digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

GQ will publish draft six articles of impeachment for Vice President Cheney

rawstory.com — In the March issue of GQ, Wil S. Hylton argues that Vice President Richard Cheney should be impeached for committing high crimes and misdemeanors. Hylton crafts six articles of impeachment because a timid Republican Congress and a refusal to act by the new Democratic leadership means that the Fourth Estate must take the mantle of indictment.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • jackspace, on 10/12/2007, -49/+16Ummm, Treason is punishable by death.
    • CrimsonBlur, on 10/12/2007, -34/+15And... ?
    • AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -18/+113Are you saying Cheney committed treason or that GQ committed treason for pointing out that Cheney committed treason?

      Either way Cheney committed treason.
    • alamandrax, on 10/12/2007, -18/+55Mr. Hylton. In honor of your forthrightness and fortitude, you are awarded with our greatest honor. Stephen Colbert's balls. Dipped in gold.

      You sir, deserve them.
    • definiteform, on 10/12/2007, -12/+20An amazing article that will sadly go nowhere because a lot of people are way too apathetic or tow the party line for this to happen. The Senate needs a 2/3rds majority...and the balance of power will prevent that. Republicans will stand in a unified front, with Joe Liebermann siding with the Republicans, and it will be 50/50. End of discussion. :(
    • Ecowarrior, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16@ definiteform: I think bringing to articles of impeachment to vote is important. I also think regular people contacting the appropriate government officials and telling them to bring these accusations forward is important.
    • macmcrae, on 10/12/2007, -19/+16prediction: first digg story to get 6million diggs
    • akyra, on 10/12/2007, -7/+27If this isn't reason enough to use impeachment what is? Even if congress cannot remove Bush / Cheney from office it sends a message this and future administrations that they can held accountable for their actions.
    • GoatBnn, on 10/12/2007, -11/+25"prediction: first digg story to get 6million diggs"

      And sadly, nothing will happen in congress. This government doesn't listen to the people anymore.

      Hopefully the new congress proves me wrong.
    • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7@akyra
      "If this isn't reason enough to use impeachment what is? Even if congress cannot remove Bush / Cheney from office it sends a message this and future administrations that they can held accountable for their actions."


      Au contraire, and despite your idealism, if Bush and Cheney are not brought to justice, there will be no future administrations to heed any of your imagined lessons and improvements.

      This is NOW! And it will not go away by any amount of hoping or wishing.
    • mdhauke, on 10/12/2007, -28/+13lol, GQ holds about as much credibility as the NY Times. Dugg down for being lame
    • ajck123, on 10/12/2007, -21/+9Hopefully they will include his intimate involvement in the 9/11 inside job....
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -23/+9And acjk gets added to a block list for being a 9/11 conspiracy *****.
    • BigPapi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35The writer clearly forgot to mention that Dick Cheney eats babies.
    • mikelieman, on 10/12/2007, -14/+28Forget Impeachment. INDICT them. Once they're sitting in a nice prison cell, you can take your time and do whatever else you care to.

      Elizabeth de la Vega did a great draft INDICTMENT for Bush et. al. for a count against 18 USC 371, part of it is over at http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=143205 .

      The Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

      16. Beginning on or about a date unknown, but no later than August of 2002, and continuing to the present, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants,

      GEORGE W. BUSH,
      RICHARD B. CHENEY,
      CONDOLEEZZA RICE,
      DONALD M. RUMSFELD, and
      COLIN M. POWELL,

      and others known and unknown, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to defraud the United States by using deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, false and fraudulent representations, including ones made without a reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity, and omitting to state material facts necessary to make their representations truthful, fair and accurate, while knowing and intending that their false and fraudulent representations would influence the public and the deliberations of Congress with regard to authorization of a preventive war against Iraq, thereby defeating, obstructing, impairing, and interfering with Congress' lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and making appropriations.

    • mikelieman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23digg down my post about Indictment, but Martha Stewart spent time in prison for less.
    • Altotus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@mikelieman:

      Impeachment is an indictment that is tried in the senate. Articles of impeachment are criminal charges, and besides being relieved of office, the president/vice president can be punished (even hung, if convicted of high treason). However, traditionally, the replacement president has always issued a full pardon to the outgoing president (for example, Ford did that for Nixon, who resigned before he could be impeached).
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5If Cheney were ever truly brought to justice on anything it would be just like Ken Lay .... He would "have a sudden heart attack" and "die."
    • canti32, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@ altotus "However, traditionally, the replacement president has always issued a full pardon to the outgoing president (for example, Ford did that for Nixon, who resigned before he could be impeached)."

      What do you mean traditionally? Only Nixon resigned, and there were no presidents impeached so far. One time does not constitute a tradition.

    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4Just another left-wing, dumb-ass fantasy. Buried as pure *****.
    • TexMurphy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Everyone who reads GQ article should email the friends and family about it. I hope this article spreads like wild fire.
    • Petronski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Canti: There were no Presidents impeached so far.


