
Dennis Kucinich held a copy of the Declaration of Independence in hand as he stood before a group of students at the University of New Hampshire on Wednesday. In the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson documented the list of grievances facing Britain’s ruler, King George. Kucinich read some of these charges aloud, and compared them to what the crimes of a new George – the current president of the United States.
“He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good," read the veteran Congressman and Democratic candidate for president. He then noted a recent series of Bush vetoes that have negated key pieces of Democratic legislation.
The focus of the Town Hall style meeting, which was attended by about 60 UNH students and a handful of local residents, was the issue of impeachment. Earlier this month Kucinich sought to brought the idea of impeaching vice president Dick Cheney up before the House of Representatives. The proposal was quickly stifled by the Democratic leadership in Congress. During the event, Kucinich also criticized what he called the "corporatized" nature of the Democratic National Committee, and that group’s undue influence over his party.
Impeachment, Kucinich said, is a key part of our democratic system of checks and balances. Kucinich cited the diminishing power of the Congress as evidence that the system was already in danger. Kucinich pointed out that the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the right to declare war. But according to Kucinich, Congress never issued a declaration of war against Iraq, making the war unconstitutional.
"This is not just about impeachment. This is about whether or not the constitution is a real, viable document or just a piece of paper," he declared.
"Congress has no right to say impeachment is off the table," said Kucinich. He expressed his belief that by ignoring the impeachment option, Congress would be licensing future crimes by executive branch officials. He went on to depict the process of impeachment as a legal process where evidence would be presented, and any decision of guilt or innocence would be based upon the facts of the case.
"Vice President Cheney violated his oath of office by claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction," Kucinich told the crowd of young faces. He emphasized his belief that the case against Cheney was based on a mountain of evidence that had been built out of the vice president's own lies to the American people. These lies were used to make the case for the invasion of Iraq, according to Kucinich.
Kucinich speculated what might happen if Cheney were put on the stand under oath. He stated that it would give the country the chance to ask the vice president some important questions that have so far gone unanswered. Kucinich said that he would like to know what role oil company executives played in making the decision to go to war in Iraq. That statement drew applause from the crowd.
The Democratic leadership's decision to stifle debate on impeachment in Congress will not end Kucinich's quest. He told that crowd that, "All around the country we will be holding these town hall meetings to talk about impeachment." According to Kucinich, everyday citizens could help by writing to their representatives in Congress, talking to friends and neighbors, and using the internet to organize support for the impeachment of Dick Cheney.
The Congressman also took questions during the event. One voter asked him why the new Democratic Congress has been so ineffective. Kucinich siezed the opportunity to criticize his own party. "The Democratic Congress is failing the American people in a way that is disgraceful," Kucinich said.
He went on to say that Democrats had worked to make the war in Iraq the centerpiece of the 2006 elections, and had won big by promising the American people that they would end the war. He lamented the Democratic leadership's "unwillingness to keep our promise to the American people to get out of Iraq."
The failure to end the war by cutting off funding was indicative of a climate of passivity in Congress, according to the progressive Congressman. He claimed that most members of Congress who had voted for the controversial Patriot Act had not seen the final version of the bill because of changes made at the last moment. "But they voted for it because it was called ‘the Patriot Act’," he said, drawing laughter from the crowd.
The result of that passivity was the empowerment of the Bush administration and the ease with which it had led the country to war after 9/11, Kucinich stated. "We are less secure because of way we responded to the 9/11 attacks," he claimed.
When asked why he was being given so little time during the debates, Kucinich said this was inevitable because, "I have something different to say." He joked that the other candidates wanted the debates to be a "happy family reunion."
"I am not into that," he said.
The Congressman added that interest groups and corporations own the government, but that power could be returned to the people if they are willing to work for it. "A lot of power concentrated in the hands of one or a few people - that is the antithesis of democracy," he said. Kucinich called for the creation of a publicly financed election system that would eliminate the influence of private money over politics.
Kucinich was also asked to address the fact the media was largely ignoring his campaign. He cited polling statistics that showed his campaign was making progress despite the lack of media coverage. He also pointed out that the internet had created new opportunities for his supporters and his campaign.
"We are all mediums. We all carry messages. We all have the ability to effect opinion," he said. Kucinich pointed out that activists in Russia had brought down the Soviet Union by communicating over fax machines, not through the media. He said this was evidence that technology that gives people a voice can help speed up the process of change.
The Congressman also attacked the media as uncritical. He stated that the media had acted as a loudspeaker for government propaganda since the Cold War. But the media does not control the public, according to Kucinich. "Just because someone is trying to get us to swallow an elephant, doesn't mean we have to swallow it," he remarked. It is often forgotten that the public owns the airwaves, and therefore has a right to say what should be shown on them, Kucinich told the crowd.
