Yes, we’ve heard since 2000 that President Bush should be impeached, and probably for as long that Vice President Cheney should be impeached. We hear it exclusively from people who are uber-partisan, seeking personal political gain, or ignorant of the facts, but we do hear it. Congressman Dennis Kucinich was nice enough to actually draft and submit three articles of impeachment for Vice President Cheney (I guess he and his supporters either want President Bush to stay President or don’t feel he’s committed any high crimes and misdemeanors after all). Since the articles were formally submitted, few people who keep track of the historical record or who are left of Howard Dean have taken the time to actually read Congressman Kucinich’s rantings. This weekend, I did, and I found the articles to be purely partisan, lacking factual substance, and (in the case of Article III) lacking common sense.
Article I basically says that Vice President Cheney (ignoring President Bush and the tens of thousands of others-including Democrats-who saw Saddam’s unresolved disarmament issues as a threat) pressured analysts, and manipulated intelligence to effectively trick the nation into invading Iraq. This simply didn’t happen, and it’s been investigated several times.
… I had innumerable analysts who came to me in apology that the world that we were finding was not the world that they had thought existed and that they had estimated. Reality on the ground differed in advance. And never — not in a single case — was the explanation, “I was pressured to do this.” The explanation was, very often, “The limited data we had led one to reasonably conclude this. I now see that there’s another explanation for it.”
And each case was different, but the conversations were sufficiently in depth and our relationship was sufficiently frank that I’m convinced that, at least to the analysts I dealt with, I did not come across a single one that felt it had been, in the military term, “inappropriate command influence” that led them to take that position.
– 1/28/04 Dr. David Kay testimony to Senate Armed Services Committee
.JPG "ISGvol2 illegal nuclear enrichment equipment that could (4).JPG")
Article II basically says the same thing except in terms of ties between Saddam’s regime and the Al Queda network of terrorist groups. This too has been investigated and found to be false. Not only has post-invasion intelligence found that there was a close working relationship between the regime and Al Queda terrorist groups, but American soldiers and Marines fought and killed thousands of such terrorists during the invasion. Moreover, while some pre-war claims of ties between the two were incorrect, the vast majority proved to be factual and corroborated by detainees and captured documents.
Article III is just plain ignorant. It claims that Vice President Cheney committed high crimes and misdemeanors on a scale compelling his removal from office because he made threatening statements towards Iran. Per the United Nations charter this is not allowed, and since the Constitution binds the US to treaties (like the UN charter), then VP Cheney is in violation of the Constitution by extension. Of course, Article III flat out denies that Iran is responsible for attacking Americans which would warrant threats in return.
….but there’s a lot more to it than just this little summary. For a detailed look, please check out the actual articles and the case against each as well as links which nullify each one several times over. Surely there will be people who prefer to comment on the very idea of impeachment (for/against), but the case for and against are made in the link to this article, and it is highly suggested reading for those who prefer to attack the case against impeachment.
See author page
Umm, almost everyone at this point agrees that Cheney has committed dozens of acts which may be considered impeachable, from plame leaks to torture to spying to misleading to refusing subpoenas to deleting emails, etc. This isn’t really debated anymore. I mean, you can certainly try, but even many Republicans in the house and congress would agree that this administration has abused their power. In fact, several have resigned because of their embarrassment. But what we think is completely irrelevant. Remember, the public wasn’t for impeaching Nixon until the investigations began. Same with Clinton. And contrary to your article, there have not yet been any formal investigations, because Cheney and the White House continue to (illegally) invoke “executive privilege”. So the real question is whether or not we should bother holding impeachment hearings, to investigate whether |Cheney’s activities warrent impeachment. On this question, you seem to be siding with Democrat Nancy Pelosi – that it is not strategically wise to hold these impeachment hearings. The election is near, after all, and few want to vote republican again – as evidenced by the weak turnout during primaries for Republicans. Myself, I side with the 20 or so in Congress who are pushing *for* impeachment hearings. Because I believe that everyone (Republican, Democrat, or whatever) should be held accountable to the constitution. I’d hate to see Hillary have the kind of power that W did! If an impeachment investigation revels that there are no impeachable offenses, than so be it. If it does, then it goes to the floor for debate. Either way, the senate wouldn’t likely remove him- impeachment rarely ends with removal from office. But it would set the precident that no one is above the law of the land. No one.
Ummm, not really.
Cheney did not leak Plame’s name, Richard Armatige did.
Cheney has not tortured anyone, unless you know something the rest of the world doesn’t. He has said that he thought waterboarding terrorists was not torture as defined by the Geneva Accords.
Again, maybe your information is better than anyones, like the NYT, for example, but I don’t know that Cheney spied on anyone, or that he ordered or approved a specific act of spying. NSA wiretaps of foreign calls, either inbound or outbound, has been tried in the courts. So far, no one in the administration has been faulted in the appeal process. But this was not a Cheney initiative, it was a Bush initiative.
