Why stop at Cheney? It seem to me that Bush and the other cronies in the executive branch are equally guilty of these crimes.

Can someone shed some light on this for a non US cityzen.

Will this amount to anything or can this just be swept under the carpet?

Sadly, even if the articles were taken up by the House, it would require a 2/3 majority of the Senate in order to convict. Since that's impossible with 49 Republicans and a Joe Lieberman there, the House probably won't even vote on this.

ya know its a real shame that dennis wasn't supported 100% by the democrats and in particular the ones in charge on this one. pelosi and co. were elected in to do a job and they have failed miserably. they have a majority of the seats and only 1% of the power. cmon guys if you dont do something fast theres gonna be new officials. a lot of people have been asking me if i think this is a political move for dennis and his presidency. either way i dont care. either way its showing that someone in congress has the fucking balls to give his say and act upon this sham of an administration. i bet dick is laughing at kucinich in some fenced in shooting range hunting birds that cant fly....from a car.

thank you dennis for doing the right thing and i hope this will make people realize what good president you could be.

"Sadly, even if the articles were taken up by the House, it would require a 2/3 majority of the Senate in order to convict."

Exactly. So frankly, I don't get the left's fetishism with impeachment. We can only lose, legally and politically. It's pure activism on Kucinich's part. Even the "Nation" wrote this, some time ago: Impeachment would be the one thing the Republicans need to regroup and reenergize themselves.

Bush and Cheney "won" two elections. The American people brought that upon themselves. Hopefully they've learned their lesson. So, the best way to deal with this sorry bunch is defeat them in 2008. Afterwards, there may be legal means to deal with the crimes the Bush administration committed. But impeachment is not the way to do it. Nixon was the one special occasion when the 2/3 majority was within grasp - Clinton or Bush is an other matter.

Get over it. Defeat the Repugs. On the ballot.

Note to all the short dumpy looking guys like me: if you do the right thing, insist on justice being done, and face down power with truth no matter the consequences, you may not get to be President -- but you do get to go home with the model.

Okay, listen to me. It's very important.

"Afterwards, there may be legal means to deal with the crimes the Bush administration committed."

Frenchfries acknowledges that what the administration did was criminal.

And then he says that because both the parties refuse to acknowledge the criminal decisions that led to war, for political reasons - because it's in both parties' interests not to rock the boat - he's saying it's okay, there's some kind of excuse. Everyone can just go, "oh well".

Has everyone lost respect for the rule of law? For the founding documents of a free nation? How can Frenchfries' words not be construed as immorally complacent? How does standing idle, advocating idleness, not make one complicit in the atrocity?

I don't care that Kucinich in particular is doing this, and I don't care why. Because someone had to fucking get up and enforce the motherfucking US Constitution. I don't care who or how. Someone needed to stand up and officially say "this was very wrong, something should be done."

And there won't be any proceedings after the fact if there aren't any now. Something criminal was done. Delaying would only encourage forgetfulness and discourage justice.

If this administration gets away with this, where thousands of soldiers needlessly died, where millions of civilians (men, women, children) were needlessly displaced and murdered and starved... what will the next administration get away with? Or the next?

No, I don't think anybody should "get over it" and go back to Business As Usual. Because unless there's impeachment, Business As Usual will mean everything up to and including illicit war and hundreds of thousands of pointless deaths.

Dick Cheney is a liar and Dennis Kucinich lays out the proof.

Dennis Kucinich deserves our support. Dick Cheney deserves to be impeached.

Mainstream media has been standing down on this. What does that tell you?

Thanks Dennis.

Frenetic is 100% correct - the impeachment should proceed - futile or not, because undermining of the rule of law is THE WORST thing the Bush administration has done. It underlies and every other crime this administration has committed and opens the door for more lawless government in the future - period.

"Exactly. So frankly, I don't get the left's fetishism with impeachment. We can only lose, legally and politically. It's pure activism on Kucinich's part." - freedomfries

I disagree, I'm glad someone in Congress has made such a statement.

I am much less depressed that at least one person in Congress still stands up for principle even when they know they will lose.

What if Rosa Parks had thought "why bother"?

