Buried in the 50-page report on Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch released today by the House Oversight Committee, is a priceless quote from none other than the new head of the AP's Washington Bureau, Ron Fournier.

Straight from page 21 of the report:

Karl Rove exchanged e-mails about Pat Tillman with Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier, under the subject line "H-E-R-O." In response to Mr. Fournier's e-mail, Mr. Rove asked, "How does our country continue to produce men and women like this," to which Mr. Fournier replied, "The Lord creates men and women like this all over the world. But only the great and free countries allow them to flourish. Keep up the fight."

Fournier did not immediately return calls for comment.

[Special thanks to TPM Reader DD for the tip.]

The House Oversight Committee released its proposed report (pdf) on the investigation this afternoon, on the death of Corporal Patrick Tillman and the capture of Private Jessica Lynch.

Unfortunately the report says that the Committee was unable to resolve "the key issue of what senior officials knew" because of the "universal" memory loss suffered by Tillman's chain of command upon testifying before Congress:

Despite receiving information from all the top military leaders in Corporal Tillman chain of command -- including Secretary Rumsfeld, General Myers, and General Abizaid -- the Committee could not determine if any of the officials had communicated with President Bush or White House officials about fratricide in Corporal Tillman's case. The lack of recollection also prevented the Committee from understanding how information about Corporal Tillman was handled within the Defense Department and how the Defense Department and the White House shared information on this matter.

As we've previously reported, the White House was very interested in the initial reports of Tillman's death. In fact, the report details that White House exchanging almost 200 e-mails relating to Pat Tillman on April 23, 2004, during the first reports of Tillman's death. But once the death was suspected to be caused by friendly fire, there was no further discussion of Tillman at the White House, according to the report.

So what did all of the silence convey to Oversight?

If the testimony the Committee received is accurate and if the documents submitted are complete, then the intense interest that initially characterized the White House's and Defense Department's reaction to Corporal Tillman's death was followed by a stunning lack of curiosity about emerging reports of fratricide and an incomprehensible carelessness and incompetence in handling this sensitive information.

As we reported earlier, Chairman Waxman of the House Oversight Committee claimed today that the Bush Administration knew about the Hunt Oil deal way before it happened-- something the administration has denied regularly.

According to Waxman, there were nearly a dozen contacts between various levels of the administration and Hunt Oil as the deal was taking place. Hunt regularly informed the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board of his intentions to seek a deal with the Kurdistan government. Management at Hunt also regularly met and communicated with the U.S. Regional Reconstruction Team (RRT), as well as State Department personnel.

So let's go through a little time line of the events and communication leading up to Sept. 8, 2007-- the day the Hunt Oil deal was finalized with the Kurdistan government.

June 12 and 15: Hunt Oil officials meet with officials from the RRT for the Kurdistan region, "to investigate investment prospects" in the Kurdish region. Hunt Oil General Manager Ken McDonald, asks RRT members if the deal between Hunt Oil and Kurdistan is in violation of U.S. policy:

I specifically asked if the USG had a policy toward companies entering into contracts with the KRG and [redacted] replied that there was no policy, neither for nor against.

July 12, 2007: Ray Hunt, president and CEO of Hunt Oil sends a letter to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, letting them know he is pursuing an oil deal in Kurdistan:

We were approached a month or so ago by representatives of a private group in Kurdistan as to the possibílity of our becoming interested in that region. We had one team of geoscientists travel to Kurdistan several weeks ago and were encouraged by what we saw. We have a larger team going back to Kurdistan this week but who they will actually meet with while they are there and what the relationships of those people might be with the Government of Kurdistan are both unclear at this time.

August 2007: Hunt Oil representatives exchange a series of emails with State Department personnel discussing their return to Kurdistan.

August 30, 2007: Ray Hunt sends another letter to the Advisory Board to let them know he will be in Kurdistan the week of September 3:

While my schedule is still fluid, there is a high likelihood that I will meet with President Masoud Barzani, the Prime Minister, the Oil Minister and various other individuals associated with the government of Kurdistan.

