Does Rep. Waxman have CondiLIAR Rice on the ropes?

[JohnyCanuck]

Published today on Rupperts fromthewilderness web site an article entitled "Rep. Henry Waxman Tightens the Evidentiary Noose Around Nat'l Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. Cheney Being Pulled Into the Quicksand" comments on a July 29 letter from Rep Henry Waxman to CondiLIAR Rice asking her some pointed questions as to her role and the role of Big Dick Cheney regarding the woppers she and Dubya were telling about Niger uranium and Saddam's potential to be a nuclear threat. He also published the text of the letter as well.

History will record that it was Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Ca) who laid the meticulous groundwork for the unraveling of the Bush Administration. As the White House acts as if the Iraqi evidence scandal is over, the reality is that the quicksand of lies is getting more dangerous and more focused. The kind of work done by Waxman in this meticulous research is exactly the kind of work FTW has done from its inception; the factual comparison of government documents and official statements, against what is prepared and offered for public consumption, against the actual actions of the guilty. It has been the research style of all of our post-9/11 reporting. This is the way prosecutors demolish dishonest witnesses on the stand. This is the way that the truth is made undeniable.

As time will tell, it is also the kind of research and writing against which there is no defense. It works. The only thing required for its success is that those engaging in it persist and that they have access to a public forum where the work cannot be ignored. As Rice is lined up as one of the "President's Men" to take the next fall, Dick Cheney moves ever more certainly into the crosshairs of history.

While this is all good news, it is not cause for celebration. The more subtle neoliberal methodology waiting to replace the blatant, neoconservative Bush Reich will still pursue the same goals and move inexorably in the same directions. It is, however, in the transition where our greatest opportunities for real change await. – MCR

He then publishes a copy of the letter from Waxman to CondiLIAR.

Dear Dr. Rice:

On June 10, 2003, I wrote to you to seek answers to basic questions regarding the Bush Administration's repeated claims that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. I asked why you claimed on national television that no White House officials "knew that there were doubts and suspicions" about these claims when both the CIA and the State Department's intelligence bureau had raised significant concerns with White House officials prior to the President's State of the Union address. I also wanted to know who in the Administration had expressed doubts about the information, who had been briefed on those concerns, and what role Vice President Cheney or his office played in this matter.

To date, I have received no response to these inquiries. Therefore, I am writing to renew my request that you answer these questions and provide the information requested.

In addition, since my June 10, 2003, letter to you, there have been a number of significant new developments. The conflict between your statements and those of your deputy, Stephen Harley, raise new issues about what you knew about the discredited uranium claim and whether you and other White House officials have sought to mislead the public about this matter. Moreover, the newly released National Intelligence Estimate contains an inexplicable sentence about the uranium claim. I ask that you respond to additional questions about these developments.

<snip>

I therefore request answers to the following questions:

(1) What role, if any, did you and your staff play in drafting, editing, reviewing, or approving the uranium statement in the NIE before it was delivered to Congress?

(2) What role, if any, did officials from the Department of Defense play in drafting, editing, reviewing, or approving the uranium statement in the NIB before it was delivered to Congress?

(3) What role, if any, did the Vice President or his staff play in drafting, editing, reviewing, or approving the uranium statement in the NIB before it was delivered to Congress?

(4) Based on your investigation of this matter since it was revealed that the Niger documents were forgeries, how do you explain that the uranium statement was included in the NIB in such strong terms, while the CIA simultaneously objected to the claim in the British dossier, in memos to you and your staff, and in a telephone conversation to your deputy?

(5) You highlighted the claim that Iraq sought uranium from foreign countries in your January 23, 2003, op ed piece for the New York Times. The op ed was titled "Why We Know Iraq Is Lying," and the first example you gave of Iraq's deceptions was that Iraq's arms declaration "fails to account for or explain Iraq's efforts to get uranium from abroad."8

(a) Did you discuss with Mr. Hadley or did Mr. Hadley review the inclusion of the uranium claim in your January 23, 2003, New York Times op ed piece at any time during the preparation of the piece? If so, describe the content of such discussions or review.

(b) Did you discuss the inclusion of the uranium claim in your January 23, 2003, op ed with any other National Security Council staff, National Security Council members, officials from the CIA, the State Department, or the Department of Defense, or anyone else during the preparation of the piece? Please name all individuals with whom you had such discussions and describe the content of the discussions.

(c) Please describe all the evidence on which you based the uranium claim in your op ed.

If you want to read more, click here


Note to mods. Ruppert gives permission to reproduce his free articles for non-profit purposes.