Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Resolution To Impeach VP Cheney Submitted

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the domino-number-one dept.

Politics 1202

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has submitted a resolution, HR 333, to impeach VP Dick Cheney on charges of "high crimes and misdemeanors." The charges were submitted on 24 April 2007. Congressman Kucinich has posted his supporting documents online, including a brief summary of the impeachment procedure (PDF), a synopsis (PDF), and the full text (PDF) of the impeachment resolution.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Next up in the news ... (5, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 7 years ago | (#18883179)

"Congressman Dennis Kucinich is invited to go hunting with Cheney."

Re:Next up in the news ... (3, Funny)

thewiz (24994) | more than 7 years ago | (#18883691)

Upon questioning the Vice President about the impeachment proceeding, this reporter was rebuked and told, "Be vewy, vewy quiet; I'm hunting the wascally Kucinich!"

damn you (0, Offtopic)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884193)

i wasnt expecting a piece like that

Unwinnable (5, Insightful)

fishdan (569872) | more than 7 years ago | (#18883567)

It's an interesting play because the Dems do have enough votes to impeach Cheney -- but the Senate would never find him guilty by a 2/3rd majority. This is of course the same brilliant strategy that the dems have been using for the last 12 years in elections -- fighting and winning the meaningless battles, and losing the important ones -- which is why I despair for the 2008 election.

In addition, once this road is crossed -- impeaching for , and every time the president/vp is in office, and a different party has a majority in the senate and house, you'll see an impeachment. It's the same thing that happened once the line was crossed with judicial appointments. Partisian politics has made almost every parties' political victory a Pyrrhic one for the American people. We get the shaft, while the politicians get rich fighting each other. We need a 3rd party...

Finally, does Kucinich this this will help him get elected President?

Re:Unwinnable (5, Insightful)

Zinnian (958511) | more than 7 years ago | (#18883765)

Partisan politics seem to get worse and worse every year. That being said, at least he is doing something. Some of it might be to get attention, but his politics in general have always struck me as more honest then most. I think he's well aware that he isn't going to be a mainstream candidate any time soon. He's WAY too far left for the country at this time. What he does do is make people think, and push the envelope a bit further. The polar opposite of someone like Delay or Gingrich that the Democrats need.

Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (4, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#18883921)

...were're just constantly amazed that it is as bad as it is, and presumeit couldn't have always been like this. History tends to disagree - politics has always been a nasty, dirty, hellhole.

As a centrist, I would prefer neither end of the spectrum in the congress - we don't need a few more far-lefts to outweight the far-rights, we need less of both!

I'd like about 8 parties. (2, Insightful)

FatSean (18753) | more than 7 years ago | (#18883975)

Then consensus would be needed to get ANYTHING done. I mean, it's not like we don't have enough laws already...this system could help curb the 'look at me' laws passed to make a politician look 'proactive' but which don't do anything really new.

Re:I'd like about 8 parties. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18884659)

You really really don't want that to happen. Most likely, U.S. politics will end up being just like France [wikipedia.org] 's, where street protests are a normal part of politics, and where extermists can get quite far (e.g. Le Pen). Worse, you could end up with politics like Italy [ft.com] 's or Israel's.

Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (5, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884211)

What exactly is a centrist? The right has fought a successful campaign over the last 30 years or so to move the center to the right. What was once moderate left is now considered far left. What was moderate right is now considered centrist. What was far right is now right, and what was once considered bug-fuck insane is now simply far right.

The whole left right thing is a bit of a red herring anyway. I prefer to skip the shorthand and go straight to candidates' records on the issues that are important to me.

Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (-1, Flamebait)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884317)

Hey I still consider Libertarians to be bug-fuck insane, thank you very much.

Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18884381)


Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (2, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884509)

Why are Libertarians insane? Because they willfully disregard any evidence that their simplistic theories will not and do not work in the real world. The free market is not magic and infallible. It is a complex system of feedback loops that does not posses any sort of true homeostasis and therefore needs external management in order to maintain its state of freedom.

Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884639)

What exactly is a centrist? The right has fought a successful campaign over the last 30 years or so to move the center to the right. What was once moderate left is now considered far left. What was moderate right is now considered centrist. What was far right is now right, and what was once considered bug-fuck insane is now simply far right.
And politics wholly resides in Lineland, never knowing the alternatives available in Flatland [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (5, Insightful)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884507)

The Democrats are a far-right party by the standards of the rest of the world.

Re:Partisan politics isn't getting worse... (1, Funny)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884635)

So? If 5 billion people say 1+1=3, that doesn't mean I have to listen to them.

Re:Unwinnable (3, Insightful)

rblancarte (213492) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884085)

Doing something? Yes.

Doing something well? No.

This is one of the biggest problems that the democrats have had since, well as long as I can remember. The GP post was spot on. But add to this the fact that the Dems biggest issue is that they do things so directionless. Actions for the sake of actions, without really having a plan how to make them go or what to do once they have gotten there. You look at the republicans, their biggest strength is the fact that they can come together and have a goal, as a whole party (can you say "Contract with America"?) and then work as a group to make it happen. The Dems strike me more as just a bunch of guys who are on the same team, but seem oblivious to each other.

What will kill this is that it has no legs. It has no public support. I mean, if Kucinich really wanted to give this a shot, he and the Dems should have made a stink about everything they are going after with the specific point of getting this very well talked about in the public. Let the masses get a bit angry about it, and better yet get the feeling of an action such as this. If it has some merit, it will start to gain support. THEN, once it really has legs, go after it full force where people will KNOW that this is really going on.

Hell, right now, hitting the Times front page - NOTHING, which means that this move is pointless. Without the public talking about this, you might as well not even try it.


Re:Unwinnable (3, Informative)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884207)

The problem isn't that the general public isn't supporting it. The problem is the mainstream media can's say the word "impeachment" without almost laughing. They talk about it like it's a silly passing throught. If they took it seriously they'd report it seriously and discuss it. The general public would easily support it being Cheney is hated even more than Bush. But most of the public doesn't know anyone is actually working towards impeachment hearings while in fact a lot of work has been going on across the country. The mainstream media needs to properly report it.

Re:Unwinnable (5, Insightful)

CelticWhisper (601755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18883813)

We need a 3rd party...
We have them. Plenty of them. Just having them isn't enough if people don't vote for them. Spread the word, get people to look beyond the Republicrats, and then we have a chance to really shake things up.

Re:Unwinnable (2, Insightful)

harks (534599) | more than 7 years ago | (#18883967)

Is it just me, or do all the third parties seem a bit too extremist to be taken seriously? They've all got something just completely unworkable, like a $16/hr minimum wage or privatizing all roads and education.

I'm not sure the solution is another party. I think the solution is a fundamental change to our government that reduces the necessity of parties. Like instant runoff voting.

Also, something needs to be done about gerrymandering. I don't have the exact specifics, but 90-something percent of House elections aren't even close. There is one party that will win, no matter what. So the real contest is in the primaries, and since the party is sure to win, they elect the more extremist candidate. And thus we have the polarization in our government today, far more polarized than the American people.

Re:Unwinnable (5, Insightful)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884255)

Also, something needs to be done about gerrymandering.

I've been preaching anti-gerrymandering for years. If there is ONE problem you had point to as truly fundamental, that's it. Here in California we have term limits on state offices, but the way the districts are drawn, you just get another extremist when the previous extremist has to leave.

We had a ballot initiative to change the redistricting process, but people are so stupid that voted against it. From what I gathered after the election, it was one of those initiatives people voted against because they didn't understand it, or they turned off their mind and listened to whatever ideological sewage source they favor.

