The Dean Is Waxing Wroth

Rep. Waxman implores Condi Rice to return his letters and phone calls:

The Committee [on Oversight and Government Reform] has formally requested Secretary Rice to testify before the Oversight Committee on April 18th regarding the Administration’s claims that Iraq sought uranium from Niger, White House treatment of classified information, the appointment of Ambassador Jones as "special coordinator" for Iraq, and other subjects.

However, Ms. Rice has given Henry short shrift over the years:

Since 2003, I have written 16 letters to you, either in your capacity as National Security Advisor or Secretary of State. According to Committee records, you have satisfactorily responded to only five of those l6 letters. Those five were co-signed by Republicans. Under the Bush Adminishation, several agencies followed a policy of not responding to minority party requests. Although I do not agree with this policy, I presume that you were also following it when you decided not to respond to my requests for information.

I am now renewing my requests as the chairman of the chief oversight committee in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Well, he is a Chairman now, so we will see.  No major news service has picked up on this yet, if News.Google can be trusted, although The Hill had it, and the CQ mentioned it.

As to his proposed agenda - of some of our friends on the left can update us in on the fantasy surrounding Ambassador Jones, that would be lovely.  I presume that at least part of Waxman's interest is reflected in this letter from Feb 2005 (or here).

Personally, I can't wait to learn what the "other subjects" might be (and how does Ms. Rice prepare testimony?)

I assume she will ignore this.  Or maybe she will suggest that Roth wax the dean for a while.

WHERE IS THIS HEADED?  Does Waxman actually have any legislative objective or is he simply pandering to the Nutroots?  Ron Brownstein, Matt Cooper, and David Gregory kicked that around following Waxman's last hearing starring Valerie Plame:

BROWNSTEIN:  No, I guess I was saying—I wasn‘t—I wasn‘t suggesting they were overdoing—they‘ve been poring over this obsessively, but they have a lot of different investigations now under way of the administration after six years in which there was, as I said, virtually no congressional oversight.  And I think they have to be careful about picking their shots and focusing on the things that have the most direct impact on policies that affect the lives of the American people.

I guess I felt today I wasn‘t sure what they were doing here except feeding what has been a tremendous concern of Democrat activists.  Last summer, there was an interesting moment at that Daily Kos annual convention.  Joseph Wilson appeared on a panel with several bloggers and he said, You know, I‘m sitting here in a room with people who know more about this case than I do.  There‘s no doubt that there‘s great interest among—about this among Democrats.

But what are they—what is the benefit to the country right now of focusing on this further?  I‘m not sure they fully answered that today.

GREGORY: But as a—whatever the peril, as a political matter, is the president going to be pressured to account at some level for his very harsh statements about anybody who peddled classified information to discredit a war critic?

COOPER: You know, I think it‘s—it puts a little more heat on him.  And look, it‘s not all, you know, ancient history today.  Look, I mean, one, you‘ve got an issue with Valerie Plame trying to write her book and the CIA saying she can‘t, that she might disclose that she was classified, which seems sort of absurd at this point.

And second, you know, I think he‘s still going to have to answer questions about Rove at some point and why—you know, what happened with Rove.  So I don‘t know.  I think it—you know, I think it does accrue to the Democrats‘ benefit.  I don‘t think it was just a pander to the far left and—but we‘ll see how it plays out.

I'm sure Matt Cooper could be even more partisan and ill-informed, but this was an impressive effort.  Just for starters, the notion that the only secret Ms. Plame might have to reveal is her formerly classified status is absurd - the CIA might have perfectly legitimate objections to her disclosing where and with whom she worked ten years ago.

MORE:  The SSCI has extensive coverage of the Niger-uranium story.  As to Waxman's request for info on "the Administration’s claims that Iraq sought uranium from Niger", that can't be a reference to the President's 16 Words from the State of the Union, since that referred to Africa.

The State Department did put out a fact sheet naming Niger as a potential source for Iraqi uranium, but that was during Colin Powell's tenure.

Well, I need to scroll through the report.

