digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at thinkprogress.org

Wexler: Cheney impeachment ’stronger than Watergate.’

thinkprogress.org — Last night, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) took to the House floor to urge the House Judiciary Committee to begin impeachment hearings into Vice President Cheney for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Wexler, who has already acquired nearly 190,000 supporters through his website, explained his next steps:

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • thejoshuablog, on 01/16/2008, -7/+90I've called my Congressman.
    • moin1097, on 01/16/2008, -48/+7So did I. But he still wont do anything about the illegal invader problem we have. ***** wetback that he is.
      • lex0nyc, on 01/16/2008, -4/+6wow, so that's what moonshine does to your brain
      • green67, on 01/16/2008, -4/+13wow..@moin1097.....you're a complete and total *****.....ahhh...poor baby.....did somebody lose there job to a person who works harder for less money?....and doesn't kick the dog and beat their family?....you're an idiot....just go back to your throne and read the paper.....and then use it to wipe your ass...and don't forget to flush.
        • gandhii, on 01/16/2008, -8/+3You just showed yourself to be just as much of a bigoted douche as the one you're criticizing.
        • moin1097, on 01/17/2008, -8/+2Wow green. How incredibly hypocritical of you. I can't lose my job because I own my business. However, my rather exorbitant taxes pay for their care and well being while they're in my country. It also goes to pay for their incarceration when they break even more of our laws.
          But, what do you care. They're human beings after all. Human beings that will steal, rape and murder our citizens. Not to mention those that will die of diseases that have been eradicated in our country that they have reintroduced to us.
          Sleep well.
          • mobtek, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2So how does being a continual douchebag on digg pay so well?
            They took our jorbs!
      • jrizzo, on 01/16/2008, -3/+7O.M.G. (*_*)

        YOU are why I hate small town Texas. Rednecks deserve all the prejudice we can throw at them.
        • popfrogs, on 01/16/2008, -6/+7I see what you did there. You call someone else prejudiced while being prejudiced yourself. Calling someone a redneck ***** just makes you anti-redneck...which fits into the same petty category as other bigots.
      • Delphium226, on 01/16/2008, -2/+4moin1097, a *****.
    • laughmore, on 01/16/2008, -4/+15called here as well this week,
      Here a email I received from my rep. that's so sad, just look at what Kucinich has been saying or http://www.digg.com/politics/All_the_Evidence_You_ ...
      Dear Sir ,

      As I work to meet the needs and priorities of our community and the nation, please know how much I appreciate having the benefit of your views. In particular, I am pleased to share with you my views on impeaching members of the Bush administration.

      Throughout the 109th Congress, my Democratic colleagues and I fought to hold the Bush Administration accountable for their failed and reckless policies, particularly with respect to their conduct of the Iraq war and the war on terror. Unfortunately, the Republican-led Congress refused to allow for oversight of the Administration and blocked many of these efforts. Many Americans are justifiably dismayed by this lack of accountability, and they demanded change.

      That is why my Democratic colleagues and I are conducting serious oversight of the Bush Administration in the 110th session of Congress. We have probed the Administration's conduct in the lead-up to the war, demanded accountability for their failures, investigated the use of political considerations in Department of Justice activities, and pressured the President to change course in Iraq . I believe that impeachment hearings would not benefit our nation and would instead distract us from achieving our national priorities like securing our homeland, winning the war on terror, and bringing our troops home from Iraq . I also believe history will be the harshest judge of the Bush Administration.

      Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if I can help in any way, and rest assured I will continue to demand accountability from the Bush Administration. Also, if you would like to stay informed of my work, or sign up for my e-newsletters, please visit my Web site at www.house.gov/Schwartz.

      Sincerely,
      Allyson Y. Schwartz
      Member of Congress
      • ehalasey, on 01/16/2008, -1/+10Should say:
        Allyson Y. Schwartz
        Big Fat Coward

        I like how her letter immediately changes subject from discussing persuing accountability to "I believe that impeachment hearings would not benefit our nation . . ." For *****'s sake. She couldn't see that was a glaring non sequitir?
      • AndrewDB, on 01/16/2008, -0/+12Wow.. congrats, you have a Congressional member who's a cop-out.
      • ImagineFreedom, on 03/12/2008, -0/+12History will be the harshest judge? Is that what you tell all other victims of crime? 'Don't worry about pressing charges, history will the harshest judge of your rapist/thief/murderer.'
        I almost prefer when my reps don't respond because all they ever do is make excuses.
        • gandhii, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3Dug your comment for the last sentence. Sad how they don't consider "justice" to be a priority. Not surprising considering the things most of them are probably guilty of... but very very sad.
      • wrxpert, on 01/16/2008, -0/+13We should all write this Congresswoman and tell her how history will be the harshest judge of our cowardly Congress that would not stop one or the most outrageous war profiteering acts of all time.
        • popfrogs, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1Very simply stated, everyone on both sides of the fence are on the take. There are no angels in Congress and nobody has your interests in mind when Globochem is signing their checks.
        • gandhii, on 01/16/2008, -0/+6There are a very very small minority of mostly honest people in congress that are dismissed as "crazy" by the majority of crazy ones.
      • creoderiot, on 01/16/2008, -0/+8I tried to send her the following message (but she only accepts emails from people who have a zip code in her district!!) - do you have a zip code i can use??

        Dear Representative Schwartz

        I read your reply re: impeachment. I am referring specifically to the following sentence: "I believe that impeachment hearings would not benefit our nation and would instead distract us from achieving our national priorities like securing our homeland, winning the war on terror, and bringing our troops home from Iraq."

        We, the American public, are tired of your excuses. There is nothing more important than making sure that our elected leaders behave according to our constitution and the laws that all of us are required to obey.

