Having Condi for Lunch

Condi took a trip up the Hill on Thursday to testify in front of Representative Waxman's Oversight committee about the State Departments massive failures mismanaging Iraq and concealing relevant information from Congress.

Like the fictional five-year-old Alexander, she had a terrible, horrible, no-good, very-bad day.

She was visibly frustrated and on the defensive as she was questioned about the lack of control over the mercenary forces under contract to the State Department, as well as corruption at the highest levels of the Iraqi government. They also grilled her extensively about the myriad problems with the still-unfinished embassy project.

She became visibly frustrated at several points, including one intense exchange with Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) about allegations of corruption that have been leveled against Nuri Kemal al-Maliki, the U.S. Puppet Prime Minister, who kaiboshed corruption investigations in April, when he decreed that all cabinet-level corruption investigations would only proceed with his approval. Critics say this amounts to blanket immunity for al-Maliki and his ministers.)

The most surreal moment of the whole spectacle had to be when Rice, pressed repeatedly to say whether she thought al-Maliki was covering up fraud and abuse, said she would not respond to rumors.

"To assault the prime minister of Iraq or anyone else in Iraq with here-to-date unsubstantiated allegations or lack of corroboration, in a setting that would simply fuel those allegations, I think, would be deeply damaging."

What a difference five years make, I guess.

In the run-up to the invasion, she had no qualms peddling "unsubstantiated allegations" to pave the way to invade the country and overthrow the government and unleash chaos. I'm not sure just how much more deeply the bitch could damage that country.

After it was over, Waxman was blunt in his assessment of her testimony. "I think there was a huge gap between what she said and reality."

--BG

There's more: "Having Condi for Lunch" >>

I wonder what precipitated this?

After years of blowing off requests by Henry Waxman to appear before the Oversight Committee, which he has chaired since the 110th congress was seated in January, Condi has finally acquiesced.

I noticed this morning when I checked the committee schedule that the following entry had been quietly added:

Upcoming Hearings and Meetings

Hearing with Secretary Rice on Iraq

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Thursday, October 25, 2007, 10:00 AM at 2154 Rayburn House Office Building

I've been on pins and needles, awaiting this with bated breath.

But why the sudden change of heart after all this time? Rice's MO has been blatant contempt for Oversight, refusing to acknowledge that Representative Waxman's committee even has the right to question her.

I wonder if Henry let her now on the sly that he tired of her shenanigans, and if she didn't climb down off her high-horse, she would find herself hauled in front of the committee by the Sergeant of Arms? I can't imagine she had a Constantine-type conversion on a bridge.

--BG

There's more: "I wonder what precipitated this?" >>

Condi Continues her Contempt for Congress & Oversight

Representative Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, on Tuesday leveled charges that Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has interfered with congressional investigations into corruption by the Iraqi government; as well as the activities of the mercenary security outfit Blackwater USA.

State Department officials have repeatedly told the Oversight Committee that details of corruption in the Iraqi government could not be provided to the committee because the information is treated as a “state secret” and can not be revealed to the public (nor, apparently to our elected representatives).

"You are wrong to interfere with the committee's inquiry," Waxman said in a letter to Rice. "The State Department's position on this matter is ludicrous," added Waxman, a vocal opponent of the Bush administration's Iraq policies.

(Keep Reading)

The State Department did not comment on the letter or Waxman’s comments, but in the past, Rice’s State Department has blown off the requests of the committee, and attempted to dismiss Waxman as “partisan” and inconsequential.

In the case of Blackwater, which was involved in an apparently unprovoked attack on civilians that left at least 11 civilians dead, the company insists that, as they contract their mercenaries to provide security for State Department employees in Iraq, they can not hand over documents and cooperate with Congress without prior approval of the State Department, which will not give it.

"Congress has a constitutional prerogative to examine the impacts that corruption within the Iraqi ministries and the activities of Blackwater may have on the prospects for political reconciliation in Iraq," Waxman wrote to Rice.

Along with the latest letter Waxman wrote to Rice and released to the press, a letter from the State Deparment’s Contracting Officer, Kiazan Moneypenny, to Blackwater, which confirms the obstruction Waxman accuses the State Department of engaging in: "I hereby direct Blackwater to make no disclosure of documents or information ... unless such disclosure has been authorized in writing by the contracting officer." Undeterred by the stonewalling, Waxman has scheduled a hearing on the Blackwater matter for October 2.

Rice has been overtly contemptuous of congressional oversight, ignoring requests to appear before committees, answer questions or even acknowledge that Congress indeed has a legitimate oversight role. With her star waning, and her influence in the White House virtually nil, might she find herself escorted before the committee by the Sergeant of Arms of the House?

