OSLO, Norway (AP) — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday she has already answered the questions she has been subpoenaed to answer before a congressional committee and suggested she is not inclined to comply with the order.

Rice said she would respond by mail to questions from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the Bush administration’s prewar claims about Saddam Hussein seeking weapons of mass destruction, but signaled she would not appear in person.

“I am more than happy to answer them again in a letter,” she told reporters in Oslo, where she is attending a meeting of NATO foreign ministers.

The comments were her first reaction to a subpoena issued on Wednesday by the committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

Rice said she respected the oversight function of the legislative branch, but maintained she had already testified in person and under oath about claims that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa during her confirmation hearing for the job of secretary of state.

“I addressed these questions, almost the same questions, during my confirmation hearing,” she said. “This is an issue that has been answered and answered and answered.”

Rice noted that she had been serving as President Bush’s national security adviser during the period covered by the panel’s questions and stressed the administration’s position that presidential aides not confirmed by the Senate cannot be forced to testify before Congress under the doctrine of executive privilege.

“This all took place in my role as national security adviser,” she said. “There is a constitutional principle. There is a separation of powers and advisers to the president under that constitutional principle are not generally required to go and testify in Congress.

“So, I think we have to observe and uphold the constitutional principle, but I also observe and uphold the obligation of Congress to conduct its oversight role, I respect that. But I think I have more than answered these questions, and answered them directly to Congressman Waxman.”

Rice declined to respond when asked if she would absolutely refuse to testify under subpoena.

Her spokesman, Sean McCormack, said later that no final decision had been made about Rice appearing before the committee.

Waxman’s committee voted 21-10 on Wednesday to subpoena Rice despite the State Department’s insistence that the questions have already been answered and that the doctrine of executive privilege .

The congressman has complained for weeks that Rice and the State Department have failed to respond to questions about the claim that Saddam Hussein had tried to by uranium from Niger.

While Waxman is issuing subpoenas why don’t we just ask him to subpoena the president so he can find out just how he and Rove caused Hurricane Katrina? @-)

Written by ~J~

11 Responses to “Rice Signals She May Not Comply With Subpoena”

1. Cal says:

   April 26, 2007 at 9:24 am

   They did? WoW! I didn’t know that.
2. smh10 says:

   April 26, 2007 at 1:16 pm

   LT

   What if we had a system where the President was from one party and the Vice President from another. There still could be two nominees..One Republican Presidential candidate required to choose a Democratic VP and of course a Democratic candidate with a Rep VP.

   It could stop a lot of the sniping as you would know the opposite party in a heartbeat could take control of the reins.

   Congress is now proving themselves of creating meaningful dialogue or legislation..perhaps something like this would force their hand. We could not agre more, something has to happen.
3. ~J~ says:

   April 26, 2007 at 3:52 pm

   It wouldn’t stop the sniping, smh10. Remember in the early days, at least up to Lincoln we voted separately for President and Vice President and often had members of 2 different parties in each position.

   A lot of backstabbing went on. Take a look at Big Mo’s President’s series and see all the ruckus that went on back then.
4. smh10 says:

   April 26, 2007 at 4:18 pm

   This is true J but they did not have the 24 hour news cycle back then which would report everything said and done immediately. Back room deals remained secret and every move was not scrutinized as it is today.

   I don’t know if this would make a difference but I agree with LT that we need to find something that would unify this country again, at least to some degree. As much as I respect President Bush, I do not think it is another Clinton or Bush who will heal the separation. In plain fact for those committed to running right now it appears we are in for more of the same.
5. ~J~ says:

   April 26, 2007 at 11:39 pm

   I think you can even go back as far as Johnson.

   I honestly think if you have the two highest executives in the government from different parties you would have what we are seeing with divided government right now magnified.

   At least now if we have a tied Senate the VP will vote the way the president wants it to go. Gore had to break a tie for Clinton. If it had been a Republican VP it would have gone the other way.

   I feel the administration has to be of one accord or nothing will get done at all. Look at Congress and the way they posture. Think of what that would be in the Executive Branch with the president not able to trust the VP and vice versa.

   I just disagree with that premise, is all.
6. smh10 says:

   April 26, 2007 at 11:52 pm

   Interesting thoughts J.

   My only concern is that if we continue with the two party system (I think the Independents will make huge strides in the near future)which we have today, the executive may put forth policy which is attractive however, congress being what it is will simply not act.

   You have a good point about the distrust issue. I had not thought of it from that perspective.

   I don’t know the answers as I do not see us being able to change how elections are conducted (the massive amount of dollars and special interest groups)and if we can’t begin with some reform there then I see no difference in conduct for many years to come.
7. ~J~ says:

   April 26, 2007 at 11:58 pm

   Candidates should be limited by law as to how much money they can spend on a primary and on a general election. Everyone has an even playing field. No 501 (c) committees or whatever number it is, or if they do use them that money counts toward the cap.

   No one should have to be a billionaire to run for an office that pays $400,000 a year.

   X amount of dollars and not one penny more. We would then be able to pick the Abe Lincolns of our country who may exist but don’t have the funds to run. Then we’d get citizen presidents and that’s what we need. Someone as humble as Washington and yet strong enough to push through his agenda as voted by the people when he was elected.
8. ~J~ says:

   April 27, 2007 at 12:00 am

   If Independents want to stay independent they can, but sooner or later they will realize they are voting for a candidate from a party. Which party do they vote for the most? Then join that party or start a new one.

   Here in S.C. we do not register by party, so every registered voter is automatically an independent by definition.
9. smh10 says:

   April 27, 2007 at 12:05 am

   I did not realize you do not register by party.

   Do you not think in the future there will be a strong Independent party which will stand on its own?

   There are times now I wish that were the case, such as with Arlen Specter here in PA. While I say that though, right now because an Independent cannot win, the Republicans continue to elect him just to avoid giving the seat to the Democrats. And on it goes..so you are right.
10. smh10 says:

    April 27, 2007 at 12:06 am

    Amen to comment 9.

    I have said that for years.
11. ~J~ says:

    April 27, 2007 at 12:11 am

    I don’t know, to be honest with you. I think Independents are like moderates: road kill because they stand in the middle of the road and can’t decide which side they are on.

    I will not vote for Lindsey Graham in the Republican primary but it would have to be a very conservative Democrat running against him in the general if he wins the primary for me to vote against him then.

    Our candidates tell us their party and we have State Dem. and Rep. parties. Just the voters can’t register by party.