Waxman to Rice: The More You Ignore Me, The Closer I Get

[babylonsister]

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002971.php

Waxman to Rice: The More You Ignore Me, The Closer I Get
By Paul Kiel - April 9, 2007, 12:37 PM

Here's the latest instance of what is becoming a flourishing genre in the new Congress: the spurned chairman letter. It comes when oversight efforts are met with deafening silence from the administration.

House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) wrote Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice such a letter (pdf) today. Last month, Waxman wrote Rice, inviting her to an April 18 hearing on the Niger forgeries and the infamous sixteen words, and asking a list of questions about what she knew about the documents and how they got into the State of the Union address. What he got in return was a mostly irrelevant letter from one of Rice's subordinates forwarding previous correspondence that answered none of his questions. He's not happy and is pressing again for answers.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) delivered one of the classics of the genre last week, berating Alberto Gonzales for his silence in response to repeated requests for information over the past several months.

The administration's strategy, if indeed it is one, seems short-sighted. It's worked for the past six years. But the Dems are in charge now -- and anger and subpoena-power is a dangerous mix.

[Orrex]

1. Keep it up, Henry! How soon is now?!?

Waxman, Conyers, and Leahy in 08! Who's with me?!?

[babylonsister]

3. ME! I love all three of those men! nt

[Lerkfish]

6. I'm with you!

absofreekinlutely.

[marmar]

2. K&R, in honor of the Morrissey lyrics....

I will be
In the bar
With my head
On the bar
I am now
A central part
Of your mind's landscape
Whether you care
Or do not
Yeah, i've made up your mind


The more you ignore me
The closer i get
You're wasting your time
The more you ignore me
The closer i get
You're wasting your time


Beware !
I bear more grudges
Than lonely high court judges
When you sleep
I will creep
Into your thoughts
Like a bad debt
That you can't pay
Take the easy way
And give in
Yeah, and let me in
Oh, let me in
Oh let me ...
Oh, let me in
It's war
It's war
It's war
It's war
It's war
War
War
War
War

Go Moz! :yourock:

[blm]

4. More Waxmans. More anti-corruption, open government Democrats need to be elected.

This is the future of the country. Open and honest government that respects its citizens with the TRUTH.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. Don't "invite" her to testify

Use your subpeona power, Henry.

Your going to get as much cooperation from her as the Senate Judiciary Committee gets from Gonzo.

[Supersedeas]

8. Yes, put the good doctor of Soviet Studies under oath.

[ClassWarrior]

9. Don't worry, he's not afraid to use it.

NGU.

[pat_k]

7. Re: "deafening silence" What else would you expect from outlaws?

Outlaws who have proven over, and over, and over, and over that nothing short of impeachment can even make them blink? Outlaws that have been allowed to openly violate the dictates of our Constitution, U.S. Code, international treaties, and the overwhelming will of the electorate.

Why should they blink? They've been caught "red-handed" and Congress has done nothing to actually stop them. If you repeatedly caught a kid shop lifting, but let them keep the goods (perhaps after wagging your finger at them and admonisthing them that stealing is illegal), why wouldn't the kid keep coming back for more of your goods?

That's effectively what Congress is doing. They are letting Bush and Cheney "keep the goods." And Bush and Cheney are saying "These goods belong to us" under the old adage "possession is 9/10ths of the law (an adage that reflects principles firmly grounded in common law).

Congress refuses even to say "Hey, that's forbidden!" If they did, they'd have to do something about it -- i.e., impeach Bush and Cheney. But they've decided they can't, won't, or shouldn't impeach, so instead of the truth they spout mealy-mouthed blather about "pushing the envelop" or take the "bold step" of labeling the acts "possibly impeachable" and threatening future action (threats like cutting off the funds, which are incapable of stopping them).

And all the while, Bush and Cheney are saying:

. . .

We claim Unconstitutional and Un-American unitary authoritarian executive power to violate any Federal law at will to 'protect the nation.' International law doesn't apply to our actions because we say it doesn't. To prove these claims:

• Here we are, committing War Crimes under U.S. Code (Title 18 section 2441) and international law. If we follow the Geneva conventions, we can't "protect the nation" so we aren't following them.


