Articles of Impeachment introduced

Last night, for roughly four hours on the floor of the House of Representatives, something historic happened. Dennis Kucinich introduced formal Articles of Impeachemnt against President Bush. [UPDATE: YouTube video of C-SPAN's coverage. Part 1, Part 2 ]

Speaking for myself, let me thank Dennis Kucinich with a loud Hallelujah! for finally doing what should have been done years ago.

The Articles include 35 specific points, covering everything from lying about the reasons for war with Iraq to gross negligence on Katrina to spying on Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment to establishing secret laws via the executive Office of Legal Council to suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus. It's quite the list.

Oddly, John Conyers' response to the near immediate call that his committee--Conyers is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee--take up the articles and hold hearings was to demand that those who would see justice done here first provide compelling rebuttals to five excuses reasons why he shouldn't do so. I say "oddly" because it was Conyers himself who extensively documented the very abuses of power in question in a 2006 book he wrote called The Constitution in Crisis. DailyKos has a lovely thread taking up many quite valid rebuttals to Conyers' objections, which I won't repeat here.

I do want to address one of Conyers' objections, though: that pursuing impeachemnt hearings would cost the Democrats the election. Personally, I don't see that at all. If anything, I see the opposite as more likely. Follow me here, Mr. Conyers:

1. Bush is guilty as sin on all 35 of Kucinich's charges, and you as well as anybody know it.
2. John McCain is at this point inextricably connected to George W. Bush. On the vast majority of Kucinich's charges (or at least, the ones that most Americans are already familiar with) there are Senate votes backing up the President's lawless behavior or public statements by McCain endorsing that behavior.
3. The Obama campaign is and will do everything it can between now and November to tie McCain even tighter to Bush's policies and legacy.
4. Therefore, shining a very bright light on those charges now, while it still matters to the election, can only help to sour the electorate further on the McMaveric Senator from Arizona.

Is that clear enough for you, John?

Now I know as well as anybody that this--frankly historic--introduction of substantive Articles of Impeachment (something we haven't seen since Watergate) is unlikely to result in any actual consequences for the Worst President Ever. In all probability, what will happen is this: Kucinich will assert his right to debate and a vote, at which point the articles will either be tabled or referred to the Judiciary committee, where they will languish until January 20th, after which time they'll be moot anyway.

But that is hardly the point. The point is that someone in our legislature has finally stood up to say "No. This is wrong. This President's behavior shall not stand unaccused or unexamined." It's high, high time this happened. Thank you Dennis Kucinich. It's gratifying to know that at least one Honorable Member of the House has the spine to stand up to the wanton lawlessness of the Bush administration.