Also, the Big Government groups and unions ran their typical "this proposition will eat your children and torture your pets" types of ads complete with ominous music. For fuck's sake you;d think society would have evolved an immunity to that crap by now. It's constantly parodied and made fun of, but droves still fall for it like brainless lemmings.

Is it any wonder I'm a total misanthrope? :-) Seriously, I consider any other view on humanity to be hopelessly ignorant.

I find less than 1 in 10 people even know what gerrymandering is. If anyone has a solution to stupid, ignorant voters coupled with evil politicians, I'd like to hear it, cuz I'm out of ideas.

Re:Unwinnable (4, Insightful)

rblancarte (213492) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884263)

It isn't just you. I also have to agree, they all run on way out their platforms. You forgot walling off the border.
Another problem is that they are currently seen as nothing more than extreme versions of our current 2 parties. And then we had elections recently where they were seen as taking away votes from candidates that had a chance/might have won.

I think more parties would really help. Just look at France where they had 5 candidates for their Presidency. It gives more options and better representation of the people.

What the 3rd Parties need to do is be smart about making inroads. Don't go after the Presidency right off the bat, it is a waste of money and energy. Work in roads in more local government and at the congressional level. Once the party has good support, THEN start making a run at the Presidency with viable candidates. Eventually that would help them break through.


Re:Unwinnable (1)

harks (534599) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884365)

France, however, has five candidates because their election system isn't set up like ours. I don't know any of the details of the French system, but the biggest difference I see is they have runoff elections. In America's system, which is essentially plurality-takes-all-electors, voting for any other than the two frontrunners means most people might not get their first or second choice, while less than 50% of the voters can win with their preferable candidate.

Re:Unwinnable (2, Interesting)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884447)

Gerrymandering is no doubt a very serious problem, especially in states like Texas, California, and Ohio. It is interesting to note that of the three examples I just gave, one is a red state, another a blue state, and the third a swing state, so everyone is doing it.

However, a big part of the reason that so few house races are close is because large swaths of the country vote the same. It's a fact of life that a Dem isn't going to be elected to the house in Nebraska unless he's a football player or something. It doesn't always matter how you draw the districts.

Re:Unwinnable (1)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884535)

Is it just me, or do all the third parties seem a bit too extremist to be taken seriously?

It's not just you, but keep in mind that with any organization, the "extremist" are always the loudest. Please don't use that as a deterrent from voting for a third party. Have you ever heard the saying, "The greatest trick the Devil played is convincing everyone he doesn't exist?" Well, the greatest trick the Republicrats have every played is convincing everyone that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote.

Re:Unwinnable (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884609)

As much as the problems with our government are due to it being democratic, making it more democratic isn't going to help anything. (and I don't mean the party, I mean the voting system; in that context, I would say that ending gerrymandering would be restoring the current system, not changing it)

Re:Unwinnable (5, Interesting)

swillden (191260) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884681)

Like instant runoff voting.

A change to the voting method might be a good idea, but not instant runoff.

It's easy to demonstrate mathematically, and easy to see in the places that have implemented IRV, that IRV doesn't reduce the political value of parties, nor does it effectively enable more than two parties to compete or allow voters to safely choose their preferred party rather than one of the big two. As soon as a third party gains enough votes to threaten one of the major parties, voters risk putting the major party candidate they hate most in office if they vote for the the third-party candidate.

To see intuitively how that happens, you just need to note that the rising third party will draw its support from the ranks of the major party that is most similar to it, thus effectively strengthening the major party that is most different from it. Yes, voters who vote will the third party will rank the closer major party as their second choice, but if the third party gains enough power, it will knock this major party out of the running in the first round, then lose in the instant runoff to the other major party.

What IRV does do is allow third parties to rise in power and prominence to the point that they can have a say in the debate, even though it doesn't allow them to actually win. That's a good thing, but the effect is limited by the fact that the third party is unlikely ever to win unless it can so thoroughly defeat the more similar of the major parties that it effectively becomes one of the two top parties. And during the transition era, from third party to major party, it strengthens the major party most different from it.

But assuming we could muster the political will to change the system, there are options other than IRV that don't suffer these weaknesses. The best known voting methods use the Condorcet pairwise evaluation method, and it can be shown mathematically that those methods do an excellent job of reflecting voter will in elections. Condorcet methods can even satisfy a slightly-weakened form of Arrow's Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives axiom, which means that if you can accept that weakening of IIA, they're perfect voting systems.

The downside to pairwise evaluation is that while it's actually straightforward to understand and implement (simpler, in fact, than IRV!), it's conceptually complex. IMO, the best of all possible options is also the very simplest: Approval voting. In approval voting, you have a list of candidates and you mark all you find acceptable. Whoever gets the most marks wins. In some formulations if no candidate gets at least 50% approval then the election must be run again with a new slate, but that's optional. The weakness of approval voting is that it doesn't allow voters to rank their preferences, so there's information that is lost. The strengths are that approval voting does a perfect job of reflecting the information it is given, without any ambiguities or paradoxes; does not support a two-party system; does not penalize individuals for supporting other parties; and is dead simple to understand.

The other approach that seems to work reasonably well for empowering more parties is the proportional representation system. The downside to that is that it means you are truly voting for a party rather than for a person, and I and many other Americans prefer to vote for the man, not the party (excepting where they both suck, which is increasingly the norm).

Re:Unwinnable (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 7 years ago | (#18883995)

Spread the word, get people to look beyond the Republicrats, and then we have a chance to really shake things up.

And vote for who? All the 3rd parties are extremist wackos. When we have a viable candidate (Perot, before he went insane), people voted for the 3rd party.

Re:Unwinnable (-1, Flamebait)

Skrynesaver (994435) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884443)

From an outside perspective you generally appear to have a choice between two extreme right God-loving options. American politics is so far to the right of sane that, from the outside, I don't see how you can claim to have a centerist never mind left wing option.

Re:Unwinnable (2, Funny)

C0rinthian (770164) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884051)

Don't look at me, I voted for Kodos.

THE third party (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884265)

What GP means is that he wants THE third party. You know, the one that agrees precisely with him, and therefore with all reasonable people.

Re:Unwinnable (1)

throx (42621) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884707)

We have them. Plenty of them. Just having them isn't enough if people don't vote for them.
That's because you use First Past the Post voting, where voting for a third party is really just a vote against your preferred party. Now if the US did the sensible thing and switched to instant runoff voting where you could legitimately have a third party without the votes for that party being a negative in a two-major-party system then it would make sense.

Why would someone vote Libertarian when it really just ends up a vote for the Democrats?
Why would someone vote Green when it really just ends up a vote for the Republicans?

Re:Unwinnable (1)

Ellis D. Tripp (755736) | more than 7 years ago | (#18883819)

>We need a 3rd party...

Hell, I'd settle for a SECOND.

>Finally, does Kucinich this this will help him get elected President?

Well, it makes me a lot more likely to work to support him in the primary, and if by some miracle he got the nomination (and didn't get assassinated before the election), his candidacy might be enough to make me vote Democratic rather than Green in 2008.

Winnable is not the whole point (5, Insightful)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 7 years ago | (#18883849)

Woa -- I think you're off base here on two levels.

One -- If you can't win, you still have to do it. You cannot let crimes go, even if you cannot succeed in convicting. The problem is not this president/VP. The problem is the next one. To not impeach is to say "if the congress isn't dominated by the other house, you can do anything you want."

Two -- Cheny's not the target. Cheney's going to have to defend himself, and his interactions with the president will come out. It's at least possible that real solid evidence against the president will emerge.

