John Conyers May Move to Compel Testimony on Ohio Voter Suppression

BLOGGED BY Brad Friedman ON 2/1/2008 4:43PM

Last week, Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), both of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to the former Ohio Secretary of State and Co-Chair of the state's Bush/Cheney '04 campaign committee, J. Kenneth Blackwell, inviting him to appear next week at a subcommittee oversight hearing on voter suppression issues.

To the surprise of almost nobody, Blackwell has refused the invitation to testify, claiming his "schedule [would] not permit" him to attend the hearings.

The snub, according to both the following report from Jon Craig at the Cincinnati Enquirer and additional indications given to THE BRAD BLOG by a Judiciary staffer other than the one quoted by Craig, may lead to an escalation of the longtime standoff between Conyers and Blackwell. A congressional subpoena requiring an appearance by the controversial former SoS, who presided over one of the worst-run Presidential Elections in American history, may well be in the offing.

The The Democratic Republican reads: THE BRAD BLOG

HALLIBURTON CEO, CHENEY EVADED U.S. LAW TO DO BUSINESS WITH IRAN

In an interview published yesterday with Fortune magazine's Nina Easton, Vice President Dick Cheney conceded that as Halliburton CEO, he had opposed unilateral sanctions on Iran, even though he now strongly supports them.

Cheney explained that as a private sector official, he didn't have any responsibility to "worry about" the impact of his company's dealings with the country.

What Cheney conveniently neglects to mention is that Halliburton evaded U.S. law in order to deal with Iran. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to block transactions and freeze assets to deal with rogue nations. In 1995, President Clinton signed an executive order barring U.S. investment in Iran's energy sector.

To evade U.S. law, Halliburton set up an offshore subsidiary that engaged in dealings with Iran. In 1996, Cheney blasted the Clinton administration for being "sanction-happy as a government."

"The problem is that the good Lord didn't see fit to always put oil and gas resources where there are democratic governments," Cheney explained of his desire to do business with Iran.

As the Bush administration now presses for tougher sanctions against Iran, Cheney should concede that Halliburton violated the spirit of the law and encourage other U.S. companies not to follow his lead.

Impeachment of the Vice President

On April 24, 2007, U.S. House Representative Dennis Kucinich introduced H.Res. 333, calling for articles of impeachment to be sent to the U.S Senate with regards to Vice President Richard B. Cheney.

If you believe that Vice President Cheney should be impeached, then vote "Yes" below.

The grounds of the proposed impeachment are that the Vice President:

fabricated a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction,

purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and

has threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, all in detriment to the national interest of the United States.

The text of the resolution, the articles of impeachment, and all supporting references can be found at http://kucinich.house.gov/spotlightissues/documents.htm .

The one click form on this page will send your personal message to all your members of Congress, with your vote on the the question "Should Vice President Cheney be impeached?" At the same time it will send your personal comments only as a letter to the editor of your nearest local daily newspaper, if that option is selected below.

Articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney

Kucinich's Impeachment Proposal Takes Antiwar Stand to New Lengths
By Marie Horrigan
Congressional Quarterly
Tuesday 24 April 2007

Ohio Democratic Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich on Tuesday introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney for "high crimes and misdemeanors" related to his participation in the buildup for the war in Iraq - and what the longshot Democratic presidential contender said was belligerent rhetoric toward Iran.

In an 18-page draft resolution, Kucinich outlined three charges against Cheney: that he "manipulated the intelligence process ... by fabricating the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" to justify the war in Iraq; that he deceived citizens and Congress "about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" to justify the war; and that he has "openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran, absent any real threat to the United States, and has done so with the United States' proven capability to carry out such threats."

"In all this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president, and subversive to constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States ... [and] by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office," the resolution concluded.

Kucinich introduced the articles at a news conference held at 5 p.m. Tuesday on Capitol Hill, which was delayed for several hours. The event was originally planned for noon, but Kucinich initially postponed it based on news reports Cheney was undergoing emergency medical treatment for a chronic blood clot condition in his leg. When subsequent news reports indicated the tests were more routine, Kucinich rescheduled the event.

