Truth Squaded! An Encounter with Rep. Henry Waxman by, Cheri Roberts-Piper – MTR News
Thursday night Rep. Henry Waxman walked into a crowded room of concerned constituents and citizens - after what had reportedly already been a trying day. The longtime and much loved Congressman got a little more than he bargained for. Waxman was met in a small community room at the Westside Pavilion Landmark Theater building in Santa Monica, CA, by more than a hundred people, most of whom appeared to be there to discuss and press for the impeachment of both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Waxman’s more than 30-minute speech focussed on health care, corrupt charities, rampant steroid use in major league baseball, and he touched lightly with pride on the fact that Congress had just passed the Whistle Blower Protection Act. He clearly stated with regard to any impeachment bill that his opinion differed from those in the room and that he would not support such hearings nor would he entertain a new 911 investigation because it would look bad for the Democratic Party. When the disagreeing crowd interrupted his speech at that point, Waxman, who was clearly agitated and sounding almost childish said,
"Hey this is not right, the way you are treating me".
As We Are Change LA’s Adam Ruff put it,
"He nearly cracked completely a couple times. He apparently wants to continue to ignore the will of the people and wants to be respected for that".
Later, when the audience was allowed to ask questions they lined the center isle for their turn to speak. From the beginning Waxman was bombarded with question after question about Sibel Edmonds – the gagged FBI Whistleblower, WTC7 and other issues related to the crimes of 911. These questions came from We Are Change LA members who had dispersed into the audience and appeared to be coming from everywhere - even the cameraman at the event, Drew Piper, was a founding member of the Change LA group.
Congressman Waxman, you have just been Truth Squaded!
The questions ranged from why the Congressman refuses to have Sibel Edmonds testify under oath in an open session to when will Congress open a new 911 investigation - while also hitting hard on HR 1955. Waxman was obviously caught off guard and cornered with little to say on those issues. Even the forum’s host and moderator, Mickey Oskey - of the Democratic Westside Progressives, tried without luck, to stop the bombardment. No less than six We Are Change LA members were able to get their hard-hitting questions heard before the Congressman had to leave. At the end of the night I asked core Change LA members Katy Kurtzman - whose question was about the new Thought Crime Bill HR 1955, and Jeremy Rothe-Kushel what they were walking away with from this experience.
Katy was the first to respond,
"What I find most striking is he (Waxman) admitted to not reading HR 1955 at all before signing it. I mean, that just really struck me hard, that and also the fact that he is obviously ok with fascism and treason in our country because according to him it would hurt the Democratic Party if he were to press any line of impeachment".
When Kurtzman asked her question during the Q & A, the Congressman readily admitted to not having read HR 1955 and went on to admonish the audience for not alerting him personally that there was any controversy surrounding the Bill. Anonymously from the audience came the response that Waxman had no right to sign anything pertaining to the American people without first reading and understanding what he was signing. While as Jeremy, Change member and founder of Jewish Voices for Peace and Justice, said he got what he had expected to get and that, "He (Waxman) confirmed for me what I was already thinking about the democratic leadership at this point, that they’re just playing politics with peoples lives and with what is right and wrong. The fact that the congress has a lower approval rating then the worst President in US history is proof that this strategy of theirs is neither moral nor politically savvy".
As Waxman exited the community room, Change members were waiting for him on the catwalk, with camera rolling. Followed by his entourage, Waxman walked away only to stop abruptly, arms spread wide in question and turn to this writer with obvious discomfort and ask,
"Why are you following me?"
To which I replied,
"Because the exits that way Sir…"
*Sibel Edmonds - pronounced Si-bell, testified under oath before Congress about foreknowledge of the attacks of Sep. 11th, 2001 by government higher ups as translated while the FBI employed her. Sibel has been gagged from speaking about this and other evidence, by the US Government with threat of incarceration and is a champion to the 911 Truth movement.
http://www.mtrnews.com/
C Piper, Aka Cheri Roberts, lil...is a longtime activist and writer who has worked in mixed media for 15 yrs. With 911 Truth as her primary focus, she participates in and organizes for events both locally and nationally always striving to get people out of their chairs and in the streets. She believes the biggest strength of the 911 Truth movement is the one strength they have yet to embrace, unity.
One of the highlights of the night was Waxman askng if he was gong to be on youtube. He almost sounded excited by the dea, which fnd amusing because later had an opportunity to talk on camera with the Congressman and he made a few promises that I will hold him to and it will be pretty hard for him to wiggle out of them.
by
Cheri Roberts-Piper (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 430 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 10:45:04 AM
Something about this article (personal, passionate, articulate) left me feeling compelled to involve myself, so I'm now an OpEd member! Thanks for the provocation!
by
Sue Deaunym (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 11:24:02 AM
As I read and reread this article, it seems to me that you are very hostile to Waxman because he will not champion your cause, 9-11 truth (which i wholeheartedly support) as well as his cause, which is impeachment of Cheney for three very convincing reason, but one of which is not 9-11 truth. This hostility from you seems counter productive to me for your cause as well as Waxman's. What are you trying to accomplish with this article?
by
Christie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 145 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 12:02:45 PM
LOL, your response makes much more sense now. No worries and for the record, I personally asked Waxman to support Wexler's impeachment effort. He basically said *no*.