      Two have been impeached: (Andrew) Johnson and Clinton
  • allaboutdatiki, on 10/12/2007, -8/+39Full article:

    http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_5402
    • GoatBnn, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16excellent read. I hope congress has the balls.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -38/+14"I hope congress has the balls."

      Did it take balls for republicans to impeach Clinton? It took balls to see through the hype, realize that nothing Clinton did was a "high crime or misdemeanor," and vote against impeachment. Same goes for this situation. Everyone hates the guy, but he really didn't commit any "high crimes and misdemeanors." The articles focus on "stove-piping" intelligence and having an inappropriate relationship with Halliburton, but c'mon, these are just ordinary gripes about the guy.
    • GoatBnn, on 10/12/2007, -12/+28^^ I just dont understand people like you...the man willingly lied to you in order to go to war and profit from it ($10 million in stock options; but it was for charity the whole time right?) and you stand up for him. You think its a ridiculous idea for us to even take him to trial to see if he did anything wrong. *****, thats a right the Bush administration has recently denied YOU when they wrote away habeas corpus. If he went to trial, he would be getting off easy.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -29/+11^^ I just don't understand people like you. Do you actually believe a VP worth $100million gives a ***** about $10million? Are you really that ***** stupid. Seriously, think about it for a second. This guy is second in command of the most powerful nation in the world and you think he started a war to make a couple measly bucks?! Why did he want the money? For the power?

      And you think the purpose of a trial is to see if someone did anything wrong? Really? I thought a trail was something which is based off preexisting evidence of a crime. Maybe we should just pick a guy off the street and put him on trial just to "see if he did anything wrong." Everyone hates Cheney. I hate Cheney, you hate Cheney, Jesus hates Cheney . . . but you don't use impeachment to vent your hatred. If you remove someone from office and put them on trial just because you don't like them, you just killed a goddamn mockingbird.
    • david76, on 10/12/2007, -9/+28@richardnixon

      "Did it take balls for republicans to impeach Clinton?"

      No, it took gall.

      It's amazing how people actually think there's some sort of equivilence between lying about a sexual relationship, and lying to provoke war.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Articles of Impeachment against Bush and Cheney:

      http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/24/17048/677
  • meepus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+80This is what the press is for: ***** all the retarded celebrity relationship coverage.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -33/+9This is celebrity relationship coverage.

      I would ask at what point in time did we decide to elevate every little gripe about political officials to the level of impeachment, but I think the answer lies in what the definition of "is" is. If you don't like a political official, that's great, and you should share your reasons why, but adding gravitas to everything doesn't help. At the end of the day you have to ask yourself "the guy might be an *****, but did his actions rise to the level of high crimes?" I wish more people would have done this before they impeached Clinton, which was a joke. This is just as big of a joke. Yes, you can build up how many have died in Iraq and how much money has been wasted, but at the end of the day Cheney has not committed any "high crimes." He certainly is a bastard, but that seems to be okay in politics.
    • rocktopotomus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12omg, amen. i never want to hear about another 'entertainment' celebrity's private life. EVER.
  • blaze03, on 10/12/2007, -10/+35Wil S. Hylton is now my hero. I may pick up an issue just to support this type of journalism. It's probably wishful thinking, but it would be awesome to see an article like this make waves IRL.
    • thehankholmes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1>> Wil S. Hylton is now my hero.

      omg how is barack going to stand it!
  • Satanael, on 10/12/2007, -9/+40What's this?
    Finally a constructive use for media?
    They're taking the words and will of the people and doing something with it!
  • GoatBnn, on 10/12/2007, -22/+12Dugg because ***** bush and especially ***** cheney.
  • nevesis, on 10/12/2007, -14/+50I actually was in a serious debate recently regarding Cheney.

    I made the case that he was truly a sociopath. (he easily meets the DSM IV's criteria for antisocial personality disorder, which i've included below)

    My friend argued that he was a being of pure evil.

    You decide:

    The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental and behavioral disorders, defines antisocial personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

    1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
    2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
    3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
    4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
    5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
    6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations
    7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

    -OR-

    A purely evil entity.
    • oilcan, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7i vote C. all of the above

    • LordLucless, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Wouldn't, say, any con artist then automatically have this disorder (fulfilling points 1,2 and 7)? In fact, it seems to me pretty much any life criminal would fit this bill. Is there any physiological/psychological root cause for this disorder, or is it just a grouping of behaviour?
    • naldwell, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6Yeah, is this definition of sociopath simply a way to group people dissatisfied with the status quo into one common enemy? Is that what a sociopath is?
    • CMarg, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Sounds like projection to me!
    • bronstad, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6yes, con artists are usually psychopaths.

      another fitting criterion:
      # 8. Poor judgment and failure to learn from experience.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath
    • jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Actually, it's believe that a majority of people in prison have this disorder.

