Kucinich Motions to Impeach Bush Again...This Time Pelosi Is Listening

I haven't seen this posted on here yet, but if it has been posted already then I apologize.

Denis Kucinich will be once again motioning to impeach George W. today on the Congressional floor, and this time, instead of the Democratic party ignoring him, Nancy Pelosi is actually going to hear the motion, and it will be heard by Judiciary Committee via hearings. It could then be voted on by the House sometime next week.

www.unobserver.com...
Detroit Free Press Article
www.foxnews.com...

I know, probably too little too late on the House's part...and shame on the Democratic party for ignoring it this long, but it's better than nothing, right? Edit: I guess this happened yesterday afternoon, so no watching on CSPAN for me ....anybody find any additional information on this?

[edit on 11-7-2008 by matth]

[edit on 11-7-2008 by matth]

4 months until Bush is out of office anyways. I think this is to little to late. But I still give Kucinich kudos for standing up for the true meaning of a democracy.

How long did the Clinton impeachment trials last? Even if it does pass he will be out of office before they reach a verdict.

This should have been done years ago.

I agree 100%.

You know it really shows the lack of courage on the Democratic party's part, when their last President was almost impeached by the Repulicans over lying about receiving oral sex; but yet less than 10 years later, when the Republican President lied, manipulated and lied some more his way through his Presidency, and those lies have led to over 4000 deaths of American citizens, as well as God knows how many deaths of non-Americans, the Democratic Party did nothing. And then when one of their Representatives decides to act, their house leader does NOTHING, until the 11th hour where it's way too late anyway.

If Bush does get impeached, I think Nancy Pelosi should be next.

what if getting him out of office or at least starting the hearings meant he doesn't get to carry out his plan to bomb Iran, and we dont start WW3. Might be worth it.

I marking this down to one of those sad cases of, "better late than never!"

I remember doing figurative backflips when Kucinich presented his motions the first time. *sigh* That was indeed a joyful evening!

I anxiously awaiting the outcome!

Originally posted by bringthelight
what if getting him out of office or at least starting the hearings meant he doesn't get to carry out his plan to bomb Iran, and we dont start WW3. Might be worth it.

That's a really good point. Something that just popped into my head though, let's say hell freezes over and Bush gets kicked out of office before January...would that mean Dick Cheney would be President till then?

Yah but it wold shake things up and the US definitely needs its political scene shaken up bit. It would also show the world that Americans aren't as dumb as they think.

And to add to what I just put, if Cheney and Bush were both Impeached, wouldn't that make Pelosi the President?

"Rush transcript" of Kucinich's interview with E.D. Hill on Fox News. The website notes that this is a rush transcript and is not it's final form...so considering it's Fox News, take that warning seriously, haha.

www.foxnews.com...

A video of the interview can also be found at that address.

Impeachment proceedings & investigations take anywhere from 2-4 years to complete. Especially with evidence that would need some serious prying from many-a cold dead hand. With Clinton, it was a shorter process because he was getting impeached because he got something on the side. Of course though, not over bombing Bosnia or Whitewater ... But even then, we're left with their stain and their vice president. And who do we know as more evil? Bush or Cheyney. Cheyney is to be feared more than the idiocy Bush Jr. is pushing. I wish Kucinich had opened his mouth sooner, but even then, what good could it have brought? We'd still be in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. We'd still be suffering his policies.

I'd rather see them finish the term and then get charged with war crimes and the mountain of other constitutional atrocities they have all committed.

[edit on 11-7-2008 by akabetty]

Bush Derangement Syndrome is a very scary disorder.

But does anyone think they can impeach the President of the United States of America in a time of war? They can't even do anything about Karl Rove, and Harriet Myers refusing to answer Congressional subpeonas, yet you think they are going to go after Bush for ???? Wait what are the reasons they want to impeach him for? The "illegal war" that was approved by Congress and the United Nations? Is that really an impeachable offense?

Why doesn't the US government have any other means of getting rid of a leader who just isn't taking care or running the country satisfactorily or isn't satisfying the will or wants of the people?

Kind of like the "No Confidence" vote that was made in the Ukraine.

Ukraine's Tymoshenko Survives No-Confidence Vote

Ukraine's Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko survived a no-confidence vote called by the opposition in protest at her pro-Western government's handling of high inflation and other economic ills.

Instead of having to go through all the hearings and all to get a President impeached, there would only have to be a vote of "No Confidence", yes or no and it's all over!

I'm sure Bush would be out on his keester at the end of THAT vote!


