To say that Kucinich longs for the days of George W. Bush would be a wild over statement — after all, Kucinich wanted to impeach him — but maybe it’s not a stretch to say Dennis appreciated that Bush was more constitutionally considerate than the current president on the issue of congressional authorization for a conflict:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) on Thursday ripped President Obama while giving credit to former President George W. Bush for asking Congress to authorize the war in Iraq.

The anti-war Democrat, criticizing Obama’s handling of the conflict in Libya, noted that Bush formally consulted Congress on the Iraq war in 2002.

“President Bush came to Congress…President Obama doesn’t feel like he needs to come to Congress,” Kucinich said during an interview on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” program. Kucinich pointed out he was strongly opposed to the Iraq war.

Along with other lawmakers, Kucinich this week filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration on the Libyan conflict, claiming the president violated the law by not securing congressional approval.

If he’s not careful, one of these mornings Dennis might wake up next to an olive pit.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Yesterday, US and British forces launched over 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya in an attempt to knock out its air defenses.

A group of left-wing House Democrats are fretting about the constitutionality of this military action (military action seems to be about the only time this bunch worries about constitutionality). Rep. Dennis Kucinich — who recently awarded himself the Purple Molar for injuries he sustained single-handedly attempting to thwart an olive pit attack at the congressional cafeteria — is even talking about impeachment:

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

I love the smell of a potential primary challenge in the morning.

Others on the left who helped carry Obama into office on their shoulders are going apoplectic as well. Michael Moore suggested that Obama return his Nobel Peace Prize and compared him to Bush (a charge that will be especially hard for Obama to avoid if he’s going to recycle W’s speeches, but at least that might help keep the greens happy). Louis Farrakhan asked Obama “Who the hell do you think you are?” Obama’s even lost Joan Baez, and you know how the old saying goes: If you’ve lost an aging folk singer from the 60′s, you’ve lost… well, not much actually.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Just to clear up a misconception right off the bat, in spite of some speculation over at Free Republic, Kucinich is suing the operators of the congressional cafeteria, but not for injuries he sustained by falling out of a poorly maintained high chair.

From USA Today:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich has filed a lawsuit over a sandwich he bought at a congressional cafeteria.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, has filed a lawsuit over an olive pit contained in a sandwich. Kucinich, D-Ohio, bit into an olive pit in a sandwich wrap in April 2008, which he said led to “serious and permanent dental and oral injuries,” according to documents filed with the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

He’s seeking $150,000 in damages, the court filing says.
[...]
In the lawsuit, Kucinich alleges that the defendants served him food “that was unwholesome and unfit for human consumption” because it “contained dangerous substances” — an olive pit.

A date of injury is given in this story:

The congressman says he was injured by the sandwich on April 17, 2008.

Prepare for MSM stories alleging that the sandwich was influenced by right-wing political rhetoric.

And Kucinich thought he was fit to be president? How can you take on terrorists if a BLT kicks your ass? Bush almost choked to death on a pretzel but he didn’t sue Mister Salty.

In court, expect Kucinich’s attorney to allege the government planted the olive pit (a conspiracy accusation which might give rise to a so-called “Toother” movement):

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

In case you’ve been missing impeachment mob theater, the lead actor is back. Rep. Dennis Kucinich was back on the House floor tonight introducing a 35-count resolution to impeach President Bush. Kucinich delayed introducing the impeachment resolution after speaking with House Judiciary Committee members in January. Guess he got a green light. You’ll recall that five months ago, he promised to bring articles of impeachment against President Bush to the House floor on the day of the State of the Union address–and was forced to withdraw BDS remarks declaring the State of the Union a “lie.”

(See WaPo editorial page editor Fred Hiatt’s demolition of the “Bush lied” mantra here.)

The Cleveland Plain Dealer blog reports:

Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich took to the House of Representatives floor on Monday evening to introduce a 35-count resolution to impeach President George W. Bush.

Kucinich claimed Bush “fraudulently” justified the war on Iraq and misled “the American people and members of Congress to believe Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction so as to manufacture a false case for war.”

“President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office,” Kucinich said.

Kucinich said in January that he planned to launch an impeachment effort against Bush, but delayed his effort after meeting with members of the House Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Commitee hasn’t acted on a bid Kucinich launched last year to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney.

Update 9:25pm Eastern. He’s still on the House floor reading his resolution. Currently whining about Gitmo and the crackdown on illegal aliens from the Middle East.

