Panel Seeks to Force Rice to Testify on Iraq Claims

[Superlative]

WASHINGTON, April 25 — A House committee voted this afternoon to authorize a subpoena of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as it presses an inquiry into the claims, long since discredited, that Iraq sought uranium from Niger.

The vote by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was 21 to 10. All the “yes” votes were cast by Democrats, and all the “no” votes by Republicans.

The vote to subpoena Ms. Rice, coupled with a vote by the House Judiciary Committee vote a short time earlier to grant immunity to a former Justice Department official involved in the dismissals of eight United States attorneys, reflect the new power of Democrats as they fulfill their desire to subject the Bush administration to closer scrutiny than it had in the years that Republicans were in control.

But the oversight committee chairman, Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, said before the vote that he took no pleasure in authorizing a subpoena against the Secretary of State.

“For four years, I have been trying to get information from Condoleezza Rice on a variety of issues, including the reference to uranium and Niger in the president’s 2003 State of the Union speech,” Mr. Waxman said, alluding to the assertion that preceded the American-led military campaign that toppled Saddam Hussein.

“In the last seven weeks, I have sent four letters to Secretary Rice and received three responses from her staff,” Mr. Waxman said. “My request is simple. I would like Secretary Rice to suggest a date that would be convenient for her to testify before our committee.”

Mr. Waxman said Ms. Rice had already testified on Capitol Hill seven times this year, and that there was “nothing extraordinary” about his panel’s request. “I regret — I deeply regret — that the secretary of state is giving us no choice but to proceed with a subpoena,” he said.

There was no immediate response from the White House. But Dana Perino, a spokeswoman for President Bush, said shortly before the vote on subpoenaing Ms. Rice that the administration had been “responsive” to the new Democratic majorities. “I do think that there is a difference between oversight and overreaching,” she said.

A State Department spokesman, Tom Casey, said the department would confer with the White House. “The secretary has addressed this four-year-old issue on many occasions, and the subject already has been exhaustively investigated,” Mr. Casey told The Associated Press.

Mr. Waxman’s committee also approved subpoenas against the Republican National Committee for testimony and paperwork about White House e-mails on R.N.C. accounts, prompting an immediate and defiant statement from Robert M. Duncan, the national committee chairman....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/washington/25cnd-subpoena.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Are they actually going to try and hold people accountable?

Could this reach the President?

 

[Annie]

The Dems have had 'control' of Congress since January. How many 'special hearings', involving issuing subpoenas have they held? If they spent as much time getting their 'issues' passed out of committees and up for a vote, they'd be better off.

Seriously I worry at what will happen in 2008 if a Democratic candidate is elected, if the Democrats do not have overwhelming control of Congress. It's certainly possible that they will win overwhelming control of both branches, but there will be problems in the future, when the tables turn, which they inevitably do.

 

[Diuretic]

Even Al Capone went down eventually. It's moving closer and closer to the inner sanctum. If no-one is lying then they have nothing to fear. Do they?

 

[Annie]

Even Al Capone went down eventually. It's moving closer and closer to the inner sanctum. If no-one is lying then they have nothing to fear. Do they?

Actually our system depends on loyal opposition and mutual respect. It's often ugly close up, but should be reasonable in the long frames. Kinda like Adams and Jefferson.

 

[Diuretic]

Actually our system depends on loyal opposition and mutual respect. It's often ugly close up, but should be reasonable in the long frames. Kinda like Adams and Jefferson.

Fair point Kathianne, your system does. But at the moment it's failing. I say that without spite by the way. What has happened is that the US has an administration that pisses on the accepted ideas of "loyal opposition and mutual respect". The Congress, dominated by the GOP, saw its domination as spoils to be used, hence the long line of indictments for corruption - and it's not finished yet. The system isn't totally broken. The people smacked the GOP in the Congress because of what has been happening. Bush sees himself as above all, not even first among equals, so the people are going to smack the GOP at the presidential elections as well.

 

[Annie]

Fair point Kathianne, your system does. But at the moment it's failing. I say that without spite by the way. What has happened is that the US has an administration that pisses on the accepted ideas of "loyal opposition and mutual respect". The Congress, dominated by the GOP, saw its domination as spoils to be used, hence the long line of indictments for corruption - and it's not finished yet.

Where, how, and when? Seriously. Can you back that up?

The system isn't totally broken. The people smacked the GOP in the Congress because of what has been happening. Bush sees himself as above all, not even first among equals, so the people are going to smack the GOP at the presidential elections as well.

Again, I think GW is perhaps the worst communicating president ever, which is saying alot in the age of communication. So many were so better, with so less. Other than your 'perception' how do you see him as perceiving himself as above all?

 

[Diuretic]

I said:

Fair point Kathianne, your system does. But at the moment it's failing. I say that without spite by the way. What has happened is that the US has an administration that pisses on the accepted ideas of "loyal opposition and mutual respect". The Congress, dominated by the GOP, saw its domination as spoils to be used, hence the long line of indictments for corruption - and it's not finished yet. The system isn't totally broken. The people smacked the GOP in the Congress because of what has been happening. Bush sees himself as above

In response:

Where, how, and when? Seriously. Can you back that up? Again, I think GW is perhaps the worst communicating president ever, which is saying alot in the age of communication. So many were so better, with so less. Other than your 'perception' how do you see him as perceiving himself as above all?

