http://preview.tinyurl.com/2zz9bf
Apparently, there’s a vote to impeach Cheney hitting the house floor today.
I… really don’t have much to say about this, honestly. But if the impeachment succeeds, there will be very happy kitties all over the world.
Do the democrats really want to do that? Cause the impression I get from internets is that dems like him but they’ll never vote him. And you don’t impeach the VP without thinking it twice.
It won’t pass 
;_;
Yowza. This sounds … way too good to be true, so I’ll assume it’s not true so I can’t be disappointed.
This hasn’t come up before now why? And plus there’s not even a year and a half to go, so it’s almost like what’s the point?
QFT. Even if it did pass, he’d use his Darkside-of-the-Force powers to zap all who oppose him. 
A year and a half is PLENTY of time to piss off the few remaining people in the world that we (America) haven’t pissed off already. Duh. 
Democrats didn’t want even want this to come to a vote.
You do realize that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats didn’t want this, right? Kucinich is trying to appeal to the far left in an attempt to sturdy his campaign. Granted, he’s been trying to spearhead this for a while now, but I suppose he’s realized that he needs to appeal to the far left after the whole UFO deal in the last democratic debate. The fact that people fall for political grandstanding like this is beyond disheartening.
But back to the point; why would Democrats not want this to even come to a vote? For the same reasons why Republicans supported the resolution at the last minute. First of all, any politician with a lick of sense knew it wouldn’t pass and Republicans could use the vote as a way to paint the Democrats as not being moderate and being run by the far left (which might not be far from the truth). Second, recall that the Democratic Congress in America has a lower approval rating than the President and has achieved little in the way of it’s agenda, especially concerning health care and the War in Iraq. Even if you blame it’s ineffectiveness on Bush’s veto power, Republicans will be able to say that the Democrats wasted their time in Congress bringing up toothless resolutions* like this one and meaningless votes of no confidence against former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and others.
…And why in the world would you want this to happen? I know I’m the only one who, you know, tolerates the Bush Administration instead of railroading them but…whatever, I’m not going to change any minds here.
It’s…it’s just, I’m tired of everyone going crazy with hatred whenever the Bush Administration is mentioned. For the record: Bush isn’t retarded and Cheney doesn’t breath miasma.
*It’s too bad the Republicans did the same thing with MoveOn.org’s atrocious and vile Petraeus ad.
You only say this because you are from Texas.
I hope not. Because if that’s the case, you have to be from Texas to be even a small bit objective towards this Administration.
rofl what else is new
This is funny. On one hand, the Democrats are “run” by the “far left,” which is vague and meaningless, but nonetheless sounds scary and bad. On the other hand, you can’t help but see that, when these insidious leftists finally take control of Congress, they somehow can’t manage to pass anything “leftist.” It must be nice to have such reliably immoral yet incompetent enemies – you’re guaranteed to feel both outrage and triumph every time.
There is no such thing as an organized “far left” in the United States. At most, you have Michael Moore (who advocates public health care, oh god how extreme) and a bunch of angry college students. The sum total of their political influence is zero. There are a couple of liberals in Congress, like Kucinich, but your own explanation makes it abundantly clear that they’re a tiny minority who go against the consensus in their own party. Occasionally Democrats pander to antiwar voters, which these days is not the “far left” but rather 40-50% of the population, but even then they never really do anything that they promise. Hence why you have to use vague weasel words like “which might not be far from the truth,” because there just isn’t anything more concrete that you could possibly say.
The true reason why Democrats can’t pass anything “leftist” is because their political ideology, if they even have one, is consistently centrist or right-leaning, particularly in foreign policy, and has been for years. The reason why they won’t impeach Cheney or condemn the Iraq war is because most of them don’t really oppose the war. Hillary Clinton would probably have the same foreign policy as Bush, just dressed in slightly different rhetoric. On the most important issue of our time, there is practically no difference between the Democratic and Republican front-runners. Unfortunately.
If lying the country into war isn’t grounds for impeachment, then nothing is.