STILL MORE:  Maybe it depends on the meaning of "claims" - Waxman could ask about this (p. 59 of the .pdf. emphasis added):

 

(U) In a written response to questions from Committee staff, the White House said that on September 11, 2002, National Security Council (NSC) staff contacted the CIA to clear language for possible use in a statement for use by the President. The language cleared by the CIA said, "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high strength aluminum tubes used in centrifuges to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. And we also know this: within the past few years, Iraq has resumed efforts to obtain large quantities of a type of uranium oxide known as yellowcake, which is an essential ingredient of this process. The regime was caught trying to purchase 500 metric tons of this material. It takes about 10 tons to produce enough enriched uranium for a single nuclear weapon." The text was identical to the text proposed by the White House except that the
CIA had suggested adding "up to" before 500 metric tons. The President never used the approved language publicly.
 

Or maybe this, also under the purview of Ms. Rice in her NSC days:

(U) In a response to questions from Committee staff, the White House said that on September 24, 2002, NSC staff contacted the CIA to clear another statement for use by the President. The statement said, "we also have intelligence that Iraq has sought large amounts of uranium and uranium oxide, known as yellowcake, from Africa. Yellowcake is an essential ingredient of the process to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." The CIA cleared the language,
but suggested that "of the process" be changed to "in the process." The President did not use the cleared language publicly.

Here is a CIA - NSC dispute that Waxman will no doubt want to probe vigorously:

(U) Some time in September a member of the NSC staff discussed the Niger uranium issue with a CIA analyst. The CIA analyst told Committee staff that during coordination of a speech (he was not sure which one) with an NSC staff member, the CIA analyst suggested that the reference to Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa be removed. The CIA analyst said the NSC staff member said that would leave the British "flapping in the wind."

In a written response to a question about this matter from the Committee, the NSC staff member said that the CIA analyst did not suggest that he remove text regarding Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa. The NSC staff member said the analyst suggested that Saddam's meeting with his "nuclear mujahedin" was more compelling evidence of Iraq's effort to resurrect the Iraqi nuclear program than attempts to acquire yellowcake, but said the analyst never suggested that the yellowcake text be removed. He said he had no recollection of telling a CIA analyst that replacing the uranium reference would leave the British "flapping in the wind" and said such a statement would have been illogical since the President never presented in any one speech every detail of intelligence gathered on Iraq either by the U.S. or by the U.K.

Since the NIE that came out a month later in October included the phrase "Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake", one might wonder about how much conviction the CIA analyst really displayed in September.  On the other hand, there is this CIA testimony to ponder:

(U) On October 2, 2002, the Deputy DCI testified before the SSCI. Senator Jon Kyl asked the Deputy DCI whether he had read the British white paper and whether he disagreed with anything in the report. The Deputy DCI testified that "the one thing where I think they stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about Iraq seeking uranium from various African locations. We've looked at those reports and we don't think they are very
credible. It doesn't diminish our conviction that he's going for nuclear weapons, but I think they reached a little bit on that one point. Otherwise I think it's very solid."

Troubling.  But by December the CIA had waffled again:

(U) On December 17, 2002, WINPAC analysts produced a paper, U.S. Analysis of Iraq's Declaration, 7 December 2002. The paper reviewed Iraq's "Currently Accurate, Full and Complete Disclosure" to the UN of its WMD programs and made only two points regarding the nuclear program - one noted Iraq's failure to explain its procurement of aluminum tubes the IC assessed could be used in a nuclear program, and the other noted that the declaration "does not acknowledge efforts to procure uranium from Niger, one of the points addressed in the U.K. Dossier."

And the State Department managed to put out a Fact Sheet in Dec 2002 to which their own INR people objected, which initially said this:

The fact sheet said Iraq's declaration, "ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger."

Well, that should help Waxman get started.

Comments

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Mark Steyn on the British hostages:

'On this 25th anniversary of the Falklands War, Tony Blair is looking less like Margaret Thatcher and alarmingly like Jimmy Carter, the embodiment of the soi-disant "superpower" as a smiling eunuch.'

Which is how, I suspect, Waxman looks to Condi.

[Semanticleo]

Uranium from Niger?......................

No wonder she doesn't call.

She might need to invoke the 5th, just in case she has to lie.

[Semanticleo]

Forgot the link. (Just in case Condi visits JOM)

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1175245444489

[Tom]

What's to lie about? She could simply say that as of 2002, British intelligence services were reporting that Saddam had recently sought to acquire uranium in Africa. This fact was later confirmed by those same British intelligence services, as well as by portly "ambassador" Joe Wilson in his oral report to the CIA, as cofirmed by the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I suppose she might simply write back to Mr. Waxman, tell him she's really quite busy at present, and enclose a copy of the SSCI report for his perusal.