A non-student attendee brought up Republican candidate Ron Paul, who many have called the Kucinich of the Republican party because of his anti-establishment views and his anti-war platform. Kucinich said that he was friends with Paul and that the two share similar views on many issues. He joked that votes in the House often came down to 430 something to 2 - with the names Kucinich and Paul falling on the losing side. "Ron Paul is someone who needs to be heard," he said.
The author, David Anderson, is covering the New Hampshire Primary for Gather.com
He is also a graduate student at the University of New Hampshire.



Comments: 83
Why are so many, including the Democratic leadership so fearful of being accountable to the people on Constitutional issues ? Where has the American Patriot gone ?
Why is a legal process where evidence would be presented avoided like the plague ?
If after presentation of the evidence, Dick Cheney is found to not have committed an impeachable offence, what would America have lost in the process ?
Great article.
I wonder if the information from Scott McClellen's book will have any bearing on interest to impeach.
He is an embarassment to the Democratic Party. I am suprised that Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the Democratic leadership has not ex-communicated him yet.
Dave, here's the status of the bill as posted on the Thomas database:
HR 799 - Latest Major Action: 11/6/2007 Status: ... Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.res.00799:
Anyway, congratulations on being featured on the home page!
I like Dennis Kucinich. He is a fresh face and is for all of the things I am. His chance at getting the nod from the Democratic Party is not very good, I'm afraid.
Not doing so makes the Dems look more cowardly than usual .
Dennis has been the only one brave enough to keep hammering the idea of impeachment. Most Democrats, like most of the nation, seem more comfortable just letting Bush/Chenney's time expire and focus on cleaning up the messes and stitching the country back together again.
I have the same shockingly angered attitude that Spartan espouses; it is unfathomable that the nation impeached Clinton over a consensual sex scandal and then leaves war profiteers untouched.
What skewed morals our country has when a sexual indiscretion is held in the public consciousness as more criminal than an act of unprovoked war which directly caused thousands of our soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians to be killed.
I pray that Dennis keeps pounding his drum!!
Salamat po.
I like the guy's passion, and can't disagree with many of his views, but the man is not Presidential material. Perhaps he's angling for a cabinet position?
Or, it could just be that someone in the Democratic majority realizes that there is no proof that anything even closely resembling an impeachable offense has occured.
Maybe a turkey is the wrong representative mascot, though.
Perjury isn't a consenual sex act ... but nice try. I can see why you support Dennis "My Favorite Martian" Kucinich.
In the name of absolute accuracy, I should have said:
"I have the same shockingly angered attitude that Spartan espouses; it is unfathomable that the nation impeached Clinton over lying to a judge about a private consensual sexual act and then leaves war profiteers untouched."
I respond with; "Only if we can impeach Bush for looking like Alfred E. Neuman."
(addition is mine)
Gee Bill, you keep leaving out very pertinent details.
In any event, I wish Nancy would let Dennis have his hearings on the proposed Articles of Impeachment. Let's get all the cards out on the table.
Bruce, could you point me to where I might find that declaration? I just don't see it in the historical facts. It wasn't any of the four you mentioned that told the President the case against Saddam was a "slam sunk". The was your boy Bill's CIA director.
I repeat .... please lobby the Democratic leadership HARD for the Articles of Impeachment resolution. Nothing would thrill me more than to see all of them thoroughly discredited. But, none of the have the courage of their convictions, such as they are.
Representative Conyers has already created a database and report compiling the evidence against the administration. He has described the report in the following terms:
"This report, which was prepared at the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, is a comprehensive examination of the statements made by the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq: President George Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. It finds that the five officials made misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq in 125 public appearances. The report and an accompanying database
identify 237 specific misleading statements by the five officials."
In the end the question of impeachment hinges upon whether or not it can be proven that the administration deliberately mislead the country. If the administration knew the information was false, then the officials in question are guilty.
Given the shear volume of inaccurate statements made by administration officials I see no reason why it would be "crazy" to dig a little deeper.
In America today, it's not OK to lie in our courts about sexual misconduct, but it is OK to spend trillions of dollars on a war with a country that did not attack us, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and send thousands of our soldiers to their death.
Yup, that kind of parsing of morality is shockingly and anger-ingly unfathomable to me.
You are not listening to anything people say you are looking for key statements to attack, and watching for places you can insert your key insult phrases. You should be ashamed at the effect this kind of BS has had on the American political dialog, and the time and money it has wasted of all of ours, as well as the inroads it has allowed our enemies to make while the country argues over BS like you write, and for no reason.
