[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
9/11 See other 9/11 Articles Title: Henry Waxman finally speaks out on Sibel Edmonds Case! Here is the first part of the transcript still in progress
HL: Its an honor to have with us today Henry Waxman, the congressman representing the 30th district of California, which includes Hollywood. Mr. Waxman is also the Chairman on the Committee on oversight and Government Reform, and has singlehandedly been leading the charge against corruption in the Bush administration. Thank you for coming on Henry Waxman: Thank You, pleased to be with you. HL: Youre one of the fighters in the Democratic party and I want to thank you for all your hard work in terms of your investigation of corruption in Oversight I also want to say that I am proud to be from your district, I have voted for you every chance Ive had, you are the only choice on the ballot I dont even have to think about. HW: (Laughs) Thank You HL. OK lets get to some questions. In a video interview I watched with you back in April you stated that you did not think the American people were in favor of impeachment, do you still feel that way. HW: I dont know what the public opinion polls show
some people have told me the majority may be for impeachment, but Im not sure of that. I dont think thats the essential point is whether there is a majority at this point, the question is whether there is enough evidence, whether congress has the ability to go down this road
whether the Senate can muster 2/3 for an Impeachment, when they cant even get together 60 votes for most worthwhile legislation, and whether it will lead to the public coming to the conclusion that the Democrats may be doing to the Republican, what the Republicans did to the democrats which in my view would be a very bad thought. HL: Some people are saying that its a moral thing, that the constitution mandates impeachment for an executive who tries to go too far in his executive powers regardless of the situation just to show that Congress is against whats going on but I understand your point of view. According to a recent poll I read 54% of Americans are in favor of Impeachement, and with Bushs approval rating at 28% I just think that a lot of people feel that now is the time to do it rather then allowing Bush to continue to do what he has been doing for the next 18 months or so . HW: I appreciate that point of view, I have met with people from the district that certainly feel very strongly, there is even an office that has been opened very nearby my district office that has been set up to try to encourage people to (step up?) for impeachment. I share their concerns and their outrage over how the Bush administration has operated
I think that
however we need to keep In mind that impeachment is for High crimes and Misdemeanors not disagreements over policy, even if we couldnt prove high crimes and misdemeanors I wish this administration was not in power because they have been incompetent and done a great disservice to the American people not only today, but for future generations in their foreign and domestic policies HL; Well I certainly agree with you there
..Democrats, excluding you of course, have a reputation even among some of their constituents as being what some members of the blogoshpere call weak and spineless, they had a chance to end the war by denying funding to Bush, and then they went ahead and gave him the money anyway, and this past week with the FISA vote in which 16 Senators and 41 House Representatives voted to give Bush the power to continue the illegal wiretaps. Also when Al Gore won and John Kerry won the Presidency neither one of them really fought back as hard as they could. Why do you think it is that the Democrats cant get it together with a unified front and fight, the way you do, and the way Republicans always seem to do? HW: I think the charge against the Democrats is unfair we won control of the House and the Senate in this last election but by a narrow margin, we can only do what we can do with the votes we have. When it came to the Iraq War funding resolution, the House of Representatives twice voted to limit any funds to withdrawal of our troops and have a date when the war would be ended, and we would not have a combatant role, we pushed this view forward, the Senate even adopted it at one point and the President vetoed it, we tried it a second time and we couldnt even get the Senate to go along, and then when the votes were counted, a majority..with the overwhelming vote to the Republicans and a very small number of Democrats voted for the Presidents funding of the war and for the FISA provision that was adopted. Im proud to say I voted against both, and Im proud to say the overwhelming number of Democrats voted against both in the House, and The Senate No on those measures, however we just dont have a majority, or a strong enough majority to get past the 60 vote filibuster requirement in the Senate, or the 2/3 for the Congress to overturn Vetoes HL: Do you think the 16 Senators and 41 Representatives voted for the FISA bill knowing they didnt have the votes and doing it for Political reasons whereby they could get a favor from a Republican later on when they had a vote that they were trying to sponsor? Because this is a Political Science thing that you would learn in school but it just seems that The Republicans dont play that way and they never capitulate to anything ..they never compromise on anything yet The Democrats seem to do you think thats part of the reason why? HW: No I think those Democrats that voted for both of those proposals, disagreed with them, did not do it for a promise of a favor, I think they did it because they thought there constituents would want them to do it. Or they did it out of conviction. There are democrats that come from districts that are very conservative even majority Republican, and that was their evaluation of their political situation vis-à-vis their constituents not their colleagues. HL: I want to ask you about the Pat Tillman case, a report just came out where Doctors, whos names were blacked out said that the bullet holes were so close that it appeared that he had been cut down by an M-16 from a mere 10 yards or so away. There was also a report that there was no Al-Qaeda in the area at the time of his death, and there is speculation now that he may have been murdered by his own people. I know you are involved in an investigation of the whole situation, can you bring us up to date on whats going on? HW: I dont think the evidence indicates that he was intentionally murdered by fellow combatants in the US forces. I think that what happened was that he was killed by friendly fire by someone in the US Military who mistakenly thought he was a member of the enemy, that is called Friendly Fire. What concerned me the most was that even though it was known that he was killed by Friendly Fire almost immediately after he died HL: So whats the status on the hearings
