I’m not extreme left. Far from it. IMHO, the right are fools for continuing to support what looks to be illegal acts by the President and his administration.
What does being a lame duck have to do with this? Justice is Justice. Following your lame duck idea, should a bank president that defrauds a bank be let off if he retires?
Obsession? You can’t be serious.
Clinton was impeached for lying about getting a blow job. His PERSONAL indiscretion did not start a war, it did not kill hundreds of thousands, and it did not threaten our security and did not cost upwards of 500 billion dollars.
Classic - Kucinich reads the Articles, the Republicans say “bring it on!” and the Democrats cave.
Face it - neither side wants to have to go through all of the history of the war and once again admit that they read the same intel, they voted for the war (before voting against it), etc. If you thought “it depends on what is is” was a mess, just wait for hearings where Bush says, “yeah, I agreed with Clinton and the joint intelligence committee that there was bad stuff over there. Guess we all screwed up, huh?”
Just take a look at the Rockefeller Report (or read this bit from the Washington Post):
“An earlier resolution to impeach Cheney has languished in the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties since May 2007.”
I don’t know… if Kucinich spent all that time and energy preparing this voluminous tome of charges (each detailing at least some vague form of evidence,) which took five hours just to read out loud… I can’t see him voting not to pursue it unless a) the party pressured him at the last minute to shut up, or b) he never intended to vote for it in the first place.
I’m going with the “get it on the record for posterity, and maybe if we’re lucky it can hurt McBush’s chances in the fall too” theory.
Here is the thing…unless Kucinich et al are on a fishing expedition they they should HAVE this information. Your example of Nixon is applicable…despite Nixon’s attempt to suppress and otherwise eliminate investigations and information it STILL got out. Do you think GW is smarter than Nixon?? :dubious:
Either Kucinich has strong evidence or he doesn’t. And if he doesn’t…then this is simply a lot of wind and smoke. Which I think it’s self evident that it is. There is a reason why the Republicans WANT this pushed through and the Democrats don’t.
If you don’t have any evidence then you can’t bring a serious charge…it’s not MY fork here. Would you prefer a system where possibly spurious charges could be brought at whim by the police or by which ever party is strong enough to push them through?
Did you read the article? It’s pretty clear that the Dems voted to shelve…not to bring it to a committee or have hearings. Again, if you read the article the Republicans were the ones voting FOR this, while the Dems overwhelmingly voted to shelve it. Why do you suppose that is? Are the Republicans suddenly against Bush and want him impeached? Do the Dems suddenly support Bush and want to protect him?
Impeachment means whatever Congress says it means. It’s telling that the Dems are blocking it while the Republicans, far from shaking in their boots, are trying to bring this to an actual debate and proceed.
Dunno about enipla, but I think it’s typical Congressional tap-dancing and it’s meaningless. Whether or not an impeachment is politically feasible (and it’s not), it’ll be interesting to see whether the next President releases a metric shitload of documents to a grand jury.
If such documents exist then I’m all for them being released. I don’t see why, if Bush has done illegal things, they can’t go after him once he’s out of office…is there some immunity that ex-Presidents get or something?