• Here we are, violating FISA (Title 50, Section 1805). If we get warrants from the FISA courts, we can't "protect the nation" so we aren't getting warrants.


• He we are, nullifying McCain's anti-torture amendment with a signing statement. (An amendment that passed the Senate 90-9). We need to torture to "protect the nation."


• He we are nullifying a few hundred other provisions with signing statements. We are nullifying these particular provisions, but of course, we claim unitary authoritarian power to violate any law, whether previously nullified by signing statement or not.

and so on

Each of the above violations constitutes an independent, simple, clear, and complete case for impeachment of both Bush and Cheney. (Both of them because they both promote the fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive). By "complete" I mean that staffers will find all the materials needed to make the case in the public record and that there are plenty of witnesses like Alberto Mora *general counsel of the United States Navy thru Jan 2006), ready and willing to testify. . .

(From http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/22)

Why would Bush-Cheney give a crap about the 50 or so finger-wagging, impotent, open-ended investigations being conducted by various House and Senate committees?

Impeachment is the ONLY "lethal" weapon in the Congressional arsenal. Until Membes of the House take up that weapon by publicly accusing, introducing articles of impeachment on any one of the intolerable trespasses on our Constitution, and convening impeachment hearings to make the case, Bush and Cheney will continue to advance their relentless campaign to transform the Office of the President into a unitary authoritarian executive with absolute and unbounded power.

It is irrational to expect anything else from outlaws who demonstrate their willingness to go to any lengths daily.

[flpoljunkie]

10. Waxman's questions for Condi. We are still waiting to find out who's responsible for Niger forgery.

April 09, 2007

Waxman Still Wants Rice To Answer Question On Niger Uranium Claims

After receiving what he deemed an insufficient response from the State Department, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) is reiterating his request for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to appear before the panel on April 18 to answer questions about administration claims that Iraq tried to buy enriched uranium from Niger.

Waxman wants Rice to answer questions about what she knew about the assertion that Iraq tried to buy uranium before the U.S. invasion, according to a letter the chairman sent Rice on Monday.

The claims, which have since been proved false, were the basis for a now notorious line in President Bush’s State of the Union in 2003 address to justify the invasion of Iraq. That claim eventually led to the outing of Valerie Plame, a covert CIA agent, who has already testified before Waxman’s committee.

In his most recent letter to Rice, Waxman lays out the four questions he would like Rice to answer:

1) Whether she knew if Bush “cited forged evidence about Iraq’s efforts to procure uranium from Niger in the State of the Union Address”;

2) Whether she was aware of doubts raised by CIA and State Department officials questioning the veracity of those claims before Bush delivered his speech;

3) Whether there was any factual basis for Rice’s reference in a 2003 op-ed to “Iraq’s efforts to get uranium from abroad”;

4) Whether Rice “took appropriate steps to investigate how the Niger claim ended up in the State of the Union address after it was revealed to be fraudulent.”

Waxman also criticizes State Department legislative liaison Jeffrey Bergner for failing to address any of the above questions in a letter to the committee earlier this month.

“Rather than address any of these questions, Mr. Bergner forwarded copies of two old State Department letter that have no bearing whatsoever on your knowledge of, your role in, or your statements about the Niger claim,” Waxman wrote.

Waxman also criticized Bergner for failing to answer the committee’s questions about “the seemingly inconsistent way in which the White House has responded to leaks of classified information, such as the disclosure of the identity of cover CIA agent Valerie Plame.”

posted by Patrick O'Connor 12:08 PM

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0407/Waxman_Still_Wants_Rice_To_Answer_Question_On_Niger_Uranium_Claims.html

[lyonn]

11. And to think her title was Security Advisor to the President

Yet, she didn't set off alarm bells when the PDB said Osama was determined to attack the U.S.

She had no idea that the terrorist would use airplanes to fly into tall buildings, even tho this info was in the intel from Clinton's days from the trial of the blind sheik, etc.

She allows bush to make a big deal out of the forged uranium document in his SOTUS. Did she not know about it? Consider the findings? What? She had to know didn't she? With all her degrees she seems unable to comprehend what is happening around her......

Edit: Ahh, but she is the one who Obeys. She is not paid to think.