HW: We had a hearing with the Tillman family, and following that we had a hearing with specialist ONeill who testified that his eyewitness report of the friendly fire killing was doctored and changed without his consent and he was told, commanded, not to tell Pat Tillmans brother who served in Afghanistan with him that his brother had been killed by Friendly fire and that the whole effort to get him a hero fighting against the enemy had been a made up story and the truth was withheld from the family, That was our first hearing. Our second hearing was to examine what happened to a memo called a P4 memo, a memo that was written for 3 Generals, indicating right after Pat Tillmans death, that they should try to get ahold of the President of The United States and others in the administration, not to speak to freely about Pat Tillmans death being from enemy fire, because it looked like he had been killed by friendly fire. This was a memo that was sent to 3 Generals including General Abazaid, who told us at our hearing that he passed it on to the chief of staff, General Myers, General Myers said that he didnt remember being told about the P4 memo he didnt remember whether he told Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Rumsfeld didnt remember if he was informed about it, and he didnt remember whether he informed people at the White House about it. So their failure to remember something that seems to me to be quite consequential at the time..and an issue you would expect them to remember has brought us at least to this point, to a lack of conclusion as to how far that P4 memo went up the chain of command, and whether it reached the President. We are now trying to find out from the assistants of the President and his speechwriters how it was that a few days after Pat Tillmans death The President went to a Press Club dinner and talked of Pat Tillmans death without mentioning that he was killed in combat with the enemy a story that emerged later, and whether the White House was informed of the truth but withheld it from the family and the American people. HL: And there seems to be a lot of this I dont recall going on with members of the Bush Administration isnt there? HW: Absolutely Alberto Gonzalez is the best example of a man who uses that exact excuse over and over again. HL: I had a question I was going to get to in a little while about him, heres another thing I wanted to ask you about I did a posting on my website, and also on the website Democratic Underground for specific questions that people would be asking you, a few different people wanted to know about the Sibel Edmonds situation. Now I have to admit HW: I dont recall that I ever said that I was going to hold hearings on her specific case. I am concerned about Whistle blowers, there was a hearing about whistle blowers and I believe she came up at that hearing, and it resulted in legislation to protect whistle blowers, including whistle blowers given her type of circumstances. Those who have access to National Security information. That bill passed the House overwhelmingly, and Im hopeful the Senate will take it up. I think if we are ever going to have a openness in Government we have to have protections for people who are genuine whistleblowers who give us information that we otherwise wouldnt get. But I really dont have a particular on her case. HL: Would you consider holding hearings on what she has to say based on the fact that she was with the State Department, or the FBI, pretty high up, pretty credible witness. HW: I know my staff has been in touch with her case, and maybe with her, and her supporters. I dont want to say at this point that we are going to hold a hearing on her specific issue there are lots of matters to pursue for matters of investigation of oversight. And we are working as hard as we can. Well look at in the context of all the other issues we want to pursue. Theres another 10 minutes in the interview. Click on the audio link to hear it all. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Zipporah (#0)
What total douche-bags are our "reps."
Translation...HW.."We aint gonna do anything".
There ya go..
Zip... Henry is living proof that evolution and genetics sometimes go astray.
LOL!
I have evidence against Dick Cheney. He was in the room with Norm Mineta when he refused the military permission to shoot down Flight 77. Robert Andrews was going to the Counter Terrorism Center in the Pentagon when the CTC was destroyed by a bomb which killed over 40 auditors next door who were attempting to trace the 2.3 trillion dollars that was missing from DOD spending. This bomb went off 3 1/2 minutes before the plane hit the building. Cheney allowed Flight 77 to hit the Pentagon because he knew a bomb was going to kill the auditors. That makes him guilty of murder and treason. Waxman has 2 problems in revealing the truth of 9-11. On 9-11-2001 we were still operating on the Clinton budget so that money was stolen on Bill and Hillary's watch. And the bomb in the Pentagon and the bombs inside the WTC were most likely placed by Israel. That is why he is covering for Bush and Cheney and that is why I regard any congressman or Senator who does not support impeachment as an un-indicted co-conspirator. The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
Plenty of motives, lots of deals. A pox on both their houses!
Ron Paul for President
|
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|