Yeah, this works. Let's impeach Cheney (first). 'Cheney's The One'

[chaska]

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0208-31.htm

I think there is a stronger case to be made that we impeach Cheney first or instead of Bush than appears in this article, but it's a jumping off point for your own thoughts on this.

(I would like to mention that I have been in the impeach-the-bastards camp, and decidedly not in the don't-impeach camp.)

It makes a lot of sense. And I think it would be much easier than going after Bush, which may not be possible at all given the reluctance at the top of our party. And nobody would hold it against us if we impeached Big Dick, whereas impeaching Bush (first) may have a negative effect on the election ... or at least the possibility exists to the extent that our reps won't risk it.

What do ya'll think?

snip

The case against Mr. Cheney is in some ways stronger than the case against Mr. Bush. Consider the ongoing trial of Lewis "Scooter" Libby taking place in the nation's capitol. Testimony to date has pretty much established that Libby was a simple pawn in the Veep's ongoing campaign to steer the United States into war in Iraq. When Mr. Cheney takes the stand as a defense witness, we will hopefully learn the answers to at least some of the following questions:

Did the Vice President sanction the leak of Valerie Plame's name to syndicated columnist Robert Novak?
Did he know what Valerie Plame actually did at the CIA?
Was he aware that his top aide was telling the FBI apparently false information?
Inasmuch as he knew that the intelligence for the war had been cooked, was he involved in a cover-up?
And, in the event there is an impeachment trial in the Senate, we will hopefully learn about the role oil played in the run-up to the war. As Halliburton's former CEO, Mr. Cheney profited substantially from the no-bid contracts awarded to the company. An important question that needs an answer is what part, if any, did Mr. Cheney play in securing these contracts.

Nor should we forget that it is Mr. Cheney who has been the main proponent of the "unitary executive." In his view, Presidential power is almost without limits. As a consequence, we have everything from signing statements to repeated violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, both of which show utter contempt for the legislative branch. The most explicit exposition of this view comes from John Yoo, the former Justice Department lawyer and author of a 2002 memo sanctioning torture of U.S. detainees in violation of the Geneva conventions and the War Powers Act of 1996.

[movonne]

1. All I know is that we had better do something fast, before were into

it with Iran...all this chit chat about what to do is letting them continue with all their war plans..

[lligrd]

2. Impeach Them Both At The Same Time

Plenty of evidence that they illegally invaded a sovereign country and purposively lied to Congress and the American people is available . It simply needs to be dusted off and shown some light.

[MasonJar]

3. They both need to go simultaneously so that Bush doesn't put in

someone who is running for pres as the new VP. When the candidate is in office, he gets free rides everywhere and campaigns on the citizen's dime, gets free press coverage whenever he feels like it and other etcs.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

5. Cheney can go first --

Bush can't simply put a new face in the VP office, any nominee must be approved by both houses of Congress. So the best course is to impeach Cheney, then hold action on any nominee while impeachment proceedings are taken against the rest of the cabal, culminating in Bush himself.

[smalll]

4. Cheney's the one bum to sink, when you're sinking more than one! /nt