Yes I can back it up. Simple observation. The contempt Bush has for the Democratic Party - heck he can barely check himself from saying "Democrat Party" - and in particular for Madam Speaker. And his assumption of almost monarchical authority with the idea of the unitary executive, which is rubbish, and from that his belief that he is able to ignore legislation from the Congress by the use of his signing statements.

I don't really care about his communication skills. Reagan was a good communicator through training and years of experience as an actor but he was out to lunch the poor bastard. He read his lines well. I care about actions and policy.

I see Bush as being somewhat deluded, of denying the realities all around him.

 

[Annie]

I said:



In response:



Yes I can back it up. Simple observation. The contempt Bush has for the Democratic Party - heck he can barely check himself from saying "Democrat Party" - and in particular for Madam Speaker. And his assumption of almost monarchical authority with the idea of the unitary executive, which is rubbish, and from that his belief that he is able to ignore legislation from the Congress by the use of his signing statements.

I don't really care about his communication skills. Reagan was a good communicator through training and years of experience as an actor but he was out to lunch the poor bastard. He read his lines well. I care about actions and policy.

I see Bush as being somewhat deluded, of denying the realities all around him.

That doesn't 'back up' your contentions. It's your perceptions of how he is dealing with the democrats. I'm unsure if you are Aussie or ex-pat? Do you truly understand the machinations of our country's politics?

 

[Superlative]

US congress votes to subpoena Rice

Democrats in the US congress have approved a subpoena for Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, to testify on the current administration's pre-war claims that Saddam Hussein, then president of Iraq, was seeking weapons of mass destruction.

The House oversight and government reform committee voted 21-10 on Wednesday that she should testify.
Sean McCormack, state department spokesman, said department officials would try to answer the committee, but indicated Rice may not comply with the subpoena due to executive privilege.

"Those matters mean the questions that [have] related to her tenure as national security adviser," he said.
That position gives "us no choice but to proceed with a subpoena," said Henry Waxman, the House oversight committee's democratic chairman.

Immunity

The administration says that senior officials, including Rice, have answered questions about the now-discredited claim that Saddam Hussein, Iraq's former president, had been seeking uranium for a bomb.

The subpoena adds to a series of investigations which include the dismissals of eight federal prosecutors by Alberto Gonzales, the US attorney general.

The House judiciary committee voted 32-6 to grant immunity from prosecution to Monica Goodling, Gonzales' White House liaison, for testimony about why the administration fired the prosecutors.

The panel also unanimously approved - but did not issue - a subpoena to compel her to testify.

She has said previously she would not testify because she fears incriminating herself, which the US constitution insures Americans against.

The committee scheduled a May 10 hearing for Gonzales.............



http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3B0DDB2B-77C9-4E85-9E4C-6CF00A1A6569.htm

 

[Superlative]

Rice signals rejection of House subpoena

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday she has already answered the questions she has been subpoenaed to answer before a congressional committee and suggested she is not inclined to comply with the order.

Rice said she would respond by mail to questions from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the Bush administration's prewar claims about Saddam Hussein seeking weapons of mass destruction, but signaled she would not appear in person.

"I am more than happy to answer them again in a letter," she told reporters in Oslo, where she is attending a meeting of NATO foreign ministers.........


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18328266/

 

[Diuretic]

That doesn't 'back up' your contentions. It's your perceptions of how he is dealing with the democrats. I'm unsure if you are Aussie or ex-pat? Do you truly understand the machinations of our country's politics?

Kathianne if you won't acknowledge that I drew a conclusion from observations of reports then I can't do any more.

I don't pretend to truly understand how your country's politics works, but I'm learning. I know that all politics has two facets, the one we see (or our reps allow us to see) and the one that they won't allow us to see. Human nature being what it is I would suggest that the concealed facets are the same - in operation - in the US system as they are in mine (no I'm not an expat). I see the unconcealed facet all the time, I have seen and been deeply involved in the hidden facet here (at state, not federal level).

 

[Diuretic]

Rice signals rejection of House subpoena

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday she has already answered the questions she has been subpoenaed to answer before a congressional committee and suggested she is not inclined to comply with the order.

Rice said she would respond by mail to questions from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the Bush administration's prewar claims about Saddam Hussein seeking weapons of mass destruction, but signaled she would not appear in person.

"I am more than happy to answer them again in a letter," she told reporters in Oslo, where she is attending a meeting of NATO foreign ministers.........


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18328266/

If she refuses - apart from the fact that it sends a strong message to the electorate - does the Congress have any power to force her to present herself and testify?

 

[Superlative]

If she refuses - apart from the fact that it sends a strong message to the electorate - does the Congress have any power to force her to present herself and testify?

I think that she will hide behind executive privelage.

And as far as I know they will try and drag this out until after the next election and it will dissapear.