Congressman Henry Waxman has a history of being a democratic stalwart, but his illustrious reputation has been badly tarnished by his refusal to pursue hearings on Sibel Edmunds and his apparently incompetent handling, or should I say non-handling of inherent contempt charges against the Bush administration and it’s officials who have thus far refused to testify before congress.
Sadly, congressman Waxman has of late shown that he is either not capable of handling these issues or not inclined to do so. What could be the reason for this stunning turnabout in attitude?
More below the jump
Well, to paraphrase Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, when we eliminate all else that is possible whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. So let’s start eliminating shall we.
Congressman Waxman interviewed Sibel Edmunds behind closed doors and expressed shock and outrage at her allegations. According to Edmunds as posted by Lukery's excellent diary, he let her know that it was only because the democrats were out of power (at the time) that situation was being tolerated. Additionally, she claims to have multiple letters from Waxman himself expressing his outrage and concern over the issue.
Yet Waxman seems to have little recollection and a severely muted interest in pursuing this matter. Indeed he has been silent as a stone for months on it. This in spite of the fact that he has received a petition signed by over 15,000 American Citizens requesting that he hold hearings on Sibel Edmunds.
Within her allegations are potentially the seeds to the complete destruction of the current republican administration if not the entire party. One would reasonably expect him to jump all over it. But he does not, indeed he seems to be content to ignore the very things he found so egregious only months before. Once he assumed the mantle of power his attitude suddenly seems to have shifted.
How do we account for this? Edmunds testimony has become no less shocking today than it was before. However, it is believed to contain not only dammaging information about republicans but also some democrats as well. Could it be that Waxman is on that list? If not him, perhaps other key democrats?
By not holding hearings, Waxman casts a pall on himself and indeed potentially many others in congress including on the democratic side of the aisle. At this issue grows in focus, his refusal to properly investigate the issue can only serve to dammage him.
At some point he must act to clear his own name by holding these hearings. Failure to do so can only implicate him. So we are left with a conundrum:
Is Congressman Waxman part of it? If not, whom is he protecting? What is he covering up? When we eliminate the notion that Sibel Edmunds story may not be credible, there is precious little left on which to blame his lack of action, least of all a faulty memory.
If Congressman Waxman will not act, then clearly he has outlived his usefulness to the Democratic party, or indeed the nation. It may be time to remove him from office. He may have been a great champion in the past, but the past is past and this nation has never before faced such danger to it's own constitutional survival as it faces today. We as it's citizens have a responsibility to look forward, not backward.
Muhammad Ali was a great boxer, but today is a feeble old man with Alzheimer's. His day is past. The same analogy can be applied to Henry Waxman. His day may be past, it may be time for him to go.
If I am wrong, I challenge congressman Waxman to prove it wrong by standing up and doing his constitutionally mandated duty. The Sibel Edmunds case is potentially one of the most explosive such issues that we have seen under the current administration. We must conclude that he knows this very well, thus his longstanding silence and recent tepid responses are not credible.
Timidity in the face of what we know he knows, can only serve to implicate him somehow, either directly (which is unlikely given his previous zeal in pursuing this matter) or indirectly such as knowledge of complicit behaviour by known democratic leaders.
Either way, his lack of action provides ammunition for his removal. It's not enough to simply call his office and request hearings. That time may indeed be past. We must take the gloves off and begin to challenge him where it has real impact.
A democrat must be recruited to challenge him. The netroots has already shown that we have the power to influence primary elections of prominent leaders such as Joe Lieberman. We can do it again, and it may be necessary.
Update:1:12PM MST I received an error when I tried to post this initially and my credits and other edits were somehow lost as it seems to have posted an older incomplete version. It is now complete.