For Immediate Release

04/25/07

Crystal Dueker

Communications Director

701-306-2705

crystal@thinkcondi.net

Democrats, led by Representative Waxman are after our Secretary of State

Condoleezza Rice. In committee today, Waxman decided to subpoena

Secretary Rice to answer questions about the Presidents claim that Iraq

had sought to purchase uranium from Niger.

"It's sad that a dedicated public servant like Condi Rice has to be

subjected to a congressional witch-hunt because of policies they disagree

with," said Richard Holt, National Chairman of Think Condi.

Crystal Dueker, Communications Director of Think Condi says that the

Democrats are trying to "settle old grudges by attacking the highest

Cabinet official". Mr. Holt also added that Representative Waxman "went

after Rice because he didn't have the guts to go after the President

himself."

But they've gone after Rice before. It was just a few months ago that

Sen. Barbara Boxer suggested that Rice could not understand the

consequences of going to war because she did not have children. "I still

can't believe they drooped so low the last time," Mr. Holt says in regards

to repeated bashing by what he called a "hurtful and demeaning" process.

"I'm confident the American people will see through this charade for what

it is," concludes Holt, "a cheap attack, by cheap people, with cheap

leadership, on a quality public official".

If you flout a Congressional subpoena

It's up to the President to enforce it, I believe.

And if he refuses to obey the law, he can be impeached. Supposedly... It's not like he hasn't flouted the law on a regular basis and bragged about it in writing and on national television.

I'd start praying to Jesus again if that happened. Her dark lord and master will save Satan's Little Helper from prison somehow. Must be those thigh high patent leather numbers she wears that melts his cold heart and lets her get away with so much.

can get a hold of some stylish shoes to match her organge prison garb. Something in an off beige to contrast the wacking she'll recieve from her cell mate for being such a prissy arrogant dolt.

Congress is going to have to take the gloves off, for real, because this Presidency clearly doesn't see itself as being a co-equal branch of anybody. Too bad the Supremes tainted themselves in 2000; I certainly don't consider them neutral arbiters in any dispute where executive power is concerned. The 2008 elections can't come soon enough.

It's up to the President to enforce it, I believe. I chortle heartily at thee.

or more technically:

Middle English suppena, from Medieval Latin sub poen, under a penalty (from the opening words of the writ) : Latin sub, under; see sub- + Latin poen, ablative of poena, penalty; see kwei-1 in Indo-European roots.

Send the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House and a posse over to Foggy Nottom, slap her in chains and an orange jump suit - and march her ass up the Hill to Congress.

It's time to take off the kid gloves and treat these criminals for what they are - criminals.

As the national security advisor, Ms. Rice testified under oath before the 9/11 Commission. Why can't she testify under oath about her tenure as national security advisor?

In September 1997, Clinton's national security advisor testified under oath before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. Thirty of Clinton's advisors testified before Congress.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/the-times-misleads-on-pro_b_43911.html

Condi in prison for Contempt of Congress.

As a National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, Ms. Rice has been strikingly feckless, passive and incompetent. And I would have to add immoral.

As the incoming NSA only months after the bombing of the Cole, and receiving a number of briefings on the imminent threat of terrorist activities against the U.S. (the most notable being the August 6, 2001 "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S." and the urgent "hair on fire" meeting on July 10 called by then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black,), Ms. Rice's response was total passivity. This was in line with the rest of the Bush-cheney team. As Secretary of State she has been no better.

She has never responded truthfully to questions about her actions or lack of actions. Her appearance before the 9/11 Commission was a primer in the art of obfuscation and deceit, as have any prior appearances before Congress. With the new congress she is especially wary that she might inadvertently tell a bit of the truth under aggressive questioning.

If you have done nothing wrong, than you have nothing to worry about. It is unanimous amongst conservatives that based on this logic, she should testify. Right?

Is she under the impression that a supoena is optional?

I suspect BushCo is going to drag this all the way to the Supreme Court. They won't let Condi or Karle Rove testify under oath, and the Catch 22 is that Congress can't prosecute them for crimes if they won't testify under oath.

I think Congress is angry enough to take it to the limit, but they need to keep hearing from constituents. Once it gets to the Supreme Court, who knows what will happen - a less conservative court appointed Bush president in the first place. Will the new court give them the pass of executive privilege?

If the cell they put her in for contempt of Congress is going to have a view of the Potomac or not?

Conservatives were banging shoes and yelling, "The President is Not Above the Law" during the Paula "Seen My Cooch in Penthouse?" Jones' "sexual harrassment" lawsuit. Well, now the shoe's in the ther hand. Condi Rice is not above the law. George W. Bush is not above the law. The whole criminal gang of them should be handed over to the Hague and tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The only one I would cut any slack to would be Colin Powell who I think should take Rudolph Hess's place in a newly reconstructed Spandau Prison. The rest should be hanged higher than Mussolini's Mistress.

Does anyone know if she actually has the legal basis to refuse a subpoena from Congress? She's a citizen of the United States... I'm thinking the "Executive privilege" argument wouldn't hold up in court, ultimately? But I'd love to hear someone with more expertise than I answer that...