digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Why is Cheney impeachment not in the news?!

opednews.com — get the word out now!!!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -38/+197It's not in the news because it's never going to happen. But to put my money where my mouth is... Raydioactive, if Cheney is impeached before the Dems have a nominee, I'll donate $50 to the candidate of your choice (Running as a Democrat). If he's impeached after the nomination is locked up, I'll donate $100 total to the nominee. I'm a Democrat but I don't usually donate money.
    • TheWiseNoob, on 10/12/2007, -49/+28Do not doubt the impossible, it has been done many times.
    • XISUPERMANIX, on 10/12/2007, -28/+31Yup it will never happen, besides these are nobody has decided on it yet, its just on the table.
    • frprod, on 10/12/2007, -75/+30Just cause it's liberal hype doesn't mean it's credible.
    • johnbellone, on 10/12/2007, -9/+33It would surely be a happy day of he was impeached. I'll donate some money as well. But unfortunately I do not see it happening anytime soon. Let's take this one step at a time and hopefully get Gonzales out of office first. I am just waiting and counting the days until he hands in his resignation. Its funny to think at one point someone thought this guy to be a Supreme Court possible candidate.
    • gatesisgangsta, on 10/12/2007, -25/+4sorry for abusing the system..
      Direct link to the "petition"

      http://www.usalone.net/cgi-bin/oen.cgi?qnum=1921
    • benradler, on 10/12/2007, -11/+47dammit i've been saying this for 5 years!
    • ganjadude4391, on 10/12/2007, -22/+11sorry guys but.....


      NOW you know where to call!!!

      http://digg.com/political_opinion/CONTACT_NUMBERS_for_the_ENTIRE_MEDIA

      BE CIVIL
    • Rekzai, on 10/12/2007, -16/+76Because nothing important makes the news, just a bunch of *****.
    • bobbknight, on 10/12/2007, -8/+94Why is the Cheney impeachment not in the news, because he has yet to be impeached.
      Lord do you not know how the process works?

      The impeachment procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. (All fifty state legislatures as well as the District of Columbia city council may also pass articles of impeachment against their own executives.) The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached."

      Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This may include the impeachment of the Vice President him- or herself, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where she or he was the defendant wouldn't be permitted. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of someone other than the President), the duties would fall to the President Pro Tempore.

      In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office (either elected or appointed). Despite a conviction by the Senate, the defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution. It is possible to impeach someone even after the accused has vacated their office in order to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension). If a two-thirds majority of the senators present does not vote "Guilty" on one or more of the charges, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.

      So what is the real question?

      Oh I know, who cares, and what would it matter?
    • smackywentz, on 10/12/2007, -34/+98@frprod

      F U C K T H I S B I P A R T I S A N B U L L S H I T ! I'm sorry I make nice, civil comments all the time, but I get so dam'n tired of the "liberal propaganda," "neo-con tactics," terminology being thrown around. Both sides red and blue, right and left, rep and dem, want the same ***** thing. It's just so ridiculous that more people don't get this. I mean it literally boggles the mind. You know when they say someone died of an aneurysm while tying their shoe. This is what they were thinking about, I swear it.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -26/+11It's not in the news because even the liberal MSM doesn't buy it...
    • jmpeagle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19@ bobbknight

      the impeachment process is just one step not two. Removal from office is 2 steps. Impeachment is just getting a simple majority from the House to agree to put him on trial in front of the senate. Conviction which is separate from impeachment needs 67 votes from the Senate and it removes the impeached person from office.
    • mrfunktastic, on 10/12/2007, -13/+29GUYS guys guys - the real question is - Where In The World is Matt Lauer?
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10It's not going to happen because it's not on the news. The mass media is often what makes something mainstream.
    • Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4JCSaint and his diggers have the classic Defeatist attitude that lets this always slide under the media radar and off the table. His kind are cowardly.
    • wwwdot1jesdotus, on 10/12/2007, -20/+33"Why is Cheney impeachment not in the news?!"

      Because it hasn't happened.

      Buried.
    • yournamehere, on 10/12/2007, -13/+250 bucks? you must have a tiny mouth
    • InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -19/+55Screw impeachment. Move directly to criminal indictments. He'll resign then, plus the personal liability will be far greater, and you don't need full support of congress to do it.

      Let's face it, Cheney won't get impeached so long as the repugs think that an impeachment hearing will hurt their chances in 2008. The only way the repugs will go along is if they decide that Cheney is more of a liability that an asset. When faced with a choice between doing right and protecting one of their own, they protect their own every time unless there are personal repercussions involved (like getting booted from office).

      As a long time (and now thoroughly disgusted) republican myself, I would like to offer this notice to the GOP:

      GET YOUR ***** ***** TOGETHER. I have been a republican for 30 years and I am here to tell you that I will vote a straight democratic ticket in 2008 out of spite if the GOP doesn't quit with the rampant corruption, stonewalling, hypocrisy, mud slinging, fear mongering, and attempts to shift the blame to lib'ruls for all of the GOP's bad behavior.

      I strongly suggest that fellow republicans take the same hard line against what the GOP has become. Give the GOP two choices: either clean up their act, or face humiliation in 2008. If 2006 wasn't a loud enough wake up call, make 2008 load enough to be heard across the globe. Enough already.

    • Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Here is an article that contains a link to the article of impeachment (pdf form):
      http://digg.com/political_opinion/A_Case_Against_Cheney_2
    • skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -16/+11It's not in the news because everyone sees it for what it is - a cheap political publicity stunt by a long-shot candidate for the Democratic presidential ticket (Kucinich).
    • Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -10/+22And you think the Republican party's attempt to impeach of Clinton wasn't a stunt? Lying about a war that costs a lot of money and lives to you must mean nothing.
    • numbered, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20@smackywentz

      Trust me man, I hear ya. If you don't like Cheney or Bush you're a liberal, if you like guns you're a conservative Charlton Heston wannabe. The whole system is designed to nerf itself into a lose lose situation for the entire voting public. Democracy is neat in theory...
    • jimmytown, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@JCSaint

      Unfortunately, because of the time and postage spent attempting to get you to donate more of your money, $50 is about the break even point for a political donation. In other words, if you give a political party less than $50, they and their affiliated groups who share their mailing list will spend more money just mailing you junk mail.
    • morsosky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5if we all agree to donate $200 to the dem candidate that spearheads this and sees it through that might, just might, make it happen. And i would totally give $200 to see Cheney out of office, wouldnt you? Imagine that, if 50,000 people agreed to do the same thing that candidate would net 10million. I dunno, this isnt that far fetched.
    • OneManIsolator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@ bobbknight:

      Funny, I remember the Clinton impeachment being all over the place back when the articles were drafted... sure, it was just a few "dangerously liberal rags" like the Washington Post and the dreaded New York Times that were talking about it, but it was certainly in the news.

      Maybe I'm just exhibiting selective liberal-media-brainwashed memory? I sincerely don't know... but I wasn't on the internet as much back then, and I remember that when he was first officially impeached, I had already heard about the proceedings before.
    • BigPoopie, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2I believe you need a two-thirds vote in favor of impeachment in the Senate. I doubt the Dumbocrats can even get half of the votes with Jew Lieberman's lovefest for Bush and his cronies. The Democraps can't even get their withdrawal of troops bill to pass with the budget allocation. What makes you think they can convict Cheney? It's just more wasted time and energy by your elected government officials while this country is becoming a third world nation.
    • GoatMonkey2112, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9"I'm a Democrat but I don't usually donate money."

      Isn't that ALL you do as a Democrat?
    • smek2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"It's not in the news because it's never going to happen." - My thoughts exactly. As much as i wish to see those crooks giving an account for what they did, but let's be realistic, we're not living in that fantastic, ideal, civilized world they want us to believe we're living in.
    • mrbeagle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3That title is misleading as hell - I thought Cheney was actually getting impeached or something. Bad, bad OP.
    • Forever-Zero, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2"You know when they say someone died of an aneurysm while tying their shoe. This is what they were thinking about, I swear it."

      If it weren't for my horse...
    • poonaka, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Because Cheney and Bush run the news
    • FatAlbert1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0You can donate at my website Albert Howard 4 1st Afr Amer U.S. Prez '08
      Contribute Now Fulfill Prophecy Vote 4 Me


    • DavidBGie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Even the left wing media knows it's BS. That's why they are not reporting it.
    • umdigger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"It's not in the news because it's never going to happen." ... seems to be the reoccurring theme here.

      I just love how we impeach Clinton for getting a little action on the side, but we are too afraid to do anything to Bush even though he usurped the Geneva convention and should be tried for war crimes. Congress needs to grow some balls. Don't get me wrong conservatives...I think Rosie is a freak of nature just like you. There is just so much we should be willing to accept.
    • mercness, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@InetRoadKill

      Criminal charges, you are a genius. That's what impeachment proceedings are. He has sovereign immunity.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Clinton wasn't impeached for "getting a little action on the side"; Clinton was impeached for being convicted of perjury.

      Meanwhile, all the libs on Digg want to impeach Bush and Cheney when they haven't been convicted of anything...
    • sphincterRing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0kiss my name - Cheney rules
    • readthis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Here are the articles of impeachment. Read them for yourself: http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdf
    • SirBarnes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Breaking news: The President and the Vice President is conducting a phone poll to determine how many people would like to see them impeached - the number is 1-202-456-1111. Poll opens at 9:00AM 05/04/2007. You may vote early by calling earlier and leaving a message.

      http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Bush_Cheney_wants_to_hear_your_opinion_on_why_they_should_be_impeached
  • TheWiseNoob, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1*edit* meant to replay to ^^first comment^^
  • LuciferChaos, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37I've wondered why there has been such a deafening silence on this matter since the day after Kucinich filed the articles of impeachment. Whether you support it or not, whether its going to succeed or not, wouldn't this be a major news story?

    I guess there's so much more important ***** going on like "American Idiot"... uh "American Idol" I mean, and the rest of the putrefying pantheon of "popular culture"...
    • knightblade2oo4, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12Honestly I'm more worried about Jack Bauer than all this *****. government shmovernment.
    • jtorkbob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Because real headlines would be more meaningful than the event itself. The only reason it's been an event that it's 'on the table' is because those behind it want it to be everywhere.
    • knightblade2oo4, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6***** i keep forgetting my /sarcasm tag.
    • InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30If the impeachment involved a blow job, you wouldn't be able to turn on your TV for the next 4 years without seeing a "special report" on it.
    • OneManIsolator, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Because Kucinich is like that kid we all knew in high school who listened to the Dead Kennedys religiously and had every book and spoken word album ever written by Jello Biafera, and who ended up getting a job at Border's Books & Music and eventually disappeared. The one who we see ten years later with a typical haircut, typical wardrobe, and altogether typical life.