This isn't stupid, it's both the right thing to do, and may help land the big one.

Besides, even Republicans hate Cheney. He's an easier target.

Re:Winnable is not the whole point (1)

cyberon22 (456844) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884075)

Don't overlook Article III. This also looks like a proactive way for Congress to take command over US foreign policy towards Iran.

I don't get it (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884217)

Are you referring to Section 3 of Article III? (It's the only part that comes close to making sense.) If so, you should re-read Article I, Section 8. It's not treason for Congress to be doing their job.

Re:I don't get it (2, Informative)

Lockejaw (955650) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884341)

He's referring to the resolution, not the Constitution. Article III in the resolution accuses Cheney of showing unwarranted agression towards Iran.

Re:Winnable is not the whole point (1, Insightful)

Eagleartoo (849045) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884267)

This isn't stupid, it's both the right thing to do, and may help land the big one.

Besides, even Republicans hate Cheney. He's an easier target.

What is the big one you are refering to? Evidence that will impeach the president? I doubt very much that there has been any action taken by the president that has not come from consitutional power. He's a man of honor. I know he's an odd duck and you can think him an odd duck, but I seriously doubt that he's done anything that should give the congress grounds for impeachment. And as far as trying to impeach Dick Cheney, it's again a witch hunt. The democrats ran on nothing last year and got voted in on nothing. Now, for fear of complete embarrassment at not being able to do anything in congress, they strike up one witch hunt after another.
Cheney's actually my hero. He's quiet, calm, collected, well spoken, and brilliant. I doubt you'll see Republicans who know what Cheney is about throw him under the bus. I know that he probably wouldn't want the office but I would be glad to see him as President.

Re:Winnable is not the whole point (1)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884429)

Try war crimes on for size. When US Marines invaded Fallujia, they attacked a hospital in direct contravention of the Geneva Conventions. During the occupation prisoners have been denied trials, tortured, and subject to arbitrary arrest. Guantanamo bay violates so many laws I can't even begin to list them. Geneva Conventions, Universal Deceleration of Human Rights, Deceleration of the Rights of Man, Uniform Military Code of Justice...

Re:Winnable is not the whole point (5, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884431)

What evidence do you have that Bush is a man of honor? Because he professes to be religious? I'm sorry, but his record, both before and after becoming president, show him to be a callous opportunist with delusions of grandeur. The man thinks God speaks directly to him.

He has done everything he can to subvert the intent of our constitution. He has appointed people who call the most important document in our country a mere piece of paper.

He and his crew are bandits. They have come to power to sack the treasury, transferring as much cash to their cronies as possible. The situation is so bad that one risks sounding slightly insane even talking about it honestly.

Cheney, the man who told someone, on record, to fuck off, is "quiet, calm, collected, well spoken, and brilliant?" I understand we all have differences of opinion, but that is like calling white black. The crew of pirates and thugs running the White House have demonstrated that they will throw absolutely anyone under the bus for the smallest of reasons.

I'm sorry that we have such different viewpoints and I don't wish to offend, but you should know that the majority of Americans feel more like I do than like you do. We're tired of these thieves and crooks bending us over the barrel. No punishment is too great for these scoundrels.

Re:Winnable is not the whole point (1)

visualight (468005) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884475)

He's a man of honor

Um, he's a straight up liar and there is not anyone who doesn't know that, including yourself.

Hmm, were you maybe just being sarcastic?

Re:Winnable is not the whole point (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884477)

Maybe you should sit down and read the Constitution, rather than just assuming that your heroes are incapable of wrongdoing.

Re:Winnable is not the whole point (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884641)

Haven't been able to follow through on your dream of shooting an old man in the face?

Re:Winnable is not the whole point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18884427)

Besides, even Republicans hate Cheney. He's an easier target.


The neocons have done a bang-up job of promoting patriotism as unwavering support of the President and his policies. You'll get more, "...but I support our President!" comments than you will troop-supporting comments. He's the figurehead, and even with low approval ratings they've made him well-nigh impervious to direct attack.

But the ones behind the throne...Cheney has been implicated in scoring Halliburton contracts in Iraq, being secretive (undisclosed location!), of questionable health, disclosing CIA secrets, and being generally untrustworthy (even Fox News has been running one of the "Cheney smirk" headshot photos recently). Bush's ability to pass on his blessings to his chosen has fallen off (compare the reaction to his repeated blessing of his Cabinet at the beginning invasion of Iraq to, say, post Katrina reactions). And depending on how mean the Dems wanted to get, they could attempt to tag Cheney with hypocrisy over Bush's aggressive anti-gay-marriage stance and Cheney's lesbian daughter.

I'm not sure if they think that they're going to crumble the tower by attacking the base (Rove has so far shaken off most attacks), or if any additional dirt on the President is just a bonus to them. However, it is remarkably clever considering the apparent lack of intelligence the Democratic party has been displaying over the past several years.

<tinfoil hat>Or, this is a plan to let Cheney resign so Bush can appoint Jeb as his VP, leading straight into the 2008 election season...</tinfoil hat> ;)

Re:Winnable is not the whole point (2, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884525)

You cannot let crimes go, even if you cannot succeed in convicting.

So you're saying the Republicans were right to impeach Clinton? Just making sure.

Re:Unwinnable (2, Informative)

metlin (258108) | more than 7 years ago | (#18883861)

We need a 3rd party...
They're called Libertarians. Not that there aren't others, but at least these guys genuinely care for your freedom.

Re:Unwinnable (1, Interesting)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884259)

Libertarians just want the "freedom" to oppress others through economic rather than political means, as if that is somehow more fair. Or at least that's how it looks to me, maybe I should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they just haven't thought through the consequences of their proposals.

Re:Unwinnable (1)

shotgunsaint (968677) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884275)

It's definitely true, but the Libertarians have their crazy side too.
I tend to vote libertarian except in the last few presidential elections when it was so important to try to defeat Bush. However, things like abolishing the FDA make me nervous if they ever become a majority.
Still, I think that a nice shot of Libertarianism would be just what this country needs to turn the tide of restricted freedoms and unrestricted spying on its own citizens.

Just my 2 cp.

Re:Unwinnable (4, Insightful)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884603)

No, they do not. They care only about freedom from state coercion, not from economic coercion. (It's the difference between positive and negative freedom)

Re:Unwinnable (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 7 years ago | (#18883869)

This is something the people want. Useful or not, the people do not approve of Cheney and he needs to go. I applaud the fact that the democrats are actually listening to the people instead of being the hardliner that ignores everyone the way the current administration is.

Impeachable offenses (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884531)

I don't like Cheney and the majority of people might be wanting to get rid of him, but those aren't good reasons for impeaching him. Furthermore, he might indeed be guilty of impeachable offenses, but I do not feel that Kucinich has made that point. Not only is this a poorly thought out resolution, even the PDF is poorly rendered. It looks like a scanning device was used to render the PDF as it gets slanted after a couple pages. Doesn't he have anybody capable of generating a PDF from a .tex or .doc document?

Re:Unwinnable (1)

endianx (1006895) | more than 7 years ago | (#18883871)

Finally, does Kucinich this this will help him get elected President?
I don't know what he is thinking. Maybe this would give him a boost in the democratic primaries. But even if he won that, he would lose the presidential election hard. Trying to impeach Cheney is going to win him points with Democrats, would would have voted for him anyway, and lose him points with Republicans, who wouldn't have voted for him anyway. But in addition, he will lose points with Independent voters, who basically decide the elections.

