Hoorah! Ex-Rove aide called back to the Hill

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) has asked Sara Taylor, the former top aide to Karl Rove in the White House, to return to Capitol Hill for a deposition next week.

Taylor complied with a Congressional subpoena and appeared last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify in the investigation of the firing of 8 US Attorneys. Now, Waxman is suggesting that Taylor might be implicated in politicizing government programs that Waxman has called 'historically nonpartisan.'

Waxman, the Oversight Committee's chair, was particularly critical of the White House appearing to deploy the nation's 'drug control czar' and his staff in the Office of National Drug Control Policy to Republican Congressional campaign events.

"As the nation's drug czar, Director [John] Walters has the responsibility to oversee the federal government's domestic and international drug control efforts," he wrote in the Tuesday letter. "It is hard to understand how his ability to perform this essential function would be enhanced by extensive taxpayer-funded travel to 'god awful places' to appear with vulnerable Republican members."

Waxman's reference to 'god awful places' pointed to an e-mail written by Douglas Simon, the White House's drug control liaison, who praised the ONDCP for helping out on Congressional campaigns.

The California Democrat went on to suggest that the trips might not be completely in keeping with existing laws.

"In the case of ONDCP, in particular, the politicization described in the documents appears inconsistent with the agency's tradition of nonpartisanship," he argued. "In 1994, Congress passed legislation to insulate the drug czar and the agency's Senate-confirmed deputies from political pressures by prohibiting them from engaging in political activities even on their own time."

In the letter, four Republican Congressmembers are identified as having received campaign-related visits from the ONDCP: Rep. Jim Gibbons of Nevada; Senator Jim Talent of Missouri; Jon Porter, also of Nevada; and, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona.

Talent was defeated in his 2006 re-election campaign. Gibbons now serves as Nevada Governor, and is reportedly under federal investigation for bribery accusations.

The letter went on to suggest that the White House was attempting to use government machinery for purely political ends.

"Evidence is mounting that White House efforts to inject political considerations into official government business extend beyond the Department of Justice and the General Services Administration," Waxman wrote to Taylor. "Your memo to ONDCP details an extensive itinerary of pre-election travel, including 20 events with vulnerable Republican members. It appears that even historically nonpartisan federal agencies like ONDCP were expected to use federal resources to assist endangered Republican members."

Waxman asked Taylor to voluntarily appear before the committee's staff for a July 24 deposition. He also suggested that additional topics might be raised in the deposition.

"You may also be asked questions at the deposition about other subjects being investigated by the Committee, including the use of RNC e-mail accounts by White House officials and White House political briefings to federal agency officials," he noted, adding that the committee was planning a July 30 hearing.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Henery Waxman: Bush and Cheney Deserve Contempt they Are Receiving

...and that contempt is just starting to boil over, Mr. Waxman.

Pity the poor soul that gets caught in the way of the fury to come.

Chairman Waxman on President Bush’s Decision to Commute

July 2nd, 2007 by Karina

Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman released the following statement on President Bush’s commutation of Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s prison sentence today:

Former President Bush once said: “I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.”

That’s exactly what happened to Valerie Wilson. Her identity was revealed, putting her, her family, and our country at risk.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney deserve the widespread contempt they are receiving for this indefensible decision. The Libby commutation makes a mockery of our judicial system and our most fundamental values.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Waxman Nails W.H. On Security Lapses

Seems there is far more to this than Cheney just being a butthead, and Waxman aims to get to the bottom of it.

Meanwhile, Bush and Cheney just hope to run out the clock. Unless formal impeachment hearings are begun, they are liley to get away with it.

I wonder if anyone in Washington remembers what happened to Gerald Ford when he pardoned Nixon and let him get away with behavior that wasn't much compared to what Cheney and Bush have done.