[edit on 7/11/2008 by Keyhole]

Originally posted by RRconservative
Wait what are the reasons they want to impeach him for? The "illegal war" that was approved by Congress and the United Nations? Is that really an impeachable offense?

While I have no intention of getting into an argument with you over this, I think you are slightly mistaken. The Iraqi War was never approved by the United Nations.

As a matter of fact, the United Nations (and don't get me wrong, I don't have any confidence in the United Nations, but you have to be fair) former Secretary General Kofi Annan has gone on the record stating that not only did the United Nations Security Council NOT approve of the Iraqi War, but the war itself was against the United Nations Charter and WAS, in fact, illegal.

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

Full Article Here

As far as Congress approving the War, I can't really argue that. However, I can say that they were misled into approving this war, based on 1.)false intelligence and 2.) Post 9/11 Blind Patriotism that the majority of Americans (and hell even the rest of the "western" world) were suffering from at the time. Hence, the impeachment.

And even if it is too late to really take him out of office when he's on his way out anyway, it would be great to have that (*) next to George W.'s name in the Presidency history books, and maybe that would open up the pandora's box that could hopefully get more charges laid against him in the future, like war crimes. I know, wishful thinking on that point, but hey people can dream can't they?

[edit on 11-7-2008 by matth]

reply to post by RRconservative


I'm not going to go deeply into this, but your claims of what the impeachment is about is very misleading. For one, there were 35 charges, and not all of them have to do with the Iraq war.

One of the big ones that Kucinich is going for was one that was outlined in Vincent Bugliosi's book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. It is the fact that intelligence officials met with Bush on one day, and told him that there was no connection whatsoever to Iraq and Al Qi'ada, and the on the very next day, Bush addressed Congress and the public and and purposefully misled them by claiming there was a connection.

That means that the blame can't be placed on faulty intelligence, because the intelligence was right, and Bush chose to lie about it. Hence, one of the major reason we went to war and countlessf people have died is because Bush intentionally lied.

Again, this is just one reason out of 35. Honestly, even if you are a Bush supporter, you should read the list and watch or read Kucinich's presenting of it. At the very least you will be able to be more informed to make your comments.

Does Denis Kucinich do anything other than constently put forward moves to impeach Bush? Every time you turn around, that's all he seems to be doing. I wonder what the voters in his Ohio district think of this.

I honestly think the guy is a tool. He signs some letter of solidarity with Chavez, wants the US to sign Kyoto (and screw up our economy more), against nukes, against the death penalty, pro gun control (he carried one on the advice of the cops when the Mafia was going to hit him. Guess it was OK then), and is against the war in Iraq without ever having visited the troops there.

The only thing I agree with him about is he's against NAFTA.

[edit on 11-7-2008 by jerico65]

You have every right to believe whatever you want about Dennis Kucinich. However, ignoring a message because you don't like the messenger is not productive. Read his articles and decide for your self, and even if you agree with the impeachment, you can still hate him.

Deny Ignorance.

Technically the United Nations didn't "approve" of the Iraq War...why would they? They had a nice racket going on with the "Oil for Food" program. But...in each of the 16 UN resolutions condemning Sadamm Hussein there were consequences, and one of the consequences was use of force. So the attack on Iraq was supported by the UN.

You can't impeach someone just because you don't like them. I looked at some of the articles of impeachment and not one is viable.

[edit on 11-7-2008 by RRconservative]

Originally posted by RRconservative
Technically the United Nations didn't "approve" of the Iraq War...why would they? They had a nice racket going on with the "Oil for Food" program. But...in each of the 18 UN resolutions condemning Sadamm Hussein there were consequences, and one of the consequences was use of force. So the attack on Iraq was supported by the UN.

No, it wasn't. Afghanistan was but that's REALLY reaching to say the UN was behind this. You can't call it an illegal war imo as Afghanistan WAS sanctioned but the action in Iraq was basically unilateral. Since when did the US care about UN sanctioning anyways?

The original UN resolution states it clearly...

www.whitehouse.gov...

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990



Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."


Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

This is what gave the US to use force....This is straight from the UN.

What sense does it make after the fact for the UN to contradict its own resolution?

[edit on 11-7-2008 by RRconservative]

reply to post by RRconservative


Why not? You are aware of all the UN resolutions placed against Israel, right? So why choose these ones and ignore the others? See my point? It's picking and choosing.

Edit to add:

regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait

Did Iraq invade Kuwait again? I missed that.



[edit on 11-7-2008 by intrepid]