We have to tolerate democracy I know, because all else is worse, but this kind of stuff in the middle of a war (designed only to make the administration run poorly) is near to the absolute limit. The snow is gone from D.C., and the flurries you are seeing are of subpoena's for every single responsible member of the administration.

The President might just as well issue blanket pardons to everyone for everything, and get over the political fallout in one big news cycle, instead of suffering the death of a thousand cuts.

I actually believe that Rice has deliberately baited Henry Waxman into drawing up this subpoeana. Waxman is a Villian right out of Central Casting and Rice is perfectly positioned to play the Heroine.

Rice has sent letters to Waxman over the last month that Henry and his supporters could only find deliberately insulting and provoking. It is a partisan fishing expedition, and I actually believe that Rice wants to appear in front of Waxman's committee, but only after making him look as much like Joe McCarthy as possible.

She's already succeeded in splitting the committee along partisan lines, so she's succeeded in shaping the battlefield to her liking. Well done, imho.

Good on ya', Condi! I predict that Rice will show everyone how to take down a bully.

It's all about the oilvotes! I excerpted and linked.

Just watched on c-span Rep Tom Davis(R) ranking member of the oversight committee, in his opening statement stipulate that we can all agree that the Presidents remarks have now been proven false. Something we can all agree on. I don't agree to that. What the hey, they have not been proven to have been false and the ranking Republican member on the committee doesn't even know this? They drive me nuts, don't they ever read or have staff members read the relevant reports? Who in the Republican party is going around saying this and why?

It would be wonderful for our country if Sect. Rice were to testify, and clearly state that certain facts are true: the bulk of the entire world's intelligence resources beleived in the existance of Iraqi WMD; the British intelligence did indeed have knowledge of Sadaam attempting to secure yellow-cake; the government of Iraq was in contact with, if not completely aligned with, Al-Quaida; the United Nations did provide, through Sadaam's intransigence towards the UN inspectors, sufficient reason to believe that there was an impending danger sufficient, in the light of the WTC attacks, to invade Iraq.

However, we know that she has every reason to suspect that there will be an attempt to twist her words into a contradiction, real or imagined, sufficient to bring charges of perjury. This will be beaten to death on the networks and in the papers, further weakening the administration.

For her to testify would be a high risk/reward opportunity with a great deal of personal risk involved. The Dems are pros at the game of obfuscation in a torrent of words. Play at your own risk if you dare, Condeleezza.

"Just watched on c-span Rep Tom Davis(R) ranking member of the oversight committee, in his opening statement stipulate that we can all agree that the Presidents remarks have now been proven false."

Maybe he was referring to the parts where W said the nation was united against terrorism and we stood behind the troops?

I keep hearing this compared to the work of the oversite committee during the later part of the Clinton administration. It seems competely different to me, but maybe I'm being all partisan and everything. I'd love to see some analysis by someone with more knowledge of this than I have.

Eilish:

(Is that pronounced "eyelash?")

The most obvious difference is that the investigations of President Bill Clinton focused on actual high crimes and misdemeanors:

• Accepting money from Red China in exchange for altering American foreign policy and authorizing the transfer of our most highly classified nuclear secrets to the PRC;
• Auctioning off everything from face time with the president to ambassadorships to (in the end) criminal pardons;
• Land swindles;
• Illegal futures trading;
• Perjury, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering...

That sort of thing.

By contrast, the Democrats are investigating the Bush administration for:

• Invading Iraq;
• Firing U.S. attorneys who reject the president's priorities for prosecution and go freelancing instead;
• Asking witnesses to the death of Pat Tillman not to talk to anyone about it until the investigation concludes;
• The investigation, prosecution, and conviction of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison;
• The decision not to extend full constitutional protection to unlawful enemy combatants held in a foreign country;
• The inability to prevent 9/11.

Do you see the difference? Republicans in the 1990s investigated actual criminal accusations against President Clinton and his administration.

Democrats today use congressional investigations as political weapons: When they disagree with administrative decisions, they demand an investigation, trying to criminalize policy disputes.

This is exactly what they did under Reagan with the "Boland Amendment" and the investigation of Oliver North, John Poindexter, et al for "violating" it... the whole Iran-Contra "scandal" (the scandal consisted of the president conducting foreign policy that the Congress didn't like).

The only distinction between the Reagan era and today is that the Democrats are even more aggressive, frantic, and hysterical about trying to criminalize policy disputes, because they have a chance to lose us another war.

Dafydd

Dafydd,
(It is pronounced Ay-lish or I-lish, please forgive my not-very-accurate phonetic renditions. I personally pronounce it Ay-lish the Ei sounding like a long A. You're not the first to try the eyelash thing though. Luckily, I know how to pronounce your name as my maiden name was Jones!)

Thanks for the history refresher. That was my recollection, but I didn't remember details on investigations. There were just so many...

I do take comfort in the fact that in a year, very few will remember what topics were covered in these investigations. I worry more about the blatant doublespeak referenced in your latest post about Tenant's book. It is infuriating and extremely disturbing how blatant it has become.

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)