Biden wants Rice to testify on Iraq policy

[seemslikeadream]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/26/biden.iraq/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Joseph Biden, the incoming chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said he has invited Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to testify during three weeks of hearings in January about the Iraq war.

Biden, a Delaware Democrat, told reporters Tuesday that the proponents of different plans for Iraq will be invited to the hearings that are to begin on January 9.

He also will call former secretaries of state, academics, Iraq Study Group members and other witnesses from outside the administration as the committee examines various approaches to the war.

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group, comprising five Democrats and five Republicans, recommended this month that the United States pull out of Iraq by 2008.

Rice has not announced whether she will appear before the committee, primarily because President Bush has not announced his plans regarding Iraq.

Bush is expected to tell the nation in January what changes in strategy or policy he intends to make.

[maxsolomon]

1. "subpoena" is the magic word

'subpoena' + time = impeachment.

[saigon68]

25. Good Luck in getting KindaSleezy to say Anything

[saigon68]

37. Last time she busted mirrors with her beautiful smile

[Monkeyman]

2. Better be under oath or it don't mean a thing

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

3. Amen to that.

[neuvocat]

5. What if she refuses to take the oath?

Just wondering.

[Gman]

6. Three little words...

Contempt - Of - Congress

[ncrainbowgrrl]

7. Exactly. Those words are kinda pretty.

what happens if you're found to be in contempt of congress? (i know it's bad- not sure as to the penalty)

[Gman]

14. Like $1000 fine and/or a year in prison

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

[Joanne98]

4. Oh goodie. Condascenda Tee Vee. Oh the drama....

"Don't you ever question my integrity"....:P

[Kolesar]

8. I know--she will agree to take questions for only three minutes

and get up there and talk at length about side issues. Just like the 9/11 commission.

[Joanne98]

9. She can talk for 5 minutes without saying anything....

They may need to waterboard her....:)

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. She won't have much choice this time

We no longer have a Congress that is willing to break the law in order to protect Team Bush.

[jbfam4]

12. amen, to that

[Supersedeas]

27. prepare for the Condescending filibuster--answering a question of her own making

[burythehatchet]

11. If Biden wants to get his nomination shot really bad, he may consider

going after them. I wouldn't hold my breath though.

[karynnj]

15. It's not just Biden on the committee

The others include: Kerry, Boxer, Dodd, Webb, Feingold and Obama. Kerry and Boxer did a great job grilling her (and getting answers) these last two years with NO supoena power and Lugar setting the agenda. (Though in fairness Lugar seemed to always be giving Kerry extra time.) Lugar and Hagel might pile on as well.

[IndianaGreen]

13. CNN watered down what Biden really said: He is opposed to troop surge!

Here is the same story from AP, and reported by MSNBC. Notice the difference in emphasis compared to CNN:

Biden urges Bush to ‘level’ with public on Iraq

Likely presidential candidate pushes for information about U.S. troop surge

By Joel Seidman
Producer
NBC News
Updated: 1:44 p.m. ET Dec 26, 2006

Sen. Joe Biden — who says he is more qualified than other candidates contemplating a 2008 White House run — in a telephone news conference Tuesday morning said President Bush must “level with the American public” that any surge of U.S. military forces in Iraq will likely last for at least 18 months.

Biden, D-Del., will assume the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee next month. He plans immediately to convene a series of hearings on the Iraq war — a high-visibility platform for him to showcase his expertise. He’s also been actively promoting a detailed plan for peace in Iraq that would divide the country along ethnic lines.

“I think it is quite clear to me that the surge of 30,000 American troops will not have any positive effect,” Biden said.

<snip>

Biden said that even former generals who support a troop surge say any additional U.S. forces will need to remain in-country for at least a year and a half.

Biden cautioned that American forces may not make a difference in Baghdad’s escalating chaos. “Even with a surge of troops in a city of 6 million, the ratio will be 1 to 100,” he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11442717/

[Heidi]

16. Kick.

:kick:

[DeepModem Mom]

17. LAT: Democrats prepare for a battle on Iraq war

Democrats prepare for a battle on the war
By Noam N. Levey, Times Staff Writer
December 26, 2006

WASHINGTON -- After years of playing a marginal role in the Iraq war, congressional Democrats plan to move quickly in January to assert more control and undercut any White House effort to increase troop levels.

As President Bush prepares to outline his own plan for Iraq in a major speech in the next few weeks, Democratic leaders will counter with weeks of oversight hearings, summoning military officers, administration officials and foreign policy experts to Capitol Hill.

The Democratic plans put Congress on a collision course with Bush over the direction of the nearly 4-year-old war. And they signal a new phase in a war that has been directed almost exclusively by the White House with little dissent from the Republican-controlled Capitol.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden, D-Del., the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Tuesday that he intends to call key administration officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, to testify at a series of hearings.

At the same time, the chairmen of both armed services committees and the House International Relations Committee also plan to hold hearings....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-iraqpol27dec27,0,3398976.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[Dammit Ann]

18. it's about freakin' time.

my birthday is the 8th and i'm hoping for a gift soon after.

[illinoisprogressive]

19. I knew the Dems would not disappoint

I think it will be a fun winter. Watch Bush not just squirm but, stomp his foot and hold his breath because he is not getting his way anymore.

