…but most of the excitement seems to be coming from left wing fringe sites so far (I know…shocking).
I haven’t seen any reaction from Obama or the Democratic party yet…I await with bated breath to see the rallying around of Kucinich as the Dems pick up the gauntlet and run with it to get rid of Bush! It should be nearly as momentous as when the Kucinich Impeached Chaney (who is currently serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison at an undisclosed facility in Europe IIRC).
-XT
I’m glad he’s doing it so that 22nd century historians will note that some people knew just what kind of men Bush and Cheney were. If it does nothing more but get entered into the Congressional Record, I’m perfectly happy with that result.
If it weren’t Kucinich, this might make a very good cynical ploy, in that it smokes out the Pubbies. Will they defend The Leader, or no? Will they defend the proposition that a President might very well be impeached for lying about a knob job, but not for lying us into a war? When they are campaigning back home, will they be asked about this, do you think? I rather imagine they might.
Of course, everybody knows Dennis is just a loony moonbat, so that can’t be it…
SmartAleq, You are in direct violation of the rules of this Forum.
On the other hand, while not a direct violation of this Forum rule (as I suspect that Rep. Kucinich is not actually posting, here), this is not appropriate for this conversation and simply makes Two and a Half Inches of Fun and Shodan look like jerks.
[ /Moderating ]
BFD. And accusation is just that, and nothing more.
I’d be surprised if they spend 1 second worrying about this.
Why? It’s an obscure act by an obscure pol-- one who gets single digit votes in national elections.
Lose credibility with whom? Almost no one will even hear about it. Why should they report on a political stunt that has zero chance of success?
If no one hears about this, it isn’t going to help or hurt anyone. What do you think Obama would say if interviewed about this action? Would he support it or not?
No, it doesn’t. Accused by whom? There are people who accuse Obama of criminal activity.
Bingo.
:rolleyes: Really, sophomoric insult like this, especially on this board, do not help your position.
While I love the image of a stalwart Congressman (or woman), standing up and making such a grand gesture, I can’t see how anything will come of it. They’ll let Kucinich have his spotlight time and then move back on to the business at hand. They just don’t have the votes to even begin considering impeachment, and Kucinich knows it.
It’s just theatre.
No…they won’t defend The Leader because there is no need to do so. The Leader won’t defend himself for the same reason. They will either ignore it because it’s not serious or they will make some hay off of portraying the Dems as, to use your quote, ‘moonbats’.
This is not even a worthless gesture…because it will actually have a negative effect on the Dems. Why do you suppose the Dems aren’t rallying around Brave Sir Kucinich? Why do you suppose they pretty much tried to hush him up when he went off the reservation last time and tried the exact same thing against Chaney?
If the Dems REALLY wanted to hold real investigations and really lay out articles of impeachment against Bush they would have done so by now…they have had plenty of opportunity since 2006. Instead you have one little weasel in the hen yard grandstanding…and probably hurting the Dems election chances (though in a small and weaselish way, to be sure).
No doubt…he’s positively Machiavellian…
-XT
Even if they impeach Bush (resurrect the impeachment of Cheney too!) with 17 days left in office…we’d still get our first female president, even if only for 17 days.
Not sure if you are saying this tongue in cheek or not…but the probability of them impeaching Bush from this is pretty much approaching zero. In fact, I believe the snowballs have a better chance in hell.
Sure, it’s a great fantasy (on par with Bush and Chaney getting dragged off in chains to Europe to face war crime trials and be sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in a small room with their new friends Bubbah and Tiny)…but it’s only a fantasy.
-XT
Which would honk Hillary off to the nth degree. That makes it a win-win-WIN scenario! 
I agree with you that the chance of it actually happening are virtually zero. I was just pondering on another plus of them being removed.
If the Dems do nothing, you can be sure the Pubbies will be calling them “spineless” over the next few months, even if it’s spinelessness over prosecuting them (such is political commentary). I think Kucinich’s effort would actually help the Dem’s public image, if they had the spine to back it.
First off, sorry for the insult–mea culpa.