Chairman Waxman Writes to White House Counsel Fielding on Security Violations

June 26th, 2007 by Jesse Lee

Chairman Henry Waxman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, who produced the initial report on Vice President Cheney’s disregard for rules governing the handling of classified information, has written has a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding indicating that contrary to the recent claims of White House spokesperson Dana Perino, there is evidence that the White House has repeatedly failed to investigate security violations, take corrective action following breaches, and appropriately protect classified information.
The full letter (pdf):

June 26, 2007
The Honorable Fred FieldingCounsel to the President
The White House1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Fielding:

Last week, I wrote the Vice President about evidence that he violated Executive Order 12958 by blocking the National Archives from conducting security inspections in his office. In response, White House spokesperson Dana Perino said: “The president and the vice president are complying with all the rules and regulations regarding the handling of classified material and making sure that it is safeguarded and protected.” She asserted that the only part of Executive Order 12958 that was not being followed by the White House and the Vice President’s office was the “small portion” giving oversight responsibilities to the Information Security Oversight Office of the National Archives.

I have received information that casts doubt on these assertions. There is evidence that both the White House and the Office of the Vice President have flaunted multiple requirements for protecting classified information, not just the section related to the responsibilities of the Information Security Oversight Office. According to current and former White House security personnel who have contacted my staff, White House practices have been dangerously inadequate with respect to investigating security violations, taking corrective action following breaches, and physically securing classified information.

I have received information that:

• White House security officials have been blocked from inspecting West Wing offices for compliance with procedures for handling classified information. The White House has its own security office that functions independently of the Information Security Oversight Office in the National Archives. According to several security officials who have worked in this White House office, the Bush White House blocked the White House security officers from conducting unannounced inspections of the West Wing. This is a departure from the practices of the prior administration, which allowed these inspections.

• The White House regularly ignored security breaches. The security officers described repeated instances in which security breaches were reported to the White House Security Office by Secret Service or CIA agents, but were never investigated. In one case, the White House Security Office took no action after receiving a report that a White House official left classified materials unattended in a hotel room. In numerous instances, reports that White House officials left classified information on their desks went uninvestigated.

• The President’s top political advisor received a renewal of his security clearance despite presidential directives calling for the denial of security clearances for officials who misrepresent their involvement in security leaks. Under guidelines issued by President Bush, security clearances should not be renewed for individuals who deny their role in the release of classified information, regardless of whether the disclosure was intentional or negligent. Contrary to this guidance, the White House Security Office renewed the security clearance for Karl Rove in late 2006.

• The White House has condoned widespread mismanagement at the White House Security Office. According to the White House security officers, the White House allowed the White House Security Office to be run by managers who ignored basic security procedures and allowed other White House officials to do so also.

The Oversight Committee has been seeking to interview or take the deposition of White House officials with knowledge of these security matters since I wrote to former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card about them in April. While I do not question your good faith in seeking to negotiate the terms of these interviews, further delay would not be in the interests of the nation. I am therefore writing to advise you that unless we are able to schedule these interviews promptly, I will bring before the Committee on Thursday, June 28, a motion to subpoena the relevant officials for depositions.

Background

I wrote to Vice President Cheney last week regarding his decision to exempt himself from the President’s executive order that establishes a uniform, government-wide system for safeguarding classified information. In response to my letter, White House spokesperson Dana Perino explained that the Vice President is complying with most sections of the executive order, stating: “There’s no question that he is in compliance, in terms of the meat of the issue, which is … the handling of classified documents. It’s just simply a matter of a small portion of an executive order regarding reporting requirements, of which he is not subject to, and the interpretation of the EO.”

Ms. Perino repeatedly reiterated this point, stating: “The President and the Vice President are complying with all the rules and regulations regarding the handling of classified material and are making sure that it is safeguarded and protected,” “the Vice President’s Office says that they are in compliance, and I can tell you on behalf of the President that we are in compliance, with all matters regarding classified information,” and “I don’t think there’s a question of the handling of the documents. There’s a question of the reporting. In the handling of the documents, we are confident that we are in full compliance.”