September 5, 2007: McDonald informs the RRT in Erbil that "Hunt is expecting to sign an exploration contract" with the Kurdistan Regional Government. That same day, the RRT leader sends an e-mail summary of the meeting to the Embassy in Baghdad and the State Department headquarters in Washington. A second synopsis of the meeting is sent to the Embassy in Baghdad in a situation report the following day.

September 8, 2007: The Hunt Oil contract is finalized with the Kurdistan Regional Government.

September 13, 2007: A State Department official contacts Hunt Oil to describe another "good opportunity for Hunt" in Iraq, prompting a Hunt Oil official to write Ray Hunt: "This is really good for us. . .I find it a huge compliment that he is 'tipping' us off about this . . .This is a lucky break."

House oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman says the Bush Administration knew about the September 2007 deal that Texas-based Hunt Oil struck with Kurdish officials in Iraq.

That contradicts what President Bush said at the time.

That deal was controversial because it came at a time of precarious negotiations in Baghdad about a possible revenue-sharing agreement between the warring factions in Iraq. The Kurds decision to forge a deal independent of the Baghdad government angered the Sunni and Shia Arabs in Iraq.

In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Waxman asked for further information about the U.S. involvement in Iraqi oil deals, the Hunt Oil deal as well as more recent deals. He quoted the president speaking shortly after the deal was announced almost a year ago.

Administration officials criticized the Hunt Oil contract because it jeopardized the efforts of the Iraqi parliament to come to an agreement on the national oil legislation. When President Bush was asked about the Hunt Oil contract, he stated:

"I knew nothing about the deal. I need to know exactly how it happened. To the extent that it does undermine the ability for the government to come up with an oil revenue sharing plan that unifies the country, obviously if it undermines it I'm concerned"

The documents that the Committee has received tell a different story about the role of Administration officials. Ray Hunt, the head of Hunt Oil, personally informed advisors to President Bush of meetings he and other Hunt Oil officials planned with representatives of the Kurdish government. Other Hunt Oil officials kept State Department officials informed about the company' s intentions.

The Defense Department wants more manpower to police itself.

The Defense Department's Inspector General says the massive growth in military spending during the past six years has far outpaced its ability to keep track of the money. A new report made public by the Project on Government Oversight outlines how the IG's office plans to grow -- by about 30 percent -- in the next seven years.

The rapid growth of the DoD budget since FY 2000 leaves the Department increasingly more vulnerable to the fraud, waste and abuse that undermines the Department's mission.

and

Furthermore, the demand for IG services to support the [Global War on Terror] and the ongoing operations in southwest Asia has forced us to adjust our priorities, resulting in gaps in coverage in important areas, such as major weapons acquisition, health care fraud, product substitution and defense intelligence agencies.

"Weapons acquisitions" is a pretty broad catagory and probably includes $531 million war ships, like the one the New York Times wrote about a few weeks ago. The Navy has been notoriously bad about cost overruns and runaway spending.

For years, the Pentagon's accounting procedures have been so shoddy that the Defense Department cannot even properly fail an audit. Trillions -- with a T -- of dollars are improperly accounted for. In fact, the Pentagon says there is no way it'll be able to handle a real audit until at least 2016.

Part of the problem may be that many retired military officials go on to work for defense contractors in later life.

The GAO has also been harping on the military's use of money

So it's no wonder that we've been hearing about absurd contracts like a 25-year-old Miami club goer who wins a $300 million contract to arm our allies in Afghanistan.

The Defense Department consumes about 19 percent of all federal spending.

It's easy to get distracted in our workaday lives and lose sight of the big picture.

For instance, Mike Allen of the Politico reports that the White House recently passed "an unusual landmark": the administration has produced 1 million documents to Congress since January. The mind can scarcely comprehend the horrors of such unbridled oversight.

The details of this "unusual landmark" are unclear. Characteristic of a White House that has successfully stonewalled a number of key Congressional investigations while still managing to complain about responding to inquiries, the provenance of that "1 million" number is unstated. (A Waxman aide "scoffed" at the number, Allen reports.) Presumably if you were to press for information as to where it had come from, it would prove an additional unreasonable burden. And as to whether that landmark (if it has been reached) is, in fact, "unusual," who knows? Certainly to a White House that suffered no oversight during its first six years, it is unusual.

