Who is Henry Waxman Trying to Protect?

In a refrain that is becoming all-too common from the incoming Democratic leadership in Congress, Congressman Henry Waxman is promising not to issue subpoenas for Bush Administration officials unless absolutely necessary, and says he sees no point in investigating the lies about pre-war intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and their role in starting the war in Iraq. Waxman won’t investigate who in the Bush White House knew about torture of prisoners by Americans at Abu Ghraib, either. Says Representative Waxman, “Those failures are obvious. I don’t know what would be gained by going over some of those areas”

He doesn’t know what would be gained with investigations into lies that took the USA into war? He doesn’t know what would be gained through investigations into the extent to which a policy of torture was promoted by top military officers and officials in the White House? Well, I suppose if you don’t mind the President of the United States starting wars based on complete fictions, and if you don’t mind the American government is torturing people, then there is nothing to be gained. Is that how Congressman Waxman sees things?

Just who is Henry Waxman trying to protect?

It may well be that Henry Waxman is trying to protect is Henry Waxman. Congressman Waxman, you see, ignored the pleas of his constituents back in 2002, and announced that he thought going to war against Iraq was a great idea. Then, Waxman voted to give George W. Bush the power to start that war.

In 2002, as he prepared to make that vote, Representative Waxman gave a speech in which he admitted that his constituents had been in contact with him, begging him not to believe President Bush, and not to vote in favor of starting a war in Iraq. Waxman said,

“I have received hundreds of calls during the past few weeks, and many of my constituents are raising similar and very serious concerns. They are suspicious of the timing of this debate. They see political overtones to it, and question whether this vote is being used for political purposes… Many callers have told me they don’t see evidence that Saddam Hussein poses a current threat to the United States.”

It turned out that those constituents who called Henry Waxman, asking him not to vote for the war, were right. Congressman Waxman’s constituents could see that there had been no evidence that Saddam Hussein was a threat, but Waxman didn’t believe his constituents. Waxman believed George W. Bush instead. He continued to state, in his pro-war speech,

“There is every evidence, from the dossier prepared by the Prime Minister of Britain, to President Bush’s speech at the United Nations, that Saddam has rebuilt substantial chemical and biological weapons stocks, and that he is determined to obtain the means necessary to produce nuclear weapons.”

Waxman concluded,

“Although I disagree deeply with much of President Bush’s domestic policies and some aspects of his foreign policy, I agree with his conclusion that we cannot leave Saddam to continue on his present course. No one doubts that he is trying to build a nuclear device, and when he does, his potential for blackmail to dominate the Persian Gulf and Middle East will be enormous, and our efforts to deal with him be even more difficult and perilous. The risks of inaction clearly outweigh the risks of action.”

Yes, Bush lied and people died. But, couldn’t we just as clearly say that Waxman lied and people died? Henry Waxman told us that there was “every evidence” that Saddam Hussein had massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and was trying to obtain nuclear weapons, but there never really was any such evidence, was there? If Bush was lying, wasn’t Waxman lying too?

Democrats like Henry Waxman have spent the last three years claiming that they were deceived by President Bush into believing that there was secret evidence proving that there were Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and that there was a need for war. To that, I say, bullshit. Henry Waxman told America that there was “every evidence”. Well, did Waxman ever actually see any such evidence?

Congressman Henry Waxman’s constituents knew there wasn’t any evidence. They called him and told him so. And George W. Bush never showed Congressman any evidence. Henry Waxman just chose to believe Bush, and passed along Bush’s lie as his own. There was not any deception of Henry Waxman by George W. Bush that Henry Waxman didn’t choose to go along with, for the sake of political convenience.

So, is it any wonder that Henry Waxman is now declaring that there isn’t any need to hold any investigations into abuses of intelligence to concoct “evidence” proving the need to start a war in Iraq? Henry Waxman was part of the abuse himself.

Henry Waxman’s quick move to prevent any investigations from his committee into the lies that took American into war in Iraq ought to be a reminder to us all that, if we want good, honest government with checks and balances, voting Democrat isn’t good enough. We need to vote for Democrats that will consistently support an agenda of peace and progress, and demand truth from government even when it might be politically inconvenient for them.

Now, with the 2008 presidential election season upon us, the need to be selective in the Democrats that we support is more important than ever. Henry Waxman’s example of selective oversight is reason 37 out of 2008 to vote for a progressive President in 2008.

Share This