[Tom]

Maybe Condi could just refer Waxman to this item:

“Wilson reported that he had met with Niger's former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss 'expanding commercial relations' between the two countries.
Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki ‘interpreted “expanding commercial relations” to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.’ In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger ‘lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal.’"

Fact Check, http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

[Mark]

Instead of the typical Bush administration ankle grabbing she ought to just go in with the intelligence from the Brits and Italians that led us to the assumption and also make Joe Wilson take the stand and while we are at it bring in some Nigerian officials that Chris Hitchens has wrote about.

None of this will be done though because it's a witchhunt to get Bush administration officials and pretty much everyone knows it. There isn't any interest in the truth, sorta like the Libby trial.

[Semanticleo]

"a witchhunt to get Bush'

They will keep seeking their perp even if they have to settle for income tax evasion.

Those bastards!

[Other Tom]

Maybe Condi could just send him this excerpt from the SSCI Report:

“When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials’ accounts in some respects. First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger’s uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rouge [sic] nations, and noted that Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium. Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayaki. Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the information was the [ ] intelligence service. The DO reports officer told Committee staff that he did not provide the former ambassador with any information about the source or details of the original reporting as it would have required sharing classified information and, noted that there were no 'documents' circulating in the IC at the time of the former ambassador’s trip, only intelligence reports from [ ] intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. Meeting notes and other correspondence show that details of the reporting were discussed at the February 19, 2002 meeting, but none of the meeting participants recall telling the former ambassador the source of the report.”

And yes, Cleo dear, those two "Tom" posts above were my very own.

[Semanticleo]

", those two "Tom" posts above were my very own."

You can run, but................

[Cecil Turner]

. . . regarding the Administration’s claims that Iraq sought uranium from Niger . . .

Niger, Africa . . . whatever.

[Other Tom]

"You can run, but................" Try as I might, I just can't ascribe any meaning at all to that statement.

Maybe someone more knowledgeable than I could enlighten us all on the dynamics involved here. In particular, what is the obligation, if any, of the executive to respond to letter requests from either minority members or committee chairs? And what is the obligation to appear and testify? I know that ultimately the congress has subpoena power, which I think is rarely used. I don't believe that, in general, executive privilege applies to communications between a president and a secretary of state (although I suppose that might depend on the nature of a particular communication), but for the period when Condi was the NSA that privilege might be more likely to apply.

Any present or former committee staffers--or anyone else--out there have any knowledge?

[EH]

Does anybody want to sign my petition to make it illegal for Congress to request information from the Cabinet?

[Other Tom]

EH, I assume you're not serious about any such petition. But I renew my request to hear from anyone with knowledge of the groundrules.

[section9]

I actually believe that Fred Fielding is prepping Condi for an appearance before Waxman. She's holding out to force Waxman to subpoena her. IMHO, it's what the WH wants. Waxman is, at bottom, a partisan who is basically trying to run a show trial. What he has done, however, is to try to get in front of him someone who is deeply familiar with how to handle show trials.

Condi cut her teeth on studying the Moscow Show Trials, remember.

Waxman has done two stupid things: hang his entire hat on Jumpin' Joe Wilson and depend on Valerie Plame's Walkin' By Guy, who never showed up in her earlier testimony.

He's also, if I recall correctly, serially dissed the work product of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004, which hasn't made Kit Bond and other members of that Committee happy. Expect them to reappear at a strategic moment.

I suspect that Condi is setting up a confrontational atmosphere, to use Waxman's innate anger and overreaching against him. He has no real facts to use against her, but Waxman will treat her like he treats a tobbacco executive and she'll eviscerate him on live television. Watch. Rice is ignoring him to get him mad. Waxman knows he'll come under pressure from his staffers and the Spastic Nutroots to "Get Bush's Bitch! Expose the Lies!"

I see this in Moonbat coverage of this event. Their salivating like rabid dogs. So you can imagine how this is percolating up to committee staffers. They're hunting for Big Game.

They're willing believers of the BushLiedTheyDied Narrative too, of course, so you can see how this will end up.