Having staggered the mind with the "1 million" number, Allen quotes a "senior administration official" to drive home the real costs:

“There are a number of dry holes that got drilled,” a senior administration official said. “People don’t care about it. The public is saying: Gas is at $3 a gallon. Is there any energy bill? No.”

The official even made sport of the Democrats’ approach, calling it “purely reflexive.”

“People are having concerns with their mortgages,” the official said. “Is there a mortgage bill? No. We have a government to fund. Is there any appropriations bill? No.

“But, I’ve got a new subpoena for you today — and we’re going to hold somebody in contempt. Doesn’t that help you?”

The main effect, the official said, was a distraction for the staff and countless hours of work for the White House counsel’s office.

Accepting the undeniable logic of every new subpoena meaning one less sweeping piece of legislation, it staggers the mind to think of what the Democratic Congress could have accomplished these past 11 months if it had spent its time passing the administration's legislation instead of investigating it. Not only that, but there wouldn't have been the additional burden of having to replace officials forced to resign as the result of those investigations. Think how much more could get done!

Now, if only the press would lay off too, then they could really get some things accomplished.

In a blistering 14-page letter today (pdf), House oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) charged that the inspector general for the State Department Howard Krongard has been actively impeding probes into waste and corruption in Iraq and elsewhere. The basic allegation, as Waxman simply puts it, is that "you believe your foremost mission is to support the Bush Administration, especially with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than act as an independent and objective check on waste, fraud, and abuse on behalf of U.S. taxpayers." In other words, Waxman is charging that he's a hack, and the worst kind, too -- one that can do real damage.

Waxman has a litany of examples of Krongards' alleged hackishness, but one is particularly colorful.

There have been allegations that the contractor First Kuwaiti used forced labor building the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. So Krongard looked into it.

Only he had a peculiar method, according to Waxman's investigation. First, he insisted on doing the report entirely by himself and shut out his staff. And instead of seeking out the source of the allegations, he allowed the contractor to choose the employees that he'd interview. He ultimately interviewed six employees.

Read more »

Karl Rove made sure that agency and department officials were busy, busy, busy come election time, The Washington Post reported this weekend. And now House oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) wants to figure out just how busy.

Waxman sent out a request to 19 different agencies/departments today (take a deep breath: Departments of Justice, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, Labor, State, Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, Small Business Administration, General Services Administration, United States Agency for International Development, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy), all of which apparently took part in Rove's scheme to use agency officials to help vulnerable Republicans.

Read more »

Just in time for the NIE's assessment that the U.S. faces a "heightened threat environment," a House Oversight subcommittee hearing tomorrow will highlight the curious tale of the Wackenhut Corp. Wackenhut is one of the nation's largest private security companies, and over the last few years it's been awarded millions in government contracts to protect nuclear facilities, Army bases, transportation infrastructure, and much more. The trouble is that where Wackenhut goes, complaints of lax security often follow.

Wackenhut has the contract to secure the Army's Holston Ammunition Plant in Tennessee. Last year, guards at the plant told lawmakers that boaters were easily able to float into restricted areas at the riverfront facility, and that Wackenhut only bolstered patrols when it knew that Army inspectors were up for a visit. Wackenhut has contracts to secure 31 nuclear power plants around the country. Last year, the Project on Government Oversight reported that Wackenhut nearly got employees killed by not stopping a mock terrorism-response exercise at the Oak Ridge nuclear facility in time. Perhaps most egregiously, the Department of Homeland security opted last year not to renew Wackenhut's contract to protect DHS's Washington headquarters after guards told the AP about numerous security breaches -- including a botched anthrax scare. (Wackenhut security officials actually took the "suspicious white powder" into the office of Secretary Michael Chertoff and sprinkled it out of his window into the area below.)

Not the most union-friendly company on the planet, Wackenhut often blames its bad press on disgruntled employees. Making the feeling mutual, the Service Employees International Union keeps a website, EyeOnWackenhut.com, compiling the myriad complaints -- some legal, some in the court of public opinion -- made against Wackenhut.

