Rep. Kucinich’s resolution seeking the impeachment of Dick Cheney has moved to the judiciary committee. I suspect that’s where it will die without any substantial consideration, but let’s take a look at the allegations, consider whether they are true and, if so, whether they warrant impeachment. The first article lays a case for the assertion that Dick Cheney manipulated intelligence and made misleading statements to the American people in an effort to get us into a war with Iraq. The Second article alleges that Dick Cheney mislead the American people about the nature of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in an effort to get us into a war with Iraq. The Third alleges that he is now threatening aggression against Iran without any real evidence of a threat.
Some of the supporting allegations after the fold.
Article I – Dangers of Iraq:
(A) `We know they have biological and chemical weapons.’ March 17, 2002, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace.
(B) `. . . and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.’ March 19, 2002, Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem.
(C) `And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time . . .’ March 24, 2002, CNN Late Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.
(D) `We know he’s got chemicals and biological and we know he’s working on nuclear.’ May 19, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(E) `But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons . . . Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.’ August 26, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention.
(F) `Based on intelligence that’s becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability.’ September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(G) `He is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.’ September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(H) `And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.’ March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
Article II – Link between Iraq and al Qaeda:
(A) `His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.’ December 2, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference.
(B) `His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.’ January 30, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to 30th Political Action Conference in Arlington, Virginia.
(C) `We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.’ March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(D) `We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons . . .’ September 14, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(E) `Al Qaeda had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces.’ October 3, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney at Bush-Cheney ’04 Fundraiser in Iowa.
(F) `He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.’ October 10, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to the Heritage Foundation.
(G) `Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services have worked together on a number of occasions.’ January 9, 2004, Rocky Mountain News interview with Vice President Cheney.
(H) `I think there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.’ January 22, 2004, NPR: Morning Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.
(I) `First of all, on the question of–of whether or not there was any kind of relationship, there clearly was a relationship. It’s been testified to; the evidence is overwhelming.’ June 17, 2004, CNBC: Capital Report interview with Vice President Cheney.
The resolution also has supporting allegations to demonstrate that Cheney had reason to know what he was saying was false and misleading.
So, what of it? Are Kucinich’s allegations true? If so, do they warrant impeachment?
Of course they’re true. And of course they warrant impeachment.
The biggest lies are the ones listed that he was telling while our inspectors were on the ground, finding nothing. He and the idiot-in-chief pulled the inspectors who were enjoying unfettered access to all sites and finding nothing, in order to take us to war. Looking at the loss of life on both sides, and the loss of standing in the world, those are almost hanging crimes. At the least, the levers of power ought to be wrested from this guy’s hands before he screws up anything else. Thousands of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, are dead today due to Bush and Cheney’s willingness to ignore facts on the ground.
The Al Qaeda connections were made up out of thin air. Their entire evidence was one eyewitness account which Cheney continued to trot out years after it was discredited.
Cheney is the most ridiculous piece of shit character I can ever recall on our national stage. Only if Joe McCarthy had been made Vice-Commander-In-Chief could anyone have challenged Cheney’s record. What a small little turd to wield such power. Five deferments from Vietnam. Shoots tame, crippled birds by the dozens for sport. Ignored exculpatory evidence to send young men and women to die in a way he himself had been too cowardly to do when it was his turn. And yet, he’s constantly running his mouth like a big man. What a joke.
So, is impeachment appropriate? Let’s consider what punishment Bush and Cheney would have thought appropriate if they were sitting in judgment of someone who had conducted themselves the way THEY have. Many in the administration have been fired for telling inconvenient truths. One guy even had himself waterboarded in order to be able to truthfully say it is in fact torture–and he was fired. Innocent people have been taken to “black sites” and tortured, only to be released months later due to being innocent. Even a blowjob meets the threshold for impeachment to these people. So what do you think Bush and Cheney would think is adequate punishment for their conduct, if they were sitting in judgment? At least, firing would be in order. But they would probably advocate a bit of waterboarding first, just to make sure nothing else can be learned. Also a bit of exposure to extreme heat and cold might help, and of course some “stress positions”. Maybe Lyndie England can be brought out of retirement to point at Cheney’s genitals and smile. And some underwear on the head is definitely in order.
Like I said before, I was OK with impeaching Clinton … because his testimony under oath was deemed germane to a court case. Did that lie really matter to how he was running the country? No, but you can’t have a chief executive just obey some of the laws. On that principle I wanted Bush out as soon as it was apparent they mis-led us into war.
If the Democratic Party refuses to handle the ugly but necessary business of dealing with an executive branch out of control via the means given to them in the Constitution, can someone explain to me why I should vote for them to be in charge of the executive branch?