      He's a nice guy, don't get me wrong, and his heart is in the right place, and he listens to the right people. The trouble is precisely that - he listens, in a nation where such an emphasis is placed on the heroic Man of Ideals - be it the sassy James Dean rebel figure or the stone-hearted John Wayne sort. Politicians respond more vividly to people promoting their own personal agenda (as has been documented time and time again), rather than anything even vaguely resembling an aggregate opinion.

      In other words, if you (anyone) feels something incredibly strongly and there's 50 people who happen agree with you, and if I sit down with 100 people, ask them what they think and end up presenting a solution that all 100 people completely (without reservations) agree upon, you'll get the momentum, I'll get Kuciniched.

      It sucks and goes completely counter to the paper-ideals which this country pays lip service to - but them's the breaks.

      I say this as someone who votes Green, and would vote Green even in a swing state. Even though I know and understand that politics is in fact about "gaming the system" ("a vote for green is a vote for red"), I'm still too idealistic at heart, and don't believe in "giving" my vote to a candidate who doesn't best represent my views.
    • bizchris, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I was surfing Digg politics while my wife was watching American Idol. People voted 135 million times for the contestants (though multiple votes are possible) - so sad the difference...
    • slapshot24, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2> I was surfing Digg politics while my wife was watching American Idol

      Let me guess, your wife is more popular than you?
    • fsjonsey, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6@InetRoadkill
      How many times does this need to be explained? Clinton was not impeached due to the sex act that was preformed on him, HE WAS IMPEACHED FOR LIEING UNDER OATH IN FEDERAL COURT! GET IT STRAIGHT ALREADY FOR CHRISSAKES, ITS BEEN ALMOST 10 YEARS!
    • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Did Kucinich actually file the articles, though? Or did he just talk about it doing it?
    • heyitsgarrett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@InetRoadkill

      Frankly, I'd rather not think about Cheney and blowjobs.
  • deathsquad75, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16It's not in the news because Cheney invited all the reporters that wanted to do the story on a hunting trip.

    need i say more?
    • 9Digits, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7Gee, that joke hasn't been recycled about 1000 times.

      *cough*
  • Psyael, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11C'mon. Kucinich submitted the articles two days prior to the debate so it would give him a little traction and move him up a point. Let's be honest with ourselves here. It's not like the timing didn't give itself away.
  • hdtvdust, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8Because it is not going to happen?

    Pleaes realize that whatever the ultra left desperate web sites like thinkprogress, mediamatters, dailykos, etc. are NOT news sites. they make ***** up.
    • InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Yeah, they should get their news from reliable sites like FauxNews.
  • thickape, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Here's some news: donuts rule
    • Ocelot13, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7im president bush and i support this message:

      "Tacos Rule!"
    • fsjonsey, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Im George W Bush and i support this message:
      I LIEK FRIED CHIKINZ!
    • halfabean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1when did this donut revelation break?
  • danarama, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2How can we get digg sued with this one?
  • mbelleghem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The article makes a very compelling argument. When it doesn't happen, it'll make a nice breadcrumb for historians to point at and say "write a paper on why that was a bad thing" in the coming decades.
  • jmpeagle, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10what did he do that was illegal? I hate Cheney but simply lying is not illegal. He was never under oath. At best, since the house is controlled by the democrats, they could impeach Cheney, but they will never get him removed from office as you need 67 Senate votes to remove him from office after the House impeaches him.
    • cywar, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11jmpeagle
      What did he do that warrants impeachment?
      Where have you been for the last 6 years? Oh, let me guess.......siting in front of Fox News ?
      Have you ever heard of the Military Industrial Complex? War Profiteering? Taking the nation to war on false pretenses?
      Does any of that ring a bell?
    • jmpeagle, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6cywar

      -nothing he did was illegal....hopelessly immoral..yes, but not illegal
    • gooddaysunshine, on 10/12/2007, -9/+22illegal war of aggression - by Nuremberg standards
      illegal treatment of POW's - by Geneva conventions
      War crime - use of white phospherous in Falluja
      international law - no UN resolution to go into Iraq
      national law - no Congressional approval of bombing campaign in Iraq
    • jmpeagle, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9he can't be tried for any of those things under articles of impeachment

      Congressional consent saw to that.

      Congress approved the use of military force and the treatment of detainees. Congress can not impeach him for something Congress consented to.
    • InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Cheney can be impeached for anything congress decides, including the vague term "Abuse of Power". It is not necessary to violate a criminal statute to be impeached.

      FTR: One of the articles of impeachment brought against Clinton was "abuse of power".
    • OneManIsolator, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Nixon never lied under oath either, and we all know how that turned out.
    • pailsOfGrease, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You're right of course. The puppet-masters never break the law. They microsoft their way into treason, ie with legal council.