Meanwhile, I’m on impeachment co-ringleader Rep. Robert Wexler’s e-mail list. He sent out this message tonight:

Our campaign for accountability for the Bush administration is making legitimate progress.

I am pleased to announce to you that the House Judiciary Committee has met my public call for Scott McClellan’s immediate testimony with action:

Today, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers officially invited Mr. McClellan to testify under oath on Friday, June 20th at 10AM.

After all of our hard work pushing for impeachment hearings for Vice President Cheney – the McClellan hearing provides our cause with a legitimate opportunity to showcase the crimes and violations of this Administration for the American people, the mainstream media, reluctant members of the Democratic party, and sensible Republicans. This hearing provides us our first genuine opportunity to enter the public consciousness and change the dynamics that have prevented true accountability for Bush and Cheney.

Mr. McClellan was a major figure in the Valerie Plame/CIA scandal, as well as a leading propagandist for the Bush White House’s deliberate attempts to hide the true costs of this war from the American public. As such, Mr. McClellan will testify under oath (and be subject to perjury charges should he lie) and be asked about the following matters:

What role did President Bush, Vice President Cheney , and key administration officials take in the effort to reveal the identity of covert CIA agent Valeria Plame Wilson – thus destroying her network and putting lives in jeopardy?

What role did President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and key administration officials take regarding the firing of U.S. Attorneys or political reasons?

What role did President Bush, Vice President Cheney, key administration officials take in conspiring to blatantly break U.S. and International laws prohibiting the use of torture?

I call on Mr. McClell[a]n to immediately accept this invitation and testify under oath as he previously agreed to while being interviewed on national television.

During the hearing I will have roughly five short minutes to question Mr. McClellan and undercover the illegalities committed by this Administration – which is why it is critically important that every representative on the Judiciary Committee hears your voice. Please let them know that you demand answers to these questions.

Nor should it stop there: Karl Rove has thumbed his nose to the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena – joining Harriet Miers, Joshua Bolten and Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff David Addington as the only Administration officials in history to claim Congress has no power to even bring them before a committee to be questioned.

I have called for Karl Rove to be held in inherent contempt and for the other renegade officials to appear as required by their subpoenas, or be forced to do so by the House Sergeant of Arms.

What the Judiciary’s request of McClellan proves is that if we stay vigilant – if we call loudly and repeatedly for accountability – that we become very difficult to ignore.

Please stay tuned. I hope for more developments soon.

Anything to distract from the Dem leadership’s field of broken promises…

***

AP reports on Kucinich’s new drama here.

Will Pelosi’s pledge to keep impeachment “off the table” hold?

DHS can’t protect him now. It’s do-or-die tonight:

Dennis Kucinich, the liberal Ohio politician who made two failed White House campaigns, fought Tuesday in the Democratic primary to keep his seat against the toughest, best-financed challenger in his 12-year congressional career.

Although the presidential primary commands most of the nation’s attention, Kucinich’s race was the best known congressional contest on ballots in Ohio and Texas.

Other races included two veterans of the Iraq war seeking congressional nominations in Ohio and a battle for the nomination to challenge Sen. John Cornyn in Texas. Voters in one Vermont community were considering whether to call for the arrest of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

For years, the 61-year-old Kucinich has won re-election by margins of up to 75 percent in a reliably Democratic, Cleveland-area district.

But after sensing early that Joe Cimperman was a formidable opponent, Kucinich abandoned his presidential campaign on Jan. 25, months earlier in the race than he did in 2004, when he also was polling in low one-digit numbers.

Cimperman, a Cleveland City Council member and former Kucinich admirer, raised nearly $500,000 and landed high-profile endorsements from the mayor and the city’s daily newspaper.

“Mr. Kucinich is not a congressman. He’s a showman,” said Cimperman, 37, who has belittled Kucinich’s Hollywood ties and criticized congressional votes Kucinich missed during his presidential campaigns.

***
Update: Denny K survives.

“Resident Kurt Daims, who submitted the petition, said late Tuesday he was chagrined that the town and its employees were subject to ridicule.”

Anyone who wears a Chavista beret on any day other than Halloween deserves all the ridicule they get:

***

Meantime, what’s up with Denny K? He vowed to introduce his impeachment articles on the night of the State of the Union. To the nutroots’ dismay, he didn’t deliver. Who got to him? The Plain Dealer has news of his postponement:

After promising to mark President Bush’s final State of the Union speech by introducing articles of impeachment against Bush, Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich postponed the effort.

