GOP Forces Cheney Impeachment Debate

[Miss Modular]

I'm actually surprised that this issue has gotten as far as it has in Congress. Yeah, I realize that I'm sourcing from Fox News, but it was originally an AP article.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Nov...chment,00.html

Debate on Cheney Impeachment Averted

Tuesday, November 06, 2007
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON — House Democrats on Tuesday narrowly managed to avert a bruising debate on a proposal to impeach Dick Cheney after Republicans, in a surprise maneuver, voted in favor of taking up the measure.


Republicans, changing course midway through a vote, tried to force Democrats into a debate on the resolution sponsored by longshot presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich.

The anti-war Ohio Democrat, in his resolution, accused Cheney of purposely leading the country into war against Iraq and manipulating intelligence about Iraq's ties with al-Qaida.
The GOP tactics reversed what had been expected to be an overwhelming vote to table, or kill, the resolution.

Midway through the vote, with instructions from the GOP leadership, Republicans one by one changed their votes from yes _ to kill the resolution _ to no, trying to force the chamber into a debate and an up-or-down vote on the proposal.

At one point there were 290 votes to table. After the turnaround, the final vote was 251-162 against tabling, with 165 Republicans voting against it.

"We're going to help them out, to explain themselves," said Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas. "We're going to give them their day in court."

Democrats countered by offering a motion to refer the proposal to the House Judiciary Committee for further study, effectively preventing a debate on the House floor. That motion passed by a largely party-line vote of 218-194.

The White House, in a statement, said Democrats were shirking responsibilities on issues such as childrens' health insurance "and yet they find time to waste an afternoon on an impeachment vote against the vice president. ... This is why Americans shake their head in wonder about the priorities of this Congress."

Kucinich has long pushed for a vote to impeach Cheney, but has failed to win the backing of the Democratic leadership. After Kucinich introduced the resolution, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., immediately moved to table it.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table" and Congress is focused on responsibly getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, covering 10 million uninsured children and meeting national priorities long neglected by the Bush administration, said her spokesman Nadeam Elshami.

The resolution said that Cheney, "in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president," had "purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests."

The 11-page resolution also charged that Cheney purposely deceived the nation about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida and has "openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States."

House approval of an article of impeachment sends the issue to the Senate, which has the constitutional authority to try and, with a two-thirds vote, remove a person from office.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The Republicans want this on the floor, it helps them avoid real issues, and makes the Dems look ridiculous.

[mburbank]

I disagree strongly.

I think Cheney has done phenomenal damage to the office of the presidency, the constitution, the rule of law and the country.

Perhaps a doomed impeachment debate is the wrong forum, but if Cheney is allowed to slide unchecked into what is sure to be a relatively soon demise (He has already outlived anyone who'd had five heart attacks in my father's 40 year medical practice) truly vile precedent is set.

It's my feeling that Cheney, like vampires, certain series of burrowing soft grub and Newt Ginrich, could never survive the light of day. To my mind, it is to the D's great shame, lack of spine, and desire to do the same thing once they are in power (should that happen) that they are unwilling to shine that light.

That the 'great liberal threat' Pelosi has taken all impeachment talk 'off the table' makes me sick to my stomach and is symptomatic of why for the first time in my adult life I am no longer a Democrat.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Max, why do so many Republicans agree with you, wanting to see that bill debated on the floor?

If I'm a Republican, I take that debate. It's a debate Democrats can't win. I'd rather take the Democrats on that than Iraq, immigration, health care, etc.

[Kulturkampf]

Kevin is right -- Kucinich is hurting hhis own cause and portraying himself as even more of a UFO seeing lunatic.

Everyone knows that Cheney has not done anything terrible (at least more terrible than your typical congressman).

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

Everyone knows that Cheney has not done anything terrible (at least more terrible than your typical congressman).

What does he have to do to make you think he's bad? Rip the heads off kittens? Jesus.

[mburbank]

" If I'm a Republican, I take that debate."

'Cause the Republicans have such a sterling record on being right about stuff.

Also, it's possible for congress to focus on more than one thing at once. taxing, surely, but not impossible.

AND, even assuming the Republicans are right about it being a preferable, loosing issue, and I don't cede that, sometimes it's okay to do something that may not strategically work because it's the right thing to do. It's called having an iota of principal. On rare occasions, people sometimes even react positively to a politician taking a stand based on actual beliefs regarding the law as opposed to what might improve their political power.

You know how the Republicans won this one? By the D's predictable cravenness which even the majority cannot make them shed.

'We want this debate! Oh SHIT! You guys are willing to have it?! CRAP, we must have been wrong, quick, quick, get it into committee and drown that baby because if they want it, it must be good for them since they're always right about stuff like Terry chiavo and War and torture!'

THAT's where they lost points, by looking like a collection of lackluster tepid boobs who who would find some way to loose if the Republican front runner was videotaped eating babies.


And Kultureklub, you are such a friggin' idiot it beggars the imagination. Stick to your own blithering threads, any time you chuck in your two cents it is so without merit it's like finding a poop in your lunch box.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

" If I'm a Republican, I take that debate."