And, Doug, I know this comes from another thread, but I don’t think the Democrats have a good argument that “We couldn’t do anything because they obstructed us.” Like the rental car ad says, try harder.
If anything, the whole affair has shown the Democrats to be a bunch of spineless twits. They’ve let the Republicans define them on the war on terror and treat Bush like a war hero who they don’t care challenge.
If Bush were to get a consensual blowjob (I know it’s a stretch, but theoretically possible), the courts would likely rule that fact to be inadmissable in a sexual harrassment lawsuit. I just can’t imagine that Bush would ever have to answer such a question under oath or otherwise. Maybe a lawyer’s opinion here would be helpful.
I’m actually pro presidential blowjobs. The Republican case for Clinton being bad was that he got an extramarital bj, and (gasp!) lied about it (duh, that’s WHAT YOU DO, whether it is oral sex from a female other than your wife, or gay-sex-and-meth parties (in which case you lie to your wife AND your church), or a bit of “layover” toilet fun in Minneapolis). Bush was considered “good” in his campaign because he didn’t get bj’s (vowing to restore “integrity” to the WH was the big theme). So I’m looking at their two records, and trying to put my Republican logic cap on, and coming away thinking we should all be in favor of presidential blowjobs.
With all due respect, get a clue. Doug, you are an attorney, so re-read Cheney’s statements and tell me how you can actually “prove” beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law that his statements were actually lies and not opinions or assertions. Every single statement is based upon intelligence provided to him and everyone else in the free world by our intelligence agencies as well as European intelligence agencies.
In court, he (Cheney)could bring up recorded statements identical to his made by no less than 30 prominent democrats, a couple of which ran for president, has Kucinich thought of that??? Is he willing to either impeach or admonish them as well?
It’s ridiculous, it’s a waste of taxpayer money, it’s a colossal waste of our legislators time and it’s a clear reminder Dennis Kucinich is a blatant pandering political fool.
This kind of political crap does NO-ONE anygood, it just fosters ill will.
For Christs sakes, when you want politicians out you VOTE them out. All the freakin’ re-do’s and re-calls, and do-overs is asinine.
Bush derangement syndrome has reached a new pinnacle….you people need to calm the f&#k down and resume some sort of a normal life.
Life is too short…
Congress is a far different animal than a court of law. We’re not talking about a criminal conviction here.
Do you think Cheney was being deceitful when he made these assertions?
“Do you think Cheney was being deceitful when he made these assertions?”
No…I think it is entirely plausible he fully believed what he was told and reiterated that to everyone else. Whether he believed what he was saying or not is a moot point anyway, because being assertions, NO ONE can prove if he was being deceitful. Believe what you want, that’s legitimate, but proof is a far different animal than belief.
Turning the entire country upside down because political foes “believe” the other is lying is foolhardy.
The 800 lb gorilla in the room is, if you buy Kucinichs argument, then there are a number of other people which must be admonished or punished in similar fashion. That’s the problem with being a “rabid” partisan, they become absolutely blind to common sense.
Tim, why is it a “waste of time” to enforce the law?
I’d rather our legislators “waste our time” than continue to waste American lives overseas. But that’s just me.
I mean, Kucinich doesn’t even mention the FISA court shenanigans …. which, if you ask me, is grounds for impeachment and conviction itself, regardless of the war. And what do the Democrats do? They go ahead & change the law. Brilliant.
I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t enforce the law, far from it. I’m suggesting a handful of partisan, less than honest politicians, egged on by big money partisan supporters, shouldn’t be allowed to use our legislature to attack their political enemies.
The reason most “thinking” democrats are NOT on board with impeachment, or Kucinich is because they realize it’s ridiculous. They realize there is no basis for the charges, and it is unsustainable. It sets a precedent that thinking democrats surely don’t want.
Consider the long term consequences of this. Every sitting President forward is going to be “impeached” no matter what party he belongs to. It’s a dangerous path to let disagreements and opinions elevate themselves to an impeachable offense. It’s becoming part of our litigation prone society, sue everybody, recall everybody, impeach everybody, etc.
Both sides should stick to voting in candidates they want, and when you lose have balls enough to wait it out the 4 or 8 years and win the next election with your candidate, instead of spending that time trying to oust someone from office.
This will bite democrats right in the ass, because a handful of partisan twit republicans will be just as petty and partisan when a dems in the white house. Enough is enough….
I haven’t made up my mind on this.