Kucinich said Monday that he met with members of the House Judiciary Committee after making last week’s impeachment pledge. He said he came away “hopeful there will be an inquiry by the Judiciary Committee.”

“I will give them the opportunity to proceed before introducing articles of impeachment,” he said in a statement. The committee’s spokeswoman did not respond to requests for comment…

…. Kucinich told The Plain Dealer editorial board last week that nine of the Judiciary Committee’s 40 members favor his bid to impeach Cheney.

“I do not believe that there will be an impeachment this year — I don’t think that will happen — but I do think that the questions relating to an inquiry of both the president and the vice president are important so that our nation has a real understanding of the effort that was made, a consistent effort, to mislead the people into supporting a war,” he said.

The recount of Democratic primary votes in New Hampshire that Cleveland’s Dennis Kucinich requested hasn’t changed any candidate’s voting percentage “by more than a few hundredths of a percentage point so far,” the Nashua Telegraph newspaper reports today.

Kucinich paid $27,000 to recount about 40 percent of New Hampshire’s Democratic ballots after Hillary Clinton polled disproportionately well in machine-counted parts of the state. According to the Telegraph, the partial vote count Kucinich paid for may be finished this week, after which he’ll decide whether to pay approximately $40,000 more to recount the rest of the state’s Democratic votes.

When the Democratic recount wraps up, Republican primary ballots will be recounted at the request of a little-known GOP candidate from Michigan, Albert Howard, who got just 44 votes.

“The hand recount seem to support local officials’ confidence in AccuVote scanners, which tally the election-night votes from the paper ballots at most area precincts,” the newspaper reported. “But they may not placate the concern of those who worry about the ‘chain of custody’ — the security of the cardboard boxes that hold ballots between the time that polls close and the time that recounts start.”

Another New Hampshire newspaper, Manchester’s Union Leader, applauded the congressman for seeking the recount and agreeing to use campaign money to pay for it.

The newspaper opined that Kucinich’s recount “will answer some questions and put to rest some of the conspiracy theories being circulated. OK, it won’t end all the conspiracy theories. Some people are impervious to facts. But it will show whether the ‘irregularities’ Kucinich and others think they have found are real.”

Here are the official recount results.

More:

“The Democratic outcome barely changed in the partial recount, which lasted a week. Kucinich, who paid for the effort and is set to drop out of the national race today, lost six votes from election night tallies in the towns the recount had covered…The Democratic recount went through ballots in all of Hillsborough County and 18 towns in Rockingham County.

Because they finished so far out of the running, Kucinich and Howard have to pay for the recount. Kucinich put up $27,000 of the total $67,600 cost, so counting stopped at 114,376 ballots.

In Democratic recount results, Hillary Clinton lost 26 votes; Barack Obama lost seven votes; John Edwards lost 18 and Bill Richardson gained 43.

No matter. Some people are impervious to facts. It’s the nutroots’ way of life.

Democrat Dennis Kucinich is abandoning his second, long-shot bid for the White House as he faces a tough fight to hold onto his other job—U.S. congressman.

In an interview with Cleveland’s Plain Dealer, the six-term House member said he was quitting the race and would make a formal announcement on Friday.

“I will be announcing that I’m transiting out of the presidential campaign,” Kucinich said. “I’m making that announcement tomorrow about a new direction.”

The “new direction?”

I reported it here yesterday: On Monday, before the State of the Union, he’ll be swinging the impeachment noose high.

The BDS bandwagon rolls on.

Railed Kucinich: “The president and vice president lied and a million innocent Iraqis died…We already know the State of the Union. It’s a lie.” Kucinich says he will introduce articles of impeachment on the day of the State of Union address.

Full transcript of Kucinich’s floor statement:

The Center for Public Integrity, in a report, released today has found “The Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.” In short, the president and vice president lied and four thousand of our soldiers died. The president and vice president lied and a million innocent Iraqis died in a war that will cost us 2 trillion dollars while people here in the states are losing their jobs, their health care, their homes, their dignity. Lies are weapons of mass destruction. Lies are also an impeachable offense.

Monday Jan. 28 is the State of the Union. We already know the State of the Union. It’s a lie. We must reestablish truth as the State of our Union. So on that day I will introduce articles of impeachment concering our president.