        Stop wasting our time and get in there and do your job!
    • Loonacy, on 01/16/2008, -1/+28I called my Congressman and he told me he likes hookers and cocaine because they're fun.
      • jrowny, on 01/16/2008, -1/+7If my congress man said that I would be more satisfied with that answer than "I don't believe it would benefit the county" because at least it's honest.
      • Naga10, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1You missed the joke. Wexler was on the Colbert Report, and he said that he likes hookers and cocaine.
        • Loonacy, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Actually I think I got it wrong and it was strippers and cocaine.
    • 0ceanic, on 01/16/2008, -1/+4*****. my name is in that book he is holding up.
      • EditorResponse, on 01/17/2008, -3/+1He printed it one name per page.
      • SpacePoet, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2So is mine, don't be worried citizen, we'll help each other out in the camps they put us in when Bush lets the next terrrorrris attack happen...
    • topgigmedia, on 01/17/2008, -1/+3Dick and Bush will NEVER be held accountable legally. It isn't in the immediate, political interests of those who hold the power to do so. I know it is a harsh reality and it doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't go down swinging anyway, but please everyone, don't burn out on it. There are other areas we should also save some energy for - like electing congressmen and women, presidents, etc. That will not allow these hideous offenses forced on our civil liberties and well being as a nation at large, ever happen again down the road.
  • stormkrow, on 01/16/2008, -7/+108Call, write, scream it from the top of your lungs. At this point a Jr High Debate class could impeach these evil men.
    • moin1097, on 01/16/2008, -4/+13And yet, congress can't. What does that tell you?
      • jenniferstruth, on 01/16/2008, -1/+20that they are benefitting from his corruption and don't dare mess with their cut.
        • Tilon, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2It's not that simple, unfortunately. Look the storm in the eye.
        • gandhii, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1When generalizing... yes. yes it is that simple.
      • Terr01, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1That they've bought the empirically-dubious theory that it'll hurt their election chances? That they know that ~50% of Congress consists of Republicans who have their institutional egos bound up in supporting Bush at all costs?

        All it tells me is that the Dems should push for articles of impeachment, if for no other reason than to force Congressional Republicans to go on the record as batting for Bush.
        • moin1097, on 01/17/2008, -5/+1But, when congress tried to impeach Cheney the republicans voted for it and the democrats blocked it.
          What's up with that?
          • Terr01, on 01/17/2008, -1/+4"Tried to impeach Cheney?" Don't be deceitful, that was a cloture vote.
          • moin1097, on 01/17/2008, -4/+1Cloture for what?
          • BelXul, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2Well, that bill is not only still around, but it was sent right back to the very committee that adequately cosponsored it to bring it to vote in the first place. Since it was sent back to them, it means the ball is in their court, and it just so happens that Rep. Wexler is part of that committee. Interesting how things work out, isn't it?
          • Terr01, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4"Cloture for what"?

            Is that an admission that you don't even understand the talking points you regurgitate?
    • AndrewDB, on 01/16/2008, -3/+5They're paid under the table?
    • billtorpey, on 01/16/2008, -0/+2It's about time!!!!!!
  • DavidYeah, on 01/16/2008, -8/+45The partisans in the Republican party are incapable of objectively looking at the president and vice presidents actions and coming to the conclusion we all came to years ago. If we aren't impeaching after Bush and Cheney leave office, you're inviting the imperial presidency some time in the future.
    • moin1097, on 01/16/2008, -22/+2"Bush lied, people died." is not looking at something objectively.
      • DavidYeah, on 01/16/2008, -1/+15I care not for platitudes, not even someone who is critical of the administration. And to say that the criticism of the administration does not go any further than something that amounts to nursery rhyme means you're not paying attention.
      • MonsterChaOS, on 01/16/2008, -3/+12Moin, don't you get bored of being a rightwing shill?
      • jenniferstruth, on 01/16/2008, -2/+13but it is telling the truth and it is an arguement for impeachment because he lied and invaded a nation. He is guilty of war-crimes and he is guilty of dismantleing the constitution in order to allow all of his criminal acts. if you need a list get back to me and I will provide it.
      • laserdog, on 01/16/2008, -1/+9It's the citizen's job to get angry. "Bush lied, people died" in a march fits the bill there.

        It's the job of the congressman to protect our government.

        If they give these guys a pass, what would a president have to *do* to get impeached?
        • moin1097, on 01/17/2008, -8/+1I can just see it now:
          "Ladies and gentlemen of congress. We have come here to bring charges of impeachment against the President. Our evidence? This bumper sticker."
      • gandhii, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1Actually, both of those statements are provable non-subjective facts. In other words, it IS looking at something objectively. (even the connection between the two)
      • raoulduke87, on 01/16/2008, -1/+2Moin, always good for a laugh. I'm glad that you're just kidding with the ***** that comes out of your mouth. Man, if you actually believed the stuff you say, I'd be worried about you. Your Colbert-esque satire amuses all of us
      • Terr01, on 01/16/2008, -1/+2I prefer "He willfully violated the US constitution and the rights of Americans", but if that's the version you really prefer, man...
      • Izult, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1You honestly think all the proof to be had is on a bumper sticker? Ostrich.
  • mrpicklepants, on 01/16/2008, -3/+61The video is cut off at the end. When Wexler is done, you hear applause. Madam speaker Pelosi has to say "The gallery will refrain from applause...".
    http://www.wexlerforcongress.com/news.asp?ItemID=2 ...
  • RealSurreal, on 01/16/2008, -8/+66Man this fired me up, keep kicking ass Robert Wexler you are a Real American in my eyes. Impeach NOW!
    • mnstot, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Wow, I wouldn't be too happy for him. I heard Robert Wexler does cocaine because it's a fun thing to do. That's pretty bad. I also hear he enjoys the company of prostitutes.
  • jenniferstruth, on 01/16/2008, -7/+46impeach, indict, imprison!
  • smaisch, on 01/16/2008, -6/+51Thank you Congressman Wexler. You are true American. I am proud to be one of those 189,000 you presented to the House today.
    We need to set an example for the future! We will not stand for this!
  • Lapdog1123, on 01/16/2008, -18/+13BUY THIS MAN A BEAR! OR A HOOKER! OR WHAT EVER HE WANTS! You can still sign the petition GO TO IT!

    http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com/
  • Hockey13, on 01/16/2008, -14/+62I might be dugg down for this, but up until this time, I felt an impeachment process would not help as we should focus on who will next be in charge of the executive branch. After watching this video and reading up a little on the issue, I'm strongly in favor of Congress picking up its testicles and looking up the words "checks" and "balances."