      Note: This is a REAL disorder. Brain scans of people note very low levels of brain activity in the frontal lobe, indicating reduced inhibition and ability to contemplate the consequence of thier actions.
    • PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Doesn't this apply to most if not all politicians as well? If so, does that mean you have to be a sociopath to run for office?
  • mclumber1, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5There's a reason why it would be a bad idea to impeach Bush...Cheney!
    • GoatBnn, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30thats why we have to get cheney out first.
  • wicked82, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Cheney and his Bush both need to leave
    • Ecowarrior, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18It is not that they need to just leave.

      The American public needs to stand up and say what they have done is wrong; anything short of this is approval of their actions.
    • Thuktun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Some have suggested they not only be impeached, but turned over to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles#Principle_VI

      The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

      (a) Crimes against peace:

      (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

      (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

      (b) War Crimes:

      Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

      [...]
  • Niteryder, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Go, GQ, Can't be soon enough
  • Scopitone, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13GG, GQ
  • Ecowarrior, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9The real question is who in government do we send this too and tell them to act on it.

    Your Senator? Your Representative? Your Governor?

    I'm more than willing to send it to everyone as an email, a postal mail, and as a voice recording.
  • dw2005, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I approve this message.
  • numbered, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/
    6 part documentary mini-series put on by pbs.. Worth watching if you havent seen it
    • Optic7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Nice find. The whole show can be watched for free online at that link as well. Oh, and the documentary is about Dick Cheney's actions post 9/11.

  • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16OK. so what happens when the people endorse this in an overwhelming majority, and yet congress refuses to act. What is the next step?
    Have we truly become powerless as a People, and simply dependent upon politicians, who will do nothing?

    What is the appropriate and necessary measure...or do we give up, thinking nothing can really be done?
    Do we sit and watch the world burn, having already asked our elected officials to stop it?

    The new overlords thrive on your complacency and on maintaining the status quo!
    Just keep playing the same old game!
    Write your congress people, demonstrate, shout in the streets, write articles, make signs...and continue to be ineffective!

    How sad!

    • apothekari, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I'll tell you what we do.We stop giving a ***** about Brittany Spears bald head and forcibly remove these ***** ROBBER BARONS from office,Bring the troops home from Iraq and help those poor people in Katrina/Rita's wake who STILL haven't been helped.
      DEMOCRAT REPUBLICAN WHATEVER...These ***** have GOT to GO!!!!
      Where is this nations sense of outrage?!

      Where is this nations sense of RESPONSIBILITY?!

      This article is in Gentleman's Quarterly for ***** sake, Where is NEWSWEEK TIME ET AL?!

      I say if you defend these crooks you have profited from this madness of the last six years and are a integral link to them and should be shamed into compliance with the majority of the American people or prosecuted yourselves.
      You have an option as a country either fix this ***** or the poor and hungry among us WILL and it will not be pretty.
      We ignore this at our peril.
  • chrisinsocalif, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4I am just surprised Cheney hasn't had heart failure yet and died. Maybe he thought he wouldn't live long enough to be punished for his actions.
  • mrfx2, on 10/12/2007, -15/+10You guys are just seriously ignorant people GO BACK TO SCHOOL!

  • sheasie, on 10/12/2007, -10/+29Here is the full text:

    THE PEOPLE V. RICHARD CHENEY

    Resolved, that Richard B. Cheney, vice president of the United States, should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that these articles of impeachment be submitted to the American people. Drafted by Wil S. Hylton.

    Resolved
    That Richard B. Cheney, vice president of the United States, be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors; that the evidence hereinafter set out sustains six articles of impeachment justifying immediate removal from office; that said articles shall be adopted by the House of Representatives; and that the same shall be endorsed by the Senate, to wit:

    ARTICLE I
    In his conduct of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has deliberately obstructed the nation’s intelligence-gathering capacity, in that:

    (1) During the several months preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the vice president endeavored to bypass the role of the Central Intelligence Agency as the nation’s principal filter of raw intelligence, directing subordinates within the agency to “stovepipe” raw intelligence directly to his office.

    (2) As a result of this policy, the vice president became privy to unanalyzed, unverified data that should not have been available to him, including documents that seemed to indicate that Saddam Hussein may have attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger in February 1999.

    (3) Relying on these documents, and ignoring the CIA’s assessment that they were most likely fabrications, the vice president proceeded to publicize the Niger documents and encouraged the president to refer to them in his 2003 State of the Union address, deliberately obstructing the role of the CIA and promoting known forgeries to bolster his case for war.

    (4) At the same time, acting personally and through his subordinates, the vice president conspired with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to create a substitute intelligence agency within the Pentagon, known as the Office of Special Plans, with instructions to contradict unfavorable information emerging from the CIA.

    (5) Under this mandate, the Office of Special Plans sought to undermine the authority legally vested in the CIA, cultivating intelligence sources known to be discredited and embarking on extralegal “missions” to Iraq without consulting the nation’s legitimate intelligence services.