I have no interest in going over and over or hearing over and over all this stuff ending up always attempting to prove one side right and the other side wrong ... it is apparent that because of this idiots argument the country is frozen at a critical time when we need leadership.
Sheesh, David B. I just can't seem to remember a perjury conviction.
So I guess I should point out to the routinely mendacious David B. the truth.
There was no perjury, no conviction, no jail time. It's just another bald-faced lying ejaculation by someone who always claims to have the facts, and presupposes to correct others, but who is again and again wrong. The fact twisting, name-calling, and straw-man arguments do nothing to contribute to the discussion. Go home and eat your Coco Wheats.
Ironically, the secret service, congressional and white house insiders, and the media all conspired to hide the dalliances of JFK. I guess times have changed.
Dave A., Nov 24, 2007, 5:58pm EST
I would have to correct you so often if you weren't wrong so often, Davie. Clinton clearly committed perjury and the judge who he testified before said, as did the judge that ruled his law license be revoked. There were plenty of us who wanted to see him prosecuted criminally, but alas the powers-that-be decided against it.
Step back before you play that crap with me Mr. A - HOLE.
Perhaps the Congressional Leadership realizes that it takes only a simple majority to Impeach, but a two-thirds majority to convict and remove from office. As with Clinton....it ain't gonna happen.
Therefore, I believe he is after the voters more than Cheney.
Gee David, you sure get people talking! Well done!
The contempt for the people and the Congress and the stacking of the Supreme court has effectively disenfranchised over half of the country, and that could last for 50 years or more.
This President needs to be slammed down officially for all history, otherwise we will just see an administration as much worse than this one as this adminstration was worse than Reagans. We have a civil war happening in this country by the elite heads of corporations removing the power and capital from Americans and allowing the sovereignty of the Constitution to be overrideen by corporate law.
There was no education of the public, no asking for buying. This is why these people are so dangerous.
Kucinich is right ~ impeachment can't be taken "off the table". It's not for Pelosi to say. Our Constitution demands it. Our freedoms have certainly not been enhanced through the Iraqi situation, we are no more "protected from terrorists" than we were on 9/11. Our nation has been sold to the highest bidder and the pockets of "select few" have been lined with the profits. "NO BID" contracts have been issued with plenty of kick-back attachments. These men took an oath to uphold the Constitution; they have failed to uphold it or they've modified it to suit their needs for personal gratification. What better reasons for impeachment?
Is there a MAN in the house with the b*lls to push it? Yes. Dennis Kucinich. Give 'em hell, Dennis. There are millions of us out here who support you for it.
To me Dennis Kucinich is the best choice for president, but has as much chance of winning as Ralph Nader ever had.
Kucinich has a lot of ideas and says a lot of good things,
but so did Lenin, Hitler and even Bush.
What people say is not that important, many lie to get
elected, and we are supposed to have a country of
laws, not people.
So rather than think things are going to change either
way, and we have had an idea of how things change
rapidly to the right in the last 8 years and what broken
promises are like.
I think it is time to see if our system can just get back
in its feet and figure out what is important. I'm not
looking for a lot of change, just recovery.
That is why I hope I do not have to vote for Hillary
Clinton, I am tired of the same old thing, or Barack
Obama, he is too ambitious with no experience
leading.
Biden or Dodd have both show strong American
values and have lots of experience, particularly
Biden.
I do think whatever happens that some legal mechanism
must be set in motion against Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Gonzales
as a warning again future Presidents that trying to change
the Constitution instead of protecting it like they swore is
going to be taken seriously.
David B. does his best to trot along in the track of his masters in the Republican Party: repeat a lie incessantly, and hope that people begin to accept it as the truth. If others point out the inadequacy and prevarication in their position, question their patriotism, sanity, or try bullying them. David B. often tries to mark his little territory with threats to "back off." It's all he's left with when the facts come out.
Your inventory of damage to the Constitution and US laws ranges much wider than Kucinich's bill.
In fact, the Articles of Impeachment cover Cheney's actions in only three specific areas relating to the Middle East:
(1) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,
(2) al-Qaeda-Iraq links, and
(3) threats of force against Iran.
There's a link to the full text of Kucinich's bill below. Kucinich recently brandished a three-inch binder of supporting material in Congress. Regardless of the fate of the bill, it is only appropriate--after the massive campaign of disinformation and distortion mounted by this administration--that coverage be given to the facts now known about this sorry and dark period in US history.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.799:
everybody there is just there to get a paycheck, the only reason that democrats or even republicans might even say anything about bush or cheney is if their actions put their re-elections in jepordy....or if their pissed off because bush and cheney were able to manipulate the system and in the end make more money than them.