    Impeach the *****. Impeach him raw.
    • kreatre2007, on 01/16/2008, -20/+6This has nothing to do with "checks and balances". It's all about the liberal kook fringe how can't see past their own hate and move on. Bush and Cheney will be gone in a year. The impeachment process will take about that same amount of time and it will waste a lot of time and tax payers' dollars.
      • Hockey13, on 01/16/2008, -2/+13I'm not a member of the "liberal kook fringe." I'm simply a citizen who believes my government should not be ruled by a dictator and that fear of reprisal is one of the best ways to control the executive branch.
      • MasterInsan0, on 01/16/2008, -1/+8I'm willing to spend that money if it means the government will understand that I'm okay with impeaching the bastards if they screw up.
        • floorman56, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3Are you willing to lose the presidency to the GOP for it? 190,000 out of 300 million isn't too good of odds
          The Dem's running for the presidency will have to stop campaigning to set in trial while the GOP ones run wild ..is that what you REALLY want ?
        • timbellomo, on 01/16/2008, -1/+1actually -- the voting electorate is more like 120 million... but I see you're point

          As soon as hearing begin to uncover more and more crap, more people will jump on board.
          • zelig, on 01/17/2008, -6/+2As soon as they start reading from the left wing websites they will, just like you did. Because their brain is also made of 17-year-old mush.
      • ncc74656m, on 01/16/2008, -1/+7You're just trying to cover up for your boys! This is the same ***** that's been said for four years!

        "Oh, don't worry about impeaching them. It'd take too long," or "It'd take too much money," or "You're just so full of hate that you can't see the best president EVAR when you see him." Go to hell, Neocon scumbag. How's that for hate? Bitch.
      • Terr01, on 01/16/2008, -2/+7A) "Liberal kook fringe": Well, I guess that's your opinion, although polls show it's an idea with enough support that calling it "fringe" suggests you either don't know the statistics or are in the opposite fringe yourself.

        B) "Gone within a year": So? Does that mean we want to let their twisted precedent stand? Look at all the stuff the Republicans were saying about Clinton in 1999. They've built a rather convincing case that impeachment is still a valid procedure even after the person has left office, in that it prevents them from future office-holding.

        C) "It'll waste money": Do you have one tiny speck of empirical data for that? Do you think it'll waste any less money than the Republican party's current unprecedentedly high use of filibusters against legislation? (You want the stats? I've got em.) As an ounce of prevention, it would surely cost less than a repeat of Bush's actions by some future Administration.
        • zelig, on 01/17/2008, -2/+3Please give me the impeachable offenses not found on Moveon.org, crooksandliars or some other left wing website. Give me a quote or article from a major newspaper (even the New York Times) that lists such offenses.
          • fyngyrz, on 01/17/2008, -2/+6I'll give you one you don't have to look up anywhere.

            1) Bush swore an oath of office to uphold the constitution, the highest law in the land.
            2) He has violated the 4th amendment by tapping citizen's phones without warrants.
            3) This is a violation of his oath, as well as telecommunications law that descends from the 4th amendment.
            4) This is a high crime of precisely the sort impeachment is meant to address.

            There is more - quite a bit more - but that's all it takes. We have every reason to believe he's performed criminal acts; if he is allowed to get away with that, then where is the incentive for any other particular type of criminal to be brought to justice? If our leaders don't obey the law, and more to the point, if they don't comply with the constituting authority for their position and the very federal government itself, then they have no authority whatsoever - all they have is power, and it is power of the sort a dictator has, not power derived from the willing consent and subsequent delegation of authority from a willing population.
          • Terr01, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2If you can't find them and verify the claims versus alternative sources, you aren't really looking.
            If you aren't really looking, you don't really care.
            If you don't really care, is it helpful to either of us if I respond?


            A) You say a list in a major newspaper. The politically charged nature would of course make it an opinion piece, in which case I suspect you would argue it's not "real news". I want to pre-empt this as a BS requirement before you say it.

            B) "Please give me the impeachable offenses not found on [... a] left wing website."
            What does this mean? That once absolutely any one of those sites picks up the news item, it becomes invalid? That's be incredibly stupid, so I'm going to hope you mean that the list itself was drawn independently. Fine.

            Jose Padilla. (CNN.com, NY Times, eat your heart out with a simple Google search). US citizen abducted from Chicago and detained without lawyer, charges, or trial for 2 years, 4 years, and 4 years respectively. Held in military custody with no judicial oversight until cases churning before the US Supreme Court (e.g. Padilla v. Rumsfeld) made the Bush Administration drop him like a hot-potato into the lawful custody of the criminal justice system under threat that the Court would hear the case against him for unconstitutional conduct.

            If you can't google something up with those names then, like I said, you obviously don't care enough to try.
      • rezonq3, on 01/16/2008, -3/+2Uh, I don't care if it's 30 years later that we find out OJ did it, he should still go to jail for it.

        Oh yeah, I lean conservative Republican, kthxbye.
    • JigoroKano, on 01/16/2008, -1/+10If we can't impeach Bush and Cheney, nobody will ever be impeached for anything legitimate.
      It's a matter of principle and America has none.
    • joeTaco, on 01/17/2008, -2/+1dugg for "impeach him raw"
  • seraphisset, on 01/16/2008, -9/+16Cheney - Your time has come.
  • ats314, on 01/16/2008, -8/+36I got chills up my spine just thinking of the day when we here "Cheney has been impeached." It would go along way in restoring my faith in America.
  • joper90, on 01/16/2008, -13/+9im sorry, but nothing will come of this ...
    its a shame, but hes too powerful..
    • krnldmp, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4You've been playing too many video games.
    • MasterInsan0, on 01/16/2008, -0/+6Yeah, obviously Cheney's power level is OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!!!