If impeachment is off the table, truth is off the table. If truth is off the table then this house is living a lie.

The Bible says “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” Let us once again be the Land of the Free by beginning the process that the founders understood will set us free and keep us free.

IMPEACHMENT!

After objections to his BDS diatribe from Republicans, Kucinich withdrew the remarks. Here’s the vid:

Weasel.

Think this is a coincidence coming on the day that the Soros operatives released their “BUSH LIED” propaganda–which Kucinich quoted? No, it’s no coincidence.

The impeachment bandwagon rolls on.

***

The NYT somehow missed Denny K’s withdrawal of his BUSH LIED smear.

Red alert! Red alert! Dennis Kucinich has detected a threat to his homeland security. No, not a UFO. Kucinich called in DHS to investigate a pesky political opponent who came to his office to complain about the congressman and Democrat presidential candidate’s absence from the district. Seriously. Via the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

Congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinch asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to investigate one of his Democratic congressional opponents, Cleveland Councilman Joe Cimperman.

Kucinich, who frequently speaks out against government intrusion, initiated the investigation after Cimperman, a Cleveland councilman, delivered a “missing” poster to his Lakewood congressional office on Jan. 3, according to Cimperman.

Cimperman, who was mocking Kucinich for being on the road campaigning for president, spent less than 30 seconds in the office while a campaign worker filmed him dropping off the poster. A federal agent told Cimperman Tuesday during an in-person interview that the use of the video camera inside the government office was at issue. Cimperman said the agent spent about 10 minutes with him.

Your DHS tax dollars at work.

Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, the most outspoken advocate in the Presidential field and in Congress for election integrity, paper-ballot elections, and campaign finance reform, has sent a letter to the New Hampshire Secretary of State asking for a recount of Tuesday’s election because of “unexplained disparities between hand-counted ballots and machine-counted ballots.”

“I am not making this request in the expectation that a recount will significantly affect the number of votes that were cast on my behalf,” Kucinich stressed in a letter to Secretary of State William M. Gardner. But, “Serious and credible reports, allegations, and rumors have surfaced in the past few days…It is imperative that these questions be addressed in the interest of public confidence in the integrity of the election process and the election machinery – not just in New Hampshire, but in every other state that conducts a primary election.”

He added, “Ever since the 2000 election – and even before – the American people have been losing faith in the belief that their votes were actually counted. This recount isn’t about who won 39% of 36% or even 1%. It’s about establishing whether 100% of the voters had 100% of their votes counted exactly the way they cast them.”

Kucinich, who drew about 1.4% of the New Hampshire Democratic primary vote, wrote, “This is not about my candidacy or any other individual candidacy. It is about the integrity of the election process.” No other Democratic candidate, he noted, has stepped forward to question or pursue the claims being made.

Doesn’t he have anything better to do?

Dennis Kucinich is urging his supporters to throw their votes to Barack Obama on the second Iowa ballot. Second choices matter in Iowa. (Candidates who receive less than 15 percent of the vote are considered non-viable. Their followers can go home or cast ballots for their second choice. Front-runners Obama, Clinton and Edwards will likely snap up roughly three-quarters of the Iowa caucus vote. All of the them have been courting the second tier for second-choice votes.) From Denny K’s campaign website:

Democratic Presidential candidate and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich opened the New Year by publicly asking his Iowa supporters to vote for him in the caucuses this Thursday, and suggesting that if he did not make the 15% threshold, their second ballot should be for Senator Barack Obama. “This is obviously an ‘Iowa-only’ recommendation, as Sen. Obama and I are competing in the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday where I want to be the first choice of New Hampshire voters.

“I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday, because of my singular positions on the war, on health care, and trade. This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those caucus locations where my support doesn’t reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change.”

So, does Obama still oppose impeachment–Denny K’s hobby horse–as straightforwardly as he did six months ago? Flashback:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney…

…Obama, a Harvard law school graduate and former lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said impeachment should not be used as a standard political tool.

“I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president’s authority,” he said.

“I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction,” he added. “We would once again, rather than attending to the people’s business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus.”

Will Denny’s people really do as he says?

***

Meantime, InsiderAdvantage reports that “Reallocated Numbers Based on Second Preferences [Give] Edwards A Solid Lead.”