    (6) In these distortions of the nation’s intelligence-gathering process, the vice president, acting personally and through subordinates, has obstructed the democratic institutions of the nation and undermined the rule of law.

    In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

    Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

    ARTICLE II
    Using the powers of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has personally deceived the American people, in that:

    (1) During the several months preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, and thereafter, the vice president became aware that no certain evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a fact articulated in several official documents, including:

    (a) A report by the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, concluding that “there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has—or will—establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.”

    (b) A National Intelligence Estimate, compiled by the nation’s intelligence agencies, admitting to “little specific information” about chemical weapons in Iraq.

    (c) A later section of the same NIE, admitting “low confidence” that Saddam Hussein “would engage in clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland,” and equally “low confidence” that he would “share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa’ida.”

    (d) An addendum by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, asserting that Hussein’s quest for yellowcake uranium in Africa was “highly dubious” and that his acquisition of certain machine parts, considered by some to be evidence of a nuclear program, were “not clearly linked to a nuclear end use.”

    (e) A report by the United States Department of Energy, stating that the machinery in question was “poorly suited” for nuclear use.

    (2) Despite these questions and uncertainties, and having full awareness of them, the vice president nevertheless proceeded to misrepresent the facts in his public statements, claiming that there was no doubt about the existence of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq and that a full-scale nuclear program was known to exist, including:

    (a) March 17, 2002: “We know they have biological and chemical weapons.”

    (b) March 19, 2002: “We know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.”

    (c) March 24, 2002: “He is actively pursuing nuclear weapons.”

    (d) May 19, 2002: “We know he’s got chemical and biological…we know he’s working on nuclear.”

    (e) August 26, 2002: “We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons… Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”

    (f) March 16, 2003: “We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

    (3) At the same time, despite overwhelming skepticism within the government of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda—resulting in the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission that “no credible evidence” for such a link existed, and the CIA’s determination that Hussein “did not have a relationship” with Al Qaeda—the vice president continued to insist that the relationship had been confirmed, including:

    (a) December 2, 2002: “His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.”

    (b) January 30, 2003: “His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.”

    (c) March 16, 2003: “We know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.”

    (d) September 14, 2003: “We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons.”

    (e) October 10, 2003: “He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda—providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.”

    (f) January 9, 2004: “Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services…have worked together on a number of occasions.”

    (g) January 22, 2004: “There’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government”

    (h) June 18, 2004: “There clearly was a relationship. It’s been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming.”

    (4) Through all of these misrepresentations, the vice president knowingly skewed the public’s perception of reality, clouded the nation’s ability to weigh evidence, and willfully disrupted the function of American democracy.

    In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

    Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

    ARTICLE III
    In his conduct of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has deliberately embraced and sheltered a known criminal, to the great detriment of American policy, in that:

    (1) During the months preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the vice president, acting personally and through his subordinates, granted special access to the Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi, relying on Chalabi for intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, despite an outstanding warrant for Chalabi’s arrest on charges of bank fraud in the nation of Jordan, grave concerns from the CIA about Chalabi’s credibility, and a 2002 British assessment that Chalabi was “a convicted fraudster.”

    (2) As the initial stage of the war concluded and Chalabi’s claims proved false, the vice president nevertheless continued privately to champion Chalabi as a leader for the new Iraqi government, ignoring a litany of troubling accusations and events, including:

    (a) May 19, 2004: The Department of Defense discontinues monthly payments to Chalabi, pending charges of fraud.

    (b) May 20, 2004: U.S. troops, along with Iraqi forces, storm Chalabi’s home, seizing documents and computers for a criminal probe.

    (c) June 2004: The New York Times reports that Chalabi has disclosed U.S. secrets to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    (3) When an employee of the Coalition Provisional Authority named Thomas Warrick voiced concerns about Chalabi to his superiors, the vice president intervened to demand that Warrick be fired, causing Warrick’s unique contributions to the occupation—including a series of prescient written warnings about the rise of insurgency—to be lost, and the nation’s ability to function at war compromised.

    (4) As late as November 2005, the vice president continued to offer public support and safe harbor to Chalabi, inviting him to visit the White House and providing personal welcome to a known criminal.

    In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

    Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

    ARTICLE IV
    In his conduct of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has maintained an improper and unethical relationship with his former employers at Halliburton and has promoted its agenda and interests over those of the American people, in that:

    (1) In September 2003, the vice president claimed to have “severed all my ties with the company” and to have “no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind,” where in truth he did, at that time, continue to earn more than $150,000 per year in delayed compensation from Halliburton, as well as a portfolio in excess of 230,000 stock options of the company, worth more than $10 million.

    (2) Bolstered by this economic incentive to promote the interests of Halliburton, the vice president did choose to remain silent as the company was exposed in a series of financial scandals at the expense of the American people, including:

    (a) February 2002: Halliburton is forced to pay $2 million after being charged by the Justice Department for fraud committed against the Pentagon during the vice president’s tenure as CEO.

