Kucinich Impeachment Bill
Submitted by bukojack on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 02:01Can anyone tell me why Dr. Paul did not support Kucinich's resolution to impeach Cheney?
»
Dedicated to restoring Constitutional government to the United States of America
  |
User login
Daily Paul Features
Top Recent Topics
Newest & Top
New |
Top |
YouTubes |
Ron Paul 2012 |
|
|
★
|
★
Active Forum Topics
Recent Comments
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
Easy answer: because congress is more at fault.
I would be willing to bet that Dr. Paul believes congress is more responsible for what happened/is happening in the Middle East than the VP and POTUS. After all congress could stop all the nonsense that is going on in one session.
www.ronpaul2008.com
www.ronpaul2008.com
Great answer
Well said: while Kucinich is introducing articles of impeachment against the VP, Paul is introducing the American Freedom Agenda to restore civil liberties that Congress voted to remove. Impeaching Cheney won't stop the war: Congress following Paul's lead and not voting another penny for it will.
Let's assume Dennis is right (which would be unusual)
An impeachment, if successful, would take about as long as Dick Cheney's going to serve, anyway, because as we saw with Slick Willie, impeachments take FOREVER. Do you think months of that garbage on TV screens will really help this campaign? I don't. It's a waste of time because Dennis is betting into a dry pot. There's nothing to win if Dick leaves office when Dick was going to leave office, anyway. Why work for something meaningless??
JMR
My best guess why he voted no on impeachment
As far as I know, although many of us who support him have said that the administration lied the country into war, and that torture was approved at the highest levels, Dr. Paul has never said so himself, always describing the war as a "mistake" from the beginning. He has said that there were no WMDs, but not that the administration knew this. We also know that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald never thought he had enough evidence to charge Cheney in the Plame case, which some have offered as a basis for impeachment..
Sometimes we forget that Dr. Paul doesn't necessarily agree with all his supporters' world views, and it is quite clear that he is loathe to get into the question of motives and deceit by opponents. Consider how he handled the Giuliani attack, responding entirely in terms of what he (Dr. Paul) believed, and not questioning the integrity of Giuliani. The next day's press conference with a reading list was predicated on the view that Giuliani really didn't know what caused 9/11: never did Dr. Paul suggest that Giuliani was lying.
The Clinton impeachment case involved agreement on the facts, but disagreement on its importance: there wasn't a single Democrat who, in defending Clinton, said he hadn't lied under oath, and Clinton publicly apologized. No Democrat ever questioned whether Clinton had lied, but whether lying about an affair fit the category of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Paul viewed it as obstruction of justice.
Many people view the neocons as a shadowy group with hidden motives, but given that their Project for a New American Century was published and discussed openly, some, including Paul, have considered it to simply be an horrendous policy advocated by people who sincerely believed it would bring democracy to the Middle East and lead to a permanent (or at least very long term) era of peace. Don't we all know people who are still supporting this war and who we know well enough personally not to think they are evil liars? Again, just because so many of us have questioned the motives of the neocons doesn't mean that Paul agrees with us on that.
I think Paul was wrong to support impeachment of Clinton and wrong to vote against impeachment of Cheney. But I believe he has shown absolute consistency and fidelity in both votes to the views he holds on the facts of both cases, and that as supporters we need to remember that Paul is an extreme practicioner of Hanlon's Law: Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained as stupidity.
Can't say really.... at this juncture...
I understand that Ron has said that while a thorough investigation is needed, it is unlikely that he'd vote for impeachment with exactly one year remaining till the next election.
What is ironic, or opportunistic, depending on how you look at it, is that it wasn't the GOP that tried to end the debate, but it was the Dem leadership. Led by Rep. Shadegg (R)AZ, along with over 140 GOP Reps, kept the Impeachment Resolution alive. In fact, Stanley Hoyer (D) Majority Leader is the one who offered to table the resolution.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Kucinich_not_stopping_with_Che...
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/11/house-tables-re...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308738,00.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/11/chen...
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/republicans-keep-cheney-...
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/11/c...
Now, there is only one reason why I think they would do that:
1. Perhaps, GOP thought that once Dems themselves vote against it, it'd kill the impeachment debate, once and for all. For the sole purpose of publicly humiliating neoCON bootlicking, waterboarding-torture apologist, spineless, Constitutional duty abdicating, tyranny enabling Democrats. To again, underscore the fact that the Majority in the 110th Congress, the Dems, are weak and pathetic. Hey they're not polling 10% approval with Americans for no reason.