I support Wexler's impeachment effort.
by
Cheri Roberts-Piper (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 430 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 12:23:35 PM
Not hardly. He is dead against any impeachment and made that very clear. He specifically said wrt impeachment that the Dems would NOT persue it because doing so would make them *look bad*. How dumb is that? Additionally wrt HR 1955, he flat out said he didn't read it at all before signing it and up til that evening wasn't aware there was anything wrong with the Bill. Have YOU read HR 1955? Do you think it is OK for our lawmakers to sign away our Constitutional rights without care in that manner? I don't think it's OK and I doubt any freedom loving citizen of this country - regardless of political party, thinks that is OK. Keep in mind that he is not just a CA Congressman, he is also head of the Oversight committee, which according to him means he oversees pretty much EVERYTHING wrt this Government and current Administration.
There is no hostility from me towards Waxman or vice versa. I thanked him for being such a champion of women's rights all these years and for all his hard work over the decades that he has served us. After all was said and done Waxman and I chatted on camera for some time, whether he felt it was a photo op or not, he even hugged me. He also made some on camera promises that I intend to hold him to.
Congress works for us, let us not let them forget it. It is our laziness and complacency that has helped get our country into ths mess to begin with.
People need to come out from behind the safety of their keyboards and stand up.
BTW, I am not a member of We Are Change.
by
Cheri Roberts-Piper (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 430 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 12:20:19 PM
I've been on DailyKos, saying that if impeachment effort are unsuccessful, it will actually heighten the resentment of the mainstream voter, and make althemore likely a Democratic president in 2008.
I've been saying this for years, even before the last Congressional elections. In March 2006 I wrote:
I am in favor of a FAILED impeachment effort: a Congress that refuses to impeach an unpopular president is more likely to be sent packing in forthcoming elections. If Bush is impeached and removed from office, Cheney (the real controlling force in the White House) will simply step up to assume the role of President. Republicans in Congress will assume they're off the hook, and likely remain in power after the 2006 elections. The American public will go back to sleep, later electing again what they erroneously regard as a conservative president in 2008.
If Bush is impeached but remains in office, Republicans will simply distance themselves from the White House, and again dominate the House and Senate in 2006. The GOP will offer a "real" conservative as a presidential candidate, who might be able to win in 2008.
If the impeachment process is initiated but blocked by the Republican majority, it will be obvious to most Americans that their president and his party refuse to be accountable to them. Democrats will take many incumbent seats occupied by Republicans in 2006, and the GOP will have great difficulty retaining the presidency in 2008.
____________________________________________
So, let's get ON with it!
by
Sue Deaunym (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 12:42:03 PM
Waxman believes that any impeachment effort would reflect badly on the Dem Party and that people will believe any impeachment by the Dems would be to retaliate for Clinton. He said also that if the Dems were to proceed it would hurt any chances of getting a Dem in the WH...so it's Party politics and nothing more. He specifically said his "opnion was different" than ours where as I replied that impeachment hearings should be based on the facts and not his opinions.
by
Cheri Roberts-Piper (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 430 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 12:50:39 PM
I like the idea that he's trying to clean up money issues with the whistleblower thing, but I have reservations as to his overall efficacy. Nancy 'off the table' Pelosi has kind of set the tone, here, co-equal branch though they may be, I think they're loath to bite the hand that feeds, so to speak.
I think something that really stood out to me was Waxman touting with pride the fact that he and Congress had just passed the Whistle Blower Protection Act...I would like to know how this new Act would protect FBI Whistle Blower Sibel Edmonds.
by
Cheri Roberts-Piper (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 430 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 1:42:24 PM
OK I agree with you on everything, but from a strategic point of view I don't get it. Why Waxman instead of maybe fifty other congressmen? Is he key to getting other congressmen to changing their positions?
by
vidiot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 148 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 12:53:53 PM
Well, first of all this was a Town Hall style forum. There was an agenda about healthcare, which basically got swept aside for other issues.
Waxman as head of the oversight committee has the power to bring Sibel Edmonds under oath in an open session. He has heard her testimony, the American people need to hear it to. He has control of that happening. So wrt any 911 issue stuff, that's why Waxman.
It's telling that Waxman would be more concerned with how the Democratic Party will look as opposed to doing what's right. I don't care if you're Democratic, Republican, Independent, or from Mars, right is right and wrong is wrong - and impeachment has been long overdue and there isn't anything anyone can say that would change my mind on this issue.
It's telling that he would admit to not having read HR 1955 after what went down with the Patriot Act and Military Commission Act. It's beyond my comprehension how any so-called legislature can sign anything without reading it first. After all isn't it just commonsense to read anything before you sign it, much less something that radically effects millions of lives? This to me disqualifies him from even holding office.
It's telling that before winning the elections that placed him in his position he said Sibel Edmonds would be one of his first hearings he'd hold and to date he's done nothing to qualify that promise. Ergo - he lied.
It's telling that Waxman would wish to control the discussion of the meeting. After all, we don't work for him - he works for us. Just who the hell is he to be up-set at our questions?
What this all tells me is that the majority in both parties have nothing but contempt for the people they claim to represent and that you're living in a fool's paradise believing otherwise.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 1056 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 4:31:24 PM