    (b) May 2002: The company is investigated by the SEC for fraudulent accounting practices and inflation of its stock price during the vice president’s tenure as CEO.

    (c) March 2003: The company is investigated by a congressional committee for receiving favorable contracts from the Pentagon, outside normal review processes.

    (d) May 2003: The company admits to having bribed a Nigerian official with millions of dollars in exchange for tax exemptions.

    (e) December 2003: The company is found by the Defense Contract Audit Agency, a unit of the Pentagon, to have overcharged and defrauded the government of more than $100 million.

    (f) January 2004: The company admits that its employees have accepted $6 million in kickbacks from a Kuwaiti company in exchange for a portion of U.S. government contracts.

    (3) Through his silence on these and other scandals involving his former employer and source of several million dollars in assets, the vice president exhibited not only a failure of leadership but a lack of integrity that has tarnished the office of the vice president.

    In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

    Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

    ARTICLE V
    Using the powers of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has granted improper and unlawful influence over national policy to an anonymous cabal of corporate lobbyists, in that:

    (1) In January 2001, the vice president did oversee a secret task force composed of corporate lobbyists and executives from the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear-energy sector, known collectively as the National Energy Policy Development Group, instructing them to meet regularly and develop the nation’s energy policy.

    (2) By conducting these meetings in secret, the vice president did endeavor to impart influence to corporate interests without public knowledge, eclipsing not only the oversight function of Congress generally but the specific role of the energy committees in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

    (3) During the course of these secret meetings, the vice president allowed lobbyists representing the oil, coal, gas, and nuclear-energy industries to compose, word-for-word, the national energy policy adopted by the Department of Energy, in gross violation of the public trust and all ethical norms.

    In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

    Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

    ARTICLE VI
    In his conduct of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

    (1) On March 25, 2002, and thereafter, the vice president did willfully disobey court orders to identify the members of the National Energy Policy Development Group.

    (2) In September 2002, and prior thereto, the vice president did also refuse requests by Representatives Henry Waxman and John Dingell, as well as the Government Accountability Office, to release transcripts and papers produced by the aforementioned group.

    (3) In both of these cases, the requested names and documenting papers were deemed necessary to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to the vice president’s reliance on special interests and corporate lobbyists in the formation of national policy, and the release of said papers was ordered by the United States District Court and upheld by the United States Court of Appeals.

    (4) In refusing to produce said names, transcripts, and papers, and by continuing to keep the deliberations of the National Energy Policy Development Group secret, the vice president, substituting his judgment for the authority of the federal courts and ignoring the doctrine of congressional oversight, did assume to the office of the vice president authority, functions, and judgments forbidden by the United States Constitution.

    In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

    Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
    • Petronski, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2What a steaming heap of cow dung.
    • poplinre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States."


      I've read this sentence structure in almost every draft Articles of Impeachment I've seen. Is there a grammatical error at the end ("and to the manifest injury")? Should we update the language before we mail copies to our representatives?

      Does this sound better?: "In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and so as to manifest injury on the people of the United States."
      • AdrewMc3, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Well it would sound that way if you interpret manifest injury to mean, manifesting injury, or that his acts are causing injury. However this is not the case, "manifest injury" is a legal term. I believe it means it's a condition to an exposure. So ....to the great prejudice of justice and to the "condition of that exposure caused injury" to the people of the United States. At least I think. It comes from the legalese in Nixon's articles. I'd like to point out I am not an expert, so i can't give full confidence to this explanation. I hope it helps.
        • AdrewMc3, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1P.S. I made some grammatical errors (one is: I hope it helps) in the last post, funny because it was about grammar. How ever digg's time limit made me unable to correct them, Sorry.
  • saltino, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9There is still a large portion of the public that loves and trust the neocons and their puppet bush.It doesn't seem to matter what lie they get caught fabricating. All they have to say is that there is an epic battle of good vs evil,that we are fighting for freedom and the rest of the propaganda. It works wonder.

    I don't mind presidents that lie about their sexual appetite, i say go for it and knock them out. The sex habits of our leaders is none of my business anyways,but lies about a war where thousands of people die,including massive amount of civilians is a very serious matter.Shame on congress for not acting.
    • PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"The sex habits of our leaders is none of my business anyways,but lies about a war where thousands of people die,including massive amount of civilians is a very serious matter."

      Well it is if they're stupid enough to put themselves in a position to be blackmailed. Not to mention the possibility of a sexual harassment suit. didn't the PM of Israel have to deal with that?

      But if neither of those conditions were met, I think you're right. Dip your pen in whatever well you want.
  • Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6Oh, this will fly. (humor) Grown adults wasting their time with this type
    of partisan masturbation. I blame the press for keeping the American
    public focused on scandal politics instead of issues.
    • bcbounders, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"I blame the press for keeping the American public focused on scandal politics instead of issues."

      Don't blame the press for giving the American public what they want! Blame the American public. As a whole, we are self-absorbed, self-serving morons more interested in Britney's latest tragedy than we are in world affairs. It's pathetic. We get the news that we deserve... trite gossip pieces dressed up as serious news, wrapped with pre-digested opinion so we don't have to think.