      ...my point? krnldmp forgot to consider anime too.
    • ncc74656m, on 01/16/2008, -1/+10So let's make out point. Impeach the bastards. If we lose, there's no shame in trying. If we win, they all go to federal-pound-me-in-the-ass-prison.
    • V0lk, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4something WILL come of it, if enough of us get pissed off enough and actually DO something....make your voice HEARD!
      • goomba323, on 01/16/2008, -0/+0How? I don't feel like calling a congressman again because I've tried before and they really didn't sound too concerned. This just goes to show how out of touch Washington is with the people. The president's approval rating is abysmal, we clearly were lied to on MULTIPLE occasions. If they haven't impeached him yet, I doubt they have the gahones to pull the trigger now. I think Congress is just waiting it out until the president leaves office, unfortunately, many Americans feel it may be too late.
        • V0lk, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1call your congressman again, and again, and again....email him, write letters.....go spend a few days in D.C. And most importantly, pay attention to your local elections....that is how all these politicians get started. Show up, ask them the REAL questions, get your friends and neighbors to do the same. Oh yeah, and use the internet in every way you can......it DOES give the individual a much louder voice than ever before in human history. We are close to the "point of no return", and we have to do SOMETHING....ANYTHING now.
    • poppieprong, on 01/16/2008, -0/+6It's not really that he's too powerful. It's that the Congress is too scared of its own shadow to actually do anything.
    • joshuabowers, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3What you are saying is that if we strike him down, he will become even more powerful than we can imagine?
      • taquitohater, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Don't you remember what happened to the Romans and that Jesus guy?
  • BannedTwice, on 01/16/2008, -47/+8Buuurrrried for being ***** ridiculous. Get over it boys, you'll have your turn to ***** up in short while.
    • StarlessKnight, on 01/16/2008, -1/+8Oh, I do so enjoy looking forward to how our "leaders" can continue to "***** up" our country administration after administration! It does sound so terribly enjoyable. How can I contribute to our continual decline and inevitable collapse?

      Stop getting over it. Whether you believe Bush and his administration is the devil or a saint, I would hope you would agree that any criminal found in our government would be punished rather than congratulated by ignoring them.
    • ncc74656m, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4I'll take that any day over the *****-ups you're making. At least if we ***** up, it'll be ***** up trying to do something good.
    • enki25, on 01/16/2008, -0/+6To fundamentalist republicans, anything Democrats do is equally as bad as the worst failures of the Bush administration. Politics is a sporting event to these people.
      • serif69, on 01/17/2008, -1/+0Welcome to America and welcome to Digg! What follows is a brief synopsis of the great American sport of politics as it relates to Digg. We have a system of politics that nobody likes full of politicians nobody trusts. Some of them complain really loud about things that don't affect actual people. They want to increase the size of the government to help save baby whales. They're called "crybaby libs". Mod them down. Some of them complain that people curse too much and there is too much separation of church and state. They want to increase the size of the government to help save souls. They're called "Bible-thumping neocons". Mod them down. Then there is everyone else, who is moderate and makes decisions based on logic, and wants to make sure everyone knows about it. They want to decrease the size of the government to save the country. They're called "crazies". Mod them down. No matter who they are, please be sure to mod them down. The only exceptions are cases of the terms "***** Bush", "nanny state", "protesters", "failure", and "Kucinich". Mod up only if they sound like they might be wearing a tin foil hat. Thank you, and enjoy using Digg!

        Please note: By rule, this post must be modded down because it might possibly be subjective in some way.
    • Delphium226, on 01/16/2008, -1/+1sore loser
      • krautkamel, on 01/16/2008, -0/+0Are you so short sighted you don't realize we, the American citizen, are the losers in this.
  • deadcrickets, on 01/16/2008, -8/+3easy. if the republican party has not the backbone to shut down bush/cheney then when the next democratic president in office (hillary probably) does the same exact things they have no right to speak up. unless they are hypocrits. do remember that bush stated in his campaigns that he would bring back honesty and integrity to the office of the presidency. and yet, here we are.
    • floorman56, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1But But Bush ....
      • deadcrickets, on 01/16/2008, -1/+0yes, exactly that will happen. folks have an annoying habit of forgetting that what they do to protect their party regardless of the wants of the people or of the law will find it to backfire on them when their opponents use it themselves later. this is an escalation that can only lead to a dictatorship. the solution would be to disallow the showing of parties at the polls. no markings to state who is with what party. force the populace to vote for the issues and to actually know the candidate other than that they are republican or democrat.
    • razor150, on 01/16/2008, -1/+2I don't want the next President doing this ***** either. I couldn't care less if the Republicans became hypocrites, any President that has such disregard for our Constitution should be Impeached and removed from office.
  • vwvan, on 01/16/2008, -6/+17finally. someone stands up to the bullies of the bush administration.
    george bush sr. and his sons, are indistinguishable from saddam and his sons.
    let the body count do the talking.
    • ncc74656m, on 01/16/2008, -1/+2"We don't measure the blood we've drawn anymore. We just stack the bodies outside the door." - Bruce Springsteen - Last to Die
  • mwalker05, on 01/16/2008, -4/+14im gonna go ahead and thank colbert for this. after all he would never have been reelected without the old colbert bump.
  • cchapman85, on 01/16/2008, -27/+3holy crap, i've never dugg down so many people before, Cheney clearly should be running for President '08
  • kreatre2007, on 01/16/2008, -27/+6This is so ***** stupid. Congress needs to get their asses back to work and stop pushing the politcs of hate. There are far more important things to work on.
    • ncc74656m, on 01/16/2008, -2/+11Like ending a war based on very intentional and carefully planned lies?

      Like the intentional outing of an undercover CIA agent?

      Like the partisan takeover of the Justice Department?

      You're right. There are important things. And they all lay at the doorstep of Cheney's office.
    • bowens44, on 01/17/2008, -1/+4Have you always hated America or is this a recent development?
  • URnotheonly1, on 01/16/2008, -36/+6wexler is a ***** idiot
    • kipmartin, on 01/16/2008, -3/+5what are you, 14 years old Pee Wee?
  • gendjinn, on 01/16/2008, -9/+8The problem with going for impeachment is that while we would probably get congress to pass the vote we would not get 2/3 majority in the senate for a conviction. Then forevermore bush & cheney and their supporters would point to the acquittal as vindication and proof of innocence.
    • gendjinn, on 01/16/2008, -0/+6Why the diggs down? Can any of you list the 17 republican senators that are going to vote to convict bush or cheney in an impeachment trial? Failure to get a 2/3 majority of senators to vote for conviction is exactly the same as an acquittal and do you really want to hand that to the *****?
      • floorman56, on 01/16/2008, -1/+4You are getting dugg because your truth interferes with the wet dream these guys have of seeing this happen.
    • paperclipsNsoup, on 01/16/2008, -0/+3Oh, how I wish and pray you are wrong
      • gendjinn, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2I wish I were too. It took me many months of bitching out Pelosi for taking impeachment off the table before I looked at the procedure and saw it would end in failure. Once bush & cheney are out of office perhaps those they tapped can go after them with civil and criminal suits?
  • henl4710, on 01/16/2008, -18/+8Okay, look. I don't particularly like Bush or Cheney, but what EXACTLY did either one of them do that was illegal. I never seem to get a response on this. No I don't mean, "Lied and got soldiers killed..." or "Betrayed our country!" or whatever. I mean an actual high crime or misdemeanor, with real actual evidence. What's more I want the actual law you point to when you say it is illegal. A bunch of people signing someone's petition doesn't mean anything.
    • emeksv, on 01/16/2008, -4/+2THIS.
    • nblsavage, on 01/16/2008, -2/+6here ya go.
      http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com/?gclid=CLe4_JLl ...
    • nblsavage, on 01/16/2008, -2/+6ignore the last link. - Here you go.
      http://www.wexlerforcongress.com/kbill.asp
      • Dibou, on 01/17/2008, -3/+1I read this and it is pure BS.
        As the guy you replied to said, point to the law violated, not some vague "It is illegal because I don't like it!"
        Everything the VP said is appropriate as a VP to say. It might not be the best policy to go with, but it is so far from illegal.
        You dems for impeachment can't understand that a 'fact' is not just something that you think should be true. It needs to be backed up with reality.
        • zeusthemoose, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1And you Republicans need to realize that just because the facts don't agree with your ideology that they are not facts.
    • raoulduke87, on 01/16/2008, -2/+14War profiteering.

