Note to Condi: Waxman isn’t satisfied with your dodge

April 9, 2007

Last month, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, inviting her to participate in an upcoming hearing on the president’s infamous “16 words” — the White House’s 2002 claim that Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger, a claim that was ultimately based on bogus documents.

Waxman raised a series of questions in his invitation, specifically about what Rice, then Bush’s NSA, knew about the Niger forgeries. Rice blew off Waxman’s letter — he received an unhelpful, largely vacuous response from a Rice aide.

Waxman, with increasing irritation, followed up today (.pdf), trying to make his expectations clear to the Secretary of State.

In my March 12 letter, I requested information about what you knew about this assertion and how it ended up in the State of the Union address. I asked you to answer specific questions raised in a June 10, 2003, letter and a July 29, 2003, letter, both of which I enclosed. These questions included: (1) whether you had any knowledge that would explain why President Bush cited forged evidence about Iraq’s efforts to procure uranium from Niger in the State of the Union address; (2) whether you knew before the State of the Union address of the doubts raised by the CIA and the State Department about the veracity of the Niger claim; (3) whether there was a factual basis for your reference in a January 23,2003, op-ed to “Iraq’s efforts to get uranium from abroad”; and (4) whether you 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.

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

The subject came up today during a State Department press briefing. It didn’t go well.

This morning, spokesman Sean McCormack claimed the response from the State Department has already “answered in full” all of Waxman’s inquiries.

QUESTION: Apparently, in Congress, the House reiterated its request for Secretary Rice to testify on April 18th, on…

MCCORMACK: Is this from Mr. Waxman’s committee?

QUESTION: Yes. Yes.

MCCORMACK: I don’t really see the need. I think the letter that we replied to answered in full all of his inquiries.

QUESTION: No, he said, After receiving an insufficient response from the State Department…

MCCORMACK: I don’t know what makes — it would be interesting for them to detail in what regard it’s insufficient, in that we detailed some correspondence — and through all the correspondence that they alleged was not responded to, and detailed for them exactly how it was responded to, including a letter that they said that they sent that nobody could find any evidence it had been sent. So, clearly, we were answering our mail, looking at it, and responding to it. I’m not quite sure that they have done the same.

QUESTION: So she refuses to testify?

MCCORMACK: I haven’t asked her. I haven’t put the question to her. But I think the question needs to be, when they talk about an insufficient response, I’m very curious as to in what regard it’s insufficient.

Perhaps McCormack is being coy, because otherwise, he’s just woefully uninformed. He doesn’t know what, specifically, Waxman found insufficient? Waxman’s letter goes point by point, highlighting exactly what he wants to know and how these questions have gone unanswered.

For what it’s worth, Waxman’s questions, which are relatively straightforward, aren’t going away. When Waxman was ranking member of the committee, he sent Rice 11 letters. She responded to literally none of them. Now he’s chairman and Rice doesn’t have a lot of choice.

She’s playing a game with a man with subpoena power, not to mention oversight responsibilities over her cabinet agency. And she apparently is annoying the hell out of him, acting like she has something to hide about one of the more dramatic national security screw-ups of Bush’s error-prone presidency.

Ths could get a little ugly. Stay tuned.

But she’s part of an administration that believes there is no such thing as oversight authority, because they are “The Unilateral Executive.”

Every day, these boneheads give me another reason to think that, come January 2009, we’re going to need a brigade of tanks to pry them from the WH….

  • This could get a little ugly. Stay tuned….

    Now now Mr. Carpetbagger:
    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

  • hopefully the patient mr. waxman will lose his temper pretty soon, and all hell is gonna break loose……..

  • They’re working up to the subpoenas, which I assume the administration will try to stonewall, probably with some bullshit security or executive privilege crap. At that point it’ll be either impeach or give up.

    I believe congress has the authority to impeach Rice herself (just as they do Abu Gonzales). We’ll see if they get to that.

  • I hope it does get ugly. Somebody needs to bring this incompetent. authoritative puppet to answer for her irresponsible behavior. She thinks she can talk her way out of anything and so far has been following the GOP directive….ignore, distract, delay, and refuse to cooperate. She was a key player in the corruption of our foreign policy and needs to be called to account for her deceptions. Waxman has given her too many passes already and I hope he subpoenas her.