2. May be, to further divide up the Democrats into two angry factions, the more liberal faction and the "BlueDogs" warmongers. With such split, GOP would ensure gridlocking an already do nothing Congress. Especially with so many, non-binding, fake investigations going on by the Dems, where Judiciary Chair, John Conyers (D)MI dangles "Contempt of Congress" charge, for a friggin month. Woo, scary, why don't we give criminals more time to hide and shred documented evidence?
So Okay, it was obviously, a purely opportunistic move, for both Dems and GOP.
"...Then Hoyer moved to send the measure to committee. That tactic reunified Democrats: those who back impeachment can say they moved the process along; those who don’t can say they sent it off to die. Before the vote, Conyers had warned that impeachment could open a split that could disrupt the majority for the remainder of the 110th Congress."
Once the Resolution is pushed to the Judiciary Committee which John Conyers, Jr.(D)MI is the chair, it'll be effectively killed. Conyers has publicly already taken a position that Impeachment is off the table.
But there is a chance that the GOP has sewn their own demise; there is a 20% chance that Conyers may proceed, and the entire year of 2008 may be dedicated to Impeachment hearings. But odds are clearly against it. There's only an infinitesimal chance...
So this Congress, both left and right, has a history of abdicating their Constitutional duties, just so that they can blame it on the Executive Branch, when things go wrong. Just like with Iraq, the current GOP reps know how unpopular the war/occupation is. With 70% of Americans, along with early 40% of Republicans disapproving this illegal war/occupation, weaseling out of their responsibility by simply retiring after their current term, in NO WAY, does it help them "save-face." As if feigning integrity while attempting to defend the indefensible, places them in some delusional intellectual pantheon. Simply criminal, despicable, and gutless.
But what really gives me pause is, 149 Republicans voted to keep the Impeachment Resolution alive, because they were directed by the GOP leadership. It may have been done to embarrass the Dems, but what if, with enough momentum, they actually have to impeach? And what if those 149 actually, secretly believe that they should. They'll go where the wind blows. Are they surreptitiously signaling or just playing plain politics of probability? One may never know.
But what I am interested in is, how would Ron Paul vote. Don't know how he voted on the current Resolution, but how would he vote, once the Judiciary Committee does go ahead with the actual Impeachment? And how would that affect his Presidential campaign??
***UPDATE: Okay, so I just read this,,
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5279586.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-impe...
Our Good Doctor did vote against it. But may be he voted against it because he knew it was ordered by the GOP leadership, who intended it to be frivolous, and to humiliate and divide the Dems. And not out of truly fulfilling their Constitutional duties to Impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors, which often amounts to political crimes, not just criminal felonies.
But, may be, just may be, Darth Dickhead may croak in our lifetime, all on his own. Hell, the man is on quadruple by-pass, and his life depends on a lithium battery made in China. Just may be...
WE'RE INSPIRED, NOT HIRED!!
PRESIDENT RON PAUL Jan 20, 2009 - Jan 20, 2017.
B E L I E V E
On the upside...
It's hell of a lot easier to prosecute criminals without the shield of "plausible deniability" or diplomatic immunity. Once the neoCONs are out of office, with a Ron Paul Presidency, and a proper non-politicized Justice Dept, right before we get rid of the ATF, DEA, (cough) FBI (cough), we'll finally be able to go after these murderous war criminals, globalists, and traitors to the Republic, once and for all.
And it could turn into a state or DC based trial. As a World Court trial would be unlikely under a Ron Paul admin. Although, since our Congress did approve the Geneva Conventions, it is the law of the land. And if we are to be absolute Constitutionalists, since ex post facto laws are illegal, any crimes committed while the laws were in effect, which it still is, and one that everyone should support, would render their retro-active protection as prescribed in John Warner Def AuthoAct, null and void. Simply put? They're going to jail, for a very long time.
I'd settle for an Old West, old-school smack down justice. Justice nonetheless. Hell, I'd go for a citizens arrest, at this point! May be even Judge Judy.