Refusing subpoenas is likewise a questionable issue. Congress can subpoena, but presidents can refuse on grounds of executive privilege. You may not like it, but so far, Congress has not really challenged in the courts, which indicates that Congress probably knows that the acts were political grandstanding that will not stand. Still up in the air, but certainly refusing a subpoena to force a court decision on executive privilege is not an impeachable offense.
Not sure how many Republicans have resigned in embarrassment, but I can’t remember many. I can’t remember “many” who agreed that Bush has abused his power, certainly not enough to warrant impeachment.
I think the majority of the Impeachers want impeach the President and Vice Presidents for being Republicans.
Thanks Scott (different Scott btw). It’s worth noting that most of David’s comments and allegations are debunked in the article that was linked to which he obviously didn’t read. One could call that jumping to conclusions if the conclusions matched, but he didn’t even look at those.
Try again David?
Aside from this, I don’t believe Cheney ever came close to overstating the extent of possible links between Saddam and al-Qaeda. If he did, it wasn’t lying if he based his point of argument upon the best available information at the time.
I haven’t followed through with it, but I had been planning a blogpost covering all the “gotcha” quotes from Cheney’s Meet the Press appearances. I think the critics have mostly misheard, misremembered, and misrepresented and cherry-picked what was stated by Dick Cheney to Tim Russert.
When you actually go back and look at the transcripts, it’s remarkable how far off the kool-aid drinkers are from being accurate in citing Cheney. If quoted accurately and honestly, there’s very little you can fault the Vice President for in the substance of what he said; rather, they spin the words to mean something more and other than what he actually said.
I agree in large part Word, but some were wrong. For example, the Prague meeting is still very heavily classified, and we just won’t know how accurate or inaccurate it was, but given the cloud, I say skip it-even dismiss it as wrong-for now. There are far better examples of the depth of their relationship.
“Myself, I side with the 20 or so in Congress who are pushing *for* impeachment hearings. Because I believe that everyone (Republican, Democrat, or whatever) should be held accountable to the constitution.” One thing everyone should remember, the Democrats are experts on impeachment. How many times has it been for Rep Hastings?
“I believe every one should be held accountable to the Constitution” I also believe that. I also believe that there is no time limit on Art III, Sec III of the US Constitution. That is why I urge immediate trial of John (I have been to Paris) Kerry for for his work with the enemy during the Vietnam War. Jay (I immediately flew to to Syria in Jan 2002 and told them) Rockefeller, Durbin , Reid and most of the other Democrat Senators can be tried later. After that we can try the Democrat Reps who have aided the enemy, starting with Pelosi, and Murtha and continuing on——————————————————————————————.
I noticed that over at some of the “insert your own odd adjective” blogs they are blaming the decision not to proceed with impeachment on Obama, saying it would put him in an awkward situation.
The impeachment effort of Cheney is as nutty as Kucinich, anyone taking him seriously needs medication.
Scott Malensek, unlike David, I read the whole thing, put it in my favorites and will cherish it forever, thank you for all your work!
I love this place, read through it everyday, except yesterday, but rarely comment, you guys are top-notch!
Thanks Missy!
Hindsight 20-20, I shoulda broken the piece down to several parts; a separate post each day for each article of impeachment, and then one post in summary of the stupidity and hollowness of the entire idea. Still, I’m very glad you read it, enjoyed it, and saved it
🙂
I love it Wordsmith, “I think the critics have mostly misheard, misremembered, and misrepresented and cherry-picked what was stated by Dick Cheney to Tim Russert.” Is this similar to the hundred years of war we are now hearing about? I think it’s a fun little game to play. OK, he used the words one hundred, years and war in the same speech so let’s create a new sentence attributed to him. Then, if we say it long enough, the sheeple will believe it and continue spouting it until it is “true”. Ahhh, hope!
I am truly amazed at how few people anymore can research and form their own conclusions. How can they find their way to a blog but can’t find their way to try and research what “really” happened. Hell, how do they tie their shoes?
Which is part of my point. Much has been made out of a single “gotcha” remark that Cheney said in December of 2001 on MTP. That’s only a few months after 9/11. Here’s the remark, including a greater block of context than critics are giving to it:
When one looks at the broader scope of the responses, I can’t fault Cheney for anything he said.
And it is dishonest of Russert to pull the December 2001 “pretty well confirmed” Prague card, and ignore subsequent Prague comments by Cheney on MTP:
MTP 3/24/02:
MTP 9/08/02:
Russert is always fishing for “gotcha” statements, regarding 9/11-Saddam connections. He keeps coming back to repeating the same question in all of these interviews.
MTP 9/14/03:
Finally, MTP 9/10/06, where Russert tries to play “gotcha”:
“Pretty well confirmed” was said in Dec 2001. Why doesn’t Russert bring up Cheney’s subsequent statements on the matter?
And yes, I don’t believe that the “Prague connection” has been “debunked”. It’s up in the air.
*UPDATE* Guess I’m a “Johnny-Come-lately”