Oh, Texas hardly has a monopoly on complaining about how much “hatred” “everyone” has while ignoring everything that “everyone” really says, or even on fighting silly non-existent straw men like the “far left.”
By the way, Ron Paul is from Texas. You might want to look into his views on foreign policy. They might enlighten you as to the meaninglessness of the “right-left” distinction.
I just want someone who is in a position of power to be responsible for their own actions, it’s such garbage that something as simple as that is so difficult to manage.
Originally Posted by Rinn
I just want someone who is in a position of power to be responsible for their own actions, it’s such garbage that something as simple as that is so difficult to manage.
Unfortunately, the best we can hope for is the removal of a high-profile underling/scapegoat, and even then they can still publish memoirs about their side of the story while waiting for their presidential pardon. 
This is going to fail more than 5 years after it should’ve succeeeded. If it succeeds, someone just as bad or very close to it will take his place. I’ll be sticking with gin instead of breaking out the celebratory champagne, thank-you-very-much.
Rinn: Then Bill Clinton should’ve been impeached. He perjured himself. Yet, I don’t see anyone calling him out.
I didn’t say the Democratic party was run by the far left I said, very distinctly, that Republicans would use this vote “to paint the Democrats as not being moderate”. I didn’t state that position as fact.
This vote wouldn’t have pandered to just antiwar people but to liberals that just want to make an empty statement that they knew wouldn’t pass. What about the 12 appropriation bills that Congress has yet to take care of? How about the Democrats taking care of business instead of useless votes like this that are basically ad hominem attacks.
As a matter of fact, this is an appeal to the far left. That’s pretty obvious. As I stated before, even Nancy Pelosi is against it.
By the way, I’m well aware of Ron Paul and his position. Foreign policy isn’t the biggest issue with him to me. The man’s a strict constructionist of the Constitution. As a commentator, Tucker, stated, if people really knew what he would do in office, what being a a pure libertarian really means, they would be more careful. If it’s not in the constitution he’s not for it. The Department of Homeland Security would be gone as well as numerous other federal agencies.
Yes, Clinton did perjur himself. However, there are a few very, very larged differences. First, Clinton’s lies were on the subject of a question he very honestly should not have been asked. Who he has sex with, barring rape, is his own affair. It has nothing to do with his presidency and he should not have been put in the position to lie about it. Secondly, Clinton lying was a bad thing ideologically. In theory, a president should not lie to his country. However, they didn’t really hurt much of anything, in reality, besides perhaps his trust. Bush’s lies, in addition to harming his trust, falsely pushed our nation into a war that has taken a number of lives exceeding the population of the San Francisco Bay Area. He has sent American soldiers to their death, wasted American funds in battle and equipment, and killed any number of innocent civilians in this war.
In theory a president shouldn’t lie to his country? But, I thought people should be responsible for their actions especially when they perjure themselves in court. No, friend, perjury is perjury. It’s an insult to the court and people should be reprimanded properly. It’s not a matter of subjectivity it’s a matter of law.
As a matter of fact, with all due respect, your whole objection against Bush is subjective. If your going to say Bush sent American soldiers to their death than what’s keeping you from saying FDR did the same thing? What about Clinton when he sent soldiers to Kosovo? What about when Bush '41 sent soldiers into Kuwait?
What’s stopping you from saying those Presidents didn’t waste American funds in battle? War is costly; always has been, always will be. Oh, American soldiers in WWII never killed innocent civilians by accident? I guess the War in Iraq is the only war where there’s been unfortunate collateral damage.
See, this is what I mean, people just hate Bush and everything associated with him. It’s destructive.
I know what Bush has done. I know it’s reprecussions. Heck, I’ve suffered as a result of them. But I didn’t suffer for nothing - we’ve got to stay there until this is settled.
Heh, this resolution is crazy anyway. No noble cause for the war? Subjective. Bush and Cheney killed 3,700 American soldiers? I believe that was the insurgents, thank you very much. Ugh.
But see, I don’t care if some dude is getting his cock sucked. That’s the difference here.