Marc Ambinder sheds light on the falling out between Denny K and Johnny E:

Kucinich’s supporters could help Obama in non-liberal precincts where the two or three Kucinich supporters could wind up enlarging Obama’s preference groups just enough to get that extra delegate…

Note: Last cycle, the Edwards and Kucinich campaigns agreed to tell their supporters to join each other’s preference groups if one or the other didn’t make “threshold.” Edwards advisers now believe that the deal hurt them more than it helped them.

Update 8:00pm Eastern: Quip of the night goes to corruptocrat Alcee Hastings. Gotta love the blue-on-blue action:

Kucinich “is on a quest of his own. He sees flying saucers and he acts like one,” Hastings said.

Update 7:45pm Eastern. What’s next? Fox is reporting that Kucinich claims House Judiciary Committee chairnut John Conyers told him the resolution is alive. Conyers is playing coy (hat tip – Paul M.):

Kucinich savored the victory, saying that Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers
had reassured him and backers of the resolution “that he would in fact launch an impeachment inquiry.” But Conyers told FOX News that he would announce his decision on Wednesday after speaking with House Democratic leaders.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has previously stated that she did not want the impeachment articles to come to a vote. High-ranking Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings, who was himself impeached while a judge in Florida, said he was not happy with Kucinich’s attempts to raise the matter on the floor in an attempt to circumvent the normal legislative process.

Update. The Hill reports that Rep. John Shadegg gets credit for outmaneuvering the Dems.

Who were the Democrat switch-a-roonies? Brian Faughnan:

There were 81 Democrats who voted to have an impeachment debate when they were pretty sure it would be tabled, then turned around and voted to prevent a debate when it was clear one might occur. Those opportunists are:

Neil Abercrombie
Tom Allen
Joe Baca
Tammy Baldwin
Bruce Braley
Lois Capps
Mike Capuano
Yvette Clarke
Bill Clay
Emanuel Cleaver
Steve Cohen
John Conyers
Joe Crowley
Elijah Cummings
Danny Davis
Pete DeFazio
Norm Dicks
Lloyd Doggett
Mike Doyle
Keith Ellison
Sam Farr
Al Green
Gene Green
Raul Grijalva
Luis Gutierrez
Phil Hare
Maurice Hinchey
Mazie Hirono
Paul Hodes
Rush Holt
Mike Honda
Darlene Hooley
Jay Inslee
Jesse Jackson
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Hank Johnson
Stephanie Tubbs Jones
Paul Kanjorski
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick
Barbara Lee
John Lewis
Dave Loebsack
Carolyn Maloney
Betty McCollum
Jim McDermott
Greg Meeks
Mike Michaud
Brad Miller
Gwen Moore
Jim Moran
Grace Napolitano
Solomon Ortiz
Mike Pallone
Bill Pascrell
Ed Perlmutter
David Price
Charlie Rangel
Laura Richardson
Lucille Roybal-Allard
Bobby Rush
Jan Schakowsky
Bobby Scott
Jose Serrano
Carol Shea-Porter
Brad Sherman
Louise Slaughter
Hilda Solis
Pete Stark
Bart Stupak
Betty Sutton
Mike Thompson
John Tierney
Ed Towns
Nydia Velázquez
Mel Watt
Anthony Weiner
Peter Welch
Bob Wexler
Lynn Woolsey
David Wu
Albert Wynn

Update 4:52pm Eastern. Rolls are not up yet, but they’ll be here. Word is that Denny K’s measure is effectively dead because the Dems won’t act on it in the Judiciary Committee. Brian Faughnan at the Weekly Standard observes:

4:31 Update: Looks like the Democrats successfully regrouped after that first vote surprised them. The House just voted 218-194 to send Kucinich’s impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee. This effectively kills the bill, preventing a debate on impeachment.

It’s interesting that on such a weighty question as impeaching the vice president of the United States, votes can change so quickly. While the roll calls are not yet available, it seems there were plenty of Democrats who voted to go forward with impeachment when they thought it would fail, who suddenly voted against impeachment when it mattered. I guess it was all just about politics after all — even for the supposed ‘true believers.’

Indeed. I’ll post the roll calls when they become available.

Update 4:35pm Eastern. “The House just voted, 218-194, to send the resolution to the Judiciary Committee. That should end today’s debate- but it does keep the resolution at least technically alive.”