To the impeachment suggestion, however, let's not spend tax dollars on this so close to the end of his term (noting: with prayers that he not end up President ... even for a moment) unless he attempts more harm. Though the cost will be high then as well, lets proceed on this after he leaves office. Mr. Clinton could have done many more things as President if his time was not waylayed by that ridiculous impeachment -- and it made the US look like fools in the eyes of the world. Any action now would shutter the administrative branch, and we do need it for the government to function.
Again, the message of impeachment is that the American people will not tolerate anymore these elite groups in the far right trying to hijack the country for their expansion and profit, and if we do not smack down the far-right wing we will really see a coup in the not too distant future from which we will never recover.
Send the Republicans and history a lesson from this, no more meddling with the American people!
As far as I'm concerned the war in Iraq is not the problem, or standing up against Islamic totalitarianism, the problem is and always has been the far-right domestic agenda. If we are going to have war, then the American people should not be used, we should be a partner in sharing the advances made in fixing the rest of the world, and that means health care for all Americans, education, and a fix to social security, ie. the social society, so that what we are fighting to bring to the rest of the world is something worth fighting for!
As I said, before you challenge me again, have your facts straight. Misleading testimony, under oath IS perjury. Clinton is lucky he didn't have to do jail time. It's fortunate the court accepted his plea bargain.
Clinton admits misleading testimony, avoids charges in Lewinsky probe President's law license suspended for 5 years, January 19, 2001
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton will leave office free of the prospect of criminal charges after he admitted Friday that he knowingly gave misleading testimony about his affair with Monica Lewinsky in a 1998 lawsuit.
I really didn't think you were an idiot, just misguided. But, your delusional rants are beginning to make me rethink my assessment.
Seek help, Amphibian Man. You're in need of some powerful meds.
Perjury is a legal term describing a crime. You need to be convicted of it before someone can say you are guilty of it. Your characterization of events is prevarication in the extreme. Read your own links, for goodness sakes. From your link: "David Kendall, the president's personal lawyer, said Clinton's statement was not an admission that he lied or obstructed justice."
Incidentally, impeachment and conviction of high crimes and misdemeanors is, from a legal standpoint, more loosely-defined and held to a lower standard of proof ("clear and convincing") than that applied to criminal law ("beyond a reasonable doubt"). Kucinich's bill holds that Cheney violated his oath of office (in three areas) and attempts to support that with a raft of evidence of Cheney's malfeasance. The exercise is as much an examination of the Vice Presidency and its abuse as it is a (quasi-)legal "case" against Cheney. That is why I think the process is instructional and should not be dismissed based on mere inconvenience or idle oddsmaking over its possible outcome.
I know what Kendall says. I actually know him. He vacations not far from my house. Of course Kendall is going to say that. He got paid a TON of money to say that.
You're simply parsing the language just like Slick Willie tried to do. He told falsehoods under oath, Dave. That's perjury. He accepted a plea deal so not to have to face formal charges. By God man, you're acting like Monica, except you're swallowing.
As to Rep. (My Favorite Martian) Kucincih's impeachment bill? I'm all for it. I would love to see Nancy call it up tomorrow ... let then have a knock-down-drag-out on the House floor. The charges they seek to impeach on have no more substance than the empty charge of lying you've leveled against me. It will, however, provide ample evidence of what idiots the majority of House Dems really are. Then, at the end of the day, they won't indict.
But, that's really not the point anyway, is it?
In the case of the current administration, if not impeachment then at least an investigation of the facts should occur around the many questionable acts of the current administration. Whether Kucinich is grandstanding or not, the fact that he is calling for impeachment makes his voice the only one doing so and he has the podium to do it. Even if he is getting less coverage than other candidates, he is using the podium well. I wrote an article about Kucinich recently but I'm afraid I have changed my mind about him being a practical contender simply because of his total focus on making statements such as "I am the only one who voted against war in Iraq". Okay, I get that, I've heard it more than once but the question asked had nothing to do with war in Iraq. If only he would treat these debates just like he does one on one interviews, then he might get some more coverage. He talks straight and doesn't back off stating his own convictions which I like, but I don't think he is electable.
Joe Biden on the other hand is the perfect candidate. I laughed while viewing the youtube video linked by Bruce because that has been my impression on him to date in terms of the other candidates. Its very obvious that he is respected by all the other candidates and he is one of the most experienced and he was part of the Clinton administration. What's not to like about him? If anyone has alternative viewpoints, then please share.
