Rebuffed by Rice, Hadley, House panel tracks down witnesses for Iraq probe

[maddezmom]

Source: The Hill

Rebuffed by Rice, Hadley, House panel tracks down witnesses for Iraq probe
By Helen Fessenden
June 19, 2007
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s probe into prewar intelligence has again postponed a hearing, scheduled for today, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who refuses to testify publicly despite a panel subpoena.

The panel has also had no luck in securing a closed-door deposition of National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. As Rice’s deputy at the National Security Council during President Bush’s first term, Hadley was central in the controversy over the flawed claim in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa.

The panel has taken a closed-door deposition from George Tenet, former head of the CIA, who was also scheduled to testify today, and other former officials, including his former deputy, John McLaughlin. But the impasse with Rice and Hadley suggests that the administration will not budge in prohibiting senior officials to testify.

Barring a congressional vote invoking contempt, the committee effectively has no other formal tool to compel Rice to testify.
One Democrat on the panel, Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.), believes the probe should go beyond its focus on senior aides and instead find out why the forged documents behind the uranium claim were not debunked until shortly before the war, and how they came into existence in late 2001 in the first place.




Read more: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rebuffed-by-rice-hadley-house-panel-tracks-down-witnesses-for-iraq-probe-2007-06-19.html

[tmlanders]

1. Ummm...

"Barring a congressional vote invoking contempt, the committee effectively has no other formal tool to compel Rice to testify."

What is the problem with having a congressional vote invoking contempt? 'Cuz it sure sounds like contempt to me.

[endarkenment]

2. Oh that power of subpoena is so mighty!

This is just great! Our leaders are so effective! Better not cite the criminal Rice for contempt, you might just lose. Where are our cheerleaders to 'splain this away?

[old guy]

3. Again the WH extends the middle finger to congress

When oh when is this crap going to stop?

[Kikosexy2]

4. Good Lord,

Congress...grow a pair!!! Keep throwing subpoenas at her...have her chicken ass drag in by security or some law enforcement!!!

[MiniMe]

5. Would the Senate have to vote on it too?

If so, I can see it never getting cloture.

[Stand and Fight]

6. No.

This is occurring in the House, and is therefore a House matter. The Senate won't have anything to do with this unless it becomes a whole hell of a lot heavier -- impeachment?

[Straight Shooter]

7. Would Congress like some whine with their dictatortots?

:grr:

[endarkenment]

8. "This has drug on long enough" - dumbfuck

Haul her ass in!

[Norquist Nemesis]

9. Okay, Republicans....remember this

A precedent is being set. As for Democrats, GO FOR IT! If it takes a vote invoking contempt, then DO IT!!!! There is absolutely nothing for the Democrats to lose on this, UNLESS they choose to do nothing!

[acmavm]

10. I am so impressed with out Congress...

what an amazing bunch of wimps and cowards.

They need to get off the public payroll. They aren't worth a damn.

[struggle4progress]

11. Congress shouldn't fund where oversight is denied.

[NoQuarter]

13. BINGO!

[hootinholler]

12. God Damnit! Send the fucking Sargent at Arms already to haul her gap toothed ass in.

You fuck ups in congress just don't *get it*!

-Hoot

[paparush]

14. Detach a squad of Federal Marshalls and handcuff that smug-face biatch!

Then, after you've handcuffed Bush**, handcuff Rice too, and Cheney while yer at it...

[badgerpup]

15. IIRC, the word 'subpoena'...

...means 'under threat of punishment/penalty.
Here's wikipedia...
A subpoena is "a command to appear at a certain time and place to give testimony upon a certain matter."<1> The term is from the Middle English suppena and the Latin phrase sub poena meaning "under penalty."

So...what kind of penalty are we looking at here? Another subpoena, maybe?
OOOOOH...sooo scawwwy. :scared::sarcasm:



Since Rice and the White House gang don't need to pay any attention to subpoenas, does that mean we ALL can just ignore any subpoenas or warrants? Sauce for the goose, after all...
:rant:

Sorry...this just pisses me off. Yeah, the Dems have the power of subpoena now...
and it counts for SQUAT, apparently. :nuke:

[Kagemusha]

16. I think you know very well what the penalty we are looking at here is.

Contempt of Congress.

Now, whether that step will actually be taken, no, I have no confidence either, but that doesn't mean I'll let a rhetorical question with an easy to provide real world answer go unanswered.

[badgerpup]

19. Waxman has threatened Contempt of Congress...

...but will it be invoked? And if it is, will it just bog down in the subcommittee?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_congress

Contempt for Congress is certainly being displayed, tell ya that much...:grr:


I just have little or no respect for people who constantly make threats...
threats as in "If you don't ______, I'm gonna _______!"...but never follow through.
This seems to be happening a LOT in both Congress and the Senate. :grr:

[frylock]

17. fucking yawn..

I'm sure the Dems are readying more subpoenas to issue. What a fucking joke.

[grasswire]

18. no formal tool?

What about an informal one? The possibilities are endless.

[deacon]

20. What in hell is wrong with a congressional vote invoking contempt????

Why is this congress allowing her to be above the law?????????

Sheeeeshhhhhhhhhhh

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

21. Um, CONTEMPT, damnit!!! She is guilty of contempt so HOLD HER IN CONTEMPT!!!

OMG! Is the House going to let her get away with freakin' contempt?!?!!!

And what about that ass, Hadley?!!!! Subpoena him and hold him in contempt, too!!!

KEEERIST!! :grr:

[deacon]

22. If Rice was a dem and hastert and delay were in the majority...

rice would already be spending time with her family, at the very least.