      There's a little company called Halliburton, I don't know if you've heard of it...You know what? I was going to write a really drawn out, sarcastic and belittling response about how Cheney is making money from the no-bid contracts, blahblahblah, ***** and ruckus just to be funny and get a cheap laugh out of your stupidity, but I'm not going to waste my time. It's funny enough that you actually believe that nothing illegal has been done.
    • henl4710, on 01/16/2008, -5/+3Well if something illegal has been done point to the law. Don't talk about no-bid contracts-they are not illegal. Please people read my post and reply to what I'm actually saying.
    • mfontain, on 01/16/2008, -2/+11Hmmm, I wonder what the best way to find out what illegal things they've done.... Perhaps we could hold hearings!
      • LBobRife, on 01/16/2008, -1/+6Exactly. Like Wexler said, we didn't have anything on Nixon until he completely refused to turn over the tapes he made in his office. The hearings forced him to reveal the information of what illegal stuff he did (in this case he told the FBI to stop investigating). The same goes for Bush and Cheney. In order to find out much of the information they have been hiding, we need to hold hearings. Whether or not anything comes from them depends on what turns up.
      • Dibou, on 01/17/2008, -2/+1I think we should hold hearings of impeachment on Obama, Pelosi, etc. We just MIGHT find something on them!
    • goblue83, on 01/16/2008, -6/+2Actually, if you did research or didn't automatically absorb what thinkprogress.com writes on a website, you'd know that Bush and Cheney haven't actually broken any laws. They've defined interpretations maybe, but the fundamental responsibility of "executive" branch is to "execute" on the laws passed by congress, and that requires interpretation of what the law allows. The interpretation of these laws is the privy of the courts, and not the Congress...in case, ya know, you failed 8th grade social studies.
      • zeusthemoose, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Oh really? What about failing to cooperate with subpoenas? Last time I checked, this was very much illegal. P.S. Claiming executive privilege is not lawful.
    • goofsr, on 01/16/2008, -2/+0Here's a little nugget called CostPlus. Cheney is suspected to have earned over 80 million dollars in this little ordeal.
      http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qzlb3eHerUw
    • gothrus, on 01/16/2008, -2/+12A pretty nice list:

      1. "A Crime Against Peace." Initiating a war of aggression against a nation that posed no immediate threat to the U.S.--a war that has needlessly killed 2550 Americans and maimed and damaged over 20,000 more, while killing over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children, is the number one war crime according to the Nuremberg Charter, a document which was largely drawn up by American lawyers after World War II.

      2. Lying and organizing a conspiracy to trick the American people and the U.S. Congress into approving an unnecessary and illegal war. This is defined as "A Conspiracy to Commit a Crime Against Peace" in the Nuremberg Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory.

      3. Approving and encouraging, in violation of U.S. and international law, the use of torture, kidnapping and rendering of prisoners of war captured in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the course of the so-called War on Terror. Note that the Hamdan decision actually declares Bush to have violated the Third Geneva Convention on Treatment of Prisoners of War, which means the justices are in effect calling the president a war criminal. Under U.S. and international law, if prisoners have died because of such a violation--and many have died in illegal US captivity because of torture authorized by this president--the penalty is death (a point made to the president in a warning memo written by his then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, the text of which is published in full in the appendix of our book).

      4. Illegally stripping the right of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution from American citizens, denying them the fundamental right to have their cases heard in a court, to hear the charges against them, to be judged in a public court by a jury of their peers, and to have access to a lawyer.

      5. Authorizing the spying on American citizens and their communications by the National Security Agency and other U.S. police and intelligence agencies, in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

      6. Obstructing investigation into and covering up knowledge of the deliberate exposing of the identity of a U.S. CIA undercover operative, and possibly conspiring in that initial outing itself.

      7. Obstructing the investigation into the 9-11 attacks and lying to investigators from the Congress and the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission--actions that come perilously close to treason. (Former Florida Senator Bob Graham, who headed the Senate Intelligence Committee until his retirement at the end of 2002, has called this the president's most impeachable crime.)

      8. Violating the due process and other constitutional rights of thousands of citizens and legal residents by rounding them up and disappearing or deporting them without hearings.

      9. Abuse of power, undermining of the Constitution and violating the presidential oath of office by deliberately refusing to administer over 750 acts duly passed into law by the Congress--actions with if left unchallenged would make the Congress a vestigial body, and the president a dictator.