Yet Wackenhut keeps landing lucrative contracts. Tomorrow, Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY) is holding a hearing of his House Oversight subcommittee to find out why that is. Along with a number of Energy and Homeland Security procurement officials and inspector-generals, a former Wackenhut guard at Homeland Security named Robin Smith will testify about the company's shaky standards of performance -- and how they don't appear to influence the government's willingness to give Wackenhut a pass. It doesn't seem that the company is sending anyone to refute the allegations, but expect a vigorous response from the Florida-based company all the same.

It's time for another round of "Which Office or Agency is the White House Politicizing Now?"

House oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), having recently brought to light the politicization of the surgeon general's office, is shining a light on the nation's drug czar. The czar, John Walters, and his deputies traveled on the taxpayers' dime to 20 events with vulnerable Republican members of Congress in the months prior to the 2006 elections, according to a committee press release. Not only that, but several of the trips were "combined with the announcement of federal grants or actions that benefited the districts of the Republican members." If government officials were using government funds to help elect Republicans, that would be a violation of the Hatch Act.

You can guess who was behind all that GOP-boosting travel: Karl Rove. Waxman says that Rove's former top aide Sara Taylor was the point person, and so he wants her to testify before his committee. He's requested that she appear for a deposition July 24th and raises the possibility of a hearing on July 30th. Taylor, you'll remember, just testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week about the U.S. attorney firings.

Read more »

Things just aren't what they used to be.

Nowadays, hardly an arbitrary exertion of executive power goes by without examination. Fire eight U.S. attorneys at once, and Congress starts asking questions. Commute the sentence of your former aide who was convicted of lying to protect senior administration officials and within a week, there's a hearing. Even your off-the-record email system is exposed, so that now there might be a record of Karl Rove's communications.

The White House is not happy, as spokesman Scott Stanzel made clear during yesterday's press briefing. Clearly, the Democratic Congress is in some sort of oversight frenzy, cross-eyed and foaming at the mouth, issuing subpoenas every waking hour:

I would note that we do get a lot of inquiries from the Hill. They've launched over 300 investigations, had over 350 requests for documents and interviews...And they have had over 600 oversight hearings in just about 100 days -- so that's about six oversight hearings a day. And we've turned over 200,000 pages of documents as an administration.

It's just no fun being in power any more.

Of course, Democrats, with characteristic skepticism, question the White House's numbers:

Democrats were dubious of the figures but did not offer their own.

"His numbers are as faulty as the intelligence they used to make their case for war," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"In the last six years, all they've had is a rubber-stamp Congress. Since January, Democrats have demanded accountability, a change of course and transparency," Manley said.

Full transcript below.

Read more »

The Department of Transportation is citing "confidentiality interests of the Executive Branch" as the reason for hanging on to at least 53 documents the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wants to see.

The committee requested the documents for its investigation into whether DOT improperly lobbied Congress on behalf of the auto industry. DOT maintains that anti-lobbying measures do not apply in the alleged scheme because members of the agency contacted Congress directly. The measures only applies when an agency enlists citizens to lobby officials, lawyers for DOT argue.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) still wants a full look at the case. The situation emerged from California's request for an Environmental Protection Agency waiver that would allow it to heighten emissions standards in the state. When the deadline for EPA to make a decision neared, DOT employees contacted members of Congress about how the decision could affect the auto industry in their districts.

The Department of Transportation said in a letter earlier this week that anti-lobbying measures do not apply to its officers who contact members of Congress on behalf of the auto industry.

DOT announced this stance in a letter from the agency’s acting general counsel responding to the head of the House Committee on Oversight and Government’s request for information. The committee wants to hear more about an alleged plan to pressure members of Congress into persuading the Environmental Protection Agency to deny California a waiver allowing it to raise carbon emission standards.

DOT’s head lawyer Rosalind Knapp argued in her response that anti-lobbying law only applies when agencies call on private citizens to lobby Congress on their behalf. She also said that she advised several officials that it would not violate anti-lobbying provisions if they contacted members of Congress directly:

DOTs actions in no way violated anti-lobbying restrictions, as those provisions apply to and prohibit “grass roots” lobbying intended to encourage third parties, members of special interest groups, or the general public to contact members of Congreess or State legislatures in support of or opposition to a legistlative matter.