You know what? I finally change my mind on the impeachment issue. While they absolutely deserve it, the spineless Dem leadership is correct. But not for the reasons they're not impeaching, which is to save their own political behinds. But so that however useless 110th Congress is, they should be freed to go about their do-nothing govt biz. And let the next admin raid the hell out of neoCONs and their Dem and GOP enablers' hideouts, with proper warrants, no rendition, no torture, with the full weight of We the People's criminal indictments and investigations, prosecution and sentencing; show the world that America still stands for a justice system based on a full due-process of the law. And we'll punish our own, NOT the World Court in Hague.
WE'RE INSPIRED, NOT HIRED!!
PRESIDENT RON PAUL Jan 20, 2009 - Jan 20, 2017.
B E L I E V E
It did make it to the judiciary commitee
Was it in the judiciary and then brought to the floor, or was this a new resolution? If congress does its job and has real investigations, the impeachment will follow from there. Ron Paul should back impeachment as outing a covert CIA operative during wartime is treason; that is the definition really. Cheney's chief of staff lied and took a bullet for Cheney and got his felony conviction commuted before the appeals process was finished. What else needs to be said except why can't congress both GOP and DEMs act on this? This is why we need Ron Paul someone who stands on principle and not political tactics.
"In short, you see, the essential is to cease being free and to obey, in repentance, a greater rogue than oneself. When we are all guilty, that will be democracy. Without countering, cher ami, that we must take revenge for having to die alone. Death is so
Read about it
Apparently, because the GOP leadership knew that Democrats wouldn't actually go through with impeachment, they gave the order to Republicans to "help" Kucinich, and hurt mainstream Democrats politically.
--
"Midway through the vote, with instructions from the GOP leadership, Republicans one by one changed their votes from yes — to kill the resolution — to no, trying to force the chamber into a debate and an up-or-down vote on the proposal."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5279586.html
"The 218-194 party-line vote waylaying the measure by sending it to the judiciary committee capped a remarkable afternoon in which Republicans tried to outfox Democrats, switching their votes in a strategy that could have triggered an immediate vote."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-impe...
Principle vs The Game
I'm torn on this. I feel that RP should support this on principle, but I also accept that such a move could be politically devistating (since he IS running as a Republican) and we've worked so hard to get the primaries lined up. Perhaps he could after Feb 5th.
Dare I say it, I think he has to play the game a bit right now. We need to get those Registered Republicans to rally to his side, not put them on the defensive.
Then again, making such a move would further cement him as the principled dude he is. ...Man, I wish this was being introduced in another 2 months (and I say that as someone who has worked and rallied for the Impeachment to happen asap).
--------------------------------------------
Look At All The Happy Creatures
The more I think about it,
the more I think he needs to get on board, games be damned. This can't be a left/right issue.
Is this a rEVOLution or not?
--------------------------------------------
Look At All The Happy Creatures
No need
Why would he. If the DEMS wanted to clean House they would have tried to Impeach him the first day they took the majority. Even if Chaney is Impeached, then what? He still Profits big time from the WAR. The WAR will still continue and if Paul is not elected President, Hiliary will continue the WAR. Backing this BIll would be Political Suicide. We have bigger fish to fry. Dennis is just a man on a mission since he realizes he has no chance at President. He's an honest man and Ron has said they are friends, but right now, let Dennis be Dennis by himself. He'll be okay. His wife is half his age and FINE AS HELL.
Why didn't RP support this?
uh, maybe because:
Alcee Hastings (D-FLA) tells FOX NEWS: 'Dennis Kucinich is on a quest of his own. He sees flying saucers and he acts like one, too'...
The Dems are gonna gut him on this. Talk about political suicide.
______________
Give me Liberty....
______________
"Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment." - Ron Paul
I actually support the
I actually support the measure and called my congressman (Dem) to encourage him to do likewise. At the very least it prompts an investigation/trial.
I wish I could find an official record of the motion to table and Paul's vote. Anyone who can help me out?
But yes, whether or not Cheney did those things should be investigated. He is innocent till proven guilty, a right I'd gladly give him (though he'd deny it to others).
I also think that when Hastings says that about Kucinich she also says it about the 21 other co-sponsors. No one is recognizing that. Are all 21 chasing after flying saucers--probably not--which is why you seek to put other peoples names on the bill.
Support and Defend the Constitution!