I knew, eventually, that Waxman would come after Rice. He just can't help himself. The problem with the Left is that they believe their own Narrative about Joe Wilson and Yellowcake in Niger. It's all built on a lie. And it's all going to come apart.

[Cecil Turner]

Hey, speaking of misleading the public, Waxman's letter is a gold mine of bogus info:

1. My inquiries cover vital issues within the Committee's oversight jurisdiction, including your role in the President's false assertion that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger . . .
2. In my letter, I asked why the President had included the bogus Niger claim in his January 28,2003, State of the Union address . . .
3. It was subsequently revealed, however, that the CIA had sent a memo directly to you and your deputy at the time, Stephen Hadley, raising doubts about the Niger claim . . .
4. Because these revelations directly contradicted your previous public statements . . .
5. As a result of your failure to respond, the Committee still does not know what you knew about the fabricated Niger claim and when you knew it. We also do not know how the fabricated claim made it into the President's State of the Union address . . .
6. We continue to learn in a piecemeal fashion about other explicit wamings received by White House officials about this bogus claim. According to one recent press account, for example . . .

   Does anybody want to sign my petition to make it illegal for Congress to request information from the Cabinet?

   They can request all they want. Not sure why the Administration ought to cooperate, however. And it's downright hilarious that members apparently view the freedom from arrest provision as protecting their freezers from cash inspections, whilst simultaneously demanding the right to lay perjury traps for Administration officials.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Personally, I think Rice is ignoring these letters for the same reason the Secretary of Defense ignores letters about aliens mutilating cattle in the San Luis Valley.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

From Leo's link (and by the way, for cripes sake learn how to code an HTML link, what are you, nine?)

Taking the Fifth Amendment is everybody's right. But it's a choice that can send up a red flag, often invoked by people who have something to hide.

Leo, I know you're neither old enough nor informed enough to remember this, but you might want to look up the phrases "House Unamerican Activities Committee", "Robert F Kennedy", "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" "Fifth Amendment" and "Hollywood Ten" before you start down the road of claiming someone who takes the Fifth must be guilty of something.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

'On this 25th anniversary of the Falklands War, Tony Blair is looking less like Margaret Thatcher and alarmingly like Jimmy Carter, the embodiment of the soi-disant "superpower" as a smiling eunuch.'

Which is how, I suspect, Waxman looks to Condi.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | April 01, 2007 at 12:09 PM

I don't know that I've seen Waxman smile much.

[Semanticleo]

"I know that ultimately the congress has subpoena power, which I think is rarely used."

And that means what? I mean if the 'Prez decides on confrontation, (doubtful, commenter above is correct that this is what
Rice is seeking, based upon her Noveau-Powellian reincarnation as Diplomat first, SabreRattler second) what con Congressdo?

Even Nixon abhorred such a scenario. I doubt this crew has that core respect for the system it supposedly serves.

[Semanticleo]

"Think of Enron's Andrew Fastow and Iran-Contra's Oliver North."

Nice cherry-pasting, Chaco. Sentence above is
the last sentence of graf you pasted.

"before you start down the road of claiming someone who takes the Fifth must be guilty of something."

Yes, I know how you grieve for the innocents
like Fastow and 'Ollie'.

[Other Tom]

"And that means what?" What it means, Cleo, is that the congress has subpoena power, and that I think it is rarely used. Pull your head out of your ass for once.

Since poor Cleo has expressly declined my invitation to shed some light on the groundrules in effect when such congressional requests are made, I will await commentary from an informed reader.

[Semanticleo]

"I will await commentary from an informed reader."

Since you do not qualify, I assume your comments will not be necessary.

[Cecil Turner]

I doubt this crew has that core respect for the system it supposedly serves.

Nonsense. What can Congress do?

Among other things:
1. Impeach
2. cut off funding
3. refuse to confirm officials
4. legislate

Of course, the most extreme measures require a 2/3 supermajority, but if Congress is united, it is by far the most powerful of the branches. Interestingly, while modern hand-wringing is almost entirely about the power of the Executive, it was limiting Congress that the Framers found most problematic (Federalist 51):

But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches . . .

[Terrye]

I hope Condi takes the fifth, I hope it becomes a mantra. I am already tired of this.

But hey, if they really want to go down that road they need to start dragging in Clinton adiministration people to answer these questions, after all that is where a lot of the intel came from.