Democratic leaders, who have stated repeatedly they have no intentions of pursuing the impeachment of either President Bush or Cheney, do not support the impeachment effort. Kucinich said Tuesday that he did not have any co-sponsors for the resolution. But he proclaimed that he had the support of "millions of Americans."

Speaking at the news conference, Kucinich said he was pursuing impeachment of Cheney, and not Bush, for practical reasons. "It's significant and responsible to start in this way, because if the same charges would relate to the president as relate to the vice president, you would then have to go through the constitutional agony of impeaching two presidents consecutively," he said.

Kucinich posted his proposed articles of impeachment on his congressional Web site.

Is Cheney Right? Will Democrats Cave on Iraq Funding?

By Ray McGovern
t r u t h o u t Guest Contributor
Monday 16 April 2007

The rhetoric over recent days and this morning makes it clear that Vice President Dick Cheney is still in charge of Iraq policy. He seems supremely confident that the Democrats can be intimidated into giving the White House the only thing it really wants - enough money to stave off defeat until President George W. Bush and Cheney are safely out of office.
That, of course, is also what lies behind the "temporary surge" in troop strength.

Was Defense Secretary Robert Gates being naive or disingenuous on January 11, when he appeared before the Senate Armed Forces Committee and addressed the "surge?"

I don't think anybody has a definite idea about how long the surge would last. I think for most of us, in our minds, we're thinking of it as a matter of months, not 18 months or two years.

I know Gates; he is not naive. And, whatever the relative merits of positions on a policy issue, neither he nor anyone else in the small coterie of presidential advisers is likely to stand up to Cheney. The $64 question is whether the Democrats will. To me, that appears a long shot.

While some Democrats in Congress have shown backbone since becoming the majority, key members like Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin of Michigan seem willing to acquiesce in giving Cheney and Bush funding to continue the war, no matter what. On April 8, right after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he would cosponsor legislation cutting off all funding for combat troops next March, Levin undercut Reid by telling ABC's "This Week, "We're not going to vote to cut the funding, period.... We're not going to cut off funding for the troops. We shouldn't cut off funding for the troops.... We're going to vote for a bill that funds the troops, period. We're going to fund the troops. We always have."

Do you want me to repeat that?

Levin is a smart fellow, but his progressive credentials have been tarnished by his caving in on funding for an unworkable National Missile Defense project; by his working out an unsavory compromise with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) on depriving detainees of rights formerly guaranteed them by the US Constitution. And now this.

What would prompt Levin to pre-empt his own majority leader? One possible explanation might be found in the chutzpah-laden admonitions coming from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, and the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) cheerleaders for Cheney, who do not disguise their fervor for the US continuing the war in Iraq. Their gratuitous warnings at last month's AIPAC meeting in Washington that US politicians not show "weakness" on Iraq spring from their conviction that withdrawal of US troops would make the neighborhood more dangerous for Israel. (Israeli politicians should have thought of that before goading Bush and Cheney into attacking Iraq in the first place.)

Evidence Emerging Of Cheney-Led Smear Campaign Against Pelosi Over Syria Trip

Posted by Faiz at 9:32 am
Permalink

Before Nancy Pelosi left Israel to travel to Israel earlier this month, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s spokeswoman Miri Eisin said “Pelosi is conveying that Israel is willing to talk if they (Syria) would openly take steps to stop supporting terrorism.”


Pelosi delivered as requested, and this week received a thank you call from Olmert. So why then did the Israeli Prime Minister originally issue a statement of “clarification” about Pelosi’s message which became the basis for right-wing attacks against her?

