![[Shelbyville Times-Gazette]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate-small.png){kind=small}
Shelbyville, Tennessee ~ Friday, August 29, 2008
| Blogs | 
|
|
Articles of Impeachment?
Posted Monday, June 9, 2008, at 8:15 PM<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>
That's right. At this moment (8:08pm) Dennis "Tiny" Kucinich is in front of the House of Representatives on C-SPAN introducing Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush. Now, seeing as how there's absolutely no way that the House would be able to see any proceedings to fruition, is there really any point? I do applaude his effort, but why introduce these six months prior to his leaving office?
I'm no big fan of this little guy, but listening to some of this will make you mad enough to use language that would cause John to remove your post. It's on C-SPAN, go take a look. I'll see what I can find on this later.
I would appreciate it if this blog weren't turned into someone's personal rant against the "establishment". I am really trying to find out more on what Tiny is talking about and once he's finished (long-winded li'l fella) I'll see about finding a list of his beefs.
Update-8:27pm: Article 18-Torture
Update-8:35pm: Article 19-Rendition
Update-8:45pm: Article 20-Imprisoning Children
Update-8:50pm: Article 21-Misleading Congress and the American people about threats from Iran and supporting terrorist organizations within Iran with the goal of overthrowing the Iranian government
Update-8:59pm: Article 22-Creating secret laws
Update-9:09pm: Article 23-Violation of The Posse Comitatus Act
Update-9:15pm: Article 24-Spying on American Citizens without a court ordered warrant in violation of the law and in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution
Update-9:32pm: Article 25-Directing telecommunications companies to create an illegal and unconstitutional database of private telephone numbers and e-mails of American Citizens
Update-9:36pm: Article 26-Announcing the intent to violate laws with "signing statements" and violating those laws
Update-9:37pm: Article 27-Failing to comply with Congressional subpoenas and instructing former employees not to comply with Congressional subpoenas
Update-9:42pm: Article 28-Tampering with free and fair elections, corruption of the administration of justice
Update-9:49pm: Article 29-Conspiracy to violate The Voting Rights Act of 1965
Update-10:05pm: Article 30-Misleading Congress and the American People in an attempt to destroy Medicare
Update-10:09pm: Article 31-Failure to plan for the predicted disaster of hurricane Katrina
Update-10:18pm: Article 32-Misleading Congress and the American People, systematically undermining efforts to address global climate change
Update-10:29pm: Article 33-Repeatedly ignored and failed to respond to high-level intelligence warnings of planned terrorist attacks in The United States prior to 9-11
Update-10:45pm: Article 35-Endangering the health of 9-11 first responders (he called this one 35, so I guess I missed 34) Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Hot topics Health Care in the U.S.A.(59 ~ 10:50 PM, Aug 28)
Here's your sign...wait, where'd the sign go?
The House has solved all of our country's problems
Our tax dollars at work - your opinion?
Go VOTE!
|
![[Feed icon]](http://www.t-g.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Remember, this is the same guy that has had a "close encounter of the third kind". He was good for a laugh on the campaign trail but when you enter articles of impeachment your talking the ultimate government smack. You'd better be able to back it up.
Seems he has a substantial amount of credible, documented evidence to "back it up with"... Who knows. I don't care if its a month before W leaves office, SOMEBODY needs to hold him accountable or else EVERYONE can get away with whatever they wish... and then people will say, "why didn't anyone do something sooner..." Well, I'd rather it be late than never.
I have got to agree with nascarfanatic. He seems to have done a great deal of research on these. Maybe that's why it took him so long to introduce them.
Hey, if they can try and impeach Clinton for a private sexual affair then why not try and impeach Bush for actually breaking some laws.
Wow, I really didn't think that I would be able to listen to this guy for more than 10-15 minutes, but here I am an hour later still watching this. It's actually pretty interesting, whether or not you agree with his articles. I'm just sorry that I missed the first 17 articles.
I think it's about damn time someone stood up to this pathetic excuse for a president. The tiniest member of Congress, perhaps... David vs. Goliath?
Actually, they impeached Clinton for purjury and obstruction of justice, not for getting some strange in the Oval Office.
nascarfanatic - VERY good, I hadn't thought of that even though I had just been talking about his height...or lack thereof.