AP:

GOP Forces Debate on Cheney Impeachment

House Republicans, changing course midway through a vote, tried to force Democrats into a debate on a resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney on the grounds he purposely led the country into war against Iraq.

The GOP tactics reversed what had been expected to an overwhelming vote to table, or kill, the resolution by longshot Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich.

Midway through the vote, with instructions from the GOP leadership, Republicans one by one changed their votes from yes _ to kill the resolution _ to no, trying to force the chamber into a debate and an up-or-down vote on the proposal.

At one point there were 290 votes to table. After the turnaround, the final vote was 251-162 against tabling, with 165 Republicans voting against it.

“We’re going to help them out, to explain themselves,” said Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas. “We’re going to give them their day in court.”

Heh.

Update 4:30pm Eastern. Chaos! Steny Hoyer’s motion to table the Denny K resolution fails 251-162.

Update 3:52pm Eastern. The current tally now shows 170 yeas, 242 nays, and 21 not voting. The nays now include 164 Republicans. It does indeed seem to me that the GOP is maneuvering to embarrass the House leadership and defeat Hoyer’s motion to table the nutroots impeachment resolution.

If you’re in the know, correct me if I’m wrong.

This is the first of four votes. We’re over an hour into a vote that was supposed to take 15 minutes.

An MSM blogger notices the developments on the floor:

At first, a whole bunch of Republicans voted with Hoyer to kill the resolution. Then they came to their senses and are in the process of switching their votes before the gavel comes down.

*** Update *** Now we are being treated to the spectacle of Democrats who had voted to table/kill the measure changing THEIR votes. They don’t want to be in a postion of defending Dick Cheney if they don’t have to.

Update 3:43pm Eastern. The vote to kill Kucinich’s impeachment resolution is wrapping up. C-SPAN’s tally shows 207 yeas (to kill), 204 nays (to support), and 22 not voting.

The nays include 133 Republicans.

Not sure what’s going on. Maybe Republicans want it to pass to embarrass the House leadership?

Lots of last-minute switching…now it’s 204 yea, 207 nay…192 yea, 219 nay…189 yea, 222, nay…

A simple majority is needed to kill the resolution. 218 is the magic number.

Update 2:58pm Eastern. Steny Hoyer just made his motion to table Kucinich’s resolution.

Update 2:54pm Eastern. If you’re in the mood for a quick trip to fantasy land, the video of Denny K is up at Hot Air.

Update 1:37pm Eastern Nutroots-mania on the House floor! Kucinich is now reading his impeachment resolution.

Update 1:27pm Eastern. This report claiming Steny Hoyer will block Kucinich’s impeachment resolution is attributed to Dow Jones…haven’t seen it anywhere else yet…so FWIW…

U.S. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday he will block an effort to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio has announced he will try to force a vote on Cheney’s impeachment. Hoyer said he will use parliamentary tactics to table that effort.

“Impeachment is not on the agenda,” Hoyer said.

Hoyer said his decision was not based upon the merits of the impeachment effort, but rather because the new Democratic majority had more important issues to resolve.

The wire dispatch is also on NASDAQ (via reader William Amos)…

Update 11:50am Eastern. Here’s the Kucinich campaign video about his impeachment crusade on YouTube. It’s self-parodying. At the end of the video, a Kucinich staffer announces a nationwide raffle to win the chance to spend an evening with Kucinich’s beautiful moonbat wife and watch the next Democrat debate with her while sticking pins in Bush and Cheney voo-doo dolls. Okay, I made that last part up about the voo-doo dolls:

Update 11:23am Eastern. Oh, crikey, they actually have an “Impeach Cheney First” song.

And I guess this little logo at the official Impeach Cheney site is for non-English speakers. Or something:

Reader Steve e-mails:

The peach that they are using in the logo at the official Impeach Cheney site is the logo from Sage Software’s Peachtree Accounting software. I just happen to have the box on my desk while I’m installing their latest version. I wonder if Sage Software (one of the largest accounting software firms) might have an issue with the nutroots using their logo.

Here’s a reference. It’s the three little droplets of water that give it away as being stolen.

***
I told you on Friday about Dennis Kucinich’s privileged resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. Well, today’s the day. The UFO-spotter will hold a press conference at 3pm Eastern. The After Downing Street mob is singing a new left-wing tune: All we are saying is give impeachment a chance.

