Obama and Impeachment

Obama believes that it would be improper to impeach Dick Cheney, because (and I am paraphrasing now) impeachment should be reserved for serious crimes, intentional crimes, not for simple mistakes.  Pundits who like Obama  agree with him, but they bring in the added nuance that if impeachment were to be brought against Cheney, it would be the second administration in a row in which impeachment "brings the government to a standstill."

Okay, the logic of this statement is that because the Republicans brought Clinton up on purjury regarding his sex life, Cheney gets a Get-Out-of-Jail Free Card because he succeeded Clinton.  (Yes, I know Bush succeeded Clinton, but we know better now, don't we!)  The logic and reasoning is ludicrous.  If Cheney has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors or treason" he MUST BE impeached.  It is not optional!

The other thing about Obama's statement is that it seems to ignore the Constitution.  This is what the Constitutions says:

The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

I suppose you could say that Obama was merely trying to sabotage the campaign of Dennis Kucinich whose introduction of Articles of Impeachment against VP Cheney forces all candidates to think about their position on the issue.  (Remember, by the way, that Kucinich was unaware that Cheney was obstructing justice, violating federal law regarding records, and declaring himself to be above the law.)

Obama should have said something like this:

Articles of Impeachment have been filed by my colleague in the House, Representative Kucinich.  If his action results in an actual impeachment, I will be required to sit as a juror on that case, therefore, I will not comment further.

JB