      Kudos to Wil Hylton and GQ for at least attempting to rouse us all from our stupor. Now, let's get out there and DO something about it!
  • LMControl, on 10/12/2007, -20/+15Okay, I'll go along..... only if you impeach all of the following as well....




    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998


    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


    "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
    Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998


    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998


    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


    "Hussein has . . . chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


    "There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an elicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001


    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
    Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002


    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002


    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons . . . ."
    Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002


    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-if necessary-to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . . . . We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002


    "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
    Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002


    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members . . . . It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


    "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation . . . . And, now. he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction . . . . So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real . . . ."
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


    The only thing in nature more dense than Depleted Uranium is Algorium.


    The majority of Democrats voted for the resolution to go to war and even made speeches about how Saddam had to go even if there were no WMDs. In case you all forget: There were 12 UN resolutions, years of inspectors being kicked out, corrupt oil-for-food program, an attempted assassination of an American President, an invasion of Kuwait, mass graves, nuclear program parts hidden in nuclear scientists back yard, no fly zone violations, post 9/11 mentality, etc. The truth is that Liberals just want world socialism based on relative morality, with the Super Friends Justice League (the UN) as the world government. The highest sin in their world is income inequity. The facts and truth don't matter.

    • brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18I see comments by people who were probably mislead in the same manner that most of the American people were. You do also realize that it was the current administration that actually went to war on a country for reasons which they STILL have not explained.

      If Bill Clinton or Senator Kennedy had gone to war in Iraq for reasons that were 100% fabrication they would be criticized just as much and be equally deserving of impeachment. However Ted Kennedy has never been and will never be president or vice president. Bill Clinton was out of office.

      You're collection of quotes boil down to: "Seems like we should do something about that Iraq guy." -someone in politics, pre-Iraq war

      There is a big difference between a vice president spouting comments meant to scare and mislead the people of the US when he KNOWS they are lies and then getting into a war costing thousands and thousands of lives vs a senator talking out his ass to seem patriotic and sympathetic.
    • thedrgroup, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3@ Imcontrol: Excellent job of posting the light of reality into this absurdly dark article. I am not surprised to read comments from the whacked out fringe left cheerleaders who unfortunately constitute the majority of opinion here. It is insanity like this that I am glad we don't live in a democracy.
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@thedrgroup

      Wow, you're glad you don't live in a democracy.
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@lmcontrol
      Thank you, and every single one of them voted that way because of intelligence provided by the Bush administration. Looks to me like they were duped, just like everybody else. The simple difference is, they all now know they were duped and are attempting to correct the situation.
    • 2612, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Nicely played. Its good to see a more researched reply than "He's evil, let's get him!"

      I suggest we MoveOn. :)

    • doublebummer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2@brufleth

      "If Bill Clinton or Senator Kennedy had gone to war in Iraq for reasons that were 100% fabrication they would be criticized just as much and be equally deserving of impeachment."

      oops: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox

    • idandfei, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@doublebummer:

      An operation is not a war. Join the military and find out all about it.
  • aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7Yes the 4th estate represented by GQ has the responsibility....Please. Yes GQ is a great representative of the media. A cross between Tabloids and Cosmo....perfect.
    • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Don't forget great shoe advice for men who are denial about being gay!
    • reiner15, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Have you even read a GQ?
    • caketank, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5You should try reading GQ sometime. Like Esquire, when you page past the fashion spreads and all the ads for watches and cologne, you can very frequently find articles that represent some outstanding writing and journalism.
    • aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wow..... had a good laugh with that one. You guys defending GQ should really get out more. Yes I have read a GQ once or twice while waiting at a dentist's office or something. But if you think it is hard hitting news, you should really expand your reading horizons.
  • sheasie, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1.
    .
    .
    .
    http://richardcheney.blogspot.com/
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
  • Brassbud, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7In my opinion Dick Cheney is easily the best Vice President of my lifetime, rivaled maybe only by Bush who had the blessing of ruling in uninteresting times.

    If he is indeed guilty of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' than as a matter of course he should be impeached, but I have seen nothing in the above mentioned articles or any other that would convince me of such things, let alone a body as stagnant as Congress.
    • brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Please explain how being a leading part of an administration that has lead the US into a war in Iraq for reason that are STILL unexplained which is costing thousands of US lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives makes you a great VP.

      Please explain how being a leading part of an administration that let hundreds die and almost an entire city be destroyed due to a natural disaster that was tracked for days prior makes you a great VP.

      Point fingers all you want to shift blame. Cheney is a leader in an administration which has failed the people of the United States over and over.
    • diggityiggity, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"In my opinion Dick Cheney is easily the best Vice President of my lifetime..."

      Wow, your opinion is twisted and dark. While your statement makes me curious about how ***** up your thought process is, after six years of these fools I have decided to write off Bush/Cheney supporters as sheeple.

