Skip Nav
Netflix
18 Sex-Filled Films to Stream on Netflix
Relationships
25 Ways Your Partner Says "I Love You" Without Actually Saying It
Disney
This Artist Repaints Dolls, and to Call Them "Lifelike" Is an Understatement

Dennis Kucinich Introduces Bush Impeachment Resolution

Kucinich Introduces Impeachment — Should It Go to a Vote?

Congressman and former presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has announced he would like the House to consider a resolution to impeach President Bush. The move comes despite Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s commitment to take this option “off the table," thinking it an unhelpful distraction.

On the House floor last night, using language similar to that in the articles of impeachment he raised against Cheney, Kucinich asked for support for a 35-count indictment charging Bush with misleading Congress and the American people into war with tales of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Kucinich’s allegations, that Bush deceived the nation into war, are an act that Kucinich claims was a violation of his oath of office. Last year he introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney, which was voted favorably by Republicans to force a debate before being killed.

The president of Democrats.com congratulates Kucinich on the move saying, "We've waited seven years to find one Member of Congress brave enough to stand up for our Constitution, for which generations of Americans have fought and died," Fertik said. "We are thrilled and honored that Dennis Kucinich has chosen to be that one genuine patriot."

Do you think Bush should be impeached, or do you think the move is indeed an "unhelpful distraction"? Should the measure go to a vote?