Yet, nobody had proof that he committed perjury and obstructed justice... There is however ASTRONOMICAL amounts of evidence to support the magnitude of perjury and obstruction of justice carried out by this administration and its constituents. Hell Karl Rove is trying to block a subpoena b/c he knows he will have to lie.
Leading a nation to war based on pure spectacle and half-baked truths when Addressing the Nation (on multiple occasions) is MORE than enough to be impeached for.
Thom- Thanks! It truly will be a case of David vs. Goliath, but sadly this country seems to be brainwashed by the fore bearers of Goliath. Let's hope David can accomplish the unimaginable feat (yet again). I believe the Bible could be a prophetic vice in this instance.
Good lord, Dennis has done his homework. I hope this rocks the Whitehouse in more ways than Scott McClellan could EVER imagine...
Are you watching this? It had to take weeks, if not months, to write this speech. Also, this li'l fella has got to be half bladder. He's been up there for several hours.
Hell, I'd stand up there for several days if it showed the nation EVERYTHING this administration shouldn't get away with... In fact, it would take weeks to do that.
Actually the evidence was pretty clear regarding Clinton, hence the loss of his law license as well.
Karl Rove is a pretty interesting case. He'll probably end up doing time (or paying a pretty hefty fine...or both) for the Plame case and probably the Seigleman case in Alabama.
Leading us to war probably isn't going to get it either. The decision was based on intel given to us primarily by our "allies" France and Germany. Sadam admitted to essentially playing chicken with the whole world regarding the WMD issue because he was trying to keep Iran at bay and he thought the US would never act. He lost. In the end, we didn't do so hot either.
Unfortunately for you impeachment fans, the possibility of holding impeachment hearings during a general election cycle has about as much chance as me getting a call from the Titans to start at left tackle. If you've ever seen me, you'd realize how remote a possibility that is.
Justice is always possible...
Oh wow . . I didnt know that was what they impeached Clinton for. And yes, that was sarcasm.
LOL . . some people feel the need to overexplain as if some people dont have a clue.
jaxspike - I think that it's rather obvious that some people really don't have a clue. Your statement was that they impeached him for "a private sexual affair", that was not the reason that he was impeached. He was impeached because he lied under oath about it which, by the way, is actually breaking a law. I'm not saying that Bush should or shouldn't be impeached, but if what Rep. Kucinich is saying is true (seems to be on the surface) then there's no reason that he shouldn't be.
I know that wasn't why he was impeached . . . my comment was a generalization about the difference between the two. Clinton lied about his sexual affairs while Bush lies have cost the lies of thousands. That was my point.
I guess next time I need to make sure and spell everything out so I don't get tacky comments and corrections that are not needed. I apologize . . I assumed everyone would make a connection with the point I was making but I guess I assumed too much.
You're right, I shouldn't have taken your comment for ignorance, I should have taken it for what it actually was...an attempt to belittle the fact that President Clinton lied under oath as not breaking an actual law. I suppose that lying under oath isn't, in your opinion, a criminal act. Personally, I think that his personal life is between him and his wife, but if he's questioned about something under oath and lies about it, that IS a crime. It also brings his integrity into question.
"I guess next time I need to make sure and spell everything out so I don't get tacky comments and corrections that are not needed. I apologize . . I assumed everyone would make a connection with the point I was making but I guess I assumed too much."
Yet I was the one being "tacky"...hmmm...interesting.
Thom, I think what he was referring to was the fact that his lie didn't cost families to lose their loved ones, their homes, their privacy, their livelihood, their education, their integrity, their American Dream and lastly the freedom to be self-governed.
EM - I understand what he's trying to say, although I doubt he really put as much thought into phrasing it as you have.
I really don't understand why the people that have those particular feelings on here, for the most part, tend to take the sarcastic (tacky?) route rather than just stating their opinions without an attempt at being "cute". It also seems that, again for the most part, they tend to be under the impression that "he who is loudest wins the argument".
Article 34 is:
Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001
Richard - Thanks, I missed the break between 33 and 34 and I guess I just figured he was still on 33 until he said otherwise.
Well, I for one like Kucinich and would have been torn between him and Paul, if either had a shot at a nomination, but for all his talk, it will end up the way it did when he did the same for the VP. If it does not, then the long term effect will be negligable anyway.
I do understand you did not want to hear a rant about the establishment, but how could someone pass up the opportunity?
In my opinion, it is not the president or vice president that is the problem. It is the political parties (or party to be more exact)and the agencies who now find themselves in control of policy, not only for the US, but for the world. They are more entrenched in their positions than any single political leader could ever dream of. An election year does not scare them at all. Nor does the thought of any single leader being impeached appear to make them back down. They survive regardless.
We seem to be living in a time when consolidation of world power is closer at hand than any other time in history. The question is: "Who is the good guy?". I do not know if there is one in this story.
If you want to know about what is currently going on with the history that is being made today, I would suggest you look at places that are seeing unrest, aside from the 2 that dominate the news coverage. That is where things are truly happining. To really understand the 2 wars we are publicly in right now, you likewise have to look further back into their history.
I guess I am a conspiracy theorist, if you would think that anyone who has an investment and tries to make the most of it, is guilty of being in a conspiracy, or someone who has a career and plans how to advance it to a position they desire are guilty of the same. It is not such a stretch to say that anyone who looks out for their intrests is in a conspiracy. It is how things work though, and the more you have the more you have to plan.
GWB is not my favorite politician, but I doubt any other would or could have made different choices short of destroying their political career.
Anyone that thinks that we as a nation really had any cival liberties before the Patriot Act came into effect are somewhat mis-informed, but the abuses no longer must be quite as hidden. It just solidifies what the future may bring.
I also hate all the civilian deaths attributed to GWB for the current wars, but where was the outrage when these same people were dying due to our sanctions? Or when we were waging the many proxy wars we have participated in around the middle east.
Okay enough ranting...Hope Kucinich got his political payoff for wasting the airways and the time of the legislaters. If not, oh well.
Face it folks...he read the articles in after hours. Did you know there are actually recipes for chowder that have been read into the congressional record after hours? Way too little WAY too late. But armed with what you now know this congressional and presidential election make a difference. When the NRA mobilized to help elect a republican congress..when concerned Americans mobilized to replace it with democrats-it made no difference. You'd THINK with a democratic majority the offenses of the present administration would have been a long time all-you-can eat buffet for the democrats. A little suspicious? I think so. Take the time to read what the person vocally supports...or if he's held political office look at what he voted for and against. Take the time to write your representative and let them know in no uncertain words how you feel...you pulled the lever and now you are paying for it. The simple fact is this congress VOTED for the war AND the PATRIOT act. Maybe we shouldn't stop with Bush/Cheney?
memyselfi - I certainly wouldn't consider that a "rant". I feel pretty much the same as you. Maybe I shouldn't have put "establishment" as the subject of my request for people not ranting on here. The "establishment" certainly needs to be shaken up. I think the best thing, for both parties, would be to lose. Unfortunately that's not likely to happen in my lifetime. But that doesn't keep me from looking at alternatives.
The saddest thing about the election this year is that you're going to have Democrats that want their party to change, but they will vote for Obama simply because they don't want McCain to win the election. Likewise, you have Republicans that want change in their party, but they'll vote for McCain because they don't want Obama to win. I don't honestly think this election will be decided by people voting for a particular candidate as much as it will be people voting AGAINST a particular candidate.
Thom;
Why do I get the feeling that your right?
Because, he is right. What ticks me off is, Ron Paul is still running and he hasn't had one spot of any media coverage whatsoever, but check out the amount of support he has gained in the states without so much as a TV ad. I find that truly remarkable.
I think we've faced this before. I personally won't vote for Obama because he isn't my candidate of choice. And he voted 98% down the democratic line and I'm sorry but what is being done to American jobs is criminal.
Likewise, I won't vote for McCain because he has repeatedly stood up for the views held by the present administration INCLUDING denying American veterans benefits.
I'll no longer vote for who I consider the "lesser of two evils" but will exhort my representative to place a "Neither is suitable" box in the ballot or change the system where I can vote for a president that embraces views I feel are necessary ...because I don't see it making a difference.