And maybe Waxman should get a transcript of the speech before he starts running his mouth. There was nothing in that speech that was not true. In fact they did find several hundred of tons of yellowcake in Iraq, so the fact that Saddam might be laying out some feelers in Africa should not come as a surprise.

[SunnyDay]

I watched Waxman's hearing about GSA, and the interrogation of Lurita Doan - Waxman is really kind of funny, with his rat-face. I usually try to respect the office, but he's making it kinda difficult.

Now I'm hooked on hearings. I'm watching the replay of the Sampson questioning on c span now.

[Terrye]

This current tak that Congress is taking really does remind me of Joe McCarthy and his claims that there were commies everywhere. For awhile he was a big man, but then after sometime of making accusations that never really panned out and interrogating all kinds of people who took the fifth as a form of public protest...the tide turned and the Republicans dealt with him themselves. But in the meantime he made life as difficult as he could for Truman.

I think of Waxman as a cross between the Church Lady and McCarthy.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Yes, I know how you grieve for the innocents
like Fastow and 'Ollie'.

Its bad enough you don't know who the Hollywood Ten were; the fact that you didn't google them after I gave you the freaking hint is just unutterably moronic.

[Semanticleo]

Nonsense.

Most federal judges encourage the two parties
to reach an accommodation. It has never been tested to recalcitrant scofflaws.

See PDF on case studies from 1975 to 1981.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL31836.pdf

[Semanticleo]

"Its bad enough you don't know who the Hollywood Ten were; the fact that you didn't google them after I gave you the freaking hint is just unutterably moronic."

You ASSume. What a maroon.

[sferris]

More Hearings, Please

When you have the majority in both Houses you can hold all the hearings you want. When Congress is back in session Waxman, Leahy, and Conyers are going to start holding more hearings. Yes, the hearings will be investigating Republicans. Pass the popcorn.

[Cecil Turner]

I hope Condi takes the fifth, I hope it becomes a mantra. I am already tired of this.

She ought to send a letter in reply, pointing out the numerous errors and fallacies in Waxman's invitation. She should then decline to appear, and tell him she'd be happy to get back with him after he reads the SSCI report and decides to start treating the subject seriously.

[Semanticleo]

"She should then decline to appear,"

Should Congress send military police to the WH and conduct a perpwalk?

[Terrye]

Cecil:

Yes she should. I am sure that he knows already, but it does not hurt to remind Wasman. Otherwise he will go right on looking stupid.

and sferris: Do they have the right to abuse it? I suppose so, I think the Republicans made a mistake impeaching Clinton, but I will say this the Democrats are proving they are not one bit better.

By the way, the Congress has an obligation to keep its promises. They promised to make gas cheap again. So where is my cheap gas? They promised to only raise taxes on the rich and now they are trying to pass the largest tax increase in history, on everyone...even the poor. And the list goes on. Believe it or not most Americans are more interested in their own lives and needs etc than they are in this endless idiotic cat fight.

[Semanticleo]

"Believe it or not most Americans are more interested in their own lives and needs etc than they are in this endless idiotic cat fight."

Yeah.. Nielson thugs force them to watch 'reality' TV at the point of a gun. They
don't like catfights. Sheesh.

[Terrye]

Cleo:

Oh yeah, people would love that.

I would like to see an investigation of Sandy Berger to find out just exactly what he destroyed. I would also like to see an investigation of the intel gathered through the Clinton years, the intel that was passed along to the Bush administration. If the Democrats really want to get at the truth, they need to go back to the source. Such as the 90's and the CIA.

[sferris]

More 5th Amendment Pleas, Please

"I hope Condi takes the fifth, I hope it becomes a mantra", and so do Democrats.

[Larry]

"...Joe McCarthy and his claims that there were commies everywhere."
Posted by: Terrye | April 01, 2007 at 02:37 PM There were commies and commie sympathisers everywhere. Alger Hiss was tried and convicted (of perjury because the statute of limitations for espionage had expired). His accuser, Whittaker Chambers, a reformed commie, had been his "handler". McCarthy's tactics were despicable, but his strategy was spot on. BTW, some conflate McCarthy and HUAC. H in HUAC is "house". Joe was a senator.

[roanoke]

section 9

Condi was taught by Madeliene Albright's father.

