Dennis Kucinich Introduces Legislation To Impeach Dick Cheney

Technorati Tags: Dennis Kucinich, Dick Cheney, impeachment

Dennis Kucinich today introduced three articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney:

Bush administration, Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich this afternoon introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.

Kucinich said Congress should oust Cheney from office for purposely fabricating intelligence in the runup to the Iraq war, thereby deceiving some in Congress and the public into believing war was necessary. He also said Cheney manipulated intelligence about purported links between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al-Qaida, the group responsible for 9/11.

And more recently, said Kucinich, unveiling his three articles of impeachment at a news conference across from the Capitol, Cheney threatened aggression against Iran when Iran has not threatened the United States.

MSNBC's Tom Curry has an interesting commentary:

Some in Washington consider Kucinich an eccentric, but he was saying in 2004 when he ran for president what the other Democrats are now saying: The Iraq war was a profound mistake and the United States must get out.

In his party, Kucinich was a man ahead of his time on Iraq.

So, too, with his move to impeach Cheney? History offers a lesson here, partly encouraging to Kucinich, but mostly not.

In March of 1997, when Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., made the first proposal to impeach Bill Clinton, many in Washington thought the idea outlandish. But on Dec. 19, 1998, the House did vote to impeach Clinton.

For those who wonder why Kucinich chose to go for Cheney rather than Bush in impeachment proceedings, here's the answer:

Kucinich said he was starting to try to impeach Cheney rather than President Bush, because if he succeeded in removing Bush, Cheney would then become president.

“You would have to go through the constitutional agony of impeaching two presidents consecutively,” he explained.

The chances of these articles of impeachment actually going anywhere are probably slim to none; and many people on the left don't even think it's a good idea. Maybe they're right. But that has to do with what's politically possible -- not what's morally and legally required. And damn, it feels good that at least one member of Congress is willing to stand up for what's morally and legally required.