These statements do not appear to be accurate. After the Committee’s hearing in March into the disclosure of the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, several former and current employees of the White House Security Office informed my staff of multiple White House violations of the rules for safeguarding classified information. If their statements are true, the White House has repeatedly disregarded basic requirements for protecting our national security secrets.

Blocking Inspections by White House Security Officials

Last week, White House spokesperson Dana Perino asserted that the Information Security Oversight Office in the National Archives “is not the only agency that can check” whether White House offices are in compliance with the security procedures established by the President’s executive order. On this issue, Ms. Perino is right. Within the Executive Office of the President, there is a White House Security Office that is supposed to ensure that all White House officials comply with the requirements for protecting classified information.

What Ms. Perino did not mention is that former and current employees of the White House Security Office have informed my staff that they have been blocked from conducting inspections in the West Wing of the White House, where most of the President’s most senior advisors work.
Under Executive Order 12958, every entity in the executive branch that handles classified information is supposed to have a security office that administers the classified information program. The White House Security Office fills this role in the White House, overseeing White House compliance with the order. Its responsibilities under the executive order and implementing regulations and guidance include issuing security clearances, conducting security education and training programs, and maintaining an ongoing self-inspection program.

During the previous administration, security specialists working for the White House Security Office were given access to all White House offices, including those in the West Wing. According to the security officers, this access was revoked by the Bush Administration. As a result, only the senior management of the White House Security Office (such as the Director and Deputy Director) retained the authority to enter the West Wing without advance notice to and assistance from West Wing personnel. The security officers objected to the loss of access, but Security Office management denied their requests to restore access to the West Wing.

The denial of access to the West Wing has serious adverse effects, according to the security officers. The officers report that they and other security officers working in the White House Security Office do not have the ability to perform basic security functions, such as conducting unannounced inspections of West Wing offices. The result is that security violations are disclosed only when the incidents are self-reported by the violators or happen to be noticed and reported by Secret Service or other officials with access to the West Wing.

Ignoring Security Violations

The security officers also described a systemic breakdown in procedures for responding to reports of security violations in the West Wing. The officers identified multiple instances of security breaches that were reported to the White House Security Office by concerned officials, such as Secret Service agents, but ignored by the White House Security Office. According to the security officers, the practice within the White House Security Office was not to document or investigate violations occurring in the West Wing or to take corrective action.

This failure to respond to reports of security breaches would appear to be a direct violation of Executive Order 12958. Under the executive order, one of the fundamental responsibilities of security offices is to investigate reported security breaches and “take appropriate and prompt corrective action.”

The security officers provided several examples of White House security breaches that were never investigated by the White House Security Office. One high-profile example cited by the officials was the failure of the White House to initiate its own investigation into the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson’s covert identity. It took months before a criminal investigation into this breach was initiated by the Justice Department. Yet according to the security officers, no White House investigation into the breach was initiated during this critical period.

In another example described to my staff, a junior White House aide reported that a senior assistant to the President improperly disclosed “Sensitive Compartmented Information” to the junior aide, even though the aide had no security clearance. Although SCI is the highest level of security classification, the White House Security Office took no steps to investigate or take corrective action.

In a third example, a security officer reported that a White House official left classified material behind in a hotel room during a foreign trip with the President. Although the CIA recovered the material and reported the incident, the White House Security Office did not investigate, seek remedial action, or discipline the responsible official.

The security officers also described numerous examples of White House officials failing to physically secure classified information within the White House in accordance with applicable security requirements. The officers related that they had received numerous reports of White House officials leaving classified information out on their desks, rather than in secure locations. Yet according to the officers, the White House Security Office made no effort to investigate these violations or implement any remedial actions.