There's more: "Condi Continues her Contempt for Congress & Oversight" >>

Waxman Investigating the IG for State

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform charged today in a 13-page letter that Howard J. Krongard, the Inspector General for the State Department has exhibited a persistent tendency to censor reports that might embarrass the administration, and has repeatedly thwarted investigations of the State Department. The letter was signed by Chairman Henry Waxman and released today by the committee.

The Oversight Committee based the charges on the testimony of seven current and former members of the IG’s staff, including two former senior officials who spoke on the record with no stipulation of anonymity. The letter clarifies that the charges are not limited to a single unit, but that the pattern is pervasive, affecting all three divisions of the IG’s office – audits, investigations and inspections.

…The letter charged that Krongard "interfered with ongoing investigations to protect the State Department and the White House from political embarrassment." It said that "your strong affinity with State Department leadership and your partisan political ties have led you to halt investigations, censor reports and refuse to cooperate with law enforcement agencies."

…Waxman accused Krongard of refusing to send investigators to Iraq and Afghanistan to investigate $3 billion worth of State Department contracts; preventing his investigators from cooperating with a Justice Department probe into waste and fraud in the construction of the U.S. embassy in Iraq; using "highly irregular" procedures to personally exonerate the embassy's prime contractor of labor abuses; interfering in the probe of a close friend of former White House adviser Karl Rove; censoring reports on embassies to prevent full disclosure to Congress; and refusing to publish critical audits of State's financial statements.

Inspectors General are supposed to be independent and objective investigators of waste, fraud and abuse, rather than ideology-driven agenda whores. Of course, the Bush maladministration has stood this notion on it’s head and applied a test of partisanship to everything. Prior to the appointment of Krongard, the IG for State had traditionally been a Foreign Service officer. Krongard was previously employed by an international law firm and had been general counsel for Deloitte & Touche

Emails of exchanges between staff members discussing Krongard’s decision to stonewall the Justice Department on the embassy investigation.

"Wow, as we all [k]now that is not the normal and proper procedure," an investigator wrote to Assistant IG John A. DeDona. DeDona forwarded the e-mail to the Deputy IG, William E. Todd, saying, "I have always viewed myself as a loyal soldier but hopefully you sense my frustration in my voicemail yesterday."

Todd wrote back: "I know you are very frustrated. John, you need to convey to the troops the truth, the IG told us both Tuesday to stand down on this and not assist, that needs to be the message."

DeDona responded: "Unfortunately, under the current regime, the view within INV [the office of investigations] is to keep working the BS cases within the beltway, and let us not rock the boat with more significant investigations."

The committee subpoenaed the work product for the embassy report which Krongard personally drafted, that exonerated the contractor building the new embassy in Iraq, First Kuwaiti General Trade and Contracting Co. The company was accused of horribly abusive labor practices, including holding employees against their will, but Krongard let First Kuwaiti off the hook with a mere six pages of vague, handwritten notes, showing that he interviewed only six employees – who were selected by First Kuwaiti. "Contrary to established investigative procedures, you allowed the subject of the investigation, First Kuwaiti, to select the employees you interviewed," Waxman charged. He added that the interview notes “did not show how thoroughly each employee was interviewed.”

Waxman charges that Krongard has, by his actions, created a “dysfunctional office environment” and that he routinely berated and belittled personnel, treated career government professionals contemptuously, and fostered an environment where people actually feared coming to work. The letter asserts that the high turnover in the department – which has resulted in only seven of 27 investigator positions currently filled – is due to the feckless leadership of Krongard.

There's more: "Waxman Investigating the IG for State" >>

Meanwhile...

From the Washington Post:

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said documents obtained by his panel suggest that the appearances by the drug control officials were part of a larger White House effort to politicize the work of federal agencies that "may be more widespread than previously known."

Waxman cited a memo written by former White House political director Sara M. Taylor showing that John P. Walters, director of the drug control office, and his deputies traveled at taxpayer expense to about 20 events with vulnerable GOP members of Congress in the three months leading up to the elections.

In a letter to Taylor, Waxman also pointed to an e-mail by an official in the drug policy office describing President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, as being pleased that the office, along with the Commerce, Transportation and Agriculture departments, went "above and beyond" the call of duty in arranging appearances by Cabinet members at campaign events.

"This recognition is not something we hear every day and we should feel confident that our hard work is noticed," said the e-mail, written by Douglas Simon, the drug policy office's White House liaison. "The director and the deputies deserve the most recognition because they actually had to give up time with their families for the god awful places we sent them."

The drug control office has had a history of being nonpartisan, and a 1994 law bars the agency's officials from engaging in political activities even on their own time.