      10. Criminal negligence in failing to provide American troops with adequate armor before sending them into a war of choice, criminal negligence in going to war against a weak, third-world nation without any planning for post war occupation and reconstruction, criminal negligence in failing to respond to a known and growing crisis in the storm-blasted city of New Orleans, and criminal negligence in failing to act, and in fact in actively obstructing efforts by other countries and American state governments, to deal with the looming crisis of global warming.

      source:http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_dave_lin_0 ...
      • Dibou, on 01/17/2008, -2/+1This list is a crime against logic.
        Not one law was broken by any of those things you listed. Most of them are made up and the rest are skewed and inaccurate.
        List the laws broken. You said 'illegal' how many times?! If it is illegal list the law!!!
        • zeusthemoose, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Failure
          To
          Comply
          With
          Congressional
          Subpoenas...
      • goblue83, on 01/17/2008, -2/+0Umm, this is a list of rhetoric and nothing more. "Crimes against peace?" Um really? Half of these issues fall under the privy of the PATRIOT ACT and the word "obstructing" couldn't be more vague. If you don't like how the administration has interpreted and acted on laws, that doesn't necessarily make it a crime. All it really means is that maybe you should convince more people to vote for the other guy next time. I've seen quite a few lists of "crimes" committed by the President and Vice President, this one is the worst.
    • ShnowDoggie, on 01/16/2008, -1/+7We have outing an US agent. Follow by evidence that he lied about the WMD. Keep going with illegal wiretapping, illegal deletion of email and general deception of congress. There is more. U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy, who in June 2005 ordered the Bush administration to protect “all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment and abuse of detainees” at Guantanamo Bay, has now ordered the administration to explain why it destroyed two videotapes of such treatment just five months later. Dick has been refusing Congressional oversight using any means possible. We could go on.
      • Dibou, on 01/17/2008, -3/+1There was an investigation into the US agent. NOTHING came of it!
        Nothing will come of it in the future.
        I swear, liberals don't care about facts. If Bush and Cheney actually broke a law, then great, let's impeach, but you have to base yourself in reality for most of the US. You can't just say, I hate the guys, IMPEACH!
        Well, actually that is what you do....
        • ShnowDoggie, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3Bush and Co have still withheld lots of evidence. There was something that the plume investigation, just not enough. There is the illegal wire tapping. Even without a congressional impeachment there is now judicial investigation. There is so much smoke around Bush, most of coming from Cheney, that it is hard to say that one of them are not involved in any of the alleged crimes. It seems that you people are so blinded that you can not see the truth.
          PS: I left the Republican Party because of what Bush (Cheney) is doing. Furthermore if Hillary wins it will be because of Bush.
        • zeusthemoose, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Republicans would not know reality if it smacked them right in the face. They are so blinded by their ideology that they have become delusional.
    • Terr01, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2I think the thing is that the war stuff makes more people pissed, but I believe that legally speaking there are stronger cases, e.g. unconstitutional detention issues.

      "What's more I want the actual law you point to when you say it is illegal."

      Take the 4th and 5th amendment, and look up what happened to Jose Padilla 2002-2006, bearing in mind the President has claimed he can unilaterally repeat the same treatment to any person of his choice.
    • henl4710, on 01/17/2008, -2/+2I will repeat myself. What law did they violate? i.e. What part of the U.S. code, or what part of which treaty? Most of the points here are opinions and are debatable at best. Other claims, like outing a CIA operative are blatantly wrong. Presidents and their cabinets do not have to testify before congress, it is called separation of powers. But thanks for proving my point that none of you could or would point to any law.
      • ShnowDoggie, on 01/17/2008, -1/+3From "http://www." + "wexlerforcongress.com/kbill.asp"

        Its is best to see the site. But here is Article I of III

        Article I

        In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has 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 United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:

        (1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction:

        (2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States.

        (3) The Vice President's actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002, and carefully considered by Congress prior to the October 10, 2002, vote to authorize the use of force. The Vice President's actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intelligence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two Federal agencies.

        The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

        In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
        • henl4710, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1Good try. I mean that sincerely and not sarcastically. This is a bill, not a law.
          • ShnowDoggie, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2I think perhaps you are looking for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".

            From: "http://www.infoplease.com" + "/ipa/A0764613.html"
            What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”?

            Bribery and treason are among the least ambiguous reasons meriting impeachment, but the ocean of wrongdoing encompassed by the Constitution's stipulation of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is vast. Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category, but one act that is definitely not grounds for impeachment is partisan discord. Several impeachment cases have confused political animosity with genuine crimes. Since Congress, the vortex of partisanship, is responsible for indicting, trying, and convicting public officials, it is necessary for the legislative branch to temporarily cast aside its factional nature and adopt a judicial role.

            Refusal to submit to congressional oversight counts towards that. The conduct described at "http://www." + "wexlerforcongress.com/kbill.asp" counts towards that.
      • obliviousfool, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5769
        You can read chairman of the house judiciary committee John Conyer's 256-page report here.
        http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/30039
        Or Senator Eric Oemig's list here.

        Or you could keep burying your head in the sand and cheer as the American empire becomes less and less accountable to anyone.


  • vladimus, on 01/16/2008, -7/+0Isn't it too late? Hearings won't be concluded until this asshat has already finished his term. That is, unless Bush declares a state of emergency and stays in office...
    • LBobRife, on 01/16/2008, -0/+5Removal from office does not mean they are absolved from any crimes committed while in office.
      • floorman56, on 01/16/2008, -1/+1Please... after a Dem gets in the white house congress will go ...Bush? ...Bush who? ..Oh that LAST guy .. don't worry about him... we have a bunch of new taxes that will take your mind off him.
    • ShnowDoggie, on 01/16/2008, -0/+6I do not think it is to late.
      1. Lets gather the evidence if for no other reason than for history
      2. Because the next, other future, President or some may be just as bad. Lets set some legal precedence now
      3. It is better to do something rather than do nothing
      4. Cheney and maybe even Bush might just get impeached. (Not likely but still ..)
      You raise a valid point. I wish folks who disagreed would post a reply rather just clicking the dugg down.
    • tritisan, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1I believe you can impeach AFTER they've left office
  • ncc74656m, on 01/16/2008, -4/+4Ok, I love this guy, but is it just me, or does he sound like Billy Mays from the Oxi-Clean commercials?
  • Talphin, on 01/16/2008, -6/+10My name is in that book... And whether I am revered for it, or enslaved and killed for it, let it be known that my name will go down in history because of it.
    • EricPeters, on 01/16/2008, -2/+9So is mine. Regardless of what happens, at least we can always say that we tried.
    • bearsandbulls, on 01/17/2008, -1/+4Me too, most diggers probably read the letter asking people to sign. We need action people.
    • ncc74656m, on 01/17/2008, -1/+3Indeed. I have also signed up.
    • Izult, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2Signed as soon as i heard about it. If it doesn't happen soon it's not happening at all.
    • Dibou, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1I love it when liberals pretend they might *be killed* or be *enslaved* by those evil, evil Republicans.
      Does it make you feel all superior pretending to stand up to such pretend evils?
  • OrangeTide, on 01/16/2008, -18/+4Too little too late. Your tax dollars at work. These proceedings are not free. Quite expensive in fact. We can't wait until the next president before kicking out members of the current administration?