In addition, once this road is crossed -- impeaching for , and every time the president/vp is in office, and a different party has a majority in the senate and house, you'll see an impeachment.
You are absolutely right. If the Democrats can refrain from doing it though, impeachment won't become "business as usual". And if the Republicans tried it again in the future when the Democrats didn't, the Republicans would come out looking horrible. They'd be the party that was always trying to impeach presidents, while the Democrats would be the people focusing on the business of running the country. Of course, the worse things get between the Republicans and Democrats, the better chance there is of getting Independents and Libertarians in office. Or at least that is what I keep telling myself. I'm not sure there is any evidence that that is true.

Re:Unwinnable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18883881)

Finally, does Kucinich this this will help him get elected President?
Maybe Kucinich is looking for a new wife [usatoday.com] ?

Re:Unwinnable (5, Insightful)

sadler121 (735320) | more than 7 years ago | (#18883883)

We need a 3rd party...

No, we don't. We need to get rid of all parties. The American political system was not built for parties. If you read the Federalist papers, and other writings, the founders where very weary of parties, or 'factions'. Specifically in Federalist Paper number 10 where Madison declares that the system of checks and balances set up in the Constitution is meant to limit the power of factions to rule of the majority, giving rise to wait has been describe as tyranny of the minority.

Get rid of parties and you will get rid of a good deal of the crap that has come into the Republic.

Re:Unwinnable (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884287)

Madison greatly underestimated the ability of factions to coalesce into the parties we currently have. One could argue that the coalescence we have is the external resolution of the conflicts that Madison attempted to build into the system.

Under Federalist #10, each of the factions would slug things out w/in the system. This is not necessarily the case. A group of factions could always band together on a single (or multiple) issue(s) and force their preferred outcome. Madison assumes that all factions are mutually exclusive. The fact that there are Republicans arguing against the war (and Democrats for) shows that this is not the case.

Re:Unwinnable (2, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884717)

So we just need better voters?

Re:Unwinnable (5, Insightful)

Absimiliard (59853) | more than 7 years ago | (#18883961)

In addition, once this road is crossed -- impeaching for , and every time the president/vp is in office, and a different party has a majority in the senate and house, you'll see an impeachment.
Road already crossed thanks. As with most partisan political things in this day and age the Republicans got there first, with the most.

Personally I'd rather impeach over 'high crimes and misdemeanors' than blowjobs. But hey, I'm only fiscally conservative, all those socially conservative memes went to my born-again brother.


Re:Unwinnable (1, Flamebait)

sneezinglion (771733) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884651)

I am sick of this BS being promulgated by the masses. Bill Clinton was not impeached over a BJ. He was impeached for "The charges were perjury and obstruction of justice, arising from the Lewinsky scandal." So yes a BJ was involved, but he was impeached for lying under oath about a BJ. Something any one of us would do jail time for.

Re:Unwinnable (4, Insightful)

GOD_ALMIGHTY (17678) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884223)

It's an interesting play because the Dems do have enough votes to impeach Cheney -- but the Senate would never find him guilty by a 2/3rd majority.

Maybe that's why Kucinich can't find any co-sponsors. Not one.

This is of course the same brilliant strategy that the dems have been using for the last 12 years in elections -- fighting and winning the meaningless battles, and losing the important ones -- which is why I despair for the 2008 election.

No, this is Kucinich's brilliant strategy, not the Dems. It's been working for Kucinich though, he keeps getting re-elected. Not that the Dems don't have a record of dropping the ball, and not that the media doesn't play Steno Sue for the GOP enough, but why the hell would the actions of Representative Kucinich make you despair? He's been doing this crap for years, sometimes people agree with him, sometimes they roll their eyes. When he can't get any co-sponsors, they're rolling their eyes.

In addition, once this road is crossed -- impeaching for , and every time the president/vp is in office, and a different party has a majority in the senate and house, you'll see an impeachment. It's the same thing that happened once the line was crossed with judicial appointments.

Personally, I think Cheney and Bush have done more than enough to be impeached. Between the Abramoff corruption, fraudulently pursuing a war, the aftermath of Katrina, the US Attorney scandal and outing a CIA agent, the Federalist Papers make it clear that these two meet the criteria. Politically, I don't believe it's feasible right now, nor would it be well timed, given the number of investigations that are currently underway. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if during the course or after some of these investigations finish up that it became more politically feasible. There's a year till the primaries are done, there may be a lot of incumbents that need to distance themselves from this administration even more.

Partisian politics has made almost every parties' political victory a Pyrrhic one for the American people.

The American people wouldn't know objectivity if it slapped them in the face. BTW, what is this supposed to mean? The Dems political victory in October finally started to clamp down on the obscene amount of fraud and corruption after 6 years of a Rubber Stamp Congress.

We get the shaft, while the politicians get rich fighting each other. We need a 3rd party...

Dude, lay off the bong and get out of your dorm room. We get the shaft, because we don't fucking organize. Everybody loves to sit and whine about what's fucking wrong with politics, but the vast majority of you don't meaningfully participate. When is the last time you actually went to a Dem or GOP party meeting? You know, the one's where they plan and talk about who they're going to support and what they're going to do to get people elected. Every political meeting I attend, it's the same group of people, every rally, every candidate meeting, every fund raiser. Political power is simply laying there for you to grab, but very few people actually are willing to put in the work it takes to make the changes you want. This is not some new uncharted territory we're in, people have been successfully changing things around this place for the past 200 years. Really it would be hard to make this any easier, especially for WASPs.

If you don't like that the Democrats keep screwing up, then go take over your local Democratic Party. If you think you know better and you weren't around to mention that when it mattered, what use is your knowledge?

Finally, does Kucinich this this will help him get elected President?
No. But it will raise him money for his re-election campaign and maybe he naively believes it will get the ball rolling or something. Whatever, I have to go roll my eyes now.

Re:Unwinnable (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884291)

Finally, does Kucinich this this will help him get elected President?
I don't think he has any illusions of actually winning the nomination. He's not running for president to get elected president; he's running for president to advance his political agenda. Same with this.

Re:Unwinnable (2, Insightful)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884329)

Have you even seen a daily newspaper in the past year? This isn't about partisan politics. This is about lying to get us into a war. If our leaders are being manipulated, democracy fails. Just because the Democrats are impeaching a Republican doesn't mean they are wrong.

Death throes of a dying empire? (1)

hlh_nospam (178327) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884379)

In The Sovereign Individual [amazon.com] , James Dale Davidson and William Rees-Mogg make the case that governments as we currently know them are already obsolete, and the 'empire' known as the United States is in the process of dying.

While that seems a bit premature (plus, Davidson and Rees-Mogg have made prior predictions that have, at least not yet, come about), it can be argued that the inhabitants of the Roman Empire were not aware of its collapse until over a century after it ceased to have any effective control over most of its 'jurisdiction'. No one event can be pointed out as the pivot of the collapse, but we are seeing some parallels here and now -- including the modern equivalent of "bread and circuses" while trying to maintain military dominance of a crumbling empire.

Party squabbling and petty vendettas are merely symptomatic of the death throes of a government. I suspect the process is more or less inevitable (democracy is only possible until the citizens discover that they can vote themselves the proceeds of the treasury, and that has already happened here), but that doesn't mean that the powers that be will die quietly. The process is likely to be very painful for most of us.

Re:Unwinnable (1)

Tom (822) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884419)

but the Senate would never find him guilty by a 2/3rd majority.
You sure? The Bush gang has become a liability for the republicans, as many of them realize. There might be quite a bit of support for this, especially if you can sell your "yes" vote as patriotism.