Light, disinfectant, y'all know the rest...

There's more: "Meanwhile..." >>

A Drop in the Bucke...er, Tank

I ran across this article today in the Detroit News and was - frankly - unsurprised. The House Oversight Committee has opened another investigation into the workings of the Executive Branch:

The U.S. Department of Transportation secretly lobbied dozens of members of Congress in recent weeks, urging them to join the Bush administration in opposing California's request to impose its own strict fuel efficiency regulations, according to a House investigative committee.

Using a one-page script and a list of auto facilities obtained from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group that represents automakers, staffers at the Department of Transportation called nearly every congressional member from Michigan and Ohio, urging them to oppose California's request[*], according to records released this week by the House Oversight Committee. They also targeted other auto-heavy districts and governors in at least seven other states.

While federal law bars government officials from lobbying lawmakers on issues before Congress, there are no such restrictions on regulatory questions, such as the California waiver.

Still, the lobbying suggests an "improper hidden agenda" because it comes as the administration is making "an independent assessment of the merits" of California's request, U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the oversight committee, said in a letter to Transportation Secretary Mary Peters...

...Until now, the Bush administration has not taken a public position on the California waiver, but the records released by Waxman show the Department of Transportation mounted a fairly extensive opposition effort that essentially supports automakers.

The Department of Transportation turned over 71 pages of e-mails and other records to Waxman's committee, which began investigating last month after a House staffer gave the committee a voice mail received from Heideh Shahmoradi, a special assistant for governmental affairs at the Department of Transportation...

...The lobbying blitz came ahead of a June 15 deadline for submitting comments to the EPA on California's request. [Joe] Knollenberg, [Candace] Miller and five other Michigan congressional Republicans sent a letter to the agency urging it to reject the waiver.

"The stakes for Michigan and American manufacturing could not be higher," the letter said. "The EPA should not allow California and other states to make a mad rush to saddle the auto industry with technologically infeasible mandates"...

...Joan Claybrook, director of Public Citizen, criticized the campaign. "How is the EPA going to make an independent decision if the Transportation Department is lobbying to oppose it?"

Read the whole article for the full content. I really have no informed comment at this time regarding an increase of fuel standards versus economic impact, and that's not really what this comment is about...The fight over fuel and emission standards is one of those wonky things that the average American cares about only in a vague manner - not that they shouldn't care more, mind you - but it lacks the sexiness of the politicization of the Department of Justice or the outing of a CIA covert operative. As (possible) scandals go, it's a drop in a much bigger bucket**.

What this article (and investigation) does, however, is to further highlight the modi operandi of the Bush Administration: Press or puncture the legal and ethical envelopes that are necessary for a properly functioning democracy and then mislead and deceive to avoid accountability. When being held to account is inevitable, as in the case of Scooter Libby's multiple convictions, use whatever legal loopholes are available to lessen the impact on the Inner Circle and shrug off any criticism...there will always be another professional wrestler or useless socialite to attract the public's attention.

And, even larger than that, is the issue of how the American government has been co-opted by business interests in such a way that government operates as an extension of those businesses...How else can you explain the apparent lobbying by the Department of Transportation on behalf of the automobile industry? You'd think that foreign and domestic auto companies have lobbyists with contacts in Congress that can express the same sentiments...I know that buying elected officials' votes has been around as long as there have been elected officials to buy, but our government institutions like the EPA or DOJ should be above and independent from partisanship, ideology, or the fiscal concerns of business.

Finally, I'm left with the same set of questions, only asked to different members of this administration...from the article:

The Transportation Department withheld 53 e-mails from the oversight committee. [DOT spokesman Brian] Turmail said Peters did not personally lobby any members of Congress on the issue.

Well, who were the persons in the DOT that lobbied members of Congress? Who directed them to do so? What is the DOT's rationale for withholding those messages?

I feel that these hearings won't get much coverage, but it would be interesting to hear the responses to those questions.

*The request by California is to establish limits on greenhouse gas emissions and create a higher standard of fuel economy. The adoption of these standards cannot take effect without a waiver from the EPA, hence the lobbying effort...Also, eleven other states want to adopt California's standards.
**Hence the title. Clever me.

There's more: "A Drop in the Bucke...er, Tank" >>

Addendum Re: Waxman Letter to Cheney

Repeated elsewhere, as well.

The assertion of the uniqueness of the Office of the Vice President (OVP) is old news, mentioned in 2004 in the 'United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions' (Plum Book):

APPENDIX NO. 5

OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT

The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter. The Vice Presidency performs functions in both the legislative branch (see article I, section 3 of the Constitution) and in the executive branch (see article II, and amendments XII and XXV, of the Constitution, and section 106 of title 3 of the United States Code).