Speaking of ineptitude and the DOE how is it that everyone forgets all that went on there under Bill Richardson's watch?

Oh right there's that...

Speaking of Presidential candidates just to irk everyone at once Fred Thompson in some respects is reminding me of Bill Bradley...

Good Day Sirs!

[SunnyDay]

Terrye - that's funny.

The DUer's and MoveOn-er's said from the start they wanted to impeach Bush. A bloodless coup.

Not only that, the Dem's have no plan, no ideas, no nothing, except a desire for destruction and revenge.

Listening to Sampson - sounds like that boy's learned a hard lesson. What a comedy of errors. Sampson should have been kept and McNulty should have been fired, IMO.

[Semanticleo]

"I would like to see an investigation of Sandy Berger to find out just exactly what he destroyed. I would also like to see an investigation of the intel gathered through the Clinton years, the intel that was passed along to the Bush administration."

You'll have to wait until Republicans are the majority. That shouldn't take more than 40 to 50 years.

[SunnyDay]

Good Day Sirs!
*************

hehehe

[MikeS]

Should Congress send military police to the WH ...

That says it all.

[roanoke]

Terrye-

Well Sandy Berger has an auditory neuroma-so he's off to rehab with excuse in hand.

[SunnyDay]

Yeah, Mike, don't let them take your guns.

[Terrye]

Cleo:

That was stupid and you are missing my point. When the Democrats run on something like high gas prices and yammer on about how they are going to by God do something about that and then when they get into office the only damn thing they care about is harassing the hell out of Rove...that does not make people happy. They get tired of that. The American people by and large are under the impression that these people work for them..at least on some level and then when they blow off the constituents as soon as they are elected that kind of gets to people.

In the past it has worked that way eventually for most people. Look at the business with Clinton and how that effected the Republicans, it hurt them and McCarthy might have been riding high for awhile but he ended up shooting himself.

So there is a limited life span for that kind of thing. Especially if there is really nothing to show for it.

[Semanticleo]

"The American people by and large are under the impression that these people work for them"

I assume the 'Prez also works for them.

Do you think the 70% that oppose the war in Iraq will tire of the catfight as long as Bush ignores the people's will?

[sferris]

Demmocrats learned a lesson form Republican over-reach - no impeachment, investigate corruption and incompetence. It's working.

[bio mom]

The last Gallup Poll for congressional approval, just out last week, was at 29. The overall congressional approval average currently, reported at Real Clear Politics, is 30. Bush's poll numbers are higher!! I almost puked seeing that idiot Nancy Pelosi make her high and mighty remark to the President to calm down, there's a new Congress in town!! Like that means a president can no longer veto something?? She should be an embarassment to Democrats. I suspect behind the scenes she is. Rahm Emmanuel, a very smart and quite ruthless politician, obviously despises her.

[Terrye]

So is this all the Democrats are going to do for the next two years? Raise taxes and harass Republicans? Oh yeah, and pander to the terrorists, how could I forget?

So... I was talking to a friend and we tried to think of the last time someone on the left really helped anyone.

Bush did more for the people suffering from Aids in Africa. He did not posture and preen as much but in terms of real help, his administration has been more generous than any before have been.

I can not think of any people suffering under tyranny and dictatorship that they helped. In fact as a general rule they are far more likely to be on the side of the dictator than the oppressed.

Unless it is Pinochet. Pinochet is one of the few Latin American strong men the left have not reflexively pandered to.

But back in the good old days of the Cold War they loved Mao and Stalin and the Khmer Rouge and the Viet Cong.

The closest we could think of in terms of liberating someone would be Kosovo {and so far as I remember even when Republicans questioned the wisdom of the action, they never tried to sabotage it.}

The Civil Rights Movement was the closest I can think of domestically in recent years. However, look at how the people who inherited that movement have demagogued it and let down the people they professed to support.

No, all in all for all the self righteous, sanctimonious, preening and preaching the hypocrites of the left have a pretty sorry track record.

And now ofcourse after years of bitching about Saddam Hussein they have decided the butcher of Baghdad is a victim. Pitiful.

[MikeS]

I agree with Terrye. The public gets tired of these hearings when they become political shows.

So far the A.G. scandal is the most serious of the Bush Presidency. That one seems to boil down to Sampson describing a glass as half full, when Gonzales had described it has half empty.