      Heck, if Cheney wanted to shoot someone in the face, he'd probably bring a lawyer with him.
    • luvkit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@gooddaysunshine
      "illegal war of aggression - by Nuremberg standards
      illegal treatment of POW's - by Geneva conventions
      War crime - use of white phospherous in Falluja
      international law - no UN resolution to go into Iraq
      national law - no Congressional approval of bombing campaign in Iraq"

      Accepting your premise, 4 or the 5 you mentioned are not impeachable offenses. No government official can be impeached on international law. It isn't applicable within the US. The last one you cited was completely wrong. The Bush administration absolutely did get approval for the war in Iraq. They waited 6 months after announcing their intentions to get Congressional approval... of which John Kerry and Hilary Clinton both voted in favor of doing. Cheney won't be impeached because he didn't violate any laws that we know of. Once he is shown to actually have committed a crime on US books, you may impeach him with my blessings.

    • twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@gooddaysunshine:

      None of the instances you posted are impeachable offenses.

      >>illegal war of aggression - by Nuremberg standards

      What are you talking about? Hussein violated the surrender treaty he signed with the US and others PLUS 17 UN resolutions after the first Gulf War. If you sign a treaty to end hostilities, and you break that treaty, magically, hostilities can resume. It's not illegal.

      >>illegal treatment of POW's - by Geneva conventions

      Non-uniformed combatants are not covered under the Geneva Conventions. Combatants not part of a Country's legal military are not granted protection under the Geneva Conventions. These actions themselves are a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Non-uniformed combatants on a battlefield can be shot summarily without trial, on the battlefield.

      >>War crime - use of white phospherous in Falluja

      When did white phosporus become a war crime? They've been used even since Viet Nam. Are these factual assertions you are making or are you just making ***** up?

      >>international law - no UN resolution to go into Iraq

      We do not need to consult the UN in order to resolve the issue in Iraq. See "illegal war of aggression" above. The UN does not run this country. They would like it better if they could, but that's not going to happen. Nothing has ever been written in to the Constitution that states we must consult with or gain permission from any external governing body prior to declaring war or initiating the War Powers Act.

      >>national law - no Congressional approval of bombing campaign in Iraq

      See "War Powers Act." Congress doesn't have to approve ANY military action ordered by the President under the WPA.

      You should really sit down and do some research before you just pull ***** out of your ass and post it as if you know what you're talking about. There are probably many instances that a President, including this one, can be impeached for, at any given time. Unfortunately, these aren't them, and you've been getting your info from the wrong lift-wing propaganda rags.

      Nice try, amature.
    • RCinBigD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7For all of you retards that need a reminder from your 8th grade American Civics class.... Any treaty ratified by Congress IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. The Geneva Conventions=US law...

      Torturing POWs is bad, mmmmmmkay.

      And don't even start with me again TwinklyJesus, they are POWs.

      And don't forget, spying on Americans by gathering their phone records in a gigantic database without warrants is kinda prohibited by the Constitution. You remember the Constitution don't ya? That's the little document these two nimrods swore to uphold.
    • niczar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"No government official can be impeached on international law. It isn't applicable within the US"

      Treaties are "the laws of the land." The US is a signatory to the UN treaty, as well as many others, although in many instances they've only signed them with major (and scandalous) exemptions. So tell me, how is someone NOT in the government could possibly breach the United Nations treaty? Doesn't make any sense. Therefore it has to apply to gov't officials.
    • RCinBigD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@TwinklyJesus

      I really hate to get into this with you again because it is clear to me you don't have a clue, but I can't stand you spreading your own brand of misinformation all over these forums....
      "Non-uniformed combatants are not covered under the Geneva Conventions. Combatants not part of a Country's legal military are not granted protection under the Geneva Conventions."

      You might want to rethink that argument. Article 5 of the Geneva Conventions is pretty clear: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." is a prisoner of war "...such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

      The term "non-uniformed combatant" doesn't even appear in the Geneva Conventions. Get back to me after you've checked your Neocon talking points.
  • drummerwill03, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4buried cause it's easy to answer. not gonna happen as stated many times above
  • rawkenshtocken, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8JESUS.. get your heads out of the clouds.

    bush will not get impeached

    cheney will not be impeached

    i'm a die hard libertarian/conservative so i don't wish that for them BUT if you're gonna insist on being and idealogical idiot and think bush and cheney suck then at least do something productive like not whining about impeachment

    it's not going to ***** happen. The few senators who make "news" by threatening with impeachment have fewer supporters and fewer votes.

    jesus christ kids
  • drshabazz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17This was reported in the news - and it didn't get a lot of attention because it's not very significant. Most smart people can see it for what it really was - just a tactical move by a liberal candidate to pander to his extreme base before a big debate.
  • 9Digits, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Just because Cheney's a thieving, lying, ***** ***** doesn't mean that his offenses are impeachable. If that was the case we'd have to throw all of DC out.

    Wait...
    • xspinkickx, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5yeah I mean, lying and stealing are not impeachment worthy, consentual sex is however. Not till Cheney gets his dick sucked, which I imagine is never, he wont get kicked out of office.
    • drshabazz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Clinton wasn't impeached for sex you moron - he was impeached for the way in which he lied about it to a generally trusting (at the time) American public.
    • xspinkickx, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5@ drshabazz

      Actually he wasn't impeached at all *****, he had a trial. But the point was he was tried for perjury and obstruction of justice because of the Lewinsky scandal, but I guess lying about intelligence reports, and wasting 500 Billion dollars of tax payers money however amount to nothing compared to getting a hummer from the white house intern.
    • InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Clinton was impeached. He was acquitted by the senate by a vote along party lines.
    • xspinkickx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@InetRoadkill
      actually you are correct my mistake, impeachment is the trial (the first step), second is conviction, but he was never convicted and kicked out of office.
      btw I am neither democrat or republican both differ very little in terms of policy..... seriously its like going to a bar and asking for the selection and being told they only have coors and coors-light, both are *****.......and not a real choice.
    • jonfelder, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"btw I am neither democrat or republican both differ very little in terms of policy..... seriously its like going to a bar and asking for the selection and being told they only have coors and coors-light, both are *****.......and not a real choice."