The annual legislative branch appropriations act (see, for example, Public Law 108–83) and the annual transportation-treasury appropriations act (see, for example, Public Law 108–199) provide funds for the Vice President to hire employees to assist him in carrying out his legislative and executive functions. Executive branch employees also may be assigned or detailed to the Vice President (see 3 U.S.C. 112) and the Vice President may employ consultants (see 3 U.S.C. 106(a)). The Office of the Vice President (OVP) consists of the aggregation of Vice Presidential employees whose salary is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate from the Vice President’s legislative appropriation, Vice Presidential employees employed with the Vice President’s executive appropriation, employees assigned or detailed to the Vice President, and consultants engaged by the Vice President.

The numbers, titles and salaries of OVP personnel change with some frequency. The salaries of Vice Presidential employees whose salary is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate from the Vice President’s legislative appropriation cannot exceed a maximum specified by law (see 2 U.S.C.60a–1). The salaries of Vice Presidential mployees whose salary comes from the Vice President’s executive appropriation also cannot exceed a maximum specified by law (see 3 U.S.C. 106).

The authority to appoint, administratively determine the pay of, and discharge Vice Presidential employees rests with the Vice President.

The Office of the Vice President is listed under the Executive Branch heading in the online Plum Books for years 1996 and 2000, but not 2004, the year in which the above excerpted statement appears.

More here, from ABC's Justin Rood.

There's more: "Addendum Re: Waxman Letter to Cheney" >>

The Must-Have Accessory for Spring: Oversight

In a span of fifteen minutes today, a whole slew of subpoenas will be considered for a variety of current and former administration officials, including Condoleeza Rice, Andrew Card and Monica Goodling.

There are so many oversight opportunities to choose from that Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have appointed staffers to keep track of what fights are being picked and why. Seriously. They have had to appoint scandal coordinators.

Since Democrats assumed control of Congress in January, they have hired more than 200 investigative staffers for key watchdog committees. They include lawyers, former reporters and congressional staffers who left oversight committees that had all but atrophied during the six years that the GOP controlled Congress and the White House. They have already begun a series of inquiries on subjects ranging from allegations of administration meddling in federal scientists' work on global warming and the General Services Administration's alleged work for Republican campaigns to how disproved claims that Iraq had purchased nuclear material from Niger evolved into a case for war.

Democrats have been emboldened, investigators say, by their House and Senate judiciary committee colleagues' inquiries into the firings of U.S. attorneys. Last week's day-long testimony by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, some Democrats said, was a reminder of how rare Cabinet-level grillings had become on Capitol Hill. By the end of today, the Senate Judiciary Committee alone is set to authorize subpoenas for 15 people in the inquiry on the prosecutor dismissals.

"Oversight is just as important, if not more important, than legislation," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The new investigations illustrate just how many questions went unanswered in the six years when Democrats "couldn't hold hearings, we couldn't compel information . . . all we could do was ask for it," he said.

Now, Waxman said, what to tackle next "is something we're always thinking about."

Since the Democrats came to power, nearly 100 research and investigation staffers have been hired to investigate potential violations of congressional rules and federal and state laws. As part of the new culture of accountability that the Democrats campaigned on (and which is our raison d’etre) the Democrats are pushing forward with investigations.

The subpoenas are about to fly. I do believe the events of this week are going to be a hell of a lot of fun to watch.

[Cross-posted from Blue Girl, Red State]

There's more: "The Must-Have Accessory for Spring: Oversight" >>

Representative Waxman is out of patience

Representative Waxman’s patience is at an end. Condoleeza Rice has blown him off and ignored his respectful requests that she appear before the Oversight Committee he chairs and answer questions about the false claims of a Niger-Iraq connection that was used as justification for a pre-emptive war against Iraq.

Now that Condoleeza Rice has officially blown off the Oversight Committee (Rep. Waxman sent a letter last month, in which he requested she appear on April 17^th) the full Oversight Committee will convene on Wednesday, 25 April to consider compelling testimony with subpoenas.

If subpoenaed, will Ms. Rice ignore that, too? Will it go that far? (I would pay to see it.) . Ignore a subpoena and the Capitol Police can arrest you and deliver you to the committee.

Next week is going to be very interesting indeed.

There's more: "Representative Waxman is out of patience" >>

Waxman Won't Be Ignored

The days of Condi dismissing the oversight committee are numbered. By my count, there are about 18 left…

Congressman Waxman let it be known today that ignoring him would not make him go away.

