Be INFORMED

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Appropriations Chairman Obey Responds to President’s Veto Threat

  As you probably all know, Resident Bush is threatening to veto the new Iraq war bill because the punk doesn't like a few other appropriations that have been added to it. Namely, that would be the expansion of the GI Bill to bring it up into the 21 century, and the extension of unemployment benefits to workers whose benefits have expired.

April 30th, 2008 by Jesse Lee

From the Appropriations Committee:

Obey Responds to Veto Threat

WASHINGTON – Dave Obey (D-WI), Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, responded to yet another veto threat from a President unwilling to work with Congress to help veterans and the unemployed.

“The President is asking us to provide $108 billion in additional spending for the war in Iraq this year and almost $70 billion in additional war spending for next year, yet this morning he said that he would veto our efforts to expand the GI Bill for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and to extend unemployment benefits for workers who’s benefits have been exhausted.

“Those two items cost less than one-tenth of what the President wants to spend in Iraq.

“The President seems to think that he can issue pronouncements like the great Yoda, and that the American people and the Congress will comply with his insistence to provide billions for the war in Iraq, but table scraps – or less – for war fighters and workers at home.

“That is not the way a democracy is supposed to work. In the Congress we will continue to press forward to meet our domestic and international obligations across the board. This is not the time for the President to hold his breath and turn blue. It’s time for reasonable adults to compromise for the good of the country.”  The Gavel

  bush will veto this bill, and as it seems right now, he has Senator John McCain's backing. McCain has not signed on to this bill yet.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Cheney's Lawyer Says That Congress Has No Oversite Authority

  It is bullshit such as this that you and I should make sure that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are fired on their next election dates. This country would not have so many problems from Cheney/Bush if impeachment hadn't been taken off the table by Pelosi and Reid.

Guardian

Tuesday April 29 2008

The lawyer for US vice-president Dick Cheney claimed today that the Congress lacks any authority to examine his behaviour on the job.

The exception claimed by Cheney's counsel came in response to requests from congressional Democrats that David Addington, the vice-president's chief of staff, testify about his involvement in the approval of interrogation tactics used at Guantanamo Bay.

Ruling out voluntary cooperation by Addington, Cheney lawyer Kathryn Wheelbarger said Cheney's conduct is "not within the [congressional] committee's power of inquiry".

"Congress lacks the constitutional power to regulate by law what a vice-president communicates in the performance of the vice president's official duties, or what a vice president recommends that a president communicate," Wheelbarger wrote to senior aides on Capitol Hill.

The exception claimed by Cheney's office recalls his attempt last year to evade rules for classified documents by deeming the vice-president's office a hybrid branch of government - both executive and legislative.

The Democratic congressman who is investigating the legal framework for the violent interrogation of terrorist suspects, John Conyers, has asked Addington and several other top Bush administration lawyers to testify. Thus far all have claimed their deliberations are privileged.

However, Philippe Sands QC, law professor at University College, London, has agreed to appear in Washington and discuss the revelations in Torture Team, his new book on the consequences of the brutal tactics used at Guantanamo.

Excerpts from Torture Team were previewed exclusively by the Guardian earlier this month.

Two witnesses sought by Conyers, former US attorney general John Ashcroft and former US justice department lawyer John Yoo, claimed that their involvement in civil lawsuits related to harsh interrogations allows them to avoid appearing before Congress.

In letters to attorneys representing Ashcroft and Yoo, Conyers shot down their arguments and indicated he would pursue subpoenas if their clients did not testify at his May 6 hearing.

"I am aware of no basis for the remarkable claim that pending civil litigation somehow immunises an individual from testifying before Congress," Conyers wrote.

Conyers, who chairs the House of Representatives judiciary committee, also questioned the reasoning of Cheney's lawyer in a letter to Addington.

"It is hard to know what aspect of the invitation [to you] has given rise to concern that the committee might seek to regulate the vice president's recommendations to the president," Conyers wrote.

"Especially since far more obvious potential subjects of legislation are plentiful," he added, mentioning several: US laws on the use of torture on terrorist suspects, the 15-year-old War Crimes Act, and the rules that allowed the Bush White House to receive legal advice from a specialised office within the justice department.

This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Tuesday April 29 2008. It was last updated at 03:37 on April 29 2008.