      In your case it's like going to the bar and not knowing what beer is.
    • InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Actually, impeachment is an indictment which sends the accused to the senate for trial. As mentioned elsewhere, congress can impeach for any reason they see fit.
    • OneManIsolator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Generally trusting American public? Either you're 20 and never paid attention in history class, 14 and never had the right history class, or just completely projecting yourself onto the "American public" imagery.

      Do any of you remember Nixon? Do any of you know exactly what Watergate involved? Hint, Nixon never lied under oath. He basically acted like Cheney - completely morally reprehensible, and it cost him his seat in the White House.

      I'd like to find someone who honestly believes that the "American public" was trusting of politics ten, twenty, even thirty years ago. "Vaguely disinterested" is probably a better way of putting it. Just because the news isn't showing protests and riots and there's still American flags waving on the 4th of July, you think everyone's content with the current situation. Good job.
  • FuZi0nDET, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Maybe because the rest of the Democratic party doesn't support the movement? There is a difference between what you can do and what you know. Yeah they know Chenney needs to be impeached, but can they do it? Not right now; thats why they aren't going to get behind this movement.
    • InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Not true. There is support among the democratic leadership for impeachment. The issue of impeachment has been deferred in favor of finding an end to the Iraq war. It was decided that starting impeachment before the war issue was resolved would cause an even greater partisan split, killing any possibility of ending the nonsense in Iraq.

      Since the repubs have refused to join the dems in supporting a bipartisan effort in ending the Iraq war, you can look for the issue of impeachment to be moved to the front burner.
  • cywar, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Well, lets see.
    Why wasn't it mentioned in the news? Corporate owned media
    Why wont it happen? Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), he once even set on the board.
    Why true American patriots should not give up the fight to see him impeached?
    BECAUSE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC IS AT STAKE
    • drshabazz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12"Why wasn't it mentioned in the news? Corporate owned media"

      What does this even mean? If we had only state-run news agencies would this get reported then? Do you even know what the hell you are saying?
    • jmpeagle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4what would getting him impeached solve?...he would still be vice president
    • tmk40, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4@cywar...you are truly delusional. And I suppose you think that Air America went down because of a right wing conspiracy...right? The reason Kucinich doesnt get any coverage is because almost all of middle America thinks he is a leftist wacko and they dont agree with his positions. It is NOT because there is corporate owned media. When will you liberals realize that the big bosses who own these media companies are not calling down to the editors and reporters every 10 minutes to make sure they dont write anything controversial? Air America went down because their message was one of extremism and complete disrespect and hate for those not agreeing with the far left. You and many of the Democrats in Congress are also misreading the feelings of the country when they were able to take over Congress. The reason the right lost seats was because the public was super pissed at the lack of leadership and action by the Republicans...not because they wanted an immediate pullout from Iraq.

      All your hype about crimes is nothing...the middle of the country doesnt buy your emotional rants. They WANT the president to listen to terrorist phone conversations. They WANT the president to keep bad people in custody. They DONT feel threatened by the Patriot Act...in fact they can logically see how it is helping! You are from the same crowd the Clinton's are from...the people who didnt want us to have anything to do with "bad people" when it came to intelligence. The same people who decided we would only do business with morally upstanding persons. And as a result our intelligence net was decimated and we were totally blind when it came to issues in the Middle East...which led to us making "our best guess" on Iraq's capabilities.

      Time and time again in our history, broad presidential powers to protect the nation have been supported in our courts. Until you can prove a significant threat to American citizens from either the president or vice-president...you will be talking to an empty room.
    • Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"When will you liberals realize that the big bosses who own these media companies are not calling down to the editors and reporters every 10 minutes to make sure they dont write anything controversial?"

      Are you really so clueless and naive? People are specially groomed and selected for a corporate media service. And their 'performance' is monitored
    • InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@tmk40

      You need to put the Kool-Aid down. Where have you been the last 5 years?
    • tmk40, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0@ospir...wow...so you are saying that Brian Williams, Lou Dobbs, and Nancy Grace can cover up a story so it doesnt get out? I had no idea they had so much power! The 3 networks and giant newspapers no longer have the influence they once did (THANK GOD) and conservative radio and web sites like HotAir.com are now asking some tough questions and making people think. And just because someone is right leaning or left leaning doesnt mean they dont take their journalistic job seriously. Media people like Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingraham are obviously not "run" by some right-wing boss because they are very often extremely critical of the administration. No one is silencing them...so why should people be silenced at the NY Times?
    • tmk40, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0@InetRoadKill...do you have a specific point to make? I would be interested in hearing it if you have one. In a debate, you have to knock an opposing point down with logic and facts...otherwise it stands until the end of the debate.
    • Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Media people like Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingraham are obviously not "run" by some right-wing boss because they are very often extremely critical of the administration."

