Kucinich Moves to Impeach Cheney
| Tue Apr. 24, 2007 5:33 PM PDT
Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich motioned to impeach Cheney today. Cheney, not Bush, he explained, because "if we were to start with the president and pursue articles of impeachment, Mr. Cheney would then become president.... you would then have to go through the constitutional agony of impeaching two presidents consecutively."
This is a one-man move, since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said impeachment is off the table. The party has strongly denied that it would ever impeach, in order to prevent the possibility from mobilizing the Republican base. Even though the motion is dead in the water, it's a powerful political statement.
Since Kucinich is putting himself in the limelight for another presidential run here, it's worth mentioning that he is not the liberal gold standard his radical supporters think. As Katha Pollitt pointed out, he has actually voted pro-life at every opportunity.
Kucinich said the imperative for impeachment is to prevent Cheney from leading us to war with Iran. Maybe this is too optimistic, but at this point, Congress has got to be too Democratic and too jaded to fall for that one again. If not, well, what's the use in cutting off the head of the hydra?
In a review of the impeachment lit, Tim Dickinson wrote last fall, "There's little doubt that, both legally and morally, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have earned an early retirement. Hell, the administration has even lost the father of modern conservatism, William F. Buckley Jr., who said of Bush in late July: 'If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we've experienced, it would be expected that he would retire or resign.' " .....[But] I'm confident the American people would far prefer a porn star or a midget, fairly elected—or, for that matter, two more years of the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush—than to see the White House change hands in what could only be described as an administrative coup." Read on....
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
It may not be politically smart for the Democratic party to impeach Bush or Cheney or both, but it is obviously the right thing to do; it is justified, it is deserved.
We should laud the spirit that won't capitulate for the sake of smart politicking, not back door him and call him a "sham liberal" for his stance on women's rights.
The issue is Bush and Cheney and whether or not they should be impeached, not the liberal credentials of Kucinich.
Submitted by dan (not verified) on Wed Apr. 25, 2007 7:10 AM PDT.
I'd be all for an early Bush\Cheney exit. But it's not going to happen. You know it, I know it, and so does Denny. So what is this on Kucinich part, if not cynical politicking? The motion accomplishes nothing but get his name in the news.(and pisses off conservative voters) Also, is this what we're in for every 4 to 8 years? Impeachment because the other side of the political spectrum doesn't like the direction of the country? I dare say a motivated party could find any number of reasons to 'impeach' any sitting president that's in office long enough. Does Bush\Cheney deserve to be impeached? Sure. Do we really want to motivate their very large 'base' more than it already is? I think not.
This is about crimes in the White House, not about Democrats and Republicans, who did it before and what seats might be lost. This is about justice. Cheney and Bush lied to the American public and profit from the war they caused by spreading misinformation. That is worthy of impeachment.
Melissa - may I second that emotion?
George McGovern in his op-ed piece in yesterday's LA Times described the current admin's trangressions as worse than Watergate. I'm inclined to agree. And I disagree with Pelosi that we shouldn't pursue this. Her argument seems based on a political stance rather than a legal and moral one. Criminal behavior in our government should be put under a spotlight, not swept under the carpet. We should have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to criminal behavior in the White House, the Congress and the Supreme Court.
The article's condemnation of Kucinich re: his votes on women's rights is far out of date. Please see http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Abortion.htm to understand his evolution on this issue. In essence, since about 2002, his position can be summarized as being in firm support to a women's right to choose, asserting that abortions should always be legal, that Supreme Court nominees must agree to uphold Roe v Wade, and that we should work to reduce the number of abortions that are needed. Sounds about right to me.
So does impeaching Cheney.
In my view, Mr. Kucinich's claim to a progressive leadership mantel is not borne out of his practical approaches, but rather from his ability to articulate what our goals for society should be, however difficult or impossible they may be to achieve at this time.