The evidence of White House involvement behind the Israeli Prime Minister’s statement has been growing this past week. Middle East analysts have suggested Bush deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams — a close ally of Dick Cheney — may have been coordinating the attempts to undermine Pelosi’s trip. “‘It’s obvious the White House is desperate to find some phony criticism of the speaker’s trip, even though it was a bipartisan trip,’ said Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), a Holocaust survivor who is considered the Democrat closest to the pro-Israel lobby. ‘I have nothing but contempt and disdain for the attempt to undermine this trip.''


Rep. Henry Waxman suggested that the White House’s coordinated attempts to smear Pelosi were part of an effort to undermine her on Iraq:

Waxman said the administration is focused on building a case against the Democrats in preparation for a showdown over the Iraq War funding bill. The more they can paint Democrats as weak and irresponsible, the more likely the Democrats will knuckle under and let the president continue the war unchecked. It’s been known to happen.

So Cheney trashes the reputation of men like Lantos and Waxman (who, by the way, has doggedly pursued waste and mismanagement in Iraq by Halliburton, the company that made Cheney rich), and it’s politics as usual.

Bush, Libby, Armitage, Plame, CIA

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration asked a federal judge on Tuesday to dismiss a lawsuit brought by former CIA officer Valerie Plame and her husband against Vice President Dick Cheney and others for alleged involvement in disclosing her employment as a clandestine CIA operative.

Cheney and the other high-level defendants in the lawsuit have valid claims of immunity because of their official positions, Justice Department lawyers said in their request to have the case thrown out.

The lawyers also said that Plame and her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, failed to allege that any of the defendants had violated a constitutional right.

It alleged "a conspiracy among current and former high-level officials in the White House to discredit, punish and seek revenge" against Wilson for publicly disputing statements made by
President George W. in justifying the war in Iraq.

The Justice Department's motion to dismiss the suit cited a Supreme Court decision noting that officers of the executive branch should not function under fear that their motives could lead to a lawsuit because it would restrict their ability to function as public officials.

"The United States has a strong interest in ensuring that federal officials are appropriately protected from personal liability in lawsuits arising as a result of their official positions," the Justice Department said.

Understanding the U.S. War State

by John McMurtry

“It is easy. All you have to do is tell the people they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”
Herman Goering

Genocide used to be a crime without a name. Although the most heinous of all crimes, the concept was not introduced into international language until after World War 2. Until then, military invasion and destruction of other peoples and cultures masqueraded under such slogans as “progress” and “spreading civilisation”.

The tradition of misleading the American people by false pretexts for aggressive wars is an old one in U.S. history, but since the fascist interregnum war criminal invasions of other countries have not been accepted by public opinion. The U.S. under the control of the corporate war party now seeks to reverse this trend.

By dint of the permitted 9-11 plane attacks on the World Trade Centre, an open presidential blank-cheque has been granted by Congress for attacking third- world countries so as to occupy their countries and control their resources. The now known blueprint of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others written in September of 2001 as the “Project for the New American Century” is clear on the plan to “shape the international security order in line with American principles and interests”. Armed domination of the Gulf region “transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein”.

The U.S. state military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in under two years are expressions of this new supra-market policy. Before we pass over the pattern of facts at work as merely “realpolitik”, we should note that this armed-state project resembles fascism: not only in war criminal attacks on other countries in violation of international law, but in repudiating market relations to seize others’ valuable goods by armed force.

Facing Facts
As demagogic glorification of genocidal invasion once again escapes naming by a flood of falsehoods and projections onto the latest U.S. Enemy, we need to remind ourselves of facts that no mass medium once discussed from October of 2002 to March of 2003. As we lay bare the ruling deceptions here, we should keep in mind their unifying principle which is not seen. U.S. state justifications always project onto the designated Enemy what the U.S. security state is doing itself.

If it loudly condemns another weaker state’s “weapons of mass destruction”, “chemical and biological weapons”, “violation of international laws”, or “attempts to impose its will on the world by terror”, then we can deduce that this is exactly what the U.S. is planning more of, but is diverting attention from by accusing others. Test this underlying principle with every international accusation the U.S. makes next, and you will find that it is invariable confirmed.