I'm officially an Independent. The Democrats remain the skinny kid in the beach who gets beat up by the big bad bully. I'm tired of hoping that they do something, anything to prevent this administration from carrying on. First, Schumer and Feinstein voted in favor of Mukasey's nomination even though the guy doesn't think simulated drowning is all that bad and then Pelosi and her group shoot this down. So you know what Democratic leadership…go to hell. You guys have no guts, no leadership and now you don't have my vote for sure. You know, I used to blame Nader for Bush but I think he was right. He said that Bush didn't win because of him but that Democrats failed to earn the victory. Now, in order to get my vote you will need to earn it. No longer am I going to vote against some (Bush & Co.) but for someone I support. If there is no one I support then my vote stays home.

What if Rosa Parks had thought "why bother"?

Not just Rosa Parks - go back and read the Declaration of Independence. The single most important message of the document is this: we will fight to establish and preserve the rule of law in opposition to the rule of kings. You can be "sophisticated" and cynical and argue that the Declaration of Independence was about something else - but the document itself is more important than the historical circumstances that surround it. When you decide that the rule of law is politically optional - you've decided that even the ideals that underlie the United States of America are not worth defending - in other words, the US is finished.

Well explained:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/6/164257/349

Impeachment is simply an indictment of sorts and, even if voted down, forces members of the House to make an on the record decision, which most are to chicken shit to do.

For the record: former Bush supporter here, now in favor of impeachment.

Three cheers for Kucinich.

The single most important message of the document is this: we will fight to establish and preserve the rule of law in opposition to the rule of kings.

And you think the King's Court calling him up on charges is going to be able to do anything? I'm sorry if I fail to have any respect for the legislative branch of this country, with it's approval of Mukasey, the criminalization of Iran's national guard, and the blank check they keep giving the King to attack other countries. One more supreme justice and we'll be all monarchy baby.

You just wait when America gets attacked again before the 2008 election, and Bush pulls a "pakistan".

This man has balls. that is why he has the model. He is a marked man to be sure.

word to your impeachment proceedings

I'm sorry if I fail to have any respect for the legislative branch of this country, with it's approval of Mukasey

Yup, Schumer and Feinstein have said with their vote that torturing prisoners is not all that important a consideration.

And, of course, the Republicans could care less about the ethical considerations vis-à-vis torture. Still, give credit to Leahy, Durbin, Feingold and the other Dems who did not approve Mukasey's nomination because of his refusal to state, yes or no, whether or not waterboarding is torture.

This is just sad. I mean, do these people, elected representatives that is, really need to DEBATE whether something like this, something with is so very claer, is illegal or not? This is just so sad, and it becomes clear why people have lost faith in this system, why there is such a high incumbancy rate and such a low voting rate. Frankly, if these people weren't making such a good amount of money (60,000 per year, right?), and were paid like REAL civil servents, maybe we'd see people who actually care about enforcing the rule of law.

Props to Dennis. Please, I pray that some mainstream network pick this up the way it should be picked up and give it the attention it deserves, and maybe he'd actually have a chance at the Dem. nomination.

Though, I guess asking him whether he believes in UFO or showcasing his pretty wife are much, much more important issues.

You know, if the Democrats really wanted to leave Iraq, all the democrats need to do is tie the withdrawl to ANY budget legislation.

Oh, you are all SOO righteous.

But I sort of expected to have to play the morally callous idly by-stander, here.

I'm against impeachment not because it s h o u l d n ' t be done but because it c a n ' t be done. And because it would have disastrous political side-effects. Not that you would care for such trifle things, wouldn't you. I bet some of you voted Nader in 00 and 04 and didn't care, either. Feels so good beeing right, doesn't it.

But the price of a Guiliani presidency and a renewed Republican majority is simply to high, for both this country and the world. Now, go ahead, call me indifferent.

At least, I'm no repentent Bush supporter, Zaphod. I regarded him as dangerous back in 1998. When most of the left only cared about Gore or Bradley.

I am oddly compelled, for some unknown reason, to reaffirm my strict adherence to the rule "Please Do Not Feed the Trolls".

But the price of a Guiliani presidency and a renewed Republican majority is simply to high, for both this country and the world. Now, go ahead, call me indifferent.

Not indifferent - just unconvincig. I am wholly unconviced that forcing Republican congressmen to defend Dick Cheney's lies in floor fight will elect Dick Cheney or more Republican congressmen.