From an emotional standpoint, it would be extremely gratifying to see Cheney dragged through the mud. At the very least, he was very, very wrong and hasn’t even had the good grace to show the least bit of contrition. And that’s being generous. I don’t think he really cared what the facts were — he wasn’t using them to make up his own mind, he was cherry picking apparent facts as a pretext to do what he wanted to do.
From a practical standpoint, an impeachment has serious pros and cons. The most serious is the one Tim mentions — impeachment is part of the fundamental machinery of our Republic. We can’t go using it as a toy. Another con is that it’s difficult to prove intent or state of mind. Difficult, but it gets done every day in criminal matters. In this case, it’s easy to establish what Cheney said. Then you investigate who told him what, and you establish what information was provided to him, and then, beyond that, you establish the information that was available to him. At the end of the day, nobody can crawl into a person’s head, you just have to let the finder of fact examine the evidence and come to a conclusion. Finally, when would there actually be a vote? He has a year left in office. And, there is the cost (presumably trivial compared to a couple of days in Iraq, but still it exists.)
On the pro-side, there is value to creating a historical record as to what Cheney was up to. If we could establish that he was reckless and deceitful in pushing for war and that one consequence was our troops going into Iraq without a proper post-war plan because developing or implementing one before the war would make it politically difficult to go to war, then it might do a lot to mitigate the “stabbed in the back” mythology that seeks to pin the Iraq failure on liberals who simply wouldn’t clap loud enough. In addition, perhaps the process could muzzle Cheney as he attempts to resume the drum beat with respect to Iran. Finally, maybe we would learn enough so we don’t get fooled again (video).
The biggest argument for impeachment is that it’s the only way to hold this administration accountable. Cheney is the first sitting veep in something like 150 yards who wasn’t running for president or simply had no presidential aspirations of his own, but didn’t run for whatever reason. So neither Bush nor Cheney has any reason politically to worry about what anybody thinks — which is proving to be dangerous.
Doug,
It is a shame that under Pelosi’s leadership Democrats wasted a almost a year getting impeach procedings started. Pelosi simply refused to encourage House Democrats to launch serious investigations into Neo-Conservative Bush Republican misconduct. That should have happened 11 months ago. So today there really is not the necessary ground work prepared for an impeachment case.
Face it Pelosi and Reid take their orders from the real powers on Democratic Capital Hill, DLCers like Rahm Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer, the hardcore Clintonistas. Their strategy from day one after the 2006 elections was to make nice with Bushco inorder to pass “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” and another round of disasterous “Free Trade” and Corporate Tax breaks. That way Hillary would have an unstoppable campaign war chest built from fat-cat Corporate donors and a complete lock on the Latino vote needed for a decisive knock out “Super Tuesday” victory.
Call me cynical but I believe Big Dog Clinton negociated these deals with Poppy Bush. The Clintonistas will go easy on Dubya in return for Bushco not blocking Hillary’s run for the presidency in 2008. All those cozy meetings between 41 and 42 on behalf of 43 and possibly 44 stunk to high heaven.
Give him credit. Lou Dobbs really called it right when on election night he said the first acts of the corrupt Democratic leadership would be to take impeachment off the table inorder to cut “Cheap Labor for Cheap Votes” deals with BushCo. The weeks after the 2006 elections the media had dozens of stories of former Democratic staffers leaving for fat jobs on K-Street with their former Democratic Representive bosses’ blessings. Like David Sirota and Lou Dobbs reported the minute Pelosi and Reid were sworn in unprecidented by invitation only “buypartisan” back room negociation sessions over “CIR” and Free Trade began taking place.
“F” the electorate, its is our turn feeding at the trough, was the attitude. Any wonder now the anti-incumbent anti-establishment sentiment is going to be so strong in 2008?
Waiting until now to get the impeachment ball rolling will risk looking hopelessly partisan and as a feeble attempt to get disallusioned Democratic voters fired up for the 2008 elections. Still I can not help but feel Democrats need to do rally the base.
Worse not doing so means that the entire “Bi-partisian” Neo-Conservative Liebercrat political apparatus in Washington DC will remain intact and unchecked by Congressional oversight and empowered to make future mischieve. Really sad and scary.
Doug, lets face it. The only way the Democrats had a chance to ending the Iraq War prior to the 2008 elections not to mention impeaching Cheney and Bush was through skillfull political manuveering around the Beltway establishment. The same goes for any hope of impeaching Cheney not to mention Bush. Lots of Democrats like to think all Republicans are kool-aid drinkers. But if you read
articles by Paleo-cons like Pat Buchanan or Paul Craig Roberts you who know there is no affection for Bush, Cheney and the Neo-Cons. Same goes for the Ron Paul faction.