    • Black913Hole, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5maybe (hopefully) brassbud is only 6 years old...?
  • JohnTheLutheran, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6Whoa! Not GQ! Say it ain't so!

    Surely the administration is now doomed. Panic hits the White House. *GQ* has come out against it.
  • S4MF1SHER, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4GQ is going to save the world one subscription at a time!

    Impeachment? Yeah, that'll happen... //rolls eyes//

  • cp101, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3^^ Ad Hominem on the GQ thing. And, ya, it'll never happen. Though it should, by justice and reason, it ***** should, but it won't.


    And, ya know, if theres falsified information that is presented to the Congress, etc, yea... we're gonna have some senators and representatives voting in favor of the goddamn war.

    This doesn't mean they can't change their mind in the light of new information.
  • meanreal, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14Bill Clinton got his d**k sucked and had to testify - Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush have damaged the reputation of the country much more.
    • saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Read the post about 4 up from lmcontrol.

      Plus, please reread history and look up Linda Tripp.
    • skyfire1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1"Bill Clinton got his d**k"

      Nice...
  • Treoinmypocket, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8LOL. Mr Wil S. Hylton should just go into a nice cozy corner and masturbate. He'll get more satisfaction that way.

    and who the Hell is reading GQ anyway?
  • michaelb1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Heavens no. HELL YES!!!!
  • Treoinmypocket, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10BREAKING! Digg completely ignores Barak OBAMA vs Hillary Clinton Fight!

    Clinton Camp racist comments swept under the rug....

    State Sens. Robert Ford: "Every Democratic candidate running on that ticket would lose because he's black and he's at the top of the ticket — we'd lose the House, the Senate and the governors and everything."

    I think its very funny that the majority of Digg users will fall all over themselves about "bad neocon Republicans" but completely ignore what's happening in the Democratic party. There is a real issue here that most have not much thought about - is an American of African lineage but who's history and identity have no relation whatsoever to slavery...therefore making him simply an immigrant..."black enough" for the Jesse Jackson's of the United States to support?

    Doesn't look that way. You watch the people who end up tearing OBAMA down will be the Democrats and more specifically, the Black Caucus and Civil Rights leaders. WHY? Because Barak is a success story who doesn't link himself nor identify with the "oppression of Black people in the United States". It isn't HIS history. He's just a regular old immigrant who came to this country for the American dream.

    The "traditional" black platforms don't apply to him and that has got the Dems all confused...and now...upset.
    • floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5And he had a get together with a bunch of Hollywood people this weekend, where the press was forbidden entrance . I mean they THREW OUT reporters!!!!! Whats up OBAMA? whats with the SECRET meeting? What are you hiding?
    • theantirobot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1nevermind
  • poisonberry, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7If you can bash a republican and mention UBUNTU in the same article I think people here would wet themselves.
  • BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Why do people repeating doing this same stupid stuff? I guess it gets a flashy headline and hits from short attention span types.
  • banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6It's sort of amazing how many nakedly partisan psychopaths frequent Digg.
    • Petronski, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That's how crap like this makes it to the front page.
  • aeneid1, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Take off the tinfoil hats you gq cosmo reading sissydems. Same old bs arguments the leftoids have been barking about since their reps in both houses voted for this war.
  • Teddystiltskins, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4So let me get this straight!!! All you diggers out there think that somehow Cheney should be impeached because of high-crimes and misdemeanors? Okay, Bill Clinton actually lied under oath to a Grand Jury. It was proven, the House indicted him and the balless "DEMOCRAT" senate did nothing about it. Goes to show you how the standards are just different depending on what side you play on.

    Go hug a tree assholes!!!

    • Treoinmypocket, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3@ donelson omg...stop being a tool.

      So what you are saying is its ok to lie to a Grand Jury? A President of the United States is allowed to lie to a Grand Jury? Only depends on what he lying about, right? SO who gets to decide what is ok to lie about and what isn't? And gee but doesn't that sound a little muddy? I mean..Laws...ahhh not so important really. Constitution? Ahhh...well..it depends...

      Holy Crap! If this is how you think a NATION should govern itself I can only hope you can't have children. You know look back at Nixon. He taped some people in his office without their knowledge then got some guys to go take some documents back. Not really that big a deal..I mean Clinton got Sandy Berger to go steal some documents out of the Nation Archives right? so what's the diff? Lets go back and reverse the whole Nixon thing too.

      What about Scooter Libby? Come on...he mentioned someone's name as working for the CIA? Pish Posh! Who cares right? She WASN'T a secret agent she was a ***** researcher. Most people who knew about her knew she worked their anyway and oh yeah...the law about outing CIA Agents...it doesn't apply to researchers. But LETS put SCOOTER in jail anyway...or...lets say it WAS a crime and he IS guilty...so what...I mean people didn't DIE...lets just forget about it RIGHT?