Passionate Republicans fought Democrats all the time prior to their winning a House majority in 1994 - and they almost always lost - prior to 1994. Newt Gingerich was nothing if not obstructionist - but that didn't hurt the GOP then because along with being obstructionist, the GOP had the brains to offer their "contract with America" - a positive-sounding statement of goals. Horseshit, but politically effective. Why do so many Democrats think that nurturing a wimp image is so good for them?

will elect Dick Cheney ...

uh, or Guiliani either... :)

Why couldn't the following be the result?

1. Democrats vote alongside party lines and the bill goes to Senate (its simple majority to get it there, right?)

2. Because of that, the media actually takes real notice of it and gives it the attention it deserves.

3. Additionally voters who a. are voting Dem but are considering to vote for a leftist party (probably Green), b. are voting Dem but considering giving up because there is (rightly) no point in continuing to do so at thier levels of progress, or c. have already given up with the system: those people see that there is actually a real effect and these people actually want to do SOMEthing, thus mobilising a strong following for a strong Democratic party.

THATs what I'd like to see. Because the reality is this: this is so called 'generation of change' (as is the PR-tested Democrat phrase) is going to give up at this rate. They're going to become disgruntled and eventually either stop, switch to Green, or maybe even switch Republican (you know, because they actually DO fulfill thier pledges.) And then there will be NO opposition to the Republican juggernaut, and we can see how well we'd be off then.

Tell me something - how did it come to this, do you think? When following the law is a campaign- strategy that will be weighed against the possibility of winning by simply appearing to follow the law? Or perhaps by declaring how specific opposition to the king's decrees is a signal of your adherence to what the law "really" means?

Suggestions?

how did it come to this, do you think? When following the law is a campaign- strategy that will be weighed against the possibility of winning by simply appearing to follow the law?

It is worse than that - we are being told that it is bad strategy to even appear to be following the law - because you will be acting SOO righteous if you should happen to have such quaint interests. One must be sophisticated, realistic, even blasé about breaking the law so as to not appear to righteous.

My suggestion: If the Bush administration has had some success applying the maxim "keep repeating the lie and enough people will believe it until it becomes the truth", think how much easier it might be and how much more successful their opposition might be if they decided to keep repeating what is true in the first place?

Carmen, I'd hope you're right. I think there was never an administration more deserving impeachment than this one. And if it came about as you suggest I'd be happy to stand corrected.

Frenetic, Up yours. If having a different opinion than you on one subject is being a troll - well, then greetings from the troll nation.

Tim, You're being righteous because you think that anyone who thinks demanding impeachment at this moment is not a good idea is automatically indifferent to the Bush crimes.

Frenchfries, I have no problem with you saying what you think, but I do have a problem with you saying what I think. I said what I think, and you ignored it: You're "not indifferent, just unconvincing." See? That states an opinion of mine about your argument and clearly I have refrained from putting words in your mouth – in spite of your invitation for us to do that: "Now, go ahead, call me indifferent."

I live in Texas and have known what an asshole George Bush is for as long as the little prick has been in politics - I'm glad tat you identified his shitty politics as far back as 1998 - I would not presume to assume that you are indifferent. We just differ as to strategy.

Oh, you are all SOO righteous.

Frenetic, Up yours.

Yeah, it's really strange how I can't find a constructive way to reply to that. There must be something wrong with me.

You might even have a valid point in there somewhere, Frenchie, but for some reason I have found your arguments very unappealing so far. Might have something to do with your approach.

Tim, you're right. Point taken.

Frenetic, you called me a troll. A troll, in my book, is a right winger coming here to cause a stir. I resent that. Point not taken.

And that's it for me on this thread. I hope the supreme chancellor gets whatever he's due. But I dont't want the Reps to win another one.

And I really like this blog (since about 2003). So frankly, I want to happily keep on browsing it and don't want to get in a stink with any of you.

No. A troll is somebody causing a stir just for the heck of it. Motivation is not required.

"...someone had to fucking get up and enforce the motherfucking US Constitution."

I fully agree with this statement...screw politics, and potential political losses. This is so much bigger than that! We will have absolutely no future left in this country if we sacrific our willingness to enforce the Constitution. That should be priority #1 for ALL of us.

This vid is very compelling, and directly related to the topic of this thread(for anyone who may be interested)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ymlViJ7DvI&feature=dir