      You forgot Ann Coulter.
  • FresnoRog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I highly doubt the requisite evidence will be found for this impeachment and the only people to gain will be a handful of attorneys' firms, if that.
  • shockoj7, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4its not in the news because everyone knows its ***** retarded and not going to happen, get over it!
    • laserblazer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Speaking of ***** retarded: don't try to speak for everyone.
  • dramatools, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Why is Cheney's impeachment not in the news? Because Cheney has yet to be impeached. Although Dennis Kucinich has filed Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President, it is by no means a slam dunk. The impeachment would have to go before the House in toto before Cheney may be tried. Until then, there really is no story. And, if you're wondering why Digg isn't buzzing with impeachment stories, there's that matter about HD-DVD cryptography that has monopolized the site to the point where even Kevin has had to step in.

    So, where are the Digg Community's priorities? Does the idea of duplicating high definition DVDs, which will soon become relatively inexpensive, just as standard definition discs have, appeal to us more so than allowing Cheney to clear his name or definitively finding him guilty? Perchance if we called for the Vice President's resignation with the save fervor we distributed a few hexadecimal numbers, we could make a lasting statement.
  • laserblazer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Maybe he'll resign and buy his own plane ticket to the Hague.
  • 1911wolf, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5"Why is Cheney impeachment not in the news?"

    Because it's a desperate political ploy to appease day dreamers into voting for someone. Seriously. It's a pipe dream, you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning before Cheney or Bush are subjected to impeachment. I'm all for it myself, but I also live in reality and know it'll never happen.
  • bushesbitch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2what news,what media?
  • adjective, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Isn't this an Editorial?
    • Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1No one who already knows reads editorials. We're talking about mainstream media recognition of Kucinich's efforts on behalf of the American people. He should have included a seperate accusation in the articles of impeachment that Cheney was caught beating it in White House to pictures of Condi
  • Gambit456, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3nice impartial website.
  • Hinesville, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1Speaking of integrity, Dick Cheney is ten times the man that Bill Clinton is. He is five times the man that Hillary Clinton is.

    Bill and Hillary are perpetual liars. Dick Cheney is an honest man and a patriot.
    • shmatt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You must be kidding, honest my ass.
    • OneManIsolator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"You must be kidding, honest my ass."

      I've got a bridge for you. Prime real estate, too. Just give me your bank account info first so I can deposit my inheritance into your American bank, as I am an exiled foreign dignitary.
  • minox, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6To answer the title of the submission, "Because people associate impeachment with left wing websites like the one you submitted." Seriously the biggest obstacle for impeachment is that it has been associated with some rather nutty people since the current administration took office. Part of the problem is Kucinich, I think. You need to stop pushing your cause from the periphery. Kucinich isn't mainstream.
    • OneManIsolator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2To flip the coin here, though... Devil's Advocate and all that...

      The Clinton impeachement was mostly the Rush Limbaugh nutcases at first. I know I personally never stopped associating it with those folk. I waver on finding the faith in humanity that's required to believe there's any conscious "right wing conspiracy" or anything, but I'll gladly submit that there's no doubt a subconscious, unspoken bias towards the right wing.

      We're used to associating such individuals with "politicians" - they just fit the stereotype a lot better. Remember, fifty years ago it was basically a crime to put your penis in the wrong hole, we in America cling to our history books and trashy recycled cinematic cliches a little too much and it takes some time to get used to the notion that somebody who's a friendly guy can weild the same "force" as some fat dude with a pole up his rear.

      So when Rush Limbaugh makes some zany far-out-in-the-field rationalization for impeaching Clinton, we take it a bit more seriously than when Michael Moore does the same thing for a conservative candidate.

      I don't particularly like Clinton, or even consider him as "liberal" as Cheney is "conservative". I'm just using names and events that recently happened. I wasn't around for Watergate, but I'll bet the first people screaming for impeachment were just as loony-left as the current crop. Doesn't mean that they couldn't affect some form of change.

      So what's to be done? Well, for starters, we could take this a bit more seriously, even if it leaves us open to being ridiculed by the Something Awful / Jaded Hipster crowd. The hippies certainly had a lot more serious opposition to deal with, and they at least managed to do a fair enough job that I can download^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpurchase the latest delicious all-anal four hour Gonzo film and watch Aurora Snow have lesbian relations, then go hang out with an out-of-the-closet gay friend and his significant other, and not end up finding myself in the middle of a police raid. So hey.
  • JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8*shrug*

    The same reason that the hyperinflation of the Unites States Dollar isn't either?
    • laserblazer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Haha, are you in for a big surprise.
  • Gambit456, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4what the ***** are you idiots gonna do in 2009? There will be no "Evil NeoCons" to blame. No *****, you'll still blame the minority party in congress for your own failings and somehow it will still be Bush's fault that your lives are unsatisfying.
    • InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Why not? The right continues to blame Clinton for everything that's happened for the last 6 years.

      b.b.b.b.ut clinton's dick....
  • Harboggles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3It's not in the news because it will never realistically be passed. Theres a very thin majority.
    • InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1There's a thin majority in the senate. But there is a comfortable democratic majority in the house which is where the impeachment originates. Cheney is vunerable. But the GOP members in the senate will vote party lines preventing cheney from being convicted and removed.