'Cause the Republicans have such a sterling record on being right about stuff.

Ok, maybe you should re-read my post. It's my belief that Republicans are reeling here, and a silly debate over impeaching the VP (something they all know won't happen) is time well spent in their minds.

Also, it's possible for congress to focus on more than one thing at once. taxing, surely, but not impossible.

Funny...for a moment I thought you were being sarcastic, b/c I can recall a couple times saying this same thing to you almost verbatim.

The problem with that argument is that a call for impeachment gets privileged status, no matter which nut job proposes it. This means it takes precedent, and other business becomes secondary. It's like a snow day for Republicans.

And if kooky Dennis Kucinich proposes impeaching the VP, that will be the story of the day. Congress could ban the 1st amendement and it wouldnt get covered.

AND, even assuming the Republicans are right about it being a preferable, loosing issue, and I don't cede that, sometimes it's okay to do something that may not strategically work because it's the right thing to do. It's called having an iota of principal. On rare occasions, people sometimes even react positively to a politician taking a stand based on actual beliefs regarding the law as opposed to what might improve their political power.

Well, um, you should cede it. It got sent to committee heaven. It had no chance.

So wait, when Republicans drag out stupid flag burning bills that can never pass, is that "principled"? Or, is it an attempt by a guy who is running for president to get his name in the papers, not to mention the fact that he may get primaried for his senate seat next time around...?

You know how the Republicans won this one? By the D's predictable cravenness which even the majority cannot make them shed.

You could make this argument for any bill or resolution that fails in Congress: Why, this bill banning short skirts in public places failed because of the lack in moral acuity of the Democrats!

'We want this debate! Oh SHIT! You guys are willing to have it?! CRAP, we must have been wrong, quick, quick, get it into committee and drown that baby because if they want it, it must be good for them since they're always right about stuff like Terry chiavo and War and torture!'

THAT's where they lost points, by looking like a collection of lackluster tepid boobs who who would find some way to loose if the Republican front runner was videotaped eating babies.

Uh, no. They lost it because they are polling worse than any Congress in the history of survey research, and Republicans could've spun this as another effort of the do-nothing Democrats to avoid doing any work. Let's write the radio spot:

{Old couple, somewhere in Wisconsin or Florida}

OLD DUDE: Ester, did you read the local Big News today???

OLD LADY: No Charles, what's going on?

OLD DUDE: Congress is trying to impeach the Vice-President.

OLD LADY: The Vice-President!? This isn't why I voted for them in 2006!

OLD MAN: That's right, Ester. If only they worked this hard on the important things.

OLD LADY: It just seems so partisan.

OLD MAN: I know, Ester. I know.

OLD LADY: It just makes me sick, those DC people!

OLD MAN: I love you, Ester.

TELL CONGRESS NOT TO KILL ESTER.

[mburbank]

I think the congress is polling this low because it was elected to say:

"The war in Iraq was a mistake. The country allowed itself to be snookered by an administration of criminal bastards and thugs who took advantage of our collective fear and are destroying our country. They treat america as their personal posession and the laugh at the law. Stop them now!"

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I think, and I think any halfway telegenic candidate who stood up and said it could have a majority of the country behind them.

I also think we may be at a moment when the vast beast that is the people may be smarter than the media, who's only bias is for the easiest stupidest story.

AND I don't think making the case that the President and Vice President of America are criminals is comparable to a flag burning or anti gay marriage amendment. I think our country is in desperate trouble because we have allowed an imperial presidency and if we do not call it to account as a country like we did with Nixon then we are saying it's okay and precedent is set.

I don't care if your point of attack is torture or spying without warrants on American citizens or falsifying the case for war, and frankly if the media wants to cover the story as "Secret leprechaun Kucinich thinks Cheney is Alien", fuck 'em.

I think these guys are criminals, Kevin. Seriously, I do. I think they have shat all over everything I ever learned in civics class and laughed while they did it. I don't think it's okay. And I think a lot of Americans are looking at where are country is right now on any number of fronts and what a god awful mess has been made of everything this administration touched and are thinking the same thing. I hope so.

[Kulturkampf]

I disagree with schiavo, I agree with the war and I agree with torture, for the record. I'll gladly debate you on any of them since you haeve such a ridiculous black and white view of it.

[mburbank]

It suprises me not the least you agree with torture.

Leaving your personal endorsement aside, do you mean we should pass laws allowing torture, or that the President is above the law? Or had that part of it even crossed that sadly pickled organ you call a your mind?

The questions in this thread is

Should impeachment, particularly of Cheney, be on the table, and is it worth the DFemocrats time and effort to pursue it?

[george]

am i wrong that this was not the only attempt to impeach big dick?

and the way i understood how this debate was going to pan out, it would not have had any sort of legal authority (like a special prosecuter, or calling witnesses) and could hav only made the Dems look really stupid.

if the dems werent pussies, we would have never been in this war, or EVER had an excutive branch so far out of control.

just more proof of how screwed we are.

[AChimp]

I've noticed that the people who are pro-torture are usually the first ones to scream and yell about how American soldiers are mistreated when they get captured.