    I suggest that democrats pushing for this impeachment are politically motivated. I'll change my opinion if they push for this AFTER they take over the White House in 2009.
    • kipmartin, on 01/16/2008, -4/+0name an impeachment that wasnt politically motivated?
  • Barbarino, on 01/16/2008, -20/+511 months to go, and the last 2 are usually bs anyways, so call it 9 months, and you loons want impeachment??? Why? It would fail and do nothing but stall important issues. Did anyone see the piece on 60 minutes about the Congo? Every day an idiot stands up there and wastes our tax payer dollars on something that has no shot of passing..
    • V0lk, on 01/16/2008, -2/+4what are you even talking about?
    • synchestric, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2It's not a matter of having a chance, you ***** fascist! Do 190,000 people not mean anything?
  • facewarts, on 01/16/2008, -18/+7Dear loony left:

    Go fish !
    • Delphium226, on 01/16/2008, -3/+6dear wingnut,

      you lose.
    • kipmartin, on 01/16/2008, -4/+2we may have al sharpton but you have ron paul and huckabee.. talk about loonies!
    • V0lk, on 01/16/2008, -1/+6dear facist,
      go f*ck yourself.
  • kipmartin, on 01/16/2008, -12/+1never happen. if it was possible, it would have happened a long time ago. the King of Smirk wins. i hate it, but thats reality--sometimes evil DOES prevsil.
  • nastronomical, on 01/16/2008, -20/+7Keep dreaming Liberals...hey I wonder what would happen if you put just as much effort into figuring out why our public education is a disaster? Imagine the change that would occur...Hmm!! Then again...Libs destroyed prublic edu.
    • kipmartin, on 01/16/2008, -3/+2hey! this is the Liberal Press!! get out of here or we will dominate you like we dominate the media!!

      our public education is a disaster because we spent too much time, effort, and $$ on morons like you Republicans.

      now go home and watch OReilly.
    • zeusthemoose, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1The public education system is not doing so well because you Republicans are intentionally trying to make it fail. No child left behind, a Republican bill mind you, requires each public school to continuously show improvement by a certain percentage each year. If a school plateau's at a high number of students passing, it doesn't matter because they will fail in one of the many categories of student demographics. It is a system that intentionally causes failure to try to privatize the entire system. You Republicans are so ***** blind that it is quite hilarious. You intentionally make government fail and try to say that the Democrats have bad ideas because you have proven that the Government fails through your ***** up policies.
  • bingobongony, on 01/16/2008, -10/+2190,000 supporters out of 300 million! It's time!
    • kipmartin, on 01/16/2008, -1/+3petitions are representational. no one expects 51% of an electorate to sign one. listen, Homer, getting 190,000 people to sign ANYTHING is an accomplishment. thats why it only takes 100,000 to get someone on a presidential ballot in most states.
      • Dibou, on 01/17/2008, -3/+1How many non-Americans do you think signed. I'm guessing a large number.
        How many Fred Flinstones, George Bushs, etc. do you think signed. I know of quite a few.
        This list is inflated. More people think Elvis is alive than think Bush should be impeached. If you then actually try to get those people to point out a LAW that was broken then you can get the impeachers dropped by 70% or so after they can't actually find one. The rest just ignore that and yell illegal so many times they forget it doesn't mean, "I hate Bush".
  • dp1140a, on 01/16/2008, -6/+12Not only should Cheney and Bush be impeached, they should be indicted for treason and war crimes, tried, and hung like Saddam. Those two are responsible for about as many deaths as Saddam was why should they not share his fate. I guess murder is ok as long as you wrap in the flag and call it democracy huh?
    • krautkamel, on 01/16/2008, -0/+4Wasn't it Bush Sr. that backed Saddam to put him in power in the first place? Once the monkey was done dancing, all we knew to use him for was a target practice once we needed a scapegoat.
  • Rich711, on 01/16/2008, -15/+4After he's done collecting 190,000 signatures maybe he should find genuine evidence of an actual crime.
    • defektiv, on 01/16/2008, -3/+7uh.. that's what impeachment is for captain brains. impeachment is a trial, without which nothing can happen, one way or the other. it's not a conviction nor even implicit to guilt for someone to be impeached, as the process showed with clinton.
      • Dibou, on 01/17/2008, -2/+2I want to impeach all members of Congress just to see if there is any crimes being committed. Nothing personal of course. "It's not a conviction nor even implicit to guilt".
    • ShnowDoggie, on 01/16/2008, -1/+4Did you actually listen to Wexler’s speech?
      • Dibou, on 01/17/2008, -4/+3Yes, and it listed a crime that was investigated by turned up nothing.
        He didn't list one SINGLE law broken. Not one. You would imagine after all this time that they could have said, law XXX article xxx was broken. But, since it doesn't exist you end up with Wex pretending his world is reality.
        • ShnowDoggie, on 01/17/2008, -2/+4
          (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.

          -------------------------------


          (A) Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, made multiple trips to the CIA in 2002 to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives accounts.

          (B) Vice President Cheney sought out unverified and ultimately inaccurate raw intelligence to prove his preconceived beliefs. This strategy of cherry picking was employed to influence the interpretation of the intelligence.