      I'd like to see Cheney impeached. I want to see which GOP members will put their country ahead of protecting one of their own... especially right before 2008.
  • ChuckNorrisMan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+209-f9-11-0-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c... is a bigger story... Cheney gets buried...
    • Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I really want the 360 private key to be 'accidentally' released :P
    • xlar54, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2You didnt get the memo?
  • gab00n, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Cheney will drop a nuke before he gives up his power or lets anyone take it away from him, he is an incurable addict.
  • stuman77, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6FTA: "Impeach? Yes, of course. Anything less would make this Congress and the American people complicit in all that has gone on to damage the national fabric and our place in the world."

    See, THIS is why I hate this *****. Suddenly, if Cheyney ISN'T impeached, then it's MY fault as an American for all the suffering in the world. I call BS.

    Aside from that, buried because: filing articles of impeachment != impeachment.
  • fsjonsey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3How about this. NOT YOUR PERSONAL ARMY.
    http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/X_is_not_your_personal_army
  • aristotle0dude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It's not in the news because it is wishful thinking on the part of a few fanatics? Do you expect the news media to cover the easter bunny too? What about leprechauns?
    • OneManIsolator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I can't tell if you're being ironic or not, because last I checked, they were still cheerily reminding us of some dead dude's birthday 2000 years after the Romans had had enough of him - even if they mask the language.
    • dartmanx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@OneManIsolator

      If you're going to play "Atheist 2.0" (i.e. "Christians are evil"), get your facts straight.

      The Romans did NOT want to execute Jesus. The Jewish religious council, who had custody of Jesus, wanted Jesus executed, but were denied that authority by the Roman government. The then appealed to the Roman governor for permission to do so.

      The governor could not see a crime that had been committed. However, his rear was on the line because of previous Jewish uprisings, and another one would probably cost his job. And refusing to execute Jesus would have definitely caused another one.

      He attempted one last time to talk them out of it, asking them to choose between executing Jesus and executing an already convicted murderer. The Jewish council chose to free the murderer and allow Jesus to be executed. The governor then made a show of "washing his hands of this" and let the Jews execute Jesus.

      Your cause isn't helped by spitting "facts" out of another part of your body besides your brain.
    • OneManIsolator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ DartmanX:

      Thank you for your literal interpretation of the idiom I chose to inject into my comment. It just shows that you have no response for my main point. Keep listening to Rush Limbaugh, sooner or later he'll say something that you can regurgitate out. gj nextmap
  • fsjonsey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+409-f9-11-0-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c- I think digg has its first Meme.
  • FloatingAxehead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Since they bother to mention the ever-conspiratorial relationship with Halliburton, I just thought I'd ask if anyone here has bothered to learn what Halliburton actually DOES under their contract? Seriously. All I ever hear is "Halliburton this" and "Halliburton that", as if it's the most evil empire around, capable of only sinister deeds.

    ...they run the chow halls. During my enlistment ('97-'03) in order to save money and reduce military spending, all our chow halls slowly morphed from being manned by active duty military to being run by civilian contract. Oh, and we began paying for our meals, rather than just eating for free. THAT's the heinous act Halliburton won for "no-bid". In case you were curious.
    • fsjonsey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Evil s Delicious, is it not.
    • robkall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hmmm. Save money by hiring Haliburton instead of using military staffing? Huh?
  • origclubsoda, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3BECAUSE NO CARES about the Democrats' whiny vindictive actions. Impeach Feinstein for her greater crimes, why don't you?
    • OneManIsolator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2While I'm hesitant to argue this in terms of party lines (how's it feel, living in a black or white world?), I'm with you on hating Feinstein. Impeachement's too good for her.

      A visionary by the name of Sam Jain, founder and CEO of eFront, offered a very famous proposition for a certain female webmaster that I think would suit Feinstein.
  • cywar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2 @tmk40
    Insults and name calling? How typical of a NEOCON. Spend a lot of time watching Fox News don't ya.
    To set the record straight....my past votes are as follows:
    Perot
    Bush
    Bush
    However, November 06, I voted for every Democrat on the ballot to help unseat the Republicans. I wanted them to get out of Iraq.....oh, you were wrong again !!

    So FYI, I have been a conservative, Republican leaning voter for many years.

    My current political beliefs are the result of the rude awakening I got when I began to research the need for the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) aka NAFTA Superhighway.==>Nasco==>Open Borders==>Trade policies==>North American Union (NAU)==>Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)==>Federal Reserve==>Council on Foreign Relations==>One World Government aka (NWO)==>The Patriot Act==>World Trade Center 7==>etc. etc.

    I have never listened to Air America, wrong again !!
    My favorite news==> Keith Olbermann and Lou Dobbs.

    You Sir, assume too much if you think you can figure out so much about someone by reading a few sentences worth of opinion.

    And last but not least, I am not alone in my disgust for the current administration, emotional as it may seem, to someone as uniformed as yourself.







    • OneManIsolator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Is anyone else remembering that scene in Airplane where Barbara Billingsley is acting as the jive interpreter?

      At least you speak a language this gentleman understands...
    • tmk40, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@cywar...I apologize that I assumed so much in your previous post. It was a logical assumtion (based on so many other posts I have read along similar lines) but I was not correct and I hope you accept my apology. I am certainly NOT a neocon either...as I can see that you are not. I am not a fan of the current administration in many areas...but I certainly dont think they deserve impeachment.
      As far as news goes, I spend quite a bit of time reading National Review Online. I like Lou Dobbs as well...but there was an interesting article on his recent economic testimony before Congress on NRO this week...you might want to check it out.
      I will try to be more careful and try to avoid making assumptions in the future:)
  • boldfacelies, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1so, Pelosi would take over? Double Kill, plus Female president. .... Who comes after Nancy?
  • BDLAMB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1First things first. Why not make some realistic attainable goals (like indicting more of Cheney's co-conspirators and getting more information on his illegal actions into the public record/s/eye) first? President Halliburton will remain in his bat-cave while the hearings on/around/about him ensue, making the occasional grand proclamation or two.. I imagine.. Why do we have to go on about 'last throes' when reality is on our side and the gavel is in our hands..