Source

Join The Conversation
sarah_bellum sarah_bellum 9 years
I've just read every comment on this post and all I could think of the entire time was Amy Poelher's version of Kucinich on SNL. I'm not having a very productive day... :DROOL:
ladychaos ladychaos 9 years
I say lets let Pelosi be prez for a few months...although I'm upset about her wanting to pull that bill off the table. Bush and Cheney are both douches...(sorry, so childish...)
MindayH MindayH 9 years
As interesting as I think it would be to hear about the investigation - I think we have to focus on current issues and provide solutions. But good for Kucinich, he is back in the spot light again, maybe he wants to get his name on the Obama ticket?
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
"I don't even agree with some of the things our president has done, but why don't one of you walk a mile in his shoes or at least read more about what your president has accomplished for this country." I can't speak for everyone but I certainly don't begrudge the President any of his accomplishments. An impeachment hearing would only be in address to any unconstitutional acts committed by the administration. If the Presidents and or administrations acts affected them and them alone then I probably wouldn't give two flies, but the fact of the matter is their acts affect the most power nation on earth and in turn the rest of the world. This is a responsibility that needs to be called into account. As for Congress the public has the ability to lay down their own justice and vote them out of office, if they'd just get up off their behinds and get to the voting booth.
stephley stephley 9 years
I'm not defending myself to some stranger who waltzes in to the conversation like a gunslinger into a saloon.
stephley stephley 9 years
The legality of every issue - torture, surveillance and the war - has been challenged by members of Congress, by citizens, by lawyers, by rights groups and even by other countries (England and Australia leap to mind). None of it has been declared absolutely legal - so let's put him on trial and find out. Imagine how thrilled you'd be to be proven correct. Then we'd all know for sure, lying about blow jobs is wrong, lying about wars and torture is okay.
syako syako 9 years
I prefer the New Yorker.
trésjolie1 trésjolie1 9 years
I don't think people here read US Weekly more than news oriented stuff. I prefer The Economist.
UnDave35 UnDave35 9 years
What was in the torture memo. Was it the one where he says this is what we can, and what we can't do? About the torture meetings, were those to decide on what we can and can't do while trying to get information? How are those things illegal? The surveillance on citizens has been defended under the patriot act. You haven't brought up anything illegal yet.
Red77 Red77 9 years
Stephley, They aren't profound. They are simply the truth. I don't have to dress it up with lies to make it pretty or profound.
Red77 Red77 9 years
Good lord, if you use The Daily Show as your news source, you are truly selling yourself short. I can at least laugh at it when I know they edit clips to cater to their audience. They practically stage everything.
stephley stephley 9 years
Thank you Redhead for your profound pronouncements.
Red77 Red77 9 years
That was not condescension on my part. It happens to be the truth. Sometimes it hurts and we can't deliver it with sugar on top.
stephley stephley 9 years
How is signing a memo on torture hearsay? There are WH logs and photographs and memos regarding the various documents that didn't support Bush's claims and him remaking the claims is recorded - you can watch them regularly on the Daily Show. How is it hearsay when the words come from Bush's mouth? He said I knew about the torture meetings and approved them on camera. He has defended surveillance on citizens on camera. The lead Dems have made it clear that they didn't want this fight, to begin with, too many of them voted with Bush on the war despite the evidence that 23 of their colleagues said didn't hold up. And I do think with the torture issue it may become a much bigger problem -who else can be charged if we say Bush acted illegally on torture? But that doesn't mean we can close our eyes and hope that question goes away.
Red77 Red77 9 years
And remember we have had a democratic controlled congress for a while. Their approval ratings are down the toilet. Democrats have not done anything with the advantage they have except raise your taxes.
syako syako 9 years
:rotfl: I loved that. Way to not be condescending. Welcome to the group. :hug:
Red77 Red77 9 years
Oh my goodness. I only read a few comments that demonstrate the complete lack of understanding in how our government works and this website's completely biased opinion as well. You don't even have an absolutely not option. I can bet most of the people who voted wouldn't know a single thing about his presidency other than something they heard on the news, which we all know is so reliable. I don't even agree with some of the things our president has done, but why don't one of you walk a mile in his shoes or at least read more about what your president has accomplished for this country. Pick up a copy of Townhall instead of Us Weekly. You might learn a thing or two.
UnDave35 UnDave35 9 years
Stephley - I don't think the evidence will stick. Most of it is hearsay, which isn't admissable. IMO, if there had ever been anything concrete, we wouldn't be talking about this now. It would've been played out in 2006 (2007 after the dems were sworn into office).
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
We're not in politics cab which is why we can afford to express our opinions freely. Yes Congresswomen Pelosi has critized the administration but she has also made it clear that she would not support an impeachment.
slackferno slackferno 9 years
There is no "Why now?" about this. Kucinich has tried to introduce articles of impeachment many times. He keeps getting shot down in Congress. Fortunately, the White House seems to have a soft spot for the little vegan, as they keep giving him more ammo. GO DENNIS!!
hausfrau hausfrau 9 years
i don't see how this would be political suicide at all. didn't nancy pelosi expouse these same things and then she got elected? trying to move forward with impeachment is obv not political suicide, just look at how many people in the comments agree with it! the far left loves this idea!
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
I agree yesteryear. He is a rare breed and that's probably the saddest part of the whole thing.
stephley stephley 9 years
I really didn't mean to suggest that you shouldn't give an opinion. I guess though what I wait for from you is why you think the evidence for a 35-count indictment won't stick - what makes you say that. And can you find two who actually think the evidence won't stick, or two who don't want the matter brought to trial?
yesteryear yesteryear 9 years
arguing that he's only doing this for his own political gain is crazy -- this is political suicide. he really believes in what he's doing. might be hard for some people to believe because we are so used to seeing liars who are only in politics to feed their greed for money and power - but really, that's not what dennis kucinich is about.
lilkimbo lilkimbo 9 years
Stephley, not being a lawyer does not exclude me from giving my opinion on something that I have put a lot of time in to researching and studying. I guess since you're not a lawyer, you can't say that the "evidence" will be sufficient. And for every lawyer and member of Congress you find who thinks the evidence will stick, I can find AT LEAST two who think it won't. And bringing it on is fine with me, that's actually what I voted for, to let it play out. But I am still allowed to express my opinion that when it all plays out, the evidence won't be sufficient.
Collagen Smoothie at Jamba Juice
Adam West Dead
Are Fitness Trackers Accurate at Counting Calories?
Dani Mathers Convicted For Invasion of Privacy
From Our Partners
Latest Love
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds