Rice rebuffs congress on Iraq war subpoena

[Gan]

US Secretary of State (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22US+Secretary+of+State%22&sid=breitbart.com) Condoleezza Rice signalled Thursday that she would not comply with a subpoena to appear before Congress to testify about discredited assertions on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22weapons+of+mass+destruction%22&sid=breitbart.com).


"This is an issue that has been answered and answered and answered," Rice said when asked about the subpoena during a visit to Oslo for a meeting of NATO foreign ministers.

Rice said her staff had written three letters in the last month to Democratic congressman Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, concerning his questions about bogus 2003 White House assertions that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Saddam+Hussein%22&sid=breitbart.com) had sought enriched uranium from Niger as part of a program to develop nuclear weapons (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22nuclear+weapons%22&sid=breitbart.com).

President George W. Bush (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22President+George+W.+Bush%22&sid=breitbart.com) included the claim in his State of the Union message weeks before launching the March 2003 invasion of Iraq even though top intelligence officials believed the allegation to be baseless.

Rice, who was Bush's national security adviser at the time, said Thursday that she was willing to provide additional information to Waxman's committee in writing.

But she added that her White House work was covered by the constitutional principle of executive privilege, a principle presidents have in the past used to shelter aides from being forced to testify under oath in Congress.


"If there are further questions that Congressman Waxman has, then I am more than happy to answer them again in a letter, because I think that that is the way to continue this dialogue," she said.

"This all took place in my role as national security adviser," Rice continued.
"There is a separation of powers, and advisers to the president are, under that constitutional principle, not generally required to go and testify in Congress," she said.

"I think we have to observe and uphold constitutional principles," she said, adding: "I think I have more than answered these questions and answered them directly to Congressman Waxman."

But Rice stopped short of ruling out an appearance before Waxman's committee and when asked if she would comply with the subpoena, her spokesman Sean McCormack said, "We haven't decided yet."

In announcing the subpoena on Wednesday, Waxman said Rice's tenure as Bush's top security adviser in the run-up to the Iraq war gives her unique insights into why the administration pressed its claim about the Niger uranium link to Saddam Hussein.

Allegations that Iraq was seeking to build weapons of mass destruction provided the main justification for the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.

But no such weapons were found and top intelligence officials have since revealed that the report concerning Iraq's alleged bid to obtain uranium from Niger had been discounted prior to Bush's 2003 State of the Union address (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Union+address%22&sid=breitbart.com).

The Central Intelligence Agency notably sent a retired diplomat, Joseph Wilson, to Niger to check on the claims, and he reported back that they were groundless.
Copyright AFP 2005, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070426134503.4rzk54r9&show_article=1&catnum=3
__________________________________________

Interesting.

I wonder how different the questions they are wanting to ask now from the questions that were previously asked and already responded to?

She's got balls for snubbing the Waxman witch hunt, I have to say that.

[Warriorbird]

Witch hunt. Classic coming from an "Independant."

[Gan]

Witch hunt. Classic coming from an "Independant."

Explain to me how all of the previous questions that he's already asked her will be different than the ones he'll ask now?

PS. If you dont think I'm an independant, prove me wrong.

[ElanthianSiren]

I believe the difference is that a subpeona involves testimony, meaning a record. I might be wrong, but that's my impression of it.

[Gan]

I believe the difference is that a subpeona involves testimony, meaning a record. I might be wrong, but that's my impression of it.

And a written statement, confirmation hearings, etc. arent?

[Back]

Why would she not happily accept to help set the record straight?

[Gan]

She already has.

And why wouldnt a written statement, be sufficient?

[Back]

She already has.

And why wouldnt a written statement, be sufficient?

Well obviously thats not true as the bipartisan committee wants to hear more.

You’ve got to be kidding me. How is a written statement anywhere near the equivalent of sworn testimony?

This is a no brainer. Her refusal speaks volumes about the whole thing rather than if she had simply accepted.

[Latrinsorm]

Why would she not happily accept to help set the record straight?You mean like how you jump at the opportunity to respond to PB's 271st allegation about you being a pothead? You of all people should realize what setting the record straight versus endless spurious claims is like.

[Gan]

Well obviously thats not true as the bipartisan committee wants to hear more.
Actually, it was only the Democrats who voted for the subpoena. The republicans on the comittee did not vote in favor of it. Nice try though.


You’ve got to be kidding me. How is a written statement anywhere near the equivalent of sworn testimony?
How is it not? A question is asked, then its answered. Its a written statement, which is admissable in a court of law just the same as spoken testimony.


This is a no brainer. Her refusal speaks volumes about the whole thing rather than if she had simply accepted.
Whats a no brainer is the implication that the previous questions asked during confirmation hearings as well as during previous testimony given arent sufficient for Waxman. Whats a no brainer is the fact that a Democrat majority on the oversight comittee were the only ones voting for a subpoena. Whats a no brainer is the fact that there's no 'new' evidence to give due cause for the subpoena, the questions giving basis for the subpoena have already been answered - so what purpose is the subpoena really for?

[Gan]

You mean like how you jump at the opportunity to respond to PB's 271st allegation about you being a pothead? You of all people should realize what setting the record straight versus endless spurious claims is like.

I already proved that Backlash is a pothead. Thanks though. ;)

[Back]

You mean like how you jump at the opportunity to respond to PB's 271st allegation about you being a pothead? You of all people should realize what setting the record straight versus endless spurious claims is like.

rofl. Yeah, I know what its like. But getting the truth out of our elected officials on matters that send people to war is slightly more... important?

[Back]

I already proved that Backlash is a pothead. Thanks though. ;)

God you really take yourself way to seriously Sherlock. What Gans “proof” is he has a PM from me, after a long night of heated back and forth posting in some topic, where I suggest we just let the thread die and smoke something and chill out.

But we are off-topic now.

Granted, after reading more, it is correct that the subpoena comes from the democratic majority of the committee. But more evidence has come to light since her confirmation about how the President included the uranium story in his state of the union with everyone knowing it was baseless.

[Gan]

Granted, after reading more, it is correct that the subpoena comes from the democratic majority of the committee. But more evidence has come to light since her confirmation about how the President included the uranium story in his state of the union with everyone knowing it was baseless.

Source?

[Gan]

God you really take yourself way to seriously Sherlock. What Gans “proof” is he has a PM from me, after a long night of heated back and forth posting in some topic, where I suggest we just let the thread die and smoke something and chill out.

At least you dont deny it.

[Keller]

How is it not? A question is asked, then its answered. Its a written statement, which is admissable in a court of law just the same as spoken testimony.


The depends on the nature of the writing. A writing is de jure hearsay. But there are, as you'll soon learn, exceptions.

[Gan]

The depends on the nature of the writing. A writing is de jure hearsay. But there are, as you'll soon learn, exceptions.

Agreed, I'm sure her previous written statements were witnessed, notarized, etc. I would hope that would be the case considering the importance of such submissions.

[Back]

Source?

Source? Hello? Put Niger Uranium into any search engine and you have plenty to go on. Our president used it in his State of the Union as a case for war when it he knew it was not true, our intelligence agencies knew it was not true, the Brits knew it was not true, Saddam knew it was not true and just about everyone else on the fucking planet now knows it was not true except you.

[Seran]

You can always claim that a written statement was prepared by someone else and not personally reviewed by the individual in question. Unless she personally swears an affidavid that any and all written responses to proposed questions were reviewed and attested to by her, then it's pretty much useless.

[TheEschaton]

Not to mention you can't make a person squirm with a written set of interrogatories....lots of room for legalese in writing. ;)

-TheE-

[Kriztian]

Get back on topic or ... er, yeah, just get back on topic!

[Gan]

Granted, after reading more, it is correct that the subpoena comes from the democratic majority of the committee. But more evidence has come to light since her confirmation about how the President included the uranium story in his state of the union with everyone knowing it was baseless.


Source?


Source? Hello? Put Niger Uranium into any search engine and you have plenty to go on. Our president used it in his State of the Union as a case for war when it he knew it was not true, our intelligence agencies knew it was not true, the Brits knew it was not true, Saddam knew it was not true and just about everyone else on the fucking planet now knows it was not true except you.

Congrats for being completely unable to follow a train of thought, even your own!

Pay attention to your claim in bold. Hence why I asked for a source, since it sounds more like your conjecture.

Let me repeat it again, Since her confirmation hearings and already submitted written statements to the oversight comittee. Has there been any 'new' revelations that gives a valid reason to the new subpoenas?

Thats why I'm asking for your source, not leftist rhetoric. Put up or STFU plz. kthx.

[Gan]

Not to mention you can't make a person squirm with a written set of interrogatories....lots of room for legalese in writing. ;)

-TheE-

So thats the real reason for the subpoenas? To make her squirm on TV? To roll out the dog and ponies for a nice show? Yea, thats our government resources hard at work (read: Partisan witch hunt combined with dog and pony show).

[Gan]

You can always claim that a written statement was prepared by someone else and not personally reviewed by the individual in question. Unless she personally swears an affidavid that any and all written responses to proposed questions were reviewed and attested to by her, then it's pretty much useless.

Since we're dealing with people who have PhD's and JD's, do you really think that any of her previous written statements are anything less than sworn and witnessed affidavits? Come on... You can bet your shorts that anything turned over to Waxman from Rice's office had its i's dotted and its t's crossed, sworn to, and witnessed in triplicate.