  • This is nothing but the same “f-you, and what are you going to do about it” brinksmanship that we see everywhere in the Bush/Cheney administration.

    Waxman cannot back down and should push this to the limit — not so much for the particulars of Rice’s response, but as a statement that his congressional committee cannot be bullied by those who would diminish its constitutional authority.

  • Democrats want to play by the rules. The Bush Crime Family doesn’t believe in rules. There is no sane alternative but impeachment. Everything else is a waste of time.

  • Hmmm. Ya think State must be getting jealous of DoJ’s press? They sure are upping their hinkiness quotient today. Greg Sargent just got hold of a spokeswoman over there, who wouldn’t say whether she thought Pelosi’s trip to Syria violated the Logan Act — though they prepped and otherwise assisted her before and during it.

  • I hope that Henry’s patient and documentation rich approach creates the air-tight case that causes the truth to finally come out. Will Condi now have to do cram sessions for her hearings a la Alberto Gozales’?

  • Let them stonewall. Many Republicans with a Brownshirt mentality, usually believe anyone being questioned or investigated by the authorities are guilty of something. Otherwise, why would the gendarmes have an interest?

    Prolonged foot-dragging and dodging just makes Rice and her feckless crew look like they’re hiding something — which is likely.

  • And the mAdmin. will call Waxman a horrid racist, sexist meanie in 5…4…3…

    Unfortunately for the White House Rice (like Goner) is a fine example of equality ReThuglican style: Everyone looks at her and sees an evil BushBot. Colour and gender don’t even enter the equation.

  • Condi is a liar and she should explain herself. She has been skating through for a long time now, but the POOP is hitting the fan. This fiasco is probably worse at State than at the DOJ.
    If this wasn’t such a national tragedy, I would be amused. I believe the only thing these people understand is impeachment. I think they will spend the next two years trying to obstruct investigations and a lot of little people will fry until it is time for pardons.
    I don’t think Condi is a small enough fish to fry; they will move heaven and earth to protect her. I would be very surprised if she is caught in Waxman’s net. She won’t go down easily.

  • Maybe she could answer a few pre-approved questions, but only with her pal Dick Cheney present, and not under oath.
    And no transcript.
    And no meanies asking the questions.

    Hey Mr Waxman, if they don’t answer your questions, first de-fund them, then impeach them.

    We got your back.

  • This is great, and as a Republican, I love to see a plan unfold.

    Condi is baiting Waxman. You libs are blind if you can’t see it.

    Rice has deliberately ignored Waxman and sent him some letters. Well of course it’s insufficient for you people! You folks don’t want “The Truth”, you want a Show Trial.

    You forget that Rice cut her teeth on the study of the Soviet Union. She is intimately familiar with the period of the Yezhovchina, the great show trials of Stalin under the prosecutor Yezhov (who was eventually shot by his successor, Laverenti Beria).

    Waxman has made his reputation as a bully and a practioner of intimidation. As her associates have said, “Condi doesn’t scare worth a damn”. The object of the exercise is to get Waxman so pissed off that he makes the mistake of slapping Rice with a subpoena, thus revealing the hearings for the partisan Show Trial that they are. That will put the Committee Republicans on her side, not on Waxman’s. Rice is one of the most popular Republicans in the country. For Republicans, attacking her is like attacking Reagan.

    Waxman has hung his hat on the proposition that the famous “sixteen words” were a deception about Niger. They had nothing to do with Niger, as a reading of the Butler Report would tell you. However, the actual facts of the case don’t matter to Waxman, he’s after a Show Trial. He’s picking on the wrong woman, and he just doesn’t realize it yet.

    Neither do any of you folks. But of course, you spend your evenings listening to Keith Olbermann, so how the hell could I expect any of you to know any better?

    Condi will rip Waxman a new asshole. You guys are just too stupid to see this coming. It’s why he’s being baited. Rove understands how he’ll react: once Waxman’s pride is hurt enough, he’ll let the subpoenas fly. And there’ll be far too much political pressure from the Left and the Blogging Community to allow Waxman to back off gracefully.