Secondly, it’s fairly obvious that the naysayers didn’t actually WATCH the proceedings last night. Just so we’re all on the same page, here’s a link (PDF) to the articles in question. Can we get agreement that there are genuinely criminal actions exhaustively documented here? Actions that we can agree are of sufficient weight and moment as to support impeachment? Things that NO president should EVER do? Actions that are a national disgrace? Actions which have caused substantial harm to American citizens? Not to mention death for thousands of us?
Anatole France said that “If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.” By the same token, if a million MSM pundits and status quo apologists ignore an important thing, it does not thereby reduce its importance.
I, for one, am sick and disgusted with the way Congress, the Bush administration and just regular old citizens of this country are ready, willing and able to handwave criminal actions away with the excuse of “political expediency” or “executive privilege.” I, for one, do not care a whit how many handwavers there are or how vigorously they handwave, because the breeze of their waving hands, regardless if it reach Force Five levels, will NEVER be strong enough to banish the stink of corruption that has settled like a dismal smog bank over this country.
Dennis Kucinich has done THE RIGHT THING. I think it says something profound about the state of government in this country that he will no doubt be ignored, mocked and trivialized over the course of the next few months. It appears manifestly true to many that trees falling in forests make no sound–apparently many feel that if they themselves don’t find something important, or worthy, or admirable that it changes the original action, but this is not the case. Mr Kucinich has more courage than anybody posting in this thread–he stood up, made his case, told the truth and did so with full knowledge that the panderers and naysayers and trivializers and Monday morning quarterbacks will have a field day making fun of his ears or how many votes he didn’t get in an election. He appears to be fine with that, and I intend to take his example to heart and rise above the cynical, specious twitterings of those who can’t see a genuine patriot when he stands before a microphone for five straight hours dispassionately yet passionately making his case to a mostly absent, unhearing, apparently uncaring set of peers.
This is NOT an issue of Right vs. Left. It is an issue of right vs. wrong and I pity anyone who can’t see this, who won’t see this, or who will continue to defend the actions of a corrupt, criminal administration. Truly it has been said that citizens of a democratic republic get the kind of government they deserve.
Here is the thing. If the documentation provided in the PDF REALLY described “genuinely criminal actions exhaustively documented” then why hasn’t the Dems DONE anything with it? They have had years now to do something…and if they had real smoking gun proof of this stuff why aren’t they supporting Kucinich in this?
Maybe it’s because the Dems are afraid, maybe it’s because they are lazy, maybe it’s because they are in on it…or maybe there really isn’t enough actual documentation or proof to ACTUALLY impeach Bush? My own Occam’s Razor says that this is the simplest explanation…as the other explanations don’t seem to factor in the human element (i.e. it’s in the Dems best interest to nail Bush to the wall if in fact they have proof of ‘genuinely criminal actions’.
So, I guess to answer your question…no. I don’t agree that what Kucinich is ranting about has any basis in more than speculation, spin and partisan politics. This of course isn’t to say that Bush et al HAVEN’T done anything illegal…just that the Dems obviously don’t have a real smoking gun (that is going to convince more than the faithful who are already convinced). Because if they DID have such smoking gun proof then they would have used it in concert…instead of having a long nutball attempt to push it out in the dead of the night.
Conversely if one moonbat says something, even if it’s something you want to hear, you shouldn’t necessarily take it as gospel either. Maybe you should consider WHY the OTHER Dems (including Obama) aren’t jumping on the bandwagon?
And I’m sick of the screeching Dems and the corrupt Pubs…I’m sick to death of all this bullshit partisan politics from both sides. It’s SO stupid, pointless, petty and counterproductive. And this impeachment articles pretty much exemplifies the stupidity.
A pox on both your houses.
No, this is throwing a bone to the rabid left wingers thingy and my pity is for the poor deluded souls that take it seriously.
-XT
We can’t know for certain since the House leadership will not even discuss it, but my intuition tells me they won’t move because of several reasons, none of which have anything to do with a “smoking gun” kind of accusation.
-
There is doubt as to whether there would be enough votes in the House to carry an Impeachment vote. There are plenty of Republicans (and possibly some Democrats) who are strongly against Impeachment proceedings even if there was a body, a gun, fingerprints, and eye witnesses.