    Anyway - The Cheney impeachment proceedings actually did get some air time I thought (I caught Kucinich on Jon Stewart and Dennis Mahr, both last week and have heard about this in the liberal presses anyway) for the past week there's been some going on about this.. Seems like alot of sound and fury signifying nada at present, but it's a fair start. Do any of you remember when Jr. and chimpy "testified" together like he was just a little baby puppet in Cheney's lap? I thought that was funny. & Laura has been funny lately, too. I say we let them stay where they are while they are doing such a great job of making fools out of themselves - and since we are too polite to call them out while Cheney is still packing those nukes and keeps muttering to himself with that distant gaze..) maybe our progress is not enough for all of your tastes.. but geez people.. let's get some discipline here. First we rook their asses into a sling, then we can ridicule them and busy ourselves with lots of self-congratulation.. doesn't work so well in reverse, though, I don't think.
  • funknjunk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Because it hasn't happened.

    Buried.
  • Egoist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1If any of you actually bothered to read Kucinich's articles of impeachment, you'd realize why it was dead in the water and why it's not in the news. He basically copied and pasted the same argument for each of the three articles: "Cheney knowingly lied."

    First of all, if being able to prove that a politician knowingly lied and then booting them out of office was simple, there would be no politicians in Washington. Bush and Cheney have bent laws to the point of breaking, but have yet to cross that line. I know you don't want to believe me, but the fact that the most far-left leaning Congressman in the House couldn't come up with anything more sticking than, "Cheney told a fib!" should tell you something.
    • Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1""Cheney told a fib!" should tell you something."
      It was enough for Clinton. And this is a lot more serious than that.

      Btw, Impeachment is about......THAT'S RIGHT....lying!
    • Egoist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Clinton committed perjury for which he was held in contempt of court and later disbarred in Arkansas. I realize that to most of the public that's unimportant, but in a court it's one of the most serious crimes you can commit aside from whacking the judge with his own gavel. If you are unable to decipher the difference between lying on the street and lying in a court of law, perhaps you should refrain from sharing your uninformed political opinions.
  • victorc26, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's too late. By the time things start rolling (if it even happens), his term will be over.
  • sidsarkar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Whatever you do with him in your country (USA) is your business, impeach or arrest. But just make sure he is extradited to Iraq at the end where he will be tried for mass murder, then, tortured and hanged to death.
    • BigPoopie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What happened to the George Bush statue that Richard Perle said the Iraqis would build in central Baghdad? I thought we would be greeted as liberators. Cheney said so.
  • cywar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    @ tmk40
    [@cywar...I apologize that I assumed so much in your previous post. It was a logical assumtion (based on so many other posts I have read along similar lines) but I was not correct and I hope you accept my apology. I am certainly NOT a neocon either...as I can see that you are not. I am not a fan of the current administration in many areas...but I certainly dont think they deserve impeachment.
    As far as news goes, I spend quite a bit of time reading National Review Online. I like Lou Dobbs as well...but there was an interesting article on his recent economic testimony before Congress on NRO this week...you might want to check it out.
    I will try to be more careful and try to avoid making assumptions in the future:)
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Thank you, how about a truce?
    You know, all this fighting among ourselves is just what "They" like us to do. It distracts us from hounding their *******.
    I think you and I, as well as most responding to this article, are truly concerned about the current state of affairs in our country. We may not know how to fix all the problems, but at least we are talking about this instead of American Idol. Its a start.
    When it comes down to it==> We are all Americans first.
    May the Gods of Our Choice help us figure this out together.
  • eShinn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2What I don't understand is how this monkey hasn't been taken down by the masses already. Granted I'm not monkey (read man) enough to do it but still. Anybody? Sheesh.
  • cywar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@ganjadude4391
    Thanks for the info.
    I have seen your post on several articles tonight.
    For some reason I keep hearing the Ghostbusters song in my mind.
    Who ya gona call.....LOL
    Best laugh I have had all night. I don't know why they buried you.
    I appreciate you taking the time to post it.
    E++ for effort.
  • cywar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ganjadude4391
    Hey, thanks for the info.
    I have seen your post on several articles tonight.
    I keep hearing the Ghostbusters song in my head now.
    Who ya gona call....LOL
    Best laugh I had all night when I ran across you buried at the bottom.
    I dont know why they stuck you down there for a perfectly good comment.
    I appreciate it anyway. Thanks
    E++ for effort.
  • spankaccount, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Cheney is my hero... Kucinich is a nut.
    • thexfile, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3If Darth Cheney is your hero then a crack dealer must be your superhero!!!
  • gojeda, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1It isn't in the news because, thankfully, most Americans know what impeachment is, and is not.

    An impeachment is not a political witch hunt, nor is it a way to score political points or revive a campaign that never got off the ground in the first place. Kuchy should know this by now.

    BURY coming your way.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.