Kucinich’s co-sponsors are Jan Schakowsky, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Keith Ellison, Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, Albert Wynn, William Lacy Clay, Dennis Kucinich, Yvette Clarke, Jim McDermott, Jim Moran, Bob Filner, Sam Farr, Robert Brady, Tammy Baldwin, Donald Payne, Steve Cohen, Sheila Jackson Lee, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Ed Towns, Diane Watson.

There was supposed to be a conference call last night about the resolution, but so many unhinged members of the nutroots community called in, that they apparently crashed the lines:

Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich is planning to re-schedule a nationwide conference call to discuss Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Richard B. Cheney after tonight’s planned event encountered technical problems stemming largely from the overwhelming volume of calls from interested citizens.

The Kucinich campaign apologized for the snafu, explaining that staff had significantly underestimated the number of call-ins, and public interest in the issue exceeded technological capacity. The call will be re-scheduled within the next few days.

Kucinich, author and prime sponsor of the impeachment measure against Cheney, will be introducing a privileged resolution to the House tomorrow (Tuesday) to force a vote on the matter of impeachment.

LB at Don’t Go Into the Light cracks: “…perhaps he couldn’t establish an up-link with the mother ship.”

Here’s the text of the resolution:

RESOLUTION

Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional 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 of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:

(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction:

(A) `We know they have biological and chemical weapons.’ March 17, 2002, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace.

(B) `. . . and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.’ March 19, 2002, Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem.

(C) `And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time . . .’ March 24, 2002, CNN Late Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.

(D) `We know he’s got chemicals and biological and we know he’s working on nuclear.’ May 19, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(E) `But 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.’ August 26, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention.

(F) `Based on intelligence that’s becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability.’ September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(G) `He is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.’ September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(H) `And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.’ March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States.

(A) Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, made multiple trips to the CIA in 2002 to question analysts studying Iraq’s weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration’s policy objectives accounts.

(B) Vice President Cheney sought out unverified and ultimately inaccurate raw intelligence to prove his preconceived beliefs. This strategy of cherry picking was employed to influence the interpretation of the intelligence.

(3) The Vice President’s actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002, and carefully considered by Congress prior to the October 10, 2002, vote to authorize the use of force. The Vice President’s actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intelligence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two Federal agencies.

(A) The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate stated `Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute it’s nuclear weapons program INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result INR is unable to predict that Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.’.

(B) The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate also stated that `Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR’s assessment, highly dubious.’.

(C) The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate references a Department of Energy opinion by stating that `INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the US Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.’.

The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and 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

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional 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 of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:

(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda:

(A) `His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.’ December 2, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference.

(B) `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.’ January 30, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to 30th Political Action Conference in Arlington, Virginia.

(C) `We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.’ March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(D) `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 . . .’ September 14, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(E) `Al Qaeda had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces.’ October 3, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney at Bush-Cheney ’04 Fundraiser in Iowa.

(F) `He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.’ October 10, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to the Heritage Foundation.

(G) `Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services have worked together on a number of occasions.’ January 9, 2004, Rocky Mountain News interview with Vice President Cheney.

(H) `I think there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.’ January 22, 2004, NPR: Morning Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.

(I) `First of all, on the question of–of whether or not there was any kind of relationship, there clearly was a relationship. It’s been testified to; the evidence is overwhelming.’ June 17, 2004, CNBC: Capital Report interview with Vice President Cheney.

(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, a fact articulated in several official documents, including:

(A) A classified Presidential Daily Briefing ten days after the September 11, 2001, attacks indicating that the United States intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was `scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda’.

(B) Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, which challenged the credibility of information gleaned from captured al Qaeda leader al-Libi. The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: `Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.’.

(C) A January 2003 British intelligence classified report on Iraq that concluded that `there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network’.

The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and 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 while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional 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 of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit:

(1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran as evidenced by the following:

(A) `For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.’ March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference.

(B) `But we’ve also made it clear that all options are on the table.’ January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney.

(C) `When we–as the President did, for example, recently–deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.’ January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney.

(D) `But I’ve also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.’ February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia.

(2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States as evidenced by the following:

(A) `I know that what we see in Iran right now is not the industrial capacity you can [use to develop a] bomb.’ Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.

(B) Iran indicated its `full readiness and willingness to negotiate on the modality for the resolution of the outstanding issues with the IAEA, subject to the assurances for dealing with the issues in the framework of the Agency, without the interference of the United Nations Security Council’. IAEA Board Report, February 22, 2007.