-
Even if the House managed to Impeach, there isn’t much chance of a conviction in the Senate. Wounded too recently by the Clinton Impeachment fight, the Senate really doesn’t want another one, especially in a chamber so evenly divided. There’s no way that Lieberman would support Conviction (it would invalidate most of what he currently stands for), so that would leave the Democrats in the slight minority with the assumption that every single one of them vote to convict (highly unlikely).
-
The Republicans, when they went through the Clinton Impeachment spectacle, took quite the hit to their reputation. At the time, they had enough good will amongst the people of the country to survive such a hit and then elect a new Congress and President. Currently, the Democrats are enjoying a slim margin of popular favor, but are losing it as the war drags on. An Impeachment would destroy that thin margin, jeopardizing their chances in the Fall general election.
So, even if there was strong evidence, and I don’t claim there is otherwise, the House leadership doesn’t want to spend any time on it. It would be a futile waste of time, no matter how much righteous indignation they’d be able to stir up.
Well, gosh, XT, can we send him to bed without supper? Or is that a little too “rabid left wing” for you?
Interesting.
I disagree here. I think if there really was overwhelming evidence they would be able to get the votes needed.
Ok…I’ll buy this somewhat. I thought of the Clinton impeachment when this all started and how it actually hurt the Republicans (as you say, not a fatal blow but it still hurt them). I still think if there really was overwhelming evidence of obvious criminal and illegal activity there would be sufficient reasons not to sweep this under the rug…which leads me to conclude the evidence is no where near as air tight as some folks seem to think it is. I concede that YMMV and certainly that political considerations are central to the question.
Definitely a major consideration…especially if the evidence is less than air tight or cut and dried. And at this late date perhaps even if it WAS rock solid…it’s a distraction from the election even if it were somehow fully justified.
The thing is though that whatever evidence there IS, Kucinich had it at least a year ago when he went after Chaney…and yet at that time this evidence didn’t even warrant either support from the Dems or defense form the 'Pubs.
Well, I agree that it IS a ‘futile waste of time’…and that Kucinich is certainly going to stir up some indignation, though if the Dems are lucky no one (but the faithful) will pay much attention to this and it won’t effect Obama’s election chances.
-XT
Well 'luci, if it’s advice you seek, I think I’d tie him up and gag him until after the election was over and done with. After Obama is elected then it won’t matter so much and he can be free to do whatever it is that moonbats do best…
-XT
Whatever.
Few have noticed, and few are going to notice, that Kucinich is actually doing anything about impeachment. The Dem leadership will not take up the issue. In terms of concrete results in the here and now, this will not matter at all. And it may or may not make a difference down the road.
But it doesn’t matter. Someone in Congress making the case for impeachment, even if it’s Kucinich, is better than no one making the case for impeachment.
“The Dems” don’t. And I’m sure Kucinich would be delighted if Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer were to support impeachment, so Kucinich didn’t have to ‘grandstand.’ But fuck-all if “the Dems” were going to take this one on, so the only alternatives were for some Dem or Dems to speak up, or simply shut up and pretend that essentially nobody in this country felt impeachment was worth looking into - a pretense contradicted by what occasional polling has been done, btw.
So good for Kucinich - someone is representing, in this regard, the 30% or more of the country that thinks impeachment needs to be considered.
Bush has admitted to approving what we used to regard as torture, and essentially confirmed Cheney’s complicity as well.
The idea that there’s no open-and-shut case, in this instance, is absurd. The only question is, does it rise to the level of an impeachable offense?
That’s the sort of thing that only Congress can decide. And maybe I’m way off base here, but this seems serious enough that ducking the debate entirely - no censure vote, no further investigation to see who else besides KSM has been waterboarded, no examination of other things done to prisoners per this Administration’s orders to determine if they should be regarded as torture, no nothing - is an abdication on their part of their constitutional responsibility.
For the most part, this Democratic Party has demonstrably been a bunch of timid rabbits. There’s your human element. Republicans are rarely afraid to go on offense against the Dems, whether it’s in their best interests or not - and if you substitute ‘almost always’ for ‘rarely’ you get the Dems.
People, and groups, often fail to act in their best interests, simply because of who they are.