Renewal of Karl Rove’s Security Clearance

On March 16, 2007, I wrote to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten to ask about the renewal of Karl Rove’s security clearance. You wrote back on April 16, 2007, to say that Mr. Rove did undergo a review for the renewal of his security clearance last year. According to your letter:

My office has confirmed that these processes and security clearance renewals continued uninterrupted for all White House officials, including for Karl Rove. Although Mr. Knodell testified he had no “first-hand knowledge” of whether a reinvestigation of Mr. Rove’s security clearance was initiated, my office has confirmed that it was initiated. Upon conclusion of the reinvestigation process in late 2006, Mr. Rove’s security clearance was continued by the Office of Security and not altered in any respect.

This renewal of Mr. Rove’s security clearance would appear to be another example of a questionable White House security practice. Under guidelines approved by President Bush in 2005, the “deliberate or negligent disclosure” of classified information can be a “disqualifying” condition. Moreover, these guidelines provide that an individual’s response to a potential security breach may be just as important as the breach itself. Under the guidelines, a lack of candor, even about unintentional breaches, can be grounds for terminating access to classified information.

Under these standards, it is hard to see how Mr. Rove would qualify for a renewal of his security clearance. At a minimum, his disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s status as a CIA officer would appear to be a disqualifying “negligent” disclosure under the executive order. In addition, he told White House spokesman Scott McClellan in September 2003 that there was “no truth” to the allegations that he was involved in the disclosure of Ms. Plame’s identity. This misrepresentation would appear to be an independent ground under the President’s guidelines for denying his clearance renewal.

Mismanagement of the White House Security Office

Another area of concern involves the management of the White House Security Office itself. The current and former security officials reported that James Knodell, who until recently was the Director of the White House Security Office, and Ken Greeson, the Deputy Director, routinely violated basic security guidelines. They also said that these officials were poor managers who were loath to assert authority over White House security practices or to take actions that could embarrass White House officials.

One example cited by the officials involved security procedures in the White House sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF). The security officers said that Mr. Knodell and Mr. Greeson habitually brought their Blackberry devices and cell phones into the SCIF in the White House Security Office in violation of the rules. The officials said that Mr. Knodell and Mr. Greeson also allowed others, such as visiting White House personnel, to bring their Blackberries and cell phones into the SCIF. According to the officials, these improper practices were allowed to continue even after security officers repeatedly informed Mr. Knodell and Mr. Greeson that the practices violated security rules and set a poor example.

According to the security officers, the poor management and bad examples set by Mr. Knodell and Mr. Greeson caused extreme frustration and plummeting morale among White House security officers, resulting in the departure of more than half of the White House security officers within the last year.

Request for Interviews

I wrote to former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card about many of these issues on April 23, 2007, when I urged Mr. Card to appear voluntarily before the Committee to address inadequate White House security procedures. In your letter to me on April 24, 2007, and in subsequent meetings, you proposed that the Committee first interview lower-ranking White House officials. You expressed the hope that these interviews could “obviate the need to further consider your request for Mr. Card’s appearance.”

I do not doubt your good faith in proposing that the Committee consider interviews with other White House officials before seeking testimony from Mr. Card. But it has now been over two months and the Committee still has not been able to arrange an interview with Alan Swendiman, the Director of the Office of Administration; Mark Frownfelter, a former White House security officer; and Jeff Thompson, the former Director of the White House Security Office. This continued delay is impeding the Committee’s inquiry and is not in the nation’s interest.

I respectfully request that the interviews that the Committee has been seeking be scheduled without further delay. If this cannot be accomplished, I will recommend to the Committee the issuance of subpoenas at our next business meeting, which is currently scheduled for June 28.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me or ask your staff to contact Michael Gordon or David Rapallo of the Committee staff at (202) 225-5420.

Sincerely,
Henry A. WaxmanChairman
cc: Tom DavisRanking Minority Member
Footnotes and citations available here (pdf) >>

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Plame Memo Requested by Waxman. This is getting good

Anyone who doesn't know where this is going, hasn't been paing attention.