Re:Unwinnable (1)

slughead (592713) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884435)

This is of course the same brilliant strategy that the dems have been using for the last 12 years in elections -- fighting and winning the meaningless battles, and losing the important ones

While you're right, I'd also like to point out that even if they could impeach Cheney, they probably wouldn't, and if they did, they wouldn't go any further.

There is a reason there are two parties, and it's not just "how it worked out."

The Republicans/Democrats learned a long time ago that having a 50% chance of winning an election is a hell of a lot better than a 1/3, 1/4, 1/10, or 'Italy' chance of winning (Italy has like 30 political parties... it's a joke, get it?). It's fairly obvious that they do pull their punches when they can really hurt, and the party leaders do negotiate over the boundaries of their campaigns.

Collusion between the parties is a little mentioned but well known fact. They get together sometimes and say "If this gets out then we'll release this information." It's not illegal for them to do this (nor should it be, I guess).

Why? They NEED for the other party to be strong so 3rd parties don't come into the picture.

Think about it. The Republican and Democratic parties are composed of people with WILDLY different views, most of whom are NOT represented AT ALL. They still vote for their respective party as it's, according to them, more conducive to their political beliefs than the other. If 3rd parties come into the picture, chances are they're going to represent certain groups within the R&D parties far better than the official party line. They call these 3rd party candidates "spoilers," which I think says it all: 3rd parties, according to them only serve to undermine the major parties.

This is not really news to anyone. Just look how they rig the debates. Where were the 3rd party candidates in 2004? Banned from the debate. For two parties sooo diametrically opposed, they sure could agree over one thing: no newcomers. Badnarik (LBT) and Cobb (Green) even showed up at the debate and were arrested trying to get in. Not to mention the 'milk toast' moderators they always pick.

Re:Unwinnable (3, Interesting)

peacefinder (469349) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884467)

"It's an interesting play because the Dems do have enough votes to impeach Cheney -- but the Senate would never find him guilty by a 2/3rd majority. This is of course the same brilliant strategy that the dems have been using for the last 12 years [...]"

It's worth noting that Mr. Kucinich ain't exactly part of the Democratic leadership. He's as far off the Democratic reservation as Ron Paul is off the Republican reservation. Whether this reflects prudence or cowardice among the leadership is left as an exercise for the reader.

"Finally, does Kucinich this this will help him get elected President?"

He's playing to his national base, which is solidly anti-war* and pro-impeachment. This action may not be sufficient for him to win the Presidency, but it is necessary for him to do this to have any chance at all.

[*: It's worth noting also that Kucinich has been against this war right from the start. And if I recall correctly, he's one of a very, very small number of people to have voted against the mis-named patriot act.]

Yep, it will fly... (3, Informative)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#18883801)

...but the problem is, this guy has less crediblity than the late Henry B. Gonzalez (D) San Antonio, TX who, on an almost monthly basis called for a Reagan impeachment all through the 80's.

This is nothing more than a political stunt, and only half a degree more effective than the Olympia city clownsil (Washington) passing a resolution calling for the impeachment of Bush.

It's about time! (2, Interesting)

VanessaE (970834) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884005)

Between this news and Congress ordering the Prez to withdraw tropps from Iraq this morning, all I can say is that it's about G-D damned time someone stood up to these two. Maybe our country still has a chance?

Re:It's about time! (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884139)

A chance at what? Different people consolidating all the power and making all the money? Wheeeeee.

President-VICE Richard B Cheney: +1, Felonious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18884179)

Within the compass of this letter, I can do no more than indicate, as concisely as I can, relevant considerations that must be taken into account if we are to discuss Richard B. Cheney's coprophagous, insidious indiscretions in a rational manner. Here's a quick review: The purpose of this letter is far greater than to prove to you how atrabilious and intransigent Cheney has become. The purpose of this letter is to get you to start thinking for yourself, to start thinking about how he thinks we want him to overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drag people down into the sphere of his own base nature. Excuse me, but maybe he measures the value of a man by the amount of profit he can realize from him. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that Cheney should think about how his invectives lead primitive slackers to produce a new generation of distasteful segregationists whose opinions and prejudices, far from being enlightened and challenged, are simply legitimized. If Cheney doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps he should just keep quiet. Although this may come as a surprise to some readers, if Cheney had lived the short, sickly, miserable life of a chattel serf in the ages "before technocracy" he wouldn't be so keen to burn books. Maybe he'd even begin to realize that when his lousy utterances are translated into plain, words-mean-things English, Cheney appears to be saying that we ought to worship loathsome control freaks as folk heroes. For me, this myopic moonshine serves only to emphasize how I cannot compromise with Cheney; he is without principles. I cannot reason with him; he is without reason. But I can warn him, and with a warning he must obviously take to heart: Almost every day, Cheney outreaches himself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's truly breathtaking to watch him. An inner voice tells me that Cheney's loyalists are merely ciphers. Cheney is the one who decides whether or not to hurt people's feelings. Cheney is the one who gives out the orders to promote the vile ramblings of the worst types of dangerous scamps there are. And Cheney is the one trying to conceal how the real question here is not, "Where do self-serving vagabonds like him come from, and what are we going to do with them?". The real question is rather, "How far do his lies extend?" You see, if you looked up "venom-spouting" in the dictionary, you'd probably see his picture. Clearly, this is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about Cheney's narrow-minded behavior, but about the way that Cheney's brethren claim to have no choice but to cause (or at least contribute to) a variety of social ills. I wish there were some way to help these miserable, malicious jerks. They are outcasts, lost in a world they didn't make and don't understand. All that we have achieved may now be lost, if not in the bright flames of sexism, then in the dense smoke of the lazy effusions promoted by spineless sciolists.

If we let Cheney attack the fabric of this nation, then greed, corruption, and ageism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock-in-trade of the media and educational institutions. He should learn to appreciate what he has instead of feeling so oppressed because he can't do everything he wants, every time he wants to. Cheney is bound to have a rude awakening when he finally realizes how few people approve of his refractory obiter dicta. How does Cheney deal with this fascinating piece of information? He thoroughly ignores it.

Cheney's lies come in many forms. Some of his lies are in the form of taradiddles. Others are in the form of antics. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion. Certainly, Cheney's favorite tactic is known as "deceiving with the truth". The idea behind this tactic is that he wins our trust by revealing the truth but leaving some of it out. This makes us less likely to bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy.

As will be discussed in more detail later in this letter, we've all heard Cheney yammer and whine about how he's being scapegoated again, the poor dear. He is reluctant to resolve problems. He always just looks the other way and hopes no one will notice that when a mistake is made, the smart thing to do is to admit it and reverse course. That takes real courage. The way that Cheney stubbornly refuses to own up to his mistakes serves only to convince me that he says that his proposed social programs are all sweetness and light. That's his unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely maledicent and execrable lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Cheney's hangers-on. In these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, Cheney's insinuations were never about tolerance and equality. That was just window dressing for the "innocents". Rather, Cheney writes a lot of long statements that mean practically nothing. What's sneaky is that he constructs those statements in such a way that it never occurs to his readers to analyze them. Analysis would almost certainly indicate that the term "idiot savant" comes to mind when thinking of Cheney. Admittedly, that term applies only halfway to him, which is why I, hardheaded cynic that I am, feel that Cheney's undertakings may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into daft, high-handed clericalism. Will someone please explain to me what it is in our lives that can possibly make someone perpetuate the nonsense known technically as the analytic/synthetic dichotomy? Because I certainly have no idea. Even by Cheney's own account, he wants to be the one who determines what information we have access to. Yet Cheney is also a big proponent of a particularly prurient form of pauperism. Do you see something wrong with that picture? What I see is that I, not being one of the many moonstruck conspiracy theorists of this world, have to laugh when he says that escapism is the key to world peace. Where in the world did he get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever, but if he makes fun of me or insults me, I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to offer a framework for discussion so that we can more quickly reach a consensus. Cheney has a glib proficiency with words and very sensitive nostrils. He can smell money in your pocket from a block away. Once that delicious aroma reaches Cheney's nostrils, he'll start talking about the joy of parasitism and how everyone who doesn't share his beliefs is a mealymouthed wacko deserving of death and damnation. As you listen to Cheney's sing-song, chances are you won't even notice his hand as it goes into your pocket. Only later, after you realize you've been robbed, will you truly understand that what really irks me is that he has presented us with a Hobson's choice. Either we let him create an atmosphere that may temporarily energize or exhilarate, but which, at the same time, will pose the gravest of human threats or he'll commit senseless acts of violence against anyone daring to challenge his heartless opuscula.

