Slashdot Mirror
Resolution To Impeach VP Cheney Submitted
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.
...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.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
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.
Developers: We can use your help.
He's referring to the resolution, not the Constitution. Article III in the resolution accuses Cheney of showing unwarranted agression towards Iran.
(IANAL)
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.
Not that I don't trust a politician to faithfully present God's honest truth or anything, but here is the actual text of the resolution:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.res .00333:
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Developers: We can use your help.
Practically everything that was said regarding Iraq's WMD prowess was also said by
... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
George Bush
John McCain
John Kerry
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Robert Byrd
Sandy "nothing in my underpants" Berger
Madeline "Kim Jung Ill seems a nice guy" Albright
Carl Levin
Ted Fscking Kennedy
Al Gore and a HOST of others...
It begs the question why Kusinich is picking on Dick only?
Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam H
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
link
link
link
link
link
link
It's not on the front page for most of the MSM right now because Slashdot is two days behind the news cycle on this one.
Took about 2 minutes to find those stories and provide links. Easier to believe it's a corporate media conspiracy eh? I could provide a few hundred more but you truthers aren't worth the time.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
Of course, some of this was after Adams' party, the Federalists, voted to make it illegal for Jefferson's party, the Democrat-Republicans, to criticize the Federalists. And people went to jail for it.
Uh. Lying under oath is a pretty serious offense. I'd be more concerned if a President *wasn't* impeached for an accusation like that with good evidence behind it. It doesn't matter which political party is involved.
Comment of the year
Okay, let's check Wikipedia. Pahlavi reign 1941-1979. You're quote, "In 1951, a nationalist politician, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to prominence." How can you say Pahlavi was later?
What I said perfectly fits with the Wikipedia entry, including that we assisted the Shah in stopping Soviet expansion, in this case through the banned Tudeh communist party. Pahlavi approved Mossadegh twice, but had to get rid of him once he gained substantial authoritarian powers and started working with the Tudeh party and implementing communist doctrines, going down the road to being a Soviet satellite state.
You know, the Soviets and Iraq under Saddam held democratic elections all the time, and so does China today. That doesn't/didn't make their leaders any good or reflect on a free democratic state.
with the success of the right wing campaign to reclassify righ as center and center as left.... there are no candidates representing the actual left, which make up the majority of the population, hence low voter turnout.
maybe instead of allowing news pundits in the ivory tower to scare them off their populist positions, candidates for the left should plough forward and see what kind of interest they can develop in the 250+ million people who didn't vote in the last few elections because the only candidates to choose from were a corporate schill and a corporate schill who happens to be christian.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
The idea of a "red state" and a "blue state" is fallacious. Almost every county in the past presidential election broke right down the middle, except for a few counties in the heart of Kansas and Utah which were solidly red and some in California and New York that were solidly blue.
So that tells me that the divide is less between states and more between people. The red vs. blue idea is counterproductive, and is only peddled by talking-head pundits (for whom I have zero respect) to create conflict and thereby create a news story.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Let us also not forget that the estate tax does not mean that the wealthy forfeit *all* their wealth upon death.
quoted from Wikipedia:
All of the quotes from before 2001 are irrelevent. Inspectors were not allowed in Iraq from 1998 to 2001, so it was feasible to speculate that Saddam had WMD at the time. In 2001 inspectors were allowed back in and no evidence of WMD was found. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, but I do think it's important to keep quotes in context.
Someone else asked why Kucinich targeted Cheney but not Cheney's boss. "There's a practical reason," the congressman explained. "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."
Link to numbers
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/24/kucinich.ch eney.ap/index.html
c le/2007/04/24/AR2007042402341_2.html?hpid=sec-poli tics
Look again. Admittedly, I had to search for the right terms to find it. HR 333 doesn't yield anything useful.
What has been interesting to read about are some of the stories surrounding this introduction.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
The article above paints a very weak and dingy picture of the man pushing the resolution. It indicates that he's essentially standing alone on this initiative while others are calling this a weak attempt at boosting his name in his presidential bid for 2008. While I don't see the connection between the two, I think it would say a lot more if he dropped his bid for president in order to pursue this action.