The Niger forgeries will lead right to the office of Vice.

Impeach Cheney!

Waxman Threatens to Subpoena CIA's Plame Documents

By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t Report
Monday 14 May 2007

Congressman Henry Waxman, the Democratic chairman of the House Government Affairs and Oversight Committee, has threatened to use his subpoena power to obtain documents from the CIA related to events five years ago in which former Ambassador Joseph Wilson was chosen to travel to Niger to probe allegations that Iraq was trying to obtain yellowcake uranium from the African country.

In a letter sent Friday to CIA Director Michael Hayden, a copy of which was obtained by Truthout, Waxman said he wants the spy agency to declassify a February 12, 2002 memo and turn it over to his committee, which is vigorously investigating lax security measures in the White House that led senior members of the Bush administration to disseminate classified information about Plame's undercover CIA status to the media. Waxman set a May 18 deadline for the CIA to turn over the materials.

"On March 26, Chairman Waxman sent you a letter requesting documents relating to the accuracy of testimony by an unnamed [counter proliferation division (CPD)] reports officer cited in the Senate report," states the letter sent to Hayden, which is signed by Waxman and the Oversight Committee's ranking minority member Tom Davis (R-Virginia). "According to Ms. Wilson's testimony, information provided to the Senate by this CPD reports officer was 'twisted and distorted' to support the inaccurate claim that Ms. Wilson had suggested her husband ... for the mission."

"Ms. Wilson told the committee that the CPD reports officer drafted a memo to correct the record, but the CIA did not allow him to send it," Waxman's letter further added. "She also told the committee that the officer asked to be re-interviewed by the Senate, but the CIA denied this request."

Joseph Wilson is the husband of former covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, whose undercover status was disclosed in a newspaper column in July 2003, days after her husband wrote an op-ed in The New York Times accusing the White House of "twisting" pre-war Iraq intelligence.

Plame Wilson, who broke her long-standing public silence and testified before Waxman's committee in March, said she had nothing to do with selecting her husband for the fact-finding mission to Niger. In her testimony, Plame Wilson told members of Congress that a report issued in 2004 by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence claiming that she was behind her husband's trip was untrue.

Plame Wilson said the Senate committee received a "twisted and distorted" report by an unnamed officer in her division who claimed Plame Wilson was responsible for her husband's trip to Niger. Portions of the CIA officer's memo were quoted in the Senate Intelligence Committee report and suggested that Wilson's trip was a boondoggle set up by Plame.

The CIA's public affairs officer did not return calls for comment. But according to the letter Waxman sent to Hayden, the CIA's director of congressional affairs, Christopher Walker, told Waxman's staff on May 3 that any documents the Oversight Committee needs pertaining to Ambassador Wilson's trip should be addressed to the House and Senate's Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Those "are our oversight committees," Walker wrote, responding to Waxman and Davis's request for documents. So, "Any further questions ... should be addressed to those committees."

Waxman said Walker's position is wrong. The Oversight Committee, he said, "may conduct investigations of any matter." The House and Senate Intelligence Committees review and study the sources and methods of gathering intelligence. Waxman said his committee is not trying to undertake an investigation into the way the CIA gathers intelligence and, therefore, should be provided with the documents requested.

Waxman's committee "is seeking to assess whether there is any truth to the allegations that Ms. Wilson showed favoritism toward Ambassador Wilson, and whether the CIA interfered with the efforts of a federal employee to communicate with a Congressional committee to correct distortions of the employee's statements."

"We cannot accept the position espoused by Mr. Walker that the committee lacks oversight jurisdiction over the matters we are investigating," Waxman wrote. "Please provide the committee, no later than Friday, May 18," the classified memo related to Ambassador Wilson's trip. "If we have not received a satisfactory response by that date we will begin the process of invoking compulsory process."

