No doubt Congress will get to the bottom of this as soon as they learn who was crafting the national energy policy.

And who the anthrax mailer was.

And who force-fed them stupid pills when Bush wanted a blank check to invade Iraq.

Anyone want to take bets on the exact date that the Dems back down on this issue too?

Demand?

Isn't that a strange word to put in the same headline with the word "Democrats"? I don't see any quote from Rep. Waxman that uses that word or anything close to it. I see one where he points out a conflict. I see another where he asks for an explanation. But 'demand'?

What I don't see for instance is any threat to say have law enforcement officers kicking in doors to search for evidence or to haul people off to interrogation rooms to try to get those explanations.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd think that simply the order to reuse those tapes is a violation of the laws concerning Presidential records. If so, they typical response in this country would be arrest the person who signed the order and threaten to charge them with that violation of the law. Then, when they tell them they are going to be spending the next 18 months in a federal pen, they say that maybe this charge could be dropped if the person tells them who told them to do this.

If a government official were 'demanding' to know what happened, this is what would be occurring. Instead, this is just another Democrat who doesn't really want to push things or pursue this, but who instead just wanted some cheap headlines that bump his name up a bit and Bush's name down a bit. Its all theater .... as usual. I'll believe it when I see someone in handcuffs.

"..... Weismann said, the expected e-mail volume for the White House Office in the Executive Office of the President is 60,000 to 100,000 daily, yet there are days for which the total volume was "as low as five daily e-mails.""

Even if they were all out of the office on vacation, common sense would dictate they would get more than "five" daily e-mails.

I'm willing to believe that Henry Waxman is indeed a determined, hard-charging bulldog who will run for as long as it takes to overtake the Republic criminal cabal's getaway car and chew its wheels clean off.

Still, I feel compelled to recycle a comment I wrote elsewhere last July, during another demonstration of Democratic political impotence...
_____________________________________________________________

True story; name changed to protect the innocent:

My mother's brother, Uncle Max, is a sweet, good-hearted man; c. 1960, he and my aunt made a (tragic) decision to adopt a baby boy because they couldn't have children.

Fast-forward 15 years, and the Adopted Only Child, indulged and protected by my aunt, has grown into a freakish Frankenstein who rules the house. The Kid, who just stopped going to high school because he was unpopular and unhappy, passes time by spending Uncle Max's money to fund anything The Kid wants. My aunt defends The Kid's insane spending-- as when The Kid decided (on his own) to "renovate" their kitchen, tore down the breakfast nook, and bought about a thousand dollars worth of power tools that remained piled up for months, untouched, in the ruins of the breakfast nook.

There were dozens of episodes like this one, in which The Kid blew a bundle of Uncle Max's dough, and my aunt tried to put the best spin possible on these outrages. We would usually hear about this from my mom, and the story would always end with her mournful observation, "... and Max was so mad!" It was a given that poor browbeaten Uncle Max didn't have any real authority in his own house, and that his perpetually becoming so mad didn't change a thing.

It became a standard joke in our family-- whenever my mom would favor us with the latest outrage, we would clamor, "...and Uncle Max was so mad!" We all felt sorry for poor, gentle Uncle Max, but that punch line summed up his impotent wrath.

Every time I hear about "Give 'em Hell" Harry Reid supposedly taking umbrage at the depredations of the criminal cabal in the Executive Branch, I think, "And Max was so mad!"

I think the Democrats should change their name to the "And Max was so mad!" Party.
_____________________________________________________________

Sorry to flaunt my morbid cynicism, but IMO Waxman and all the other Democratic committee chairman may be filling warehouses with smoking guns. And they'll stay there until the end of time. The Dems fooled us pretty good in 2006, but once it was obvious that We the People had been had, there went the heartfelt fantasy of, "They'll soon get to the bottom of all this, sort it out, and set things to rights!"

