Re "Impeachment gets a brief look," Nov. 7
Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) sponsored a bill to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. If ever a bill needed to be passed, this was it. Democrats betrayed Kucinich and Americans by not allowing it to proceed to a floor vote. No wonder the public is disenchanted with the Democrats in Congress. I am a lifelong Democrat who could never vote for a Republican. But I will withhold my vote for any Democrat who was a part of this. This 81-year-old veteran of World War II will vote for Kucinich in the primary election in this state.
The Times' article about Kucinich's effort to impeach our imperial vice president says that bringing up the issue in Congress would force the Democrats to choose between their liberal base and a broader electorate, which might view the resolution as a partisan game in a time of war. Leaving aside the fact that The Times fails to distinguish between war and colonial occupation, a recent poll by the American Research Group found that 54% of American adults want impeachment proceedings against Cheney.
Impeaching, convicting and removing Cheney from office would not only be the right thing to do, it would be popular. Sadly, the Democrats lack the courage to do this, but what else is new?
After reading that congressional Democrats are afraid of a "bruising floor fight" over the Cheney impeachment bill, I wonder if there is anything they do not fear? Here is a man whose approval rating is even lower than their own (until now, anyway), a man whose depredations Kucinich barely touched on and at whom these same Democrats have been railing for six years, and still they are afraid.
Assuming, for the moment, that Cheney has violated his constitutional oath as charged, the leaders of the House become joint malefactors with him in not honoring their own oaths to protect and defend the Constitution by investigating the charges.
Re "The Valley rates," editorial, Nov. 2
Regarding your claim that water allotments shouldn't be higher in the San Fernando Valley than elsewhere in the city: All things being equal, plants grown in the Valley do require more water than the same plants grown in the metropolitan region because of climate differences. The California Department of Water Resources' website has a map of reference evapotranspiration zones, which is a general guide for determining the amount of water a plant might need at various locations. I'm no agronomist, but I guess this means that whatever plant I choose to grow will require significantly more water in the warmest climate of L.A. than the coolest.