Even if our society had no social problems at all, we could still say that what I just wrote is not based on merely a single experience or anecdote. Rather, it is based upon the wisdom of accumulated years, spanning two continents, and proven by the fact that Cheney is trying to brainwash us. He wants us to believe that it's hideous to appeal not to the contented and satisfied, but embrace those tormented by suffering, those without peace, the unhappy and the discontented; that's boring; that's not cool. You know what I think of that, don't you? I think that Cheney's occasional demonstrations of benevolence are not genuine. Nor are his promises. In fact, Cheney is still going around insisting that morally crippled degenerates and lethargic knee-biters should rule this country. Jeez, I thought I had made it perfectly clear to him that if one could get a Ph.D. in Philistinism, he would be the first in line to have one. Call me old-fashioned, but Cheney doubtlessly believes that he understands the difference between civilization and savagery. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world is he living in? After days of agonized pondering and reflection, I finally came to the conclusion that in a rather infamous speech, he exclaimed that it's okay for him to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. (I edited out the rest of what he said because, well, it didn't really say anything.)

Maybe Cheney just can't handle harsh reality. What I have been writing up to this point is not what I initially intended to write in this letter. Instead, I decided it would be far more productive to tell you that Cheney believes that granting him complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air. The real damage that this belief causes actually has nothing to do with the belief itself, but with psychology, human nature, and the skillful psychological manipulation of that nature by Cheney and his censorious foot soldiers. So, what am I doing about that? I'm educating. I'm trying to shed a little light on some of the ignorant prejudices that reside within his pea-sized brain. We must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Cheney's unenlightened histrionics, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to help people see his litigious, subversive remonstrations for what they are.) Cheney's rejoinders will have consequences -- very serious consequences. And we ought to begin doing something about that.

If Cheney gets his way, we will soon be engulfed in a Dark Age of sesquipedalianism and indescribable horror. That's why I'm telling you that when I was a child, my clergyman told me, "Social stability and family unity are two things that hypersensitive criminal masterminds have no concern for." If you think about it you'll see his point. Consider the following, which I'll address in greater detail later: His prank phone calls are nothing short of smarmy. The sooner he comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us. Do you understand the implications of what I have been telling you? Are you awake? Then you probably realize that Cheney is an interesting character. On the one hand, he likes to extinguish the voices of opposition. But on the other hand, no one likes being attacked by uncouth dummkopfs. Even worse, Cheney exploits our fear of those attacks -- which he claims will evolve in the near future into biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks -- as a pretext to suborn lawless, officious serpents to present a false image to the world by hiding unpleasant but vitally important realities about his crusades. If you think that's scary, then you should remember that Cheney's mind has limited horizons. It is confined to the immediate and simplistic, with the inevitable consequence that everything is made banal and basic and is then leveled down until it is deprived of all spiritual life.

Although Cheney occasionally exhibits a passable simulacrum of rationality, we should develop an alternative community, a cohesive and comprehensive underground with a charter to raise issues, as opposed to guns or knives, . (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) If his op-ed pieces aren't horny, I don't know what is. To restate the obvious: It's easy for us to shake our heads at his foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should introduce an important, but underrepresented, angle on his tendentious philippics. It's easy for us to say, "Before I knew anything about Cheney, I was once an onlooker at a few of his mass demonstrations, without possessing even the slightest insight into the mentality of his disciples or the nature of his writings." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because he is planning to cause the destruction of human ambition and joy. This does not bode well for the future, because every so often, you'll see him lament, flog himself, cry mea culpa for seeking to pose a threat to the survival of democracy, and vow never again to be so warped. Sadly, he always reverts to his old behavior immediately afterwards, making me think that he once tried convincing me that the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt persecute the innocent and let the guilty go unpunished". Does Cheney think I was born yesterday? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of malodorous, raucous autocrats. Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that Cheney wants all of us to believe that antagonism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society. That's why he sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media. Someone just showed me a memo supposedly written by Cheney. The memo spells out his plans to encourage men to leave their wives, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become backwards finks of one sort or another. If this memo is authentic, it tells us that once people obtain the critical skills that enable them to think and reflect and speculate independently, they'll realize that Cheney's excuses always follow the same pattern. He puts the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and invents as many new "facts" as necessary to convince us that courtesy and manners don't count for anything. It's quite easy for Cheney to declaim my proposals. But when is he going to provide an alternative proposal of his own? To answer that question, we need first to consider Cheney's thought process, which generally takes the following form: (1) The few of us who complain regularly about Cheney's crotchets are simply spoiling the party, so (2) he has the trappings of deity. Therefore, (3) he knows 100% of everything 100% of the time and thus, (4) society is supposed to be lenient towards the worst classes of cuckoo, prodigal ogres there are. As you can see, Cheney's reasoning makes no sense, which leads me to believe that he says that the ideas of "freedom" and "post-structuralism" are Siamese twins. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, "They're not in here!"?

Cheney is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that things have never been better. Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how ungrateful Cheney is. You can't do it. Not only that, but if his plan to make empty promises is to be discouraged then the wisest course of action is to find more constructive contexts in which to work toward resolving conflicts. Before we start down that road I ought to remind you that he ignores a breathtaking number of facts, most notably:

Fact: It would be a semantic quibble to deny that the common denominator of all of his communications is that they seek to feed us ever-larger doses of his lies and crackpot assumptions.

Fact: His rantings have very little thought behind them and are neither interesting nor amusing.

Fact: Words fail me in describing my pure distaste for his screeds and truculent smears.

In addition, there is a proper place in life for hatred. Hatred of that which is wrong is a powerful and valuable tool. But when Cheney perverts hatred in order to lower scholastic standards, it becomes clear that he periodically puts up a facade of reform. However, underneath the pretty surface, it's always business as usual. Cheney is unable to see any issue in a broad perspective or from more than one side. For proof of this fact, I must point out that if you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. It may be obvious but should nonetheless be acknowledged that he demands obeisance from his mercenaries. Then, once they prove their loyalty, Cheney forces them to displace meaningful discussion of an issue's merit or demerit with hunch and emotion.

