Friday, March 16, 2007

OHIO REP. DENNIS KUCINICH PUT IMPEACHMENT ON THE TABLE IN THE HOUSE YESTERDAY: GOOD IDEA?

WASHINGTON D.C.--Impeachment is one of those things that looks good on-paper, in-theory, but never in-practice. The name of one standing US president who was ever successfully impeached please? This means successful, or that he was run out-of-office, and even held-accountable for crimes he committed while holding-office. No takers? That's right, it's never happened in American history, and the chances of it ever occurring are virtually-nil.

Why? Because in a democracy, representatives have the vote in the legislature, not the public. Granted, they are ostensibly there representing the "will of the people," but the final votes are down to them. They like the powers that the office of the president holds, and they covet that office. To the mainstream politician, impeachment isn't an option, it's unthinkable. But there is a possibility for it if...

Yes, we know the usual lame-excuses from politicos: separation of powers (which never bothered them when Bush violated them, but...), preserving the powers of the president, (and for later) preserving the office of the president. They aren't going pull the trigger of impeachment in either house of Congress--unless the Bush administration attacks Iran in some form directly with American military forces. Kucinich is correct about that, since the political will would finally be there to do it, and that's why his putting impeachment on the table at this time could be a serious gaffe. That was in January when he and Conyers stated this political truth. But why would he push for it now? There might be a disappointing reason for this, or he might be the victim of a politically-timed smear from the FEC exactly one-week before his push for impeachment proceedings:

The Federal Election Commission on Thursday said Kucinich, who is again running for president, must repay the government $135,518 in public matching funds that he spent after he had become ineligible to use them. FEC auditors said Kucinich spent the money between March 4, 2004, and July 29, 2004, when Kerry was officially nominated. Candidates who receive less than 10 percent of the popular vote in two consecutive primaries lose their eligibility for money from the taxpayer financed presidential campaign fund. (CNN.com, 03.08.2007)

My prediction is that Kucinich's campaign will pay this amount, but will continue to dispute the allegations, which is their right. What's interesting is that Rep. Kucinich is a real lightning-rod for the anti-war bloc in Congress, and that this really stinks of Rovian tactics of the smear. Considering all of the irregularities surrounding the GOP in the 2004 elections, with no substantial investigations and hearings on them, it's safe to say that the FEC's bureaucracy is being pressured by the Bush administration to act on these charges. Whether they are true or not is currently unknown, and stands-aside of this fact. Priorities.

It's also likely that the Bush administration is still spying-on its political enemies and critics. Did they know Kucinich would be delivering these remarks before the House "a priori"? Rep. Dennis Kucinich has stated, bluntly, that impeachment is the only way to prevent a war with Iran. Here's the full-text from the press secretary of the House of Representatives. If he's innocent of the FEC's audit-conclusions, this is why he has moved on putting impeachment forward in the House for consideration:

The Iraq war funding bill, currently under consideration by the U.S. House of Representatives, would allow the Bush Administration to launch an attack against Iran without Congressional approval, Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said on the floor of the House today.

"The House Appropriations Committee removed language from the Iraq war funding bill requiring the Administration, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, to seek permission before it launched an attack against Iran," Kucinich said today. "Since war with Iran is an option of this Administration, and since such war is patently illegal, then impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran."

Kucinich continued, "This House cannot avoid its constitutionally authorized responsibility to restrain the abuse of Executive power. The Administration has been preparing for an aggressive war against Iran. There is no solid, direct evidence that Iran has the intention of attacking the United States or its allies."

He went on to explain, "The United States is a signatory to the U.N. Charter, a constituent treaty among the nations of the world [that mandates] all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

"Even the threat of a war of aggression is illegal," Kucinich told other House members.Kucinich is the only Presidential candidate who voted against the original war authorization measure in 2002 and every war-funding appropriation since. (kucinich.us/, 03.15.2007)

He's factually correct, but can we successfully impeach the president of the United States? Will the votes be there before a conflict? With a GOP still-intent on this war, I don't see how. You would have to have a full-blown congressional rebellion against the president, fostered by events on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran being a total-catastrophe.

When GOP-incumbents make it clear that they will not listen to the public--even the people who mistakenly voted for them--you have a roadblock that's only going to go through an explosion of social forces and events that essentially smash it. What you have are two social forces colliding: the will of the American public, versus a narrow-band of entitled economic interests who are directly represented in Congress. Dennis Kucinich could well be a political visionary in all of this. To his credit, Kucinich is addressing the FEC's allegations.
We can only wait-and-see. Good luck with the impeachment, we'll need it. Charges of treason are almost impossible to make stick either--irregardless of actual guilt--and it should be noted that this-month is the 200th anniversary of the Aaron Burr trial. Burr was acquitted of treason by the Supreme Court in 1807, and he was most-definitely guilty...of attempting to cause the secession of Louisiana, making it his own Republic. He had once been the Vice President under Thomas Jefferson (search this site for "Aaron Burr," links will be forthcoming).

AP on the FEC Audit, 03.08.2007: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/03/kucinich-forced-to-repay-fec-135000.html
Rep. Dennis Kucinich's statements before the House Yesterday: http://kucinich.us/node/3667

On the FEC Audit: http://kucinich.us/node/3514