    Then we’ll have him. Don’t think this hasn’t been gamed out.

    You folks, and Waxman, have bought into a bogus narrative. You won’t realize it until it’s too late.

  • It’s always funny to watch one of the one-handed sedentary militants from the far right commentariat come over and show us what it’s like to live in up-is-down, day-is-night WingerWorld, aka FantasyLand.

    Section9, little boy that you are, who only came into “political awareness” since 1995, you have no idea who you are calling a wuss. Henry Waxman is far more powerful than any of your Halfwit heroes. He will get to the bottom of things and the criminal conspiracy that is the Bush Administration will be found guilty of far more than a ‘third rate burglary.”

    But you just keep on, down there in mommy’s basement. It’s nice to know that computers are now so user-friendly that someone like you who lacks frontal lobes and opposable thumbs, can use them.

    Besides, it’s fun to point at you and laugh behind your fat ass.

  • I don’t agree with Tom Cleaver’s assessment of the person hiding behind the screenname ‘section9’. Obviously that person does have frontal lobes and showed that he is capable of composing several cohesive paragraphs expressing his thoughts, which is far better that some other right wingers who occasionally show up here using foul language.

    I much rather read his comments that some of the childish rants. That does not mean that I agree with him. As a matter of fact, I respectfully disagree 100 %, but it does give us the opportunity to see how a through-and-through Republican thinks.

    A few questions for section9 : Why do you think it is partisan for Waxman to want to find out a few simple questions? If there is nothing to hide; why stonewall? Where you just as convinced about partisanship when Republicans spent millions of dollars proving that Clinton had a blowjob? Do you think that whatever the Clinton Administration did wrong is at the same level of what the Bush Administration has done wrong so far? I would encourage you to really look at the facts and compare how the Republican congress acted under the Clinton adminstration, and how they flip-flopped their stances on a variety of issues once the Bush administration took office.

    I agree with the Petorade post @ 9 “I hope that Henry’s patient and documentation rich approach creates the air-tight case that causes the truth to finally come out”

    It would be a waste of time and effort and money if Democrats where going after Republicans who were honestly cooperating by searching for the truth and transparency. (Lyle Sampson came to the hearing without having to be forced; he spoke freely, everybody could hear it, everybody could make up their mind about whether they believed him or not, and since he did so, he’s no longer a person of interest, in a way of speaking)

    On the other hand; it is NOT a waste of time and effort and money if Democrats where going after anybody who refuses to cooperate and hide behind lame excuses why they don’t have to say anything. Unfortunately it seems that the vast majority of people who have been unwilling to cooperate and refuse to come clean are Republicans. And that fact has nothing to do with Democrats going after them. Misdeeds are wrong regardsless of party affiliation. There are bad democrats as well (LA Jefferson)

    So… section9… looking at the simple facts regarding the amount of Republicans that have either been convicted or resigned under suspicion during the Republican congress and comparing that to the number of Democrats, you could easily deduct that there are far more corrupt and criminal Republicans than Democrats. I don’t see how you could even being to spin that aspect.

  • Shouldn’t that be “Section 8”?

    Yep. After years of dodging and claiming “not to remember” and saying a bunch of shit that doesn’t make sense, Rice is going to whip on a cape and become Super Secretary o’ State and give Waxman the business. Then Bush is going to hop in that fighter jet he used to fly 100 sucessful missions over Vietnam and bomb Waxman into the stone age. (Or Ante-diluvian age for the Creationists.)

    Of course this will all be after Gonzales (another expert at the art of “baiting” those foolish Democrats) gives such brilliant answers to Leahy’s questions that his head explodes.

    Can’t wait.

  • The rant by “section9” is a childish attempt at intimidation. Tom Cleaver recognized its non-reality and that intimidation is a well-worn RW method (like always reaching for a 9-iron). The assumption is that Waxman will not be disciplined in pursuit of the truth and that Condi will prevail–to the chagrin of the left–is pure wishful fantasy.

    • Comments are closed.