Read more »

Today the head of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) told Lurita Doan, chief of the government's procurement agency, that she ought to step down.

Doan was back in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform today where Democrats wanted to know why she gave the Office of Special Counsel information that seemed to contradict what she first told the committee under oath in March.

The Office of Special Counsel questioned Doan over a possible violation of the Hatch Act about a month after she faced the House Oversight Committee. In a letter to the president released yesterday, Special Counsel Scott Bloch said his findings show that Doan should be punished to the fullest extent possible, which would mean being fired.

The Hatch Act violation stems from a comment she made to her employees about helping Republican congressional candidates. Doan made the comment, according to General Services Administration employees present, at a January 26 meeting at the GSA where Karl Rove's deputy Scott Jennings put on a slideshow showing key House and Senate races coming up in the 2008 election cycle.

In March, Doan had little memory of the meeting, but when she spoke with the Office of Special Counsel she recalled many more details. She also made disparaging comments about GSA employees who cooperated in the investigation, calling them poor performers. She also implied that she'd be sure they would not receive promotions or bonuses in the future.

Another proud moment in government brought to you by the Bush administration: the Department of Transportation has been accused of working as an auto lobby.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), who heads the Committee on on Oversight and Government Reform, sent DOT Secretary Mary E. Peters a letter today requesting more information on a voicemail message received by a member of Congress that implicates the agency in a lobbying effort. The message left by Heideh Shahmoradi, an aide at the Transportation Department, urges the unnamed official to take a stand on California’s move to enforce tougher carbon emission standards because “this would greatly impact the auto facilities” in the member’s district.

Waxman wants Shahmoradi deposed for the committee and copies of all documentation related to the incident. He wrote:

It is not an appropriate use of federal resources to lobby members of Congress to oppose state efforts to protect the environment. It is especially problematic on an issue that is pending for decision before the Administration and that is supposed to be decided based on an independent assessment of the merits. At the very least, Ms. Shamoradi's call suggests the presence of an improper hidden agenda.

Waxman’s letter, which includes a full transcript of the voicemail message, is available here.

The Department of Justice released more documents this evening. We are raking through them now. As has worked well before, we set up a thread here for readers to help us spot interesting pieces. When you post, please identify what you find by document dump set number and then page number. We have two sets, so an item from the first set on page 4 would read "1:4". The first set is here . The second set is here. Happy hunting!

Bradley Schlozman has been criticized for bringing voter fraud charges against several ACORN registration organizers just days before a close election in 2006. The decision appears to be in conflict with Department of Justice policy. Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) pointed out the apparent conflict to Schlozman today during his testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on the politicization of the agency.

Leahy became openly angered during his questioning of Schlozman when the witness tried to skirt the topic. Schlozman claimed he had clearance from his superiors at the Department of Justice to bring the charges. He also said that he did not think the charges would have an affect on the pending election. Leahy raised his voice and sharpened his tone, not his typical persona.

Here is video of the Leahy-Schlozman tussle:

Feinstein also pressed Schlozman on his decision to bring the criminal indictments right before the election. She was not thrilled with his answer either. Her video is on the way.

Late Update: Here's Feinstein.

We're reporting live from the Senate Judiciary's latest hearing on the politicization of the Department of Justice. The first witness will be Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' first appointed U.S. Attorney, Bradley Schlozman, of the Western District of Missouri. The second witness we'll hear from is Todd Graves, the U.S. Attorney that was ousted to make room for Schlozman.

Schlozman is being sworn in. More coverage is on the way. You can also follow along with video here.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) still wants to know where the Department of Justice sets the bar for "wrongdoing" or "improper" conduct.

Today, Whitehouse asked the Justice Department's oversight arm, the Office of the Inspector General, to look into how the agency defines improper behavior. When U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in April, Gonzales explained that actions become improper when they have an adverse affect on a particular case. Whitehouse was and is appalled.

“The notion that the definition of impropriety for DOJ employees should be set so low as to more or less mirror the definition of criminal obstruction of justice is disturbing,” Whitehouse wrote in a letter to Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn Fine. “Indeed, it implies that it would be perfectly appropriate to dismiss a U.S. Attorney because he or she did not, for example, act in a sufficiently partisan manner, although without regard to a particular case.”