In his recently published memoir, "At the Center of the Storm," former CIA Director George Tenet, Plame Wilson's boss, led readers to believe that Plame Wilson was partially responsible for sending her husband to Niger. Tenet, who devotes just five pages of his 549-page tome to the leak of Plame Wilson's covert status, and is somewhat critical of Ambassador Wilson's public criticism of the administration, said the genesis of Wilson's trip to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq was attempting to acquire uranium - the key ingredient in building an atomic bomb - was suggested because the former ambassador had assisted the counter-proliferation division on a similar investigation in the past.

"How did this trip happen?" Tenet asked in his book. "Several [CIA] briefers received questions not only from the vice president, but also from the State Department and the [Department of Defense] about a February 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency report that first raised the possibility of Iraq having sought uranium from Niger. Someone had the idea that Joe Wilson might be a good candidate to look into the matter. He helped [counter-proliferation] on a project once before and he'd be easy to contact because his wife worked" at the CIA's counter-proliferation division.

The claims that Iraq sought uranium from Niger are also the subject of a separate investigation Waxman has been pursuing for the past few months. The congressman wants to know how the allegations about Iraq's pursuit of uranium from the African country made its way into President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address. The intelligence that the uranium allegations was based on - widely referred to as the "16 words" - turned out to be forged documents. Numerous media reports and documents have stated that certain high-level White House officials knew the intelligence was flawed, but cited it anyway in order to win support for a US-led invasion of Iraq.

The Niger-uranium issue, which the administration cited as fact, led former Ambassador Wilson to pen his op-ed in The New York Times in July 2003, stating that the White House was deliberately misleading the public, and that he had first-hand evidence to back up his claims because he personally traveled to Niger to investigate and found reports about Iraq's purported interest in uranium to be baseless. Wilson's op-ed led some administration officials to retaliate against the former ambassador by leaking his wife's name and undercover status with the CIA to the media, and suggesting that because he was married to Plame Wilson, the trip was the result of nepotism.

Waxman has subpoenaed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to compel her to testify about her role in the "16 words" controversy. Specifically, Waxman wants Rice to testify about whether she knew in advance that the intelligence was false. Rice said she would not honor the subpoena. For more than four years, Rice has said she could not recall receiving any oral or written warnings from the CIA about Iraq's interest in uranium from Niger as being unreliable. But Tenet said he personally warned Rice in late 2002 that the Niger claims were bogus. Still, despite the previous warnings Rice was given, she penned an op-ed on January 23, 2003, five days after Bush's State of the Union address, claiming that Iraq was actively trying "to get uranium from abroad."

Waxman has also asked Tenet to testify about the Niger allegations. On Monday, Tenet agreed to testify before Waxman's committee on June 19.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Tenet Will Testify Regarding Niger Forgeries

I'm a little suspicious of Mr. Tenet, for obvious reasons.

In addition to the obvious ones, there is this: I doubt seriously that Tenet knows the whole story on the Niger forgeries. I doubt that anyone outside the White House, who was in government at the time, knows the whole story.

If Tenet knew where the bodies are buried on this, he would still be at the CIA, just like Gonzales is still at the DOJ.

Much like the anthrax attacks, the Bush government has shown no interest in getting to the bottom of it: The say they were fooled by the Niger documents. Given that those documents were crudely forged, one would think they would be livid.

Memo to Mr. Tenet: You had better be prepared to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Nothing less will do now.

Tenet Agrees to Cooperate With Congressional Investigation Into Niger Fraud

ThinkProgress.org
Monday 14 May 2007

Former CIA Director George Tenet has agreed to cooperate with a House investigation into the White House's fraudulent pre-war claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger for a nuclear weapon. That assertion - the infamous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address - was a critical part of the administration's case for war.

In a new statement, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) announced that Tenet will provide a deposition on the issue and testify before the committee on June 19:


Today Chairman Henry A. Waxman announced that the Oversight Committee will postpone the hearing with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from May 15, 2007, to June 19, 2007. The hearing is being postponed to allow former CIA Director George Tenet to testify with Secretary Rice and to accommodate Secretary Rice's travel schedule.

