Tags for this video have been changed from 'DennisKucinich, Congressman Ohio, Impeach, Bush, Impeachment, Cheney' to 'banned, redacted' - edited by kronosposeidon

okay, so we impeach bush...then what? taking him out isn't going to magically make everything better. i am no fan of bush, but i definitely think there are many more corrupt people in our government than just him. isn't it time we start to think ahead??

The directives to use torture probably went all the way up to Rumsfeld. We let this and the lying to get the US into Iraq, and yet we still haven't taken to the streets in outrage that we should impeach Bush. I'm confused. We need a good call back to the demonstrations of the 70's.

I made a Videosift playlist of them because Google doesn't have playlists.
http://www.videosift.com/playlists/jwray/Kucinich-Impeaching-Bush

one more is coming.

In reply to this comment by Fedquip:
Heya, the google link isnt working for me, I wonder if you can link to the other parts of this.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Full-video-Kucinich-presents-articles-of-impeachment

I'm going to cut this off when the World Socialist website goes heavy into the socialism:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/impe-j12.shtml

"House Democrats kill resolution to impeach Bush
By Patrick Martin
12 June 2008

In a display of parliamentary maneuvering that combined cynicism and cowardice, Democratic members of the US House of Representatives voted unanimously to kill an impeachment resolution against President Bush introduced by Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

Kucinich himself participated fully in the farce. He introduced the resolution Monday and read out the 35 articles of impeachment for crimes ranging from the lying pretexts given to the American people for the war in Iraq to torture at the US detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and illegal domestic spying. Then he moved to send the resolution to the House Judiciary Committee, whose chairman John Conyers has long rejected any effort to hold Bush constitutionally accountable.

The 251-166 margin of the vote, held on a roll call Wednesday, saw all 227 Democrats—including Kucinich and his lone co-sponsor, Robert Wexler of Florida—joined by 24 Republicans move to dispose of the resolution. Voting against were 166 Republicans, who sought to force a debate on impeachment for the purpose of embarrassing the Democratic Party leadership.

After Kucinich introduced the measure Monday and spent more than four hours reading the entire text into the Congressional Record, House Republicans utilized a parliamentary provision to force the clerk of the House to read the text out loud all over again on Tuesday, consuming another four hours and keeping the House in session until after midnight. The purpose was to rub the Democrats’ noses in their own refusal to take action to back up their occasional bursts of anti-Bush demagogy.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ruled out any impeachment of Bush as soon as the Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006. Impeachment resolutions against Cheney were introduced in May and November of 2007 and killed each time by the Democrats, in the same fashion as the Bush impeachment resolution Wednesday.

There is no question that, unlike Bill Clinton, who was impeached for lying about a private sexual encounter, George W. Bush is guilty of offenses that meet the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard set by the US Constitution.

The adamant opposition to impeachment proceedings on the part of Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and the rest of the Democratic leadership does not stem from a belief that such proceedings would be unpopular. According to public opinion polls, a majority of the American people and an overwhelming majority of Democratic voters favor Bush’s impeachment and removal from office.

A public vote in the House of Representatives would, however, find a clear majority of the Democrats in Congress siding with Bush against the sentiments of their own constituents. The Democratic leadership seeks to block any vote to conceal as much as possible their role as the last line of defense for the Bush administration.

The Democratic leadership opposes impeachment not on legal, but on political and class grounds. They are well aware that the adoption of an impeachment resolution against Bush and Cheney, regardless of the outcome of a Senate trial, would deal a major blow against the White House as an institution and undermine the legitimacy of all Bush’s actions as “commander-in-chief,” especially in the war in Iraq.

It would also inevitably raise the question of who in Congress was complicit with Bush’s criminal conduct over the past seven years—tarring Democrats as well as Republicans, since a majority of Senate Democrats and a large number of House Democrats voted for the Iraq war resolution in 2002. Many other actions listed in Kucinich’s articles of impeachment were given near-unanimous support by the Democrats.

More fundamentally, the Democratic Party is a bourgeois party and it seeks to uphold the authority of the bourgeois state..."

bourgeois, stop.

Still some valid points though - rare you'll see me agreeing with that site, but there you go.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Keith Olbermann, countdown, Impeach, Bush, 35, Articles' to 'Olbermann, Impeach, Bush, torture, surveillance, kucinich, constitution, democrats' - edited by winkler1

>> ^jwray:
Good luck living long enough to find those 1 million errors by yourself.


I don't need to, statistics say it's true. The majority of published scientific "facts" wind up being inaccurate. The evidence said something at the time, but later it became apparent that the conclusion was wrong. Happens all the time.

And ^Qruel, it is not "blind faith" as you call it. I was half playing devil's advocate to show how ridiculously partisan the defense-of/attack-on the war has become. Notice how quickly you responded attacking my reason and character. Though in more tactful words, your first line says "You're a mindless sheep, but I expected that from you." (Gee thanks, heh). It all depends on who you believe when they're talking. Someone is lying or has been deceived. Who that is has become partisan and almost cultic at this point.