Check out the volleying during Gonzales' Senate testimony:

Congress and the administration keep getting closer and closer to the edge. As part of the U.S. attorney firings investigation, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) has threatened to subpoena Karl Rove and other White House officials, a subpoena the White House will certainly fight. And in the House, House reform committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) has subpoenaed Condoleezza Rice to testify next month; Rice has said she won’t comply.

So what happens when they get to the edge? Will we see top officials in cuffs soon?

The short answer: no, but a subpoena still gets results.

Former general counsel to the House Charles Tiefer explained that these face-offs never culminate in court.

"In theory, what happens is, after the House, or the Senate, goes through a certain process, [the case] is kicked over to a prosecutor," Tiefer said. But to think that will actually happen "is a naive way" of looking at Congressional investigations.

No top government official has ever been indicted for failing to respond to a Congressional subpoena. Tiefer, who signed off on more Congressional subpoenas than anyone else while counsel to the House from 1984 to 1996, explained that these investigations mount pressure to achieve results.

When asked if a Congressional subpoena has teeth he asked his own question: “Does a vise have teeth?” Well, no, but, “you could crack stones in a vise.”

The investigation process ramps up political pressure with letters, media outreach, subpoenas and contempt until one side cracks. The more bipartisan support an investigation has, the heavier each move weighs. The more the public supports the opposing branch, the more likely a committee will be to back down.

Usually a negotiated agreement is reached before the investigation hits a serious phase.

Read more »

Here's the latest volley in the ongoing battle between Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Waxman, the chairman of the House committee on oversight, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice today to complain that State Department officials had attempted to prevent a nuclear weapons anaylst at the department from speaking with his staff. This comes after Waxman's committee issued a subpoena last week for Rice's testimony on how she dealt with claims before the war that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. Rice has said that she won't comply with the subpoena.

Waxman said that when his staff sought to meet with Simon Dodge, a nuclear weapons analyst at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, a State Department official called and objected. According to Waxman, the official "informed Committee staff that you [Rice] were prohibiting Mr. Dodge from meeting with Committee investigators. This official claimed that allowing Mr. Dodge to speak with Committee staff would be 'inappropriate' because the Committee voted to issue a subpoena to compel your attendance at a hearing on your knowledge of the fabricated evidence."

Waxman wants to speak to Dodge because he raised alarms about the Niger evidence two weeks before President Bush cited it in his State of the Union address in 2003.

Waxman said he was giving Rice the benefit of the doubt:

I assume that your legislative staff was acting without your authorization in this matter. It would be a matter of great concern - as well as an obvious conflict of interest - if vou had directed your staff to impede a congressional investigation into matter that may implicate your conduct as National Security Advisor.

Waxman informed Rice that the committee would be interviewing Dodge next week.

And he also requested several documents from Rice "relating to the claim that Iraq sought uranium from Africa."

FromCQ:

The Democratic-run House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on today authorized subpoenas for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice....

Waxman has been trying to get Rice to testify about claims Iraq was attempting to obtain uranium, a vital element for nuclear weaponry, in the buildup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. The committee voted 21-10 to authorize him to issue a subpoena to Rice.

Update/Correction: This post originally incorrectly stated that the panel had issued the subpoena.

Here's the latest instance of what is becoming a flourishing genre in the new Congress: the spurned chairman letter. It comes when oversight efforts are met with deafening silence from the administration.

House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) wrote Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice such a letter (pdf) today. Last month, Waxman wrote Rice, inviting her to an April 18 hearing on the Niger forgeries and the infamous sixteen words, and asking a list of questions about what she knew about the documents and how they got into the State of the Union address. What he got in return was a mostly irrelevant letter from one of Rice's subordinates forwarding previous correspondence that answered none of his questions. He's not happy and is pressing again for answers.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) delivered one of the classics of the genre last week, berating Alberto Gonzales for his silence in response to repeated requests for information over the past several months.

The administration's strategy, if indeed it is one, seems short-sighted. It's worked for the past six years. But the Dems are in charge now -- and anger and subpoena-power is a dangerous mix.