This news isn't being discussed on the public airways. I don't expect it to be until it actually takes hold. We know who owns the media and they don't care to have the public voicing its opinion in favor of impeachment. Ultimately, with the current approval ratings of the current executive office, it wouldn't be difficult to imagine the public rallying behind the initiative. By not publishing information about the story, it has a chance to die of unpopularity before it goes anywhere.
Abortion? Illegal in Ireland and Portugal.
Ireland is known to be extremely Catholic and conservative compared to the rest of Europe. But it's a good point: Europe isn't one big homogeneous place; the different countries can be extremely different. Italy and Germany are extremely different, though geographically they're probably about as far apart as Texas and Arizona.
Religious education is a manditory part of British schooling.
Really? What about all the Muslims that comprise a large part of Britain's population? Is this education the type that pushes any one religion, such as a Bible study class, or is it more like a "comparative religion" class? If it's the latter, I don't see how that would be illegal in the US as long as it doesn't advocate any religion, and only teaches about the different religions.
The U.S. government spends more per capita on public health and health care than any country in the world.
Are you sure about that? If it's true, then it's probably because too much money is wasted on overpriced pharmaceuticals and on care for the uninsured. Health care costs have skyrocketed in this country in the past few decades. There's definitely a lot of room to fix the current situation while lowering costs.
Freedom of Speech? Insulting a religion is a crime in most European countries... Most European countries have far more speech regulations than the U.S..
This is true. But I don't think anyone with a clue has any illusions of speech being more free in Europe. It's well-known there's laws there prohibiting any Nazi-type speech, or even just selling Nazi artifacts from WWII on Ebay. I'd say free speech is probably one of the best things about the USA compared to other countries, better than any other country I can think of.
It's pretty galling that insulting a religion is a crime there though. That must depend on the religion and the country, though. It's certainly not illegal to insult Scientology in Germany, for instance, since Scientology is illegal there. And it's not illegal to insult Islam in Denmark, where those cartoons were published. Considering that Europe is, in general, less religious than the US, I'm surprised they still have laws like that there.
Actually, 43% of Americans believe there was a cover-up involving 9/11*. And even your link about Apollo states that only 6% believe that the moon landing was faked. The overlap could be 3-4%, not enough to be a significant part of the 9/11 Truth movement. Your strategy of linking people who believe that we don't know the whole truth about 9/11 to a insignificant minority of people who believe something entirely different is a nice distraction though. Also, calling them "a couple kids" then linking to lolloosechange and a YouTube rant for your rebuttal is pretty pathetic.
* Also see this poll which shows that only 16% believe Bush is telling the truth about 9/11.
You could also check out this presentation by Dr. Steven Jones, Physicist at UT Austin, where he first revealed evidence of the presence of thermite on debris samples recovered from an apartment building near Ground Zero. The peer-reviewed paper is forthcoming, and will prove once and for all that all 3 buildings that collapsed in NYC on 9/11 were demolished by explosives.
Finally, you can look to Pilots for 9/11 Truth for evidence that the flight data recorder data that they received from a FOIA request matches neither the animations they received, nor the downed light poles, nor the eyewitness testimony from Pentagon security officers of the flight path. One or more of those pieces of evidence were fabricated by somebody working for our government. Why would they do that if they were not covering something up? The flight recorder data ends at 180 feet altitude. The Pentagon is only 40 feet tall, and is 40 feet above sea level. How does a plane crash at about 100 feet above its target? The direction and pitch also do not match the other evidence. Watch it for yourself. Pilots for 9/11 Truth is just getting started. More videos and documents will be available soon.
The small groups of "Screw Loose Change" and other debunkers will be very busy over the next few months trying to debunk all these groups of professionals* with hard evidence. Good luck to them at getting more than their current fraction of web traffic that the 9/11 Truth sites get. They are helpful to people like you when you want to brush off the actual evidence though, no? So I guess they serve their purpose of distraction.
* Also see Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth for analysis of the actual blueprints which were recently leaked, and the variation between the blueprints and the data produced in the NIST and FEMA reports. And Journal of 9/11 Studies for peer-reviewed scientific papers and journals.