You say it's a stretch to compare scientific errors to the administration's "lies." Well, if you change "lies" to "errors," somehow it fits just fine. Again it comes down to who you believe is telling the truth and who you believe is lying. Each side has a church of its own to defend it vehemently. I know you'll only see one side of that argument on the sift, but there are other places out there where you can see the other side argued. I personally think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I responded so harshly because I view the article you posted as misleading and politically motivated. It lists "false" statements and makes the leap that they were "lies" but fails to defend that leap. People who hate Bush assume his mistakes to be brilliantly planned and covered-up lies. Granted, the reason they hate him enough to make this assumption is his own dang fault to begin with so maybe he has it coming.

There might be a case for impeaching Bush and would not cry if there eventually is one. That would at least allow him to be better investigated. I'm not gonna defend him as a president. He's made too many stupid mistakes and has enacted too many dangerous and failed policies. He's barely conservative at all, fiscally irresponsible, diplomatically a failure, and as bureaucratic as they come...well on the right at least.

You can accuse me of being an optimist, but I'm no sheep and I'm no idiot.

p.s. the article was interesting. Thanks.

I would love to see an impeachment and a trial. However, I'm worried that we would only be able to impeach Bush, or maybe Bush and Cheney and that would still leave a cronie in power. Better than nothing I suppose...

this is so true, thanks for pointing it out

In reply to this comment by Grimm:
guessandcheck, that is not a fair comparison. You see Clinton lied "under oath" and that is why he was impeached. Bush and Cheney didn't lie under oath because they refuse to testify under oath...in fact they refuse to let anyone that has anything to do with their lies testify under oath either...all under the umbrella of "executive privilege".

guessandcheck, that is not a fair comparison. You see Clinton lied "under oath" and that is why he was impeached. Bush and Cheney didn't lie under oath because they refuse to testify under oath...in fact they refuse to let anyone that has anything to do with their lies testify under oath either...all under the umbrella of "executive privilege".

Zoinnk wrote: "There are many better things to impeach Bush for than sitting around for 7 minutes during 9/11. Impeachment, as far as I understand it, is for a President doing something illegal, not for incompetence."

Sorry I'm late to the game, but I just wanted to comment. I do think there are better reasons to impeach Bush than sitting around for 7 minutes on 9/11. When you boil it down to such a specific, sterile perspective, it seems to lose its point or, at the least, its validity. Sure, there are also other reasons one could use to push for an impeachment that tend to sway more towards him breaking the law, such as invading a country under false pretenses, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Though, I think Maher's point was this: This is the Commander in Chief of our country, our president, the guy we hired into office to make the decisions to protect us in times of crisis from enemies domestic and abroad. He was told our nation was under attack. He wasn't told the severity of the attack, just that we were under attack. And because his response to hearing that we were under attack was to remain seated in this photo-op for an additional 7 minutes, Maher was saying that shows inaction, or rather an inability to run this nation, and therefore should be considered an impeachable offense. I have to agree.

There are many better things to impeach Bush for than sitting around for 7 minutes during 9/11. Impeachment, as far as I understand it, is for a President doing something illegal, not for incompetence.

As a liberal, I've always been troubled by Bill Maher. He uses the same tactics of half-truths, word twisting, and condescenion that we criticize the current adminstration for.

Take his first interview with Ron Paul on Real Time (and I am a Ron Paul opponent). He basically twists Paul's words into "The Civil War was a bad thing," which was not what Paul was saying at all. A few weeks, later he has Paul on again and basically admits he wasn't listening to anything Paul was saying. I'll give him credit for apologizing, though.

And all this recent "surge" and the influx of new troops to Iraq will just get our countrymen killed faster, because more troops will be pushed to the battlefield without proper training.

When's that impeach Bush march?

Some places have already done so? Last I heard something like 80 communities in the US had passed resolutions to impeach Bush, you following the crowd there too?

I won't try to convince you they can't be a problem, any animal or person can be in the right conditions. It isn't the breeds fault that some found them good for fighting and the aggressive ones violate breed standards, they don't represent them.

Here is the description of the breed according to the AKC, if that's not what they act like then blame it on poor breeding and owners who shouldn't be allowed around animals. Sweet disposition and amenable to discipline isn't just a claim by fans, it's the breed standard.

https://www.akc.org/breeds/bull_terrier/index.cfm

Let's impeach Bush for the war and killing soldiers. Hell lets go back in time into our impeachment time traveling devices and impeach Lyndon B Johnson, and John Kennedy for Vietnam. Or lets impeach Clinton for what happen in Mogadishu. Even though that all the presidents I mentioned before were acting on the ideal to make it a better place for that country. Vietnam was tearing itself apart. Iraq had a dictator killing millions. And in Mogadishu we had people starving. You know those presidents that even though it wasn't our war we were trying to make a difference because we were the only ones who could. We should stand back and let a country tear itself apart. We should never help those in need. Let's listen to all the actors especially the genius of Sean Penn to tell us what to believe and follow. Because and I quote from Team America World Police, Sean Penn said "Last year I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles."

Yeah that is all. Here is how you make an angry American, by showing bullshit. This happened in the 30s,40s,50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and now, and guess what, it's probably going to keep happening as long as war exist. America is full of idealist and was founded by idealist. But whatever I guess we all forgot about American History. I mean QM did mention hippies. The hippies did say and act the same way against Johnson because of the Vietnam war. Just saying is all.