Throughout the early campaign season, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-OH, continually harped on the need to present articles of impeachment against President Bush and Vice President Cheney while seemingly ignoring the fact that he, as a member of the US House of Representatives, could actually do such a thing. I always wondered why he chose to talk about it on the campaign trail as he sought the Democratic nomination for president rather than do something about it as a sitting representative. Well, he finally did it long after he was soundly trounced on the campaign trail and written off as a less-than-serious contender for the nomination.
The Philadelphia Inquirer recently kinda-sorta gave Mr. Kucinich suppressed applause for finally having had the gumption to submit the articles to the House even though the PI also acknowledged the Congress’ complicity in approving and funding the war effort. In the end, the PI gave Kucinich his due: “Having been read into the record, the impeachment articles now are likely to do no more than gather dust in committee. OK. But as least Kucinich did his part to place a footnote in the history books.”
At the VERY least, the articles of impeachment against the president have been read into the record, but what has been accomplished? What may well be noted in history’s footnotes is that there was apparently only one member of the Congress who felt it necessary to frivolously waste time submitting for consideration something that had no chance of even being considered because the president is only months away from being out of office anyway, which is what an impeachment conviction is ultimately designed to do.
If I were to make some kind of prediction, it will be that someone some distant day from now will actually say out loud, “President Bush was impeached” without filling in the rest of the blanks and telling the whole story: there was this one pissed-off congressman from Ohio, if I remember correctly, whom no one seemed to take seriously, but he wanted someone to know that he was here, I guess. The whole impeachment process takes months anyway. By the time the articles might have passed the House and the Senate made ready for the trial, President Bush would be another former president.
The joke is on us. Though impeachment is no laughing matter, one cannot help but to wonder if this is not some lame pay-back for President Clinton’s impeachment which actually did make it to trial in the Senate though he was exonerated. So it remains to be seen whether the next president will be impeached by some congressman with an ax to grind. Meanwhile the price of oil on the worldwide market is making history, and Congress is fighting tooth and nail to continue the current moratorium on domestic drilling. Energy research and development will take a back seat to a new windfall profits tax (which didn’t work 30 years ago), and there has actually been congressional talk about nationalizing this nation’s oil refineries.
Now we are in the midst of an election season. Though Congress will recess probably in August, there is no reason to believe that anything of substance will come from this Congress before then. Democrats will blame Republicans, and Republicans will blame Democrats and we will merrily reelected almost every one of these people all the while giving this Congress its lowest approval rating ever. Nothing will ever change in this Congress until this Congress is changed. If Obama continues to beat McCain over the head with his “more of the same” banner while we reelect the same people who have given us all this and more, “more of the same” will be the least of our worries.
4 comments:
Kucinich is a gadfly. But presenting articles of impeachment against the President and Vice-President is his right as a Congressman. Refusal to act on those articles is some indication that in the collective judgment of Congress that those articles are without merit.
Any congressman can read into the record of Congress just about anything they want to present. The actions of Kucinich likely reflect deep seated "dislike" for the Bush administration. But in now way does Kucinich's actions constitute "impeachment." That would require a majority vote of Congress.
It is possible that Kucinich may be motivated by some desire for "pay-back" for Clinton's impeachment. The difference is that with Clinton articles were presented and a majority of Congress voted to those articles of impeachment against Clinton on the specification of purjury, ie., Clinton was found guilt as charged. The joke was that the Senate failed to follow through by affixing a penalty against Clinton. In no case was Clinton exonerated of the charges. He was found guilty as charged.
Look it up, Earl. President Clinton was, in fact, acquitted by the Senate (check the Washington Post archives). He was indeed impeached by the US House, but he was found 'not guilty' in the trial. This verdict was the only reason he was allowed to serve out the remainder of his term. A 'guilty' verdict, by constitutional standards, would have required his ouster from office.
You are indeed correct. Clinton was impeached on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. The Senate failed to convict Clinton by a 50-50 vote. Regardless of the failure of the Senate to convict Clinton, I would think that any reasonable person would conclude that on the basis of the evidence he was completely guilty as charged.
I agree. The vote, if I recall, pretty much fell along party lines with a few Republicans who voted with the Democrats.
Post a Comment