          I could add more

          • zelig, on 01/17/2008, -2/+2Anyone can come up with quotes- how bout some good ones from democrats before Cheney was VP (THESE will be dugg down) :


            "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

            Former President Bill Clinton: "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." ("US: Clinton Says Diplomatic Solution Preferable In Iraq," AAP Newsfeed, 2/5/98)

            "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Nancy Pelosi, 16 December 1998

            "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288)

            "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Remarks At the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, 9/27/02)

            Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV): "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." ("Threats and Responses," The New York Times, 10/4/02)

            "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." (Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10305)

            "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." (Sen. Carl Levin, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 9/19/02)

            "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." (Former Vice President Al Gore, Remarks At The Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA, 9/23/02)

            "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1/23/03)


          • ShnowDoggie, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2zelig: Good response.
            Now we have to look at who was pushing information vs who was just regurgitating what was given to them and the timelines. When did the inspectors end Saddam's weapons program and all of that. We know that Saddam did have WMD before the first gulf war. We dismantled his WMD after the first gulf war. It was Bush/Cheney who claimed that Saddam had restarted those programs. Furthermore we need to look at Bush/Cheney saying that the inspectors could not do their job while the former was pushing for more inspections and the enforcement of the no fly zones. Finally, and most difficult, we have to look at each in context. That is a bit more than I am willing to do here.
            I did follow both the Plume investigation and what has been written about Colin Powell very closely. One thing that sticks out from that is the administration was looking for their story. Not the Truth.
      • Dibou, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Again, no LAW was broken. You wasted my time by posting quotes for something that has nothing to do with any law being broken.
        In order to be impeached you need to have a high-crime or misdemeanor. That means a LAW has to be broken. It has nothing to do with quotes you don't like.
  • nastronomical, on 01/16/2008, -18/+4Too all the foaming at the mouth libs. Present one piece of Evidence that can be verified and proven.
  • Rich711, on 01/16/2008, -9/+5Impeachment isn't the same thing as a recall. Collecting signatures is about as productive as masturbating. I'm sure it's hard for Wexler to tell since all this democratic congress seems to do is political masturbation for non-binding resolutions and passing bills for better food in the senate cafeteria.
    • razor150, on 01/16/2008, -2/+4Hard to get anything done when Republicans filibuster everything or Bush vetoes it, but yes it is all the Dems fault that nothing gets done.
      • Rich711, on 01/16/2008, -3/+2Filibuster everything? In your mind do you think you know what is going on in congress? Or do you just get formula answers off the dailykoz?
        • razor150, on 01/17/2008, -1/+3Such incite you have on my thought process. Why yes I formulate all my opinions from Dailykoz, just as you yourself receive all of your's from Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Rielly.
          To deny the Republicans are obstructionists is to admit you know nothing of what is going on in Washington. Which is plainly obvious by your first post and then confirmed by your response.
          • Rich711, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1The Republicans are obstructionists? I vaguely remember Nancy Pelosi saying "Our job is to obstruct everything George Bush submits" That actually has the word obstruct right in the quote. Are you saying people are obstructing Nancy Pelosi's progress? Why would they do that?
        • kittnerrules, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1chicken salad and diamond earrings, a glass of pearl and a gold scarf
  • SgtBeavis, on 01/16/2008, -1/+6One reason you won't see a Cheney or Bush impeachment is because the House Democrats know very well that impeachment is not guaranteed. However acquittal in the Senate is. The votes simply do not exist in the upper house.

    When the Congress impeached President Clinton (and no I was not happy about it) the Republicans knew in advance that they had the votes for impeachment. They even thought they had a chance at a conviction in the Senate.
  • hackiavelli, on 01/16/2008, -1/+10Buy that man a hooker and some cocaine

    /Better Know a District
  • gaziddlybop, on 01/16/2008, -5/+8IMPEACH the traitors!
  • tpearl, on 01/16/2008, -9/+3Nobody is going to be impeached or prosecuted. Dream on.
    • moin1097, on 01/17/2008, -6/+1I'd like to see it happen. If only to see what the democrats are hiding.
  • defektiv, on 01/16/2008, -2/+12people need to start understanding that impeachment is not only justified here, but required. every other legal attempt to get even the simplest of answers from these cowards has been met with blatant disrespect and disregard for the constitution and the rule of law. they've done everything from lie under oath about recollections to grant pardons and executive privilege to subvert the only means of forcing people to answer questions.

    impeachment is literally the only way left to force them to do what is required under law and common sense. impeachment is only a trial. the fact it is being avoided like the plague only speaks to me of more reason to hide everything. this would be suspect in any other situation. period.
    • Dibou, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1"impeachment is only a trial. the fact it is being avoided like the plague only speaks to me of more reason to hide everything. this would be suspect in any other situation. period."
      Are you actually saying that since Bush isn't calling for himself to be impeached that it is grounds for impeachment?!
  • Ceeman, on 01/16/2008, -3/+4I would rather congress look into any wrong doings of the executive branch. It is one of their main functions after all. Than waste time with this baseball hearings. The executive branch has been pushing the limits of it's powers over the last few years it is time to grab some of it back regardless if anyone is impeached or not.
  • michelsonmorley, on 01/16/2008, -5/+2I don't understand how we have grounds for impeachment when we are about to elect a new President that probably will do similar things. (Well, if we elected Romney he'd run it through his lawyers first..)
  • fbliss, on 01/16/2008, -2/+8Thank you Congressman Wexler!
  • PresRob, on 01/16/2008, -2/+11I agree they should be impeached. If only for the torture issue. We have made ourselves look as bad, if not worse than anyone else.
  • djohnmalkovich2, on 01/16/2008, -3/+12They should take Pelosy with them, what a *****. She has done nothing but spit in the face of the American people. The Democrats were elected to stop the war and to stand up to this administration and they have done neither.
    • SpacePoet, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2W isn't going to let ANYONE stop his toy soldier game, not until every last penny is siphoned out of the treasury first.
  • Insolent, on 01/16/2008, -7/+3The internet has a slant towards younger, educated, reading, free-thinking people. Old people have a slant towards being dumb, uneducated, and complacent.
  • zelig, on 01/17/2008, -10/+2Being unpopular is not an impeachable crime.
  • carkmouch, on 01/17/2008, -1/+6Go Wexler! He's holding my name in his hands!
  • tufftugg, on 01/17/2008, -3/+2Not going to happen, the great Democratic experiment is over. It is collapsing from within.
    • tritisan, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1I'm afraid I'd have to agree. Still holding on to a sliver of hope that, like the Civil War, this period of time is a test of our Constitution. Will we pass it this time?
  • amightywind, on 01/17/2008, -10/+1President Bush and Vice President Cheney have done a fantastic job. We are lucky to have them. Wexler is a pig.
  • 55mph, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2If Cheney get's significant jail time, he can join Ken Lay somewhere in the South Pacific and brush up on his golf game. IMO, the outing of Valerie Plame should qualify him for execution based on treason. The joke is that Bush will grant him a pardon on the way out the door. Once he's out, public opinion can kiss his texas ass.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.