Wow. I used to live in Tullahoma, and I'm completely (pleasantly) surprised by the comments here. It's too bad none of you (and almost nobody else in the US) ever looked beyond the media and pundits' ridicule and marginalization of Kucinich. You'd probably have voted for the guy. I've had lunch with him and been to his speeches. He's not a kook. Really, he's the only true populist left in national politics, I believe. Read his "Prayer for America." But beyond that, I wish the Congress would have the guts actually to put the election and partisanship aside and impeach first Cheney and then Bush (so we wouldn't get Cheney as president). If you agree, please contact your representatives. Pelosi is determined to block it.
wovengold, RIGHT ON!
wovengold - That brings to mind another question: Why is it that Pelosi is so dead-set against impeachment proceedings? You would think that, as the Speaker of the House, she would be all for it. If Cheney and Bush were both impeached (in fast succession) she would be President (until January).
Because, she knows she'd be ears deep in dooodooo!
Thom, Pelosi is part of the entrenched power structure, and she has vested interest in maintaining it. Those in power on both sides of the aisle are culpable on many of these charges. Pelosi has a nice, comfortable position right where she is, and she can stonewall what she will if we allow it.
Kucinich is far from the nutcase people think. They think he's goofy because all they've ever heard are jokes about his height or his veganism or his oddball beliefs. They've never actually been given an opportunity to hear him outline his plans for the economy, healthcare, getting out of Iraq.
It's infuriating.
He voices an idealism *with* pragmatism that I think is far more in line with mainstream America than either the "regular" Dems or Repubs represent. And that, I think, is partly why his actual messages are never heard.
Hope folks will do some research and find what he's written about the issues, not just what others have said about him.
Since when is somebody's physical stature a measure of their worth? The man's height has nothing to do with the fact that George Bush and Dick Cheney need to be impeached, indicted, and imprisoned for the crimes mentioned at length in the Articles of Impeachment for both of them that only Dennis Kucinich has had the guts to investigate and introduce. He may be short, but he has the biggest cahonas in Congress.
Kucinich was also one of the few people who voted no on the illegal, immoral invasion/occupation of a nation that wasn't a threat to us. He was right on then, and he's right on now, and his height has absolutely nothing to do with it!
Meant to add:
But more than that, I really do hope people will contact their representatives to voice support for impeachment. I think it's vital that we reject the politics of empire, torture, shattered civil liberties. The articles are well-researched and document actual crimes. At the very least, they should see the light of day. The American people should understand what has been done in our names -- and make sure justice is done.
I have to agree with you wovengold (and no, his height has nothing to do with his ideals) in that his messages haven't been heard because they're not advancing the common good of the current power structure. I've not done any research at all into him or his record (his "oddball beliefs" are not even an issue for me, considering some of mine) but I will do that before I make cracks about his stature again. I truly figured that I would listen to him prattle on for about 10 minutes and change the channel. Instead I watched that to the end. I disagreed with some of his articles, but agreed with the majority of them. He seemed to have all of his ducks in a row and very clearly communicated exactly what he was trying to accomplish. That's more than most of the current members of Congress can do on their best days.
Thom, your reaction is exactly the one I've seen over and over once a person has listened to what he has to say. He's intellegent, articulate, and he does his homework.
In 2004 I watched him win over a crowd of about 500 mostly skeptics -- with a few lukewarm supporters -- in an extremely conservative community. He did it by speaking logically, outlining steps (1, 2, 3, etc.) for what he wanted to do, and putting the big issues (the economy, government spending, foreign policy) into words with emotion and meaning, relating them to real people's lives. People came away in awe, saying he told the truth. Before his speech, few had really heard of him. The next day he won this community's democratic caucus, and he went on to do the same for the state.
I wish our culture were less visually oriented and still knew how to listen and focus for longer than a 30-second soundbite.
I would probably have voted for Kucinich, tho I find his liberal beliefs about immigration and illegal foreign nationals to be objectionable. In that case, I would have leaned towards Ron Paul but I have a hard time trusting Republicans tolerance of multinational corporations...and his "leave them alone" stance would certainly have cost him my vote. As is the case of ANYONE attacking the presidency from Kucinich to the Dixie Chicks....there are those elements in government and the media that will seek to defame and discredit them. This was noticeable in the Kennedy assassination and it's noticeable today. Look at what they vote on...it is enough to make the judgments we need to make on these people. Oh yeah! Impeach and prosecute Bush/Cheney and pressure your representatives to pass protectionist laws against war profiteers from holding and influencing public office.