Obama I liked until I heard his comments about the definition of Rich today. Raise the maximum on Social Security? Come on..from a fiscal perspective, the republican party stance is much better for me personally and the last thing I want to hear is that I have to pay more social security into a fund I personally will not be able to take advantage of? He lost part of my interest in just that one statement today. Not all of it, but now I'll be watching him closely. I can't believe I agreed with Hilary on the topic..Sorry for going off topic a little :o)
i see the rats continue to jump ship, by the end of bush"s term the only ones that will be left are the ones that can"t leave. LOL
I"m just sorry that colin powell"s career was ruined by bush"s administration...back before everything fell apart i was of the mind that he would have made a good president...but then i thought the same for Mccain and we see how all of that turned out.
Kevin L., Nov 27, 2007, 1:39am EST
And you Bush-haters aren't biased? That's rich!
No bravado, Kevin. I meant what I said. Please, encourage the Congressional Democrats to move forward on impeachment. It will further marginalize you guys.
--------------------------
"Once again, you completely ignore the facts ..."
Spartan (When stupidity is my only option)*, Nov 26, 2007, 11:01pm EST
Which facts would those be Spartie? You have put forward any to ignore.
sometimes it's justified David B.
Being biased against Clinton so much as to go fishing for years
looking for a crime that was not there, and then finding something
politically embarassing but unrelated to the crime that was being
investigated and using it as a lever to impeach was really biased.
Blaming Bush for mistakes that he made, and supporting crimes
and mistakes of his people is at least in the realm of a real
offense.
But then again, I don't think any of your participation in this discussion is designed to either be informative or questioning. You're simply spinning the same old bs over and over again with the intention of "messing with the dems or lefties" as I have seen from other posts on gather.
I'm not buying into your line of crap unless you add something coherent and useful to the conversation.
This marathon campaign season provides all of us a long-form opportunity to learn about the issues, the positions of the candidates, and character issues. We should take full advantage. As a leading politician once said, "Fool me once, shame on... uh... you. Fool me, uh, twice, ... uh, you can't get fooled again!"
"Why do you think that the idea of impeachment has become so offensive in this day in age?
David Anderson, Nov 25, 2007, 1:32pm EST
There are a couple of reasons that jump to my mind.
For one thing; it's like admitting we elected the wrong guy(s); and that feels shameful. Many may already feel that way, but to impeach means to set the feelings in concrete in front of the world. I suppose some might rightly argue that it would be a duty in order to clean up our mess, but that doesn't make it more palatable.
Another thing, is that it feels like mutiny. It carries the same feeling to the psyche as a crew removing the captain(s) of the ship. Although corporate types have mastered their emotions over this process, the national folks still cringe from such a thing, especially when it seems like it might becoming a trend within our governmental structures.
I did not see the "debate," or joint campaign appearance, that you mentioned--sorry. I know that it is very difficult for the candidates that are not the media darlings to even be heard (and what criteria DO the media use--popularity, based on public perceptions of the candidates, gained primarily from--THEIR own coverage...) The fact that anyone even asked Richardson a question probably surprised him.
Anyway, it's a strong field, and I haven't made up my mind. Emotionally I'm attached to Obama because he's from my home state of Illinois. He may be the candidate who's the best FIT this time around--someone who can turn the corner and give this country a fresh start that is so sorely needed.
Won't happen. Even if it did, such a system still would not eliminate the inordinate power corporate interests have over American politics. Can you say, "lobbyists"?
As for impeachment, it's a nice idea; but again, won't happen. Bushco are forsworn on their oaths to protect and preserve the Constitution, but there's no way given the current gridlock that an impeachment would even be passed, much less come to fruition. The way to throw these rascals out will be by whupping them in the upcoming election -- just be careful not to replace them with more rascals!!
I think it is possible that Bush/Cheney can be impeached, or indicted, because if we do not, we are telling the "rascals" ... go ahead, no problem.
The American people are very unhappy with our leadership, and the leadership trends that just keep going in the same direction with not even a hint of slowing down. The only moderating influence the people have is symbolic. Sarbanes-Oxley was a symbolic attempt to put an end to financial games ... it was virtually nothing, but it did send a message, and that is what needs to be done. Impeachment would send a definite message, as it did when Bill Clinton was impeached over nothing.
I think it is important to see this through, and have sent letters to all of my representatives to support impeachment proceedings. How else can be put some kind of answerability or fear into our political leaders to do their jobs and support the people and the Constitution?
Ten unsolicited points from the world's worst connection. Merry whatever you celebrate!
..
U wishing you laughter