Cheney finds reality too difficult to swallow. Or maybe it just gets lost between the sports and entertainment pages. In either case, when I hear Cheney say that a totalitarian dictatorship is the best form of government we could possibly have, I have to wonder about him. Is he completely abominable? Is he simply being unctuous? Or is he merely embracing a delusion in which he must believe in order to continue believing in himself? I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that my cause is to reveal the nature and activity of Cheney's apostles and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims. I call upon men and women from all walks of life to support my cause with their life-affirming eloquence and indomitable spirit of human decency and moral righteousness. Only then will the whole world realize that we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Cheney. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that it's our responsibility to act honorably. That's the first step in trying to build a better world, a cleaner world, a safer world, and a saner world, and it's the only way to view the realms of frotteurism and collectivism not as two opposing poles, but as two continua. It seems to me that, as others have stated long before me, "a day without Cheney would be like a day without sordid recidivism." He will censor any incomplicitous memoirs sooner than you think -- not necessarily by direct action, but by convincing his vassals to pooh-pooh the reams of solid evidence pointing to the existence and operation of a snotty, overbearing coterie of militarism. There are rumors circulating that his thralls must mend their ways, so let me just clarify something: The hour is late indeed. Fortunately, it's not yet too late to snap his trucklers out of their trance. Okay, I admit that maladroit weasels like Cheney tend to conveniently ignore the key issues of this or any other situation. But Cheney wants nothing less than to deliver an additional blow to dignity and self-worth. His apple-polishers then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with delusional, obstinate fussbudgets who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that Cheney is out of control, like a runaway freight train. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement and, in many cases, it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it certainly expresses how Cheney has frequently been spotted making nicey-nice with the most ethically bankrupt apostates you'll ever see. Is this because he needs their help to transform our whole society to suit his own grotesque, childish interests? The answer is quite simple. I already listed several possibilities, but because Cheney lacks the ability to remember beyond the last two seconds of his life, I will restate what I said before, for his sake: My purpose here is not to call people to their highest and best, not accommodate them at their lowest and least. Well, okay, it is. But I should point out that it's not the boogeyman that our children need to worry about. It's Cheney. Not only is Cheney more unsympathetic and more testy than any envisaged boogeyman or bugbear, but Cheney plans to erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty. The result will be an amalgam of brain-damaged statism and overweening denominationalism, if such a monster can be imagined. What I had wanted for this letter was to write an analysis of Richard B. Cheney's press releases. Not an exhortation or a shrill denunciation, but an analysis. I hope I have succeeded at that.

Philboyd Studge

Re:It's about time! (1)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884511)

Between this news and Congress ordering the Prez to withdraw tropps from Iraq this morning, all I can say is that it's about G-D damned time someone stood up to these two. Maybe our country still has a chance?

Congress did nothing of the sort. Democrats in Congress basically said, "Listen to us or we will stamp our little foot and get huffy."

Those savvy enough to know understand that it was show. Pelosi and Co. wanted a show down and wanted Bush to veto this. The bill itself was un-Constitutional. It crossed the lines of separation of powers.

There is a way to accomplish what they want, but this was just a stage show for benefit of cameras.

Re:It's about time! (1)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884721)

Power of the purse belongs to the Congress. If the Congress wants to cut off spending after a certain date, they can do so. If they want to end a war or start a war, they alone can do so. RTFC(read the fine constitution)

and this changes.......... (1)

genrader (563784) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884011)

Absolutely nothing.

Really, people, I'm all for removal of Bush and the neocons, but what are we going to do? Hope to get them replaced with Democrat neocons like Pelosi? Please, this is all silly. There's no hope for America.

eh, theres just no hope for you, is all (1)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884625)

if you think Pelosi is a neocon... you must be so far leftwards that you could teach Marx a few things.

Typical (1)

arkham6 (24514) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884043)

The test of the synopsis clearly tilts to the left.

Re:Typical (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884305)

What part of "Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" tilts to the left?

"No threat" (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18884059)

Reading the Four 'articles' I do agree with most of what is said, but I have to stop and read when i get to article 4, stating that cheney has openly threatened Iran even though they pose "no threat". I dont think anything `could be further from the truth. Of any country out there who "may" (ill use that term) cause future harm or war to the united states, I can't think of any country who poses a larger threat, and that includes north korea. "President Tom" as i've heard him call, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a very dangerous and radical leader, who has openly (very openly) threated non muslim countries, including the USA, and frankly poses a bigger threat overall then saddam ever did. Any person who says such things publicly as "Israel should be wiped off the map" frankly worries me. Do i think they will attack one day? Who knows. Is it possible? Yes. Are they a threat... i would have to say yes. Saying they pose no threat is very irrational as they most definately do.

Re:"No threat" (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884337)

Woh, I think someone is a little out of touch here.

North Korea has a nuclear program and nuclear weapons (err had atleast 1).
North Korea has delivery vehicles capable of striking through out the region (including Japan).

Iran has a fledgling nuclear power program.
IF (and that's a big IF) they have a nuclear weapons program, it is still decades from functionality.
Iran has a limited delivery range.
The destruction of Israel, while it would be a horrendous act, would have a significantly smaller direct impact on the US than if North Korea nuked Japan.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping Iran in line (see my journal), but we don't need to invade Iran to keep them in check. And at this point in time, the government of Iran has no ability to directly harm the United States.

Substate actors (ie: militant extremists) do pose a threat, but by invading Iran we would be empowering them far more than we would be hurting them.


Re:"No threat" (1, Redundant)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884361)

I don't normally respond to ACs but this one time I'll make an exception.

Repeat after me: Iran is not a threat. Iran is not a threat. Iran will not attack its neighbors or the U.S. Iran will not attack its neighbors or the U.S.

Threatening other countries who have threatened you does not make you a threat. Nor does saying stupid things like wiping Israel off the map. The vast majority of things that Ahmadinejad is saying is purely for internal support.

This is the same kind of nonsense that was used to justify invading and now occupation of Iraq. They were an imminent threat, remember? They posed a grave danger to world peace, remember? They had were producing weapons of mass destruction, remember?

Iran will not attack its neighbors unless they attack first. The fact that they are going forward with their nuclear program, as allowed under the UN Charter and IAEA conditions, does not mean they are planning on attacking anyone. I guess the concept of mutually assured destruction doesn't ring a bell with you.

The only country currently threatening to attack and/or invade another country is the U.S.

Let me ask this question: if you were being threatened by the playground bully, wouldn't you think of ways of defending yourself?

Re:"No threat" (2, Interesting)

vivaoporto (1064484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884593)

I think what it means is that Iran poses no threat enough to justify another preemptive war, not even a "diplomatic war", and that is true. Iran is no imminent threat to the U.S. territorial sovereign and, while being a threat to Israel (as every other country surrounding that territory), U.S. preemptive armed involvement there would be another catastrophe, possibly much worse than Iraq.

Anyone that could imagine (or fabricate) Iran (or Iraq, as it was being claimed as the reason for Gulf War II) attacking U.S. territory or other U.S. targets without warning and use that as a reason for a preemptive war deserves to be impeached and removed from office. That is, the whole higher echelon of the U.S. executive power.

What's good for the goose.... (2, Interesting)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884089)

Perhaps Mr. Kucinich's altruism would be a little less suspect if he wasn't simultaneously running for president himself?

I'm not saying that he's not doing this for the very best of motives, but if one begins by presuming a purely malignant motivation for whatever Cheney's done, it would then be naked partisanship to assume anything but an equally malignant motivation for other politicians, no?

Re:What's good for the goose.... (1)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884321)

I'm going to come out and say it - this is blatant pandering for Free Press by Kucinich, and it's going to be one of the only ways he's going to GET much of any press, because he sure as heck isn't getting any money to run commercials.

Article III: Rattling Sabers at the Iranians (2, Insightful)

andphi (899406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884189)

I'm confused. Has the Iranian government, at any time in the last 30 years, been the least bit friendly to the United States? How is it possible to negatively impact or 'destabilize' relations with a government whose foreign policy toward the US can be summed up as 'Death to the Great Satan'?