(C) `. . . so whatever they have, what we have seen today, is not the kind of capacity that would enable them to make bombs.’ Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.

(3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following:

(A) The United States has refused to engage in meaningful diplomatic relations with Iran since 2002, rebuffing both bilateral and multilateral offers to dialogue.

(B) The United States is currently engaged in a military buildup in the Middle East that includes the increased presence of the United States Navy in the waters near Iran, significant United States Armed Forces in two nations neighboring to Iran, and the installation of anti-missile technology in the region.

(C) News accounts have indicated that military planners have considered the B61-11, a tactical nuclear weapon, as one of the options to strike underground bunkers in Iran.

(D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organization.

(E) News accounts indicate that United States troops have been ordered into Iran to collect data and establish contact with anti-government groups.

(4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S. Constitution’s adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force.

(A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, `This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.’ Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States.

(B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, `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, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.’ The threat of force is illegal.

(C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.’ Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal.

The Vice President’s deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that the Vice President’s recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States.

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

Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

And that is just the beginning.

Kucinich called up a left-wing blogger to let him know that Bush is next:

Congressman Dennis Kucinich said on a conference call Monday evening that after moving to impeach Vice President Cheney on Tuesday he will also introduce, at a future date, a resolution to impeach President Bush. Or rather, he would have said that on the conference call if not for several technical SNAFUs.

The call was advertised as a one-way call on which only Kucinich could speak, but Kucinich was unable to get through because of the incredible number of people on the call (I have no count yet, but the dings of the new people coming on were a steady stream of noise for half an hour).

So Kucinich phoned me, and I held one of my phones up to another so that everyone on the call could hear him. That was working fine for about 20 seconds, until the geniuses running the call chose that moment to mute everyone except Dennis (without stopping to realize that by muting me they were muting Dennis). So, Kucinich gave a nice speech through my phones, but I was the only one listening.

What will Nancy “Impeachment is off the table” Pelosi do?

Stay tuned for the day-long circus.

Strike up the nutroots band! Impeach-a-palooza is coming to the House floor. Dennis Kucinich announces his plans to introduce a privileged resolution that will bring articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney:

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) announced today that he will be offering a privileged resolution on the House floor next week that will bring articles of impeachment against the Vice President, Richard B. Cheney.

“The momentum is building for impeachment,” Kucinich said. “Millions of citizens across the nation are demanding Congress rein in the Vice President’s abuse of power.

“Despite this groundswell of opposition to the unconstitutional conduct of office, Vice President Cheney continues to violate the U.S. Constitution by insisting the power of the executive branch is supreme.

“Congress must hold the Vice President accountable. The American people need to let Members of Congress know how they feel about this. The Vice President continues to use his office to advocate for a continued occupation of Iraq and prod our nation into a belligerent stance against Iran. If the Vice President is successful, his actions will ensure decades of disastrous consequences.”

The privileged resolution has priority status for consideration on the House floor. Once introduced, the resolution has to be brought to the floor within two legislative days, although the House could act on it immediately. Kucinich is expected to bring it to the House floor on Tuesday, November 6.

The measure has 21 of the most rabid left-wing Democrat sponsors in the House:

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Robert Brady (D-PA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Henry Johnson (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. James Moran (D-VA), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Rep. Albert Wynn (D-MD).

A year ago this month, Nancy Pelosi spoke these words:

“I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table.”

Come again, Nan?

***

The Influence Peddler explains the rules governing “privileged resolutions” and points out that the ball is in Nancy Pelosi’s court:

Despite my experience in the House of Representatives, I can claim no expertise on a topic explored so rarely. However, it certainly seems that while Mr. Kucinich may assert that his impeachment resolution is privileged, the Speaker will have to determine that question — and her ruling may be appealed to the whole of the House.

If she rules in favor, then the debate on Kucinich’s impeachment resolution begins. If she rules against and is sustained, then it’s over before it begins.

So assuming Kucinich carries through on this — which seems inevitable — Speaker Pelosi will likely have to decide whether to deny the Netroots their fondest desire, or whether to allow an impeachment debate. If she rules against him, Mr. Kucinich could appeal her ruling, and potentially all Members of the House to go on record in favor of, or in opposition to, beginning the debate over impeachment.

That ought to help the Congressional approval rating.

Oh, sweet schadenfreude.