There must be something Dick Cheney has done that is impeachable, right? But given how little formal authority his office holds, it's hard to get a grip on exactly what he should be impeached for. Bruce <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_fein> Fein is a wonderful constitutionalist (and of counsel to the Ron Paul campaign), but his Cheney indictment <http://www.slate.com/id/2169292/pagenum/all/> at Slate is pretty thin. His complaints all seem to consist of Cheney persuading George W. Bush to commit the many <http://knowinghumans.net/2007/11/impeach-george-w-bush.html> impeachable acts that Bush has committed. Dennis Kucinich's impeachment <http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&do cid=f:hr333ih.txt.pdf> resolution against Cheney is a little bit better, being more focused (on WMD, al Qaeda, and Iran). It also is the second-best list I've seen (after this one <http://www.whodies.com/lies_threat.html> ) of the Administration's recklessly false statements about Iraq. In my model Bush impeachment resolution, I indeed included as a last (and most tenuous) charge that Bush "invaded Iraq under pretenses about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that at best were recklessly and negligently false." However, the impeachable offense here is the invading under the pretenses, and not the promulgation of those pretenses. If Kucinich is right that it's impeachable to win a policy debate that shouldn't have been won if that victory has dire consequences for the nation, then a President Kucinich would be impeachable pretty much as soon as he starts signing legislation.
-- Posted By Brian Holtz to Knowing <http://knowinghumans.net/2007/11/impeach-richard-cheney.html> Humans at 11/26/2007 11:35:00 PM