It would have required though seeking out critical Blue Dog Democrat, Paleo-Con Conservatives and Ron Paul votes.
But like David Sirota suggested Pelosi and Reid had no intention of making critical populist compromises on Fair Trade, Immigration and Border Security inorder to win votes to end the Iraq War. Acts like revoking Bush’s Trade authority, commuting the unjust sentances of the border agents Ramos and Compean and promises to bring home US troops from Iraq to secure our Mexican border and building the already funded border fence could have helped override Republican fillibusters and Bush vetos. Simply not in the cards or the political imaginations of the corrupt Democratic leadership, not to mention lots of out of touch bourgeois liberal netroot bloggers.
It is simply a goofy Kucinich pipe dream to believe that the impeachment of Cheney has any legs. All Cheney has to do is lay low for the next 12 months. Rove, Gonzales, Bolton and Rumsfield are gone so it harder to stir up anger at the Bush administration. All Bush cares about now is running out the clock and leaving Iraq in the lap the next administration to take care of.
So wait, the Republican Party used impeachment as a toy … so we can’t use it when it matters? Aren’t you rewarding the Republican Party for being a bunch of hypocritical ninnies with that logic?
Best I can tell, the President of the United States ordered & oversaw repeated violations of the Fourth Amendment as far as warrantless surveillance of Americans. The Bush administration admitted it and they tried to get the law changed to allow their behavior, which sure seems like guilt to me.
Meanwhile, Congress did nothing while Bush runs around and lies about it:
Where’s the accountability?
It’s not a matter of “I can’t wait 4/8 years.” It’s a matter of upholding the law, which neither Republicans nor Democrats are too interested in doing.
A better approach, in my mind, would be criminal prosecutions for any violations of the law. Congress should also use its contempt powers if executive branch staff refuses to turn over papers or testify before Congress. And, I suppose, it could just stop paying for stuff Cheney likes — shut off the lights in his offices and stop paying his staff.
Holding hearings over whether to procede with the impeachment of Cheney over Iraq War after approving “the Surge” then a almost year later reaproving its funding is more than a bit absurd. There was a window of oportunity for this but it has long passed.
Try ending the Iraq Occupation first. Trying to impeach Cheney for lying about the run up to the Iraq invasion 6-7 years ago while our troops are still in harms way is beyond unfathomable.
But like I said above. The corrupt Democratic leadership and Beltway Establishment has no intention of building the critical political coalitions amoung Blue Dogs, Paleo-Cons, Progressives, Ron Paulists and Liberals to end the war. Doing so would required leading a populist revolt against their own elitist priveliged class. Not going to happen.
Like Colonel Wilkerson, Colin Powells’s Chief of Staff, said the other night on TDS, short of a complete possible breakdown by our military ie desertion, mutiny, sitzkreig …. the occupation of Iraq will go on indefinately. It will not end because of enlightened political leadership.
So lets forget about impeachment. If Cheney or Bush have personally unlawfully profited from the Iraq war through Halliburton, Uncle Buckie or other connections they can be prosecuted long after they have left office.
People who don’t know if he was giving opinion or fact should re-read the words. Nowhere does, “In my opinion”, or “I believe” appear anywhere in those statements. It’s all, “We know”, “It’s a fact”, “It’s clearly true”, etc. So he clearly passed along all these facts that were known by him. But none of them were true. These were not opinions or assertions. They were statements of fact that just all happened to break exactly the opposite of what he said. If it’s true that he knowingly lied, he should be impeached. If it isn’t, he should at least shut up about Iran and stop asserting, opining, and stating facts about them, since his incompetence has been made apparent in the Iraq fiasco. If you catch an employee pissing in the salad at the Sirloin Stockade, you fire him. Maybe you even prosecute him. But you don’t put him in charge of the buffet.
T…This is an argument that cannot be won by either side. It’s all about what you or I believe, it’s not about facts. I believe he was telling the truth, you believe he was lying. “We know”, “it’s a fact”, It’s clearly true” were statements made based on information given him, so when you see the clips of Hillary, Leahy, Kerry, Rockefeller, Kennedy etal making the same statements, what are we to conclude? They are truthful but Cheney isn’t??
There are literally DOZENS of prominent democratic leaders asserting, stating, and AFFIRMING on tape the very same things…..
It’s partisan horseshit, pure and simple. If you’d like I’ll link Hillary, Leahy, Rockefeller,Kennedy and a lot more for you if your memory isn’t that good.
Were they able to see all of the intelligence Cheney was picking & choosing his way through to support the war, or were they just repeating the same lies the White House gave us?