Iran is building up nuclear infrastructure. It's been doing it for years, usually in defiance of UN attempts to regulate said development. Some people say it's dangerous for the Iranians to do this, and that an Iran with nuclear capabilities is a threat to the interests of the United States.

In sum, Kucinich's position appears to be "I think Cheney lied about Iraq, so he must be a nasty lying liar about Iran, too." After all, no one with any common sense could imagine an nuclear Iran using its newfound clout to, for example, threaten US shipping or hold foreign nationals hostage. They've never, ever done anything like that before. Why is mean, old Cheney threatening the poor harmless Iranians?

Re:Article III: Rattling Sabers at the Iranians (5, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884391)

First, given that you dudes (i.e. the US) planned, financed and partially executed the overthrow of the first ever(!) democratically elected president in the entire third world, and that that happened to be Iran, their hostility is more than understandeable, isn't it? The direct result of the forceful institution of the Sha regime was, of course, the islamic revolution. You made your bed, now lie in it.

Two, nuclear infrastructure is no threat to the USA. Even a working nuke isn't. You still need delivery vehicles. As for that, I think the ratio of USA to Iran is roughly 20,000:0

Finally, the position in the paper I read was "Cheney lied and betrayed the public while holding an office where he swore an oath to protect and serve that same public". Iraq/Iran is merely what he lied about.

Re:Article III: Rattling Sabers at the Iranians (1)

visualight (468005) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884611)

You win the internets.

Re:Article III: Rattling Sabers at the Iranians (0)

Quila (201335) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884637)

What are you talking about? Iran wasn't democratic. The British and Soviets kicked out Reza Shah, an unelected authoritarian ruler, and installed his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was still authoritarian, but a lot better than his father. He was overthrown by the Islamic revolution, which hasn't turned out to be any better for the people of Iran.

We were only later involved because Mohammad Reza was anti-communist, and the Soviets were pushing a communist party in Iran. Reza cracked down on the party, and we were only to happy to assist in stopping Soviet expansion.

Re:Article III: Rattling Sabers at the Iranians (2, Interesting)

andphi (899406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884647)

I didn't say their hostility isn't understandable, or justified, or intense. It's all three. I said I can't how understand Cheney's actions could have made it worse. I read the paper too. My point is that I'm unconvinced that he has in fact lied or betrayed the public in re Article III.

Re:Article III: Rattling Sabers at the Iranians (1)

radja (58949) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884501)

until 1979 Iran was quite friendly with the US, under the shah who was brought to power by a CIA backed coup (the US has apologized for this act in 2000). there are definately grounds for iran and its citizens to intensely dislike the US. the backing of saddam hussein during the iran-iraq war was another reason. the US has a history in iran and other countries of interfering with governments if they're not friendly enough. wikipedia has a lot more info.

We have the votes, If you call your congressman (1)

KellyDunn (1060696) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884203)

If you read the 3 articles of impeachment it is plain to see there is warrant for this action. The dems might not have the votes, but that is the point. Impeachment only works when it crosses partizan lines! We need to call, email, fax, and use morse code(for Sen. Stevens) the congress and senate. The only way they know how we feel is if we tell them. I employ you all, not to give up like I feel like doing everyday. Pick up the phone, make the phone ring off the hook, till they listen! Please post congress and senate contact information.

Big Newsday; Delayed re: Cheney's Health (2, Interesting)

justanyone (308934) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884219)

The original announcement was to be Tuesday at noon.
Cheney went to the hospital for a knee-blood-clot "emergency" in the morning.
So, Kucinich delayed it until 5 pm when it was obvious there was no emergency with Cheney's health.

The newsday got slammed with several other big stories:
- EU says Wolfowitz should go;
- UN says Bagdad surge not working;
- House passes War-funding with timetable;
- Cheney speaking at BYU (Utah) commencement w/ lots of protesters;
- Very Conservative (not neocon) New Hampshire voting for Civil Unions

So, yesterday/today is news-dense. The impeachment resolution had to compete.

Re:Big Newsday; Delayed re: Cheney's Health (1)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884479)

The original announcement was to be Tuesday at noon. Cheney went to the hospital for a knee-blood-clot "emergency" in the morning. So, Kucinich delayed it until 5 pm when it was obvious there was no emergency with Cheney's health. The newsday got slammed with several other big stories: Most of which should be or actually other non-issues. Tag this slownewsday.

- EU says Wolfowitz should go;
Of course they do. If you study the issue, you'll find that the whole thing is a reaction to his anti-corruption stance and trying to weed out the garbage than anything else. It's interesting how this would be a non-issue if a European was running the joint, and the subordinate was actually within the sphere of influence.

- UN says Bagdad surge not working;
Of course it does. Count the decrease in the number of US deaths and how most of the violence is sectarian instead of insurgents. And how there isn't much UN there, anyway. They have a pointed interest in not being wrong about Iraq, anyway.

- House passes War-funding with timetable;
Which will get vetoed.

- Cheney speaking at BYU (Utah) commencement w/ lots of protesters;
WOW. More protestors. Shocking.

- Very Conservative (not neocon) New Hampshire voting for Civil Unions
Make that Very Libertarian New Hampshire. Quite a difference, and makes more sense.

So, yesterday/today is news-dense. The impeachment resolution had to compete.
A non-issue competing with others.

Nothing on major new sites??? (1)

Frequency Domain (601421) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884245)

I'm fascinated that there's nothing about this on NY Times, CNN, or BBC.

Re:Nothing on major new sites??? (1)

aicrules (819392) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884295)

even more fascinating is that it's on slashdot....

Wow (3, Interesting)

Tom (822) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884281)

Now that is an impeachment worth reading. The synopsis alone is a solid piece of attack.

Let's see if your congresscritters have enough spine left to do follow the facts. Though I fear we will soon find out how much money Haliburton is willing to throw around in order to keep their sock puppet in office.

It must be coming up to election time (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884387)

Kucinich is so far behind he needs something to get him in the headlines and appeal to the far-left base. The fact that he has the hottest wife in Congress isn't going to help.

Cheney is an Israeli spy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18884405)

Cheney is an Israeli spy, a traitor to the USA.

This guy must be hanged.

Write your Congressional Representative. (2, Insightful)

amper (33785) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884411)

I urge all Slashdot readers to write their respective Congressional Representatives and voice their opinions. I have just done so.

Re:Write your Congressional Representative. (1)

jofny (540291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884687)

write their respective Congressional Representatives and voice their opinions
Unless you include a rather big check with that opinion, all it's going to get you is a chuckle from your respective representatives :)

Resolutions are labeled "H.Res." (2, Informative)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884615)

The resolution would be "H.Res.333", not "H.R.333". If you want to read it in non-PDF form directly from the Library of Congress, look here. [loc.gov]

wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18884649)

...The same Kucinich who bankrupted Cleveland? At least Cheney knows how to make money!

Waiting for Cheney to be finished with his hospital business is just more evidence that it's a silly political move. Serving papers on a guy with immediate medical problems is suicide, even for Kucinich.

It's just politics, no justification (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 7 years ago | (#18884727)

While Cheney may be a bad guy, I can't see how anything here amounts to justification for impeachment. All I see is a lot of "I don't like what he did" and "I think it hurts the country."

If we impeached presidents or removed congressmen and senators because we thought what they did was damaging to the country and not upholding the Constitution, the only business of Congress would be articles of impeachment. Harry Reid definitely needs to go on this score for his recent statements, as do those who voted for the Patriot Act, copyright extensions, McCain Feingold, the assault weapons ban and numerous other blatantly unconstitutional acts.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?