      One Nation. One set of Laws. EVERYONE abides. Their are LOTS of crooks in Washington and they are in BOTH parties. WE THE PEOPLE only have power if we apply the SAME standards and SAME laws to EVERYONE...of course that means that you would have to consider illegal aliens as actually illegal too...
  • right75, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Seriously, who cares. Most people don't associate Dick Cheney with being a liar, a fraud, and a cheat.

    If Cheney deserves impeachment, then Bill and Hill belong in the federal pen.

    Besides, when did GQ become a reputable legal publication?! I thought they were the magazine of choice for how men should dress, not as a publication covering Constitutional politics.
  • bshock, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9A magazine publishes articles of impeachment? That's hardly newsworthy, except in contrast to the pitiful, complacent nature of Congress.

    George W. Bush and Dick Cheney should never have been elected. Failing that error, they should have been impeached immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attack -- unless of course you believe that people with responsibility shouldn't be held responsible. (In a civilized nation, they both simply would have resigned at this point.)

    Again and again, as evidence of their long premeditated, illegal conquest of Iraq became public, they should have been impeached.

    When their incompetent occupation of the conquered territories created massive instability in the Middle East, they should've been impeached.

    When it became clear in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina that Bush and Cheney had filled important government offices with unqualified cronies, they should've been impeached.

    Because of their constant lies to the American people, constant violation of the U.S. Constitution, and constant glaring errors, they should be impeached.
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Hurrumph!
    • Treoinmypocket, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"When their incompetent occupation of the conquered territories created massive instability in the Middle East, they should've been impeached."

      Uhhhhhm. When was the Middle East stable again? Sorry, must have missed that minute....
  • LibertyVista, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6on a related note: TLC's show What Not To Wear is protesting that they have not been chosen to host a presidential candidates debate this year.
  • analogking, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3To everyone that says a few people can't make a difference... 19 men on 9-11 would beg to differ. It's a horrible thing to say, but it is true. They took every ones civil liberties and fueled bush jr.'s attack on Iraq. We've racked up billions in debt. Enough to buy everyone some new shoes.
    • rrasco, on 10/12/2007, -4/+119 people with more power than the rest of the entire country though. thats the difference, money talks...period.
  • rrasco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4so what do you do when no checks and balances exist anymore? are we doomed as americans? seriously, WHAT CAN WE DO?

    i hate this f*ck stick as much as the next average american, but what are out options besides writing congressmen who doesnt give 2 sh*ts.
    • thehankholmes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>> seriously, WHAT CAN WE DO?

      well, when you're old enough to vote you can pick someone that YOU like
  • vipersxt10, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3yeah impeach that idiot for lying to us, bush is a dirty rotten bastard to, the people dont seem to have a voice anymore it seems to be all about the money and peoples greed.
  • pabster, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4What have we here, another Diggeral jack-off session in full force.

    Wake the ***** up you kooky morons. GQ didn't have any credibility to begin with, and this kind of nonsense won't help.

    What I want to know is...when will you idiots figure out Bush and Cheney are not on the ballot? January 2009?
  • cissystrut, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I think we should do away with Capitol Hill altogther. Let digg replace congress.
    All citizens will be able to digg or bury proposed bills. The people will finally get their voice back.

    Just a thought
    • Optic7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2lol, yeah, that's the ticket. Do we really want people to approve or disapprove federal legislation without RTFL (Reading The "Fine" Legislation), and giving it only half a second of thought? Oh, wait...
    • thehankholmes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1>> The people will finally get their voice back.

      the people called and they said that it's 8:00 and past congress's bedtime. they also said they know about the porno mags under your mattress and reminded you to study hard for that social studies class tomorrow.
  • slapout, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Shouldn't the Fourth Estate be reporting the news and making it??
  • cavemanJim, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0While I'm into the vibe of impeachment here, I must express disappointment at my fellow diggers. I've noticed that almost all of the comments that have been dugg down are those that express an opposing viewpoint, and I'd like to point out that we might be a bit hypocritical if we are discussing impeachment without allowing opposing viewpoints to be expressed? Go ahead, mob, digg me down. Then gather some pitchforks and torches. And then what?
  • pmr12002, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Digg this misplaced story down. It is not world news it is opinion.
  • PATSCRU, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7way to go Hylton, republican or democrat, lib or neocon, everyone should support Hylton as he places Cheney next to the law of the land, despite what the administration thinks, no one should be above the law.
  • DGaw, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Well, this is definitely the sort of serious legal analysis one can expect from a journal with the pedigree of GQ. Coming next month: People magazine looks at the role of common law in US constitutional interpretation, and Cosmo tackles WTO dispute resolution.
  • analyze, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I hope the Democrats try to impeach Cheney. It would be political suicide on the scale of Jim Jones Kool-aide fiasco. The American people would get to see the Democratic hatred, vindictiveness, and Mickey Mouse politics in its full glory.
    • edm1950, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3
      They didn't seem to mind republican vindictiveness and mickey mouse politics so what the hell.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 59 of 59 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.