[Seran]

As I said, there's a good deal bit of difference between a letter typed out by an aide and a personally signed and notarized interogatory used in most cases. As this isn't a trial, her written responses to any questioning would not have the same credibility as a sworn statement before a congressional body.

[Ilvane]

I don't understand why she just won't come in and answer the questions under oath, and get it overwith.

She's something else, and it's not something good.

Angela

[Parkbandit]

Not to mention you can't make a person squirm with a written set of interrogatories....
-TheE-

There we go, TheE hit it right on the head. They don't care about the truth or anything but making her and the rest of the Administration look bad. That is their motivation and nothing else.

[Parkbandit]

I don't understand why she just won't come in and answer the questions under oath, and get it overwith.

She's something else, and it's not something good.

Angela


What exactly is she? For once, stop looking through your moveon.org sunglasses and take a look at her life, her accomplishments and her public service.

[Gan]

I don't understand why she just won't come in and answer the questions under oath, and get it overwith.

Again, why should she when she's already answered them?

[TheEschaton]

The squirming is not necessarily for TV's sake (though I'm sure it helps). People get flustered under questioning. I imagine under sworn testimony she wouldn't be given a list of questions, she wouldn't be able to script her answers. She'd have to think on her feet, and despite her being a ridiculously smart lady, thinking on your feet can easily lead to a more honest statement than a muddled, legal answer.

-TheE-

[Back]

Well, shes on Face the Nation right now to talk about just that. Why would she do that and not go in front of Congress?

Oh, Gan, Tenet just wrote a new book. New information comes out day after day. He’ll be on 60 minutes tonight.

[Parkbandit]

The squirming is not necessarily for TV's sake (though I'm sure it helps). People get flustered under questioning. I imagine under sworn testimony she wouldn't be given a list of questions, she wouldn't be able to script her answers. She'd have to think on her feet, and despite her being a ridiculously smart lady, thinking on your feet can easily lead to a more honest statement than a muddled, legal answer.

-TheE-

Or could lead to a statement being interpreted in a manner in which you did not mean... and then the CBS's of the world would now have their soundbite.

[Sean of the Thread]

Nobody squirms on political T.V. better than Michael J Fox.





I'm already going to hell for the wheelchair chick so don't lecture me unless there is a double hell.

[TheEschaton]

Be reasonable Gan - why do people give testimony on the stand in criminal trials? So people can try and poke holes in their answers. Legitimate holes sometimes, rhetoric holes at others, but holes. If there are legitimate holes to be poked in her answers, that cannot be done in an interrogatory, because I'm sure she'd insist on this being the only set of questions she answers.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Nobody squirms on political T.V. better than Michael J Fox.





I'm already going to hell for the wheelchair chick so don't lecture me unless there is a double hell.

LMAO.

So wrong.. but I still laughed.

[Gan]

Be reasonable Gan - why do people give testimony on the stand in criminal trials? So people can try and poke holes in their answers. Legitimate holes sometimes, rhetoric holes at others, but holes. If there are legitimate holes to be poked in her answers, that cannot be done in an interrogatory, because I'm sure she'd insist on this being the only set of questions she answers.

-TheE-

If this subpoena would have been voted in favor by both sides of the oversight comittee then I would agree with you. However, in this case, its all about partisan politics and bandstanding. Therefore I disagree.

[xtc]

In a case where American and Iraqi lives have been killed and destroyed and we have engaged in a war longer than we did in WW2. I don't think it is too much to ask that Condi answers a few questions.

[CrystalTears]

Holy fuck, do you have to put in your $.02 in every political discussion? Isn't there another trip you have to plan?

[xtc]

Holy fuck, do you have to put in your $.02 in every political discussion? Isn't there another trip you have to plan?

You have almost 3 times the number of posts that I do. I would say you have added your two cents much more often here than I have.

[CrystalTears]

I'm not the one bumping weeks old threads.

[xtc]

I'm not the one bumping weeks old threads.

so you're complaining because I am commenting on old threads....

[Nieninque]

yes. STFU

[xtc]

yes. STFU

NOT

[Sean]

It's probably moreso because your serial bumping threads that were done 3 weeks or so ago and adding next to nothing except your $0.02. Obviously no one (except staff) can stop you from doing it but it's habitual with you every time you come back to the boards and it's kind of annoying.

[Gan]

It's probably moreso because your serial bumping threads that were done 3 weeks or so ago and adding next to nothing except your $0.02. Obviously no one (except staff) can stop you from doing it but it's habitual with you every time you come back to the boards and it's kind of annoying.


Winner.