Mr. Tenet has agreed to cooperate with the Committee's inquiry into whether the White House overstated Iraq's efforts to obtain uranium from Africa and its nuclear threat in making the case for war. Mr. Tenet has agreed to provide a deposition to the Committee prior to the hearing.

Under Tenet, the CIA had debunked the claims about uranium and Niger months before the '03 State of the Union. The CIA "even demanded it be taken out of two previous presidential speeches." Tenet now says the 16 words made it into the State of the Union because he delegated the review of that speech to his deputies.

Tenet has been far more willing to discuss the Niger claims than Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Waxman has been forced to subpoena Rice to appear at the hearing along with Tenet, and thus far Rice maintains she will not comply, claiming she has already answered Waxman's questions "in full."

Also, last month, the State Department refused to allow intelligence analyst Simon Dodge to be interviewed by House investigators; weeks before the '03 State of the Union, Simon examined the documents supposedly from Niger and determined they were "probably a hoax" and "clearly a forgery."


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Waxman Memo: Looking For Rover Emails

Let's hope that Waxman hasn't forgotten Harriet Miers, queen of the Bush personality cult.


The House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform has reportedly sent a memo to federal agencies giving them a specific 9-step process for locating emails regarding Karl Rove and other White House aides. The memo was distributed by email on April 20th.

The memo, which was sent by Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), instructed federal agents to search through 6 years of emails.

"The search should include any e-mails received or sent by any covered agency official after January 20, 2001 and before April 12, 2007," said the memo, a copy of which was obtained by the Examiner.

The oversight committee is specifically searching for emails sent via gwb43.com, georgewbush.com and rnchq.org accounts, which are Internet domain names registered to the Republican National Committee or Bush-Cheney '04, Inc.

The committee is investigating whether White House staffers violated the Presidential Records Act by using outside email accounts that would not be archived by government email servers.

The memo "specifically mentions 15 people in whom the committee is particularly interested.

They include Rove, former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, and 13 other current and former White House aides," reports the Examiner.

"For each covered agency official, the search should include the official's e-mail account, any archive of e-mail account including printed e-mails where appropriate, servers, and any backup tape or other backup media containing e-mails to or from the official," Waxman wrote in the memo.

On April 25th the Committee voted to subpoena RNC chairman Mike Duncan to appear before the Committee to testify on the use of RNC email accounts. The subpoena called for Duncan to testify on May 8th.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Throw Her Butt In Jail, For Contempt of Congress.

Who the hell does this woman think she is, anyhow?

Rice will not comply with House subpoena
By Klaus Marre
April 29, 2007


U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made it clear Sunday that she does not plan to comply with a subpoena that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee authorized this week.Panel Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) wants Rice to testify on the administration’s false claim that Iraq was seeking to acquire uranium from Niger. The congressman feels that Rice has not been responsive enough to repeated written requests for information on the issue.

However, the Secretary of State, when asked by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos why she would not comply with the subpoena to make her case, said that at issue is a separation of powers issue. Rice was making the rounds on the Sunday talk shows to discuss the war in Iraq and the subpoena.“I respect the oversight role of Congress, and I’m perfectly willing to continue to try to answer whatever questions Chairman Waxman may have about this very thoroughly investigated issue,” Rice said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Waxman strongly disagrees with Rice’s claim that she has been answering his questions. Prior to the authorization of the subpoena, the lawmaker said he has written several letters to Rice in order to find out more about the “fabricated Niger plan,” adding that he did not receive the first response until March of this year.“Since then, I have received two additional letters,” Waxman said Wednesday. “The gist of the letters is that the Secretary either didn’t know about the forged evidence or forgot what she knew. Her staff has also suggested that the Secretary is too busy to answer these questions.”

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free