Waxman demands answers from Condi

Questions in letters long ignored:

• Letter to Secretary Rice Regarding Fabricated Niger Claims
• June 10, 2003: Administration Statements on Iraq Nuclear Evidence Contradict Known Facts, Raise New Questions
• July 29, 2003: More Questions for NSA Rice on Iraq Nuclear Claims
• January 14, 2004: Rep. Waxman Investigates Inconsistencies in White House Leak Responses
• February 17, 2005: Unanswered Questions Remain on Rice's Iraq Pick
• August 1, 2005: Letter to Secretary Rice

Update 3/13: Digby at Hullabaloo is also proud of Henry Waxman:

You all see where this is going don't you? Perhaps Mr Fitzgerald was bound to stick to charges which he could prove in a court of law and had no mandate to expose the administration's lies and distortions in the run-up to the war. But the Democrats are under no such restraints. Indeed, they have that mandate, conferred by the people in November of 2006.

The Republicans want to rend their garments over poor little Scooter having been found guilty of lying even though there was "no underlying crime." Well, it depends on what the definition of crime is, doesn't it? Perhaps this White House didn't break the law when it "stovepiped" the intelligence to take this country into war, but damned well committed a political crime and it should be held to account for thet.

It will all come out --- every clumsy, stupid lie they told, and they'll pretend that up is down and black is white and their true believers will believe it. But the nation as a whole seems to be getting a little bit tired of feeling disoriented by the Republicans' insistence that they should ignore what their eyes and ears are telling them. This clarifying process is long overdue.

Go Henry. You make me proud to be a citizen of Santa Monica.