On 12 March, 2007, Congressman Waxman reopened an investigation into the specious allegations of lies about yellowcake Uranium and aluminum centrifuge tubes. At that time, the Congressman sent a letter to Secretary of State Rice that should have made it clear he wants answers (even if she was distracted by thoughts of shoeshopping).

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 Administration, 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.

(She blew off that March 12 letter as well.)

So the Congressman sent another along today, and attached a copy of the March 12 letter, and told her she is expected to appear before the committee on 18 April. (.pdf warning)

There's more: "Waxman Won't Be Ignored" >>

Reining in a Rogue Elephant

To my (admittedly wonkish) way of thinking, the most exciting RSS feed these days is the one coming from Representative Waxman’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Representative Waxman and the Oversight Committee today (Monday, March 26, 2007) informed both the Republican National Committee and the Chairman of the Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign that they are not to destroy any email records they may be in possession of, in light of the evidence that certain high-ranking public officials (*cough* Karl Rove *cough*) have used non-official email servers to conduct the business of the government and avoid scrutiny and transparency in government affairs, and have most likely acted in ways that violate the Presidential Records Act.

One thing is for certain – the mendacity and hubris of this administration is staggering. If their actions were not so consequential for the rest of us, it would almost be funny – but as that is not the case, they are simply appalling on an epic scale.

[Cross-posted from Blue Girl, Red State]

There's more: "Reining in a Rogue Elephant" >>

Spychodrama

Valerie Plame testified before Representative Waxman's Oversight Committee today.

Wow. What a woman. I'm glad she was out there working for me for those two decades, and pissed that her career was cut short. That kind of asset is not found by running an advert in the Sunday paper.

After a life in the shadows, she spoke out and spoke up publicly today, in a voice that was strong and clear.

She is angry, and justifiably so.

"I know I am here under oath, and I am here to say that I was covert," she said

I served the United States loyally and to the best of my ability as a covert operations officer for the Central Intelligence Agency.

I worked on behalf of the national security of our country, on behalf of the people of the United States until my name and true affiliation were exposed in the national media on July 14, 2003, after a leak by administration officials.

Today, I can tell this committee even more. In the run-up to the war with Iraq I worked in the counter proliferation division of the CIA -- still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified.

....While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence.

That a vital security asset was compromised for political reasons is tantamount to treason. I want satisfaction here.

No one approached her before her name was made public. Knowing a little something about how covert operations work, it is extremely fortunate that her outing did not cost an asset on foreign soil his or her life. No one involved in this sorry spectacle though that was worthy of consideration.

According to her testimony, when she saw her name in print in the Novak column, she felt like she had been “hit in the gut.”

When asked how she felt about Rove telling Chris Matthews that she was “fair game” she did not personalize the insult – she said she would feel awful about hearing of the outing of any CIA agent.

No one involved in risking her life and the lives of her team has apologized or expressed any misgivings. But it is obvious what happened - she was expendable because her husband had the audacity to report the truth about what he didn't find in Africa.

The Vice President went Wrath-of-Khan, scorched-earth insane with rage. All that mattered was punishing that bastard Joe Wilson. The welfare of the nation be damned. And that is an impeachable offense. Will the Democrats in Congress get on with it already?

[cross-posted from Blue Girl, Red State]

There's more: "Spychodrama" >>

Waxman to hold hearings on the Plame matter

From the website of the House Oversight Committee, Henry Waxman, Chair.

Thursday, March 08, 2007
Disclosure of CIA Agent Identity

Committee Will Hold Hearing on Disclosure of CIA Agent Valerie Plame Wilson's Identity

Chairman Henry A. Waxman announced a hearing on whether White House officials followed appropriate procedures for safeguarding the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. At the hearing, the Committee will receive testimony from Ms. Wilson and other experts regarding the disclosure and internal White House security procedures for protecting her identity from disclosure and responding to the leak after it occurred. The hearing is scheduled for Friday, March 16.

In addition, the Committee today sent a letter to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald commending him for his investigation and requesting a meeting to discuss testimony by Mr. Fitzgerald before the Committee.

The Oversight Committee will webcast the hearing live at www.oversight.house.gov.

Documents and Links

• Letter to Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald
• Topic: Disclosure of CIA Agent Identity
• Rep. Waxman Calls for Public Accounting of Rove’s Actions in CIA Leak Case
• Questions and Answers about White House Security Clearances
• Former Intelligence Officials Testify About Damage Caused by Outing of Covert CIA Agent

It appears that there is a new sheriff in town, and enforcement and accountability appear to be the new order of the day.

I will be very interested to see what Patrick Fitzgerald has to say.

There's more: "Waxman to hold hearings on the Plame matter" >>