Anyone interested in letting Nancy Pelosi know how you feel about her high-handed authoritarian control over the impeachment process (Power that was NEVER granted the House Speaker) ie. her threats against John Conyer and statements that she would not table a vote for impeachment.
http://www.speaker.gov/contact
Step up and voice your opinions. IT may do no more good than this blog but you will have done SOMETHING and I think that is what Conyers, Kucinich and Wexlar are trying to do.
Perhaps the fault lies with the party system. Representatives that are torn between voting the party line that does not answer directly to the electorate but to the contributor and representatives that must safequard their position with their constituency.
As far as Kucinich's "oddball" beliefs..the man saw a UFO. So did Jimmy Carter and asked of the, then head of CIA, G. Bush Sr. for information the government had on the phenomenon. He received a bunch of papers that had been completely blacked out and was told by Bush "He lacked the security clearances to view the material". Ronald Reagan as governor of California once had a pilot pursue a UFO while he was in transit. Just because he's seen something in the sky he can't explain (who hasn't) doesn't discredit the man. Kennedy once saw one while driving a boat near his home. John Lennon saw one over the river in New York City. Seeing something unexplainable doesn't make you unbelievable.
He is doing what he thinks is right. And for that he is vilified as being "little" and an "oddball".
ROFL and on THAT subject my brother just mssg'ed me from Arizona saying he saw something in the night sky there. Now THAT'S a coincidence.
If you wish to help with the impeachment process please sign Kucinich's petition to push this forward in the judiciary committee where it is rumored to have gone to die;
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/...
Peyote. That's why they're always seeing things in AZ...lol. I'm just kidding. Personally, I think that to believe that we're the only "intelligent" life forms in the universe is both arrogant and sad.
Intelligent life forms? Where? :)
Probably was peyote LOL he works at the nuclear plant. Nancy Pelosi is a piece of work.
Nancy Pelosi wants a Windfall Tax on Retirement Income. In other words tax what you have made by investing toward your retirement. This woman is a nut case! You aren't going to believe this.
Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market profits (including Retirement fund, 401K and Mutual Funds! Alas, it is true - all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities!
This woman is frightening.
She quotes..." We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income, (For a woman that works in a job where her salary is guaranteed for life... hey! Now THAT sounds like a windfall), in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest." ( I am not rich, are you)
When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied:
"We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans'." (Read that quote again and again and let it sink in. Lower your retirement, give it to others who have not worked as you have for it.
If this is the direction the Democratic party is going then someone has been giving THEM peyote. How about we put the politicians on Blue cross and social security and give those perpetual salaries to illegal immigrants. Is she special? Or does this kind of arrogance come from working a job where you can vote in your next raise?
I can't stand her, but this isn't true.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/p...
Thank you very much. I use Snope's a lot but didn't research this as a friend sent it to me. Thanks for doing MY research, Thom!
As to thinking we're the ONLY intelligent life form in the universe *sigh*...I'd just like to think we're ONE of them
No doubt. I would too, but I see things happening every day that make me doubt that we are :-)
A couple of the issues came up before Congress yesterday and today that pertained to the impeachment process. Yesterday Representative Steny Hoyer announced a deal that he'd hashed out with Bush granting ANOTHER 165 billion dollars to fund the war in Iraq. Of course he tied a bunch of roses to it but the fact remains that the Democratic leadership we'd hoped for is just as bad as George Bush himself. Today they will vote on whether immunity will be granted to the telcoms and government employees for disobeying the Bill of Rights and wiretapping millions of American homes (ostensibly to prevent "Racial Profiling) without due process of law. Bush has already seen fit to "pardon himself and his cronies for war crimes" and now seeks to grant himself immunity for one of the worst of the impeachable offenses. I hope those of you that care are contacting your representatives and the Speaker of the House (tell her sorry about the earlier post) and tell them to vote no on these measures. No terroristic act was attributed to Iraq, no ties to Al Quaeda, most of the insurrgency in the country is imported from Saudi Arabia (also the majority of those terrorists purportedly in the plane crashes) and there were no weapons of mass destruction. Halliburton has already admitted to a two billion dollar oversight that they CAN'T be held accountable for in Iraq because the first things the interrim government did was to make it impossible to prosecute American companies in Iraq. So they will be voting for funding without mentioning ANY withdrawl date for a war that no one has yet justified.