[billyoc]

20. Yes, I can't wait to watch

Bush start to completely decompensate on camera. I don't think it's beyond the realm of the possible that he might be the first American president to have to be physically led from a podium during a tantrum.

[Kagemusha]

21. People should be under no illusions the Dems will *stop* this, but

they can make the process much less of a free ride for Bush and that, plus Bush predictably hanging himself with his own rope, should make things look bad for him when, lo and behold, the surge doesn't result in clear victory in any acceptable sense.

[Vinca]

22. Condi will never come clean if it means giving up the Shrub.

She's an expert at double speak and I expect that's all we'll hear.

[leesa]

23. My prediction? She will lie and they will let her lie.

[karynnj]

24. Have you watched any hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

in 2005 and 2006 when Rice has spoken to them? In the very times she came, they NEVER let her off the hook. In particular, Kerry, Feingold, and Boxer are in the Democratic line up - in that order.

It was in the confirmation hearings that I saw what people were talking about in 2004, Kerry was clearly an awesome prosecutor if his questioning is a clue on that. Feingold was great in taking advantage of anything Kerry pulled out in addition to the questions he prepared - and Boxer was explosive. She likely found out less than Kerry and Feingold - but she really attacked Rice.

[Supersedeas]

26. She will not have her integrity questioned--therefore, no scheduled appearance

[ckramer]

28. Biden wants Rice to testify on Iraq policy

Sen. Joseph Biden, the incoming chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said he has invited Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to testify during three weeks of hearings in January about the Iraq war.

Biden, a Delaware Democrat, told reporters Tuesday that the proponents of different plans for Iraq will be invited to the hearings that are to begin on January 9.

He also will call former secretaries of state, academics, Iraq Study Group members and other witnesses from outside the administration as the committee examines various approaches to the war.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/26/biden.iraq/index.html

[babylonsister]

29. "Invite" The Dems are being civil!

:rofl: Can she say 'no'?

[RProser]

33. I seem to recall that the general rule is tha those in positions requiring

Senate confirmation commit to testifying when called. The exception is that conversations between the individual and a President are protected by Executive Privilege - when exercisd by the President, not the other individual.

So Cabinet Secretaries testify while White House Staff do not. Constitutional Officers - President and VP also are not compelled to testify. The only exceptions have been purely voluntary.

What I'm not sure about are the mechanics should someone decline to appear. The committee could vote a Contempt of Congress Citation out for a floor vote but in the Senate that would require 60 votes to end debate if the minority opposed it.

And even if it passed the full Senate, who would enforce it if the Executive Branch chose to not support it? It's not like the Senate has its own jail. The Justice Department has to agree to "take the case" or it goes nowhere.

The political remedy would ultimately be impeachment. While it takes only a majority vote in the House, it requires 67 votes to convict in the Senate - and the votes simply aren't there when it's partisan.

Here's what I found online (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress)

"In order for someone to be convicted of contempt of Congress, the congressional committee which has suffered the contempt first reports a resolution that the affected individual is guilty of contempt. This takes a majority vote of the committee. The full United States House of Representatives or United States Senate then must approve the resolution, which sends the matter to an assistant United States attorney or higher with the Department of Justice, who may call a grand jury to decide whether to indict the affected individual, and prosecute if the grand jury affirms an indictment. This version of the procedure was put into place in 1857 and exists in order to provide a balance of power so the House and Senate cannot run amok and jail all their political opponents with contempt charges, also to be within the restrictions laid out in the United States Constitution that Congress cannot pass a Bill of attainder, and declare someone criminally guilty without trial. The Congress is also restricted in that contempt citations can only be brought on matters that relate to legislative purposes within the jurisdiction of the committee that brings the charges.

From time to time, Congress lodges contempt of Congress charges against members of the United States government, usually members of the executive branch of the United States who claim that releasing their records to a committee would cause more harm than good, or sometimes that the records are protected by executive privilege and must remain secret. This can put the executive branch in an unusual ethical position, since the executive branch employs the United States Attorney, who decides whether to bring cases of contempt of Congress to the grand jury. In addition, it is often the United States Attorney who advises executive branch members in the first place whether to withhold controversial documents or provide them to the congressional committees."

[azurnoir]

35. The second paragraph

"From time to time, Congress lodges contempt of Congress charges against members of the United States government, usually members of the executive branch of the United States who claim that releasing their records to a committee would cause more harm than good, or sometimes that the records are protected by executive privilege and must remain secret. This can put the executive branch in an unusual ethical position, since the executive branch employs the United States Attorney, who decides whether to bring cases of contempt of Congress to the grand jury. In addition, it is often the United States Attorney who advises executive branch members in the first place whether to withhold controversial documents or provide them to the congressional committees."

gives her the "out", she will repeatedly cop to "national security"

[LiberalFighter]

30. What good would it do for her to testify?

First, she doesn't know what it means to testify.
Second, how will we know she is telling the truth?
Third, will she have time to testify if she is shopping for new clothes that give her the image of a Dominatrix?

[Dr.Phool]

31. He'd better put her ass under oath.

Then we'll know he's serious.

[ryanmuegge]

32. More political theater...

[Contrite]

34. What for? She'll just lie and obfuscate everything

just as she has done so many times before.

Betray her "hus...." er uh President?

[depakid]

36. He'll also call- himself!

From all the tape on the Sunday talk shows.