I'm not suggesting that Waxman himself isn't trying his best to catch up to that getaway car, but unfortunately, all he'll accomplish is entertaining observers with the thrill of the chase.

Little Brother: Great story!!!! Only instead of "And Max was so mad", where Waxman is concerned, his reaction is always "A sternly worded letter". And so it ends. There will be another "sternly worded letter". The end. Even the "thrill of the chase" comes to an abrupt end. I don't even get excited anymore. The thrill is gone. I'm like a greyhound that figures out that I ain't EVER going to get my teeth in that damn rabbit.

Ain't going to be any wheel chewing. Move along. Nothing to see here. Move along.....

Dear Little Brother:

That was a masterpiece, and I dare say better than most of the postings one sees on Common Dreams. Masterful also because it was so succinct. Why not write it as a brief article and submit it to Common Dreams?

Democrats demanding... that's funny. The press should stop anthropomorphizing. If the Dems EVER demand anything that would really be news.

Now, you don't see it; now, you do.

Waxman may surprise you.

"Democrat Demands Answers on White House e-Mail Archives"

And as usual they wont get any which actually suits them fine because they didnt really care about the answers in the first place !!

Dreamertoo, yes, Waxman might surprise us, but the Supreme Court won't. Even if Waxman manages to get lower courts to order the Bush Administration to give up evidence or witnesses, they will just run to the "unitary executive" Supreme Court who will rule to uphold the right of Bush to do any damn thing he wants. We aren't a democracy anymore, we've been had. Corporate rules! Our only last tool of resistance, a national sitdown strike, will become invalid if we tailspin into a depression. There won't be any jobs to refuse to go to. Anyway, Americans are such a bunch of scaredy cats they will go on doing what they're told to do.

kathyodat

Email travels from hop-to-hop as plaintext, through each mail transport agent (MTA). It's typical for a traffic to hit half a dozen hops or more.

If Waxman is serious, why's he wasting his time with political charades -- why not contact relevant D.C. area ISP's and backbone providers with a search warrant to see what may be archived on their systems, as the messages passed through?

I don't think Waxman will surprise me because I'm pretty sure he's under strict orders not to do so. And so far, in the last year, he hasn't violated those orders yet.

Waxman to me is a very good case study of what happens as one rises in the Democratic Party. As a back bencher, as a committee member who didn't have senority, as the leading minority figure on committees, he seemed wonderful. He took on a lot of good causes and made a lot of good noise about them. I was a fan for many years.

But something happens when people move up to senior positions in the Dem party. It seems pretty obvious that they are told to give up their earlier causes and positions, and now they have to be a team player with the Dem leadership. Waxman, Obey, Conyers are all committee chairs who fit this pattern. Basically, their record in that position of power doesn't match their record before then. And it seems pretty obvious that this was a part of the deal of them getting the committee chair. This pattern even fits Ms. Pelosi. She used to be a fairly progressive congresscritter from SF. Now that she's the speaker, she's a pro-war, pro-corporate team player in the leadership of the party.

The Dems often pull out the progressive backgrounds of people like this in order to trick us into supporting them. Its a pretty standard tactic for them. Like the way they made sure the left was aware of Sen. Kerry's anti-war stances that he took during the end days of the Vietnam war. This was a smoke screen to get people to support a Sen that supported the Iraq war and who supports the notion of an American empire. His only claim was that he could run the evil empire better than Bush was doing.

So, with these Dems, you have to look only at what actions they've taken since assuming positions of power. Ignore their words, and put aside their previous record.

Waxman's record as committee chair is very well described by many posters above. Some stern sounding statements meant to generate headlines favorable to the Dems. But no actions with any teeth to them beyond some strongly worded letters. Actually, you could probably strike the word 'strongly' from that.

BeForKids, impeach the Supreme Court as you see fit.

"Samuel Chase (April 17, 1741 – June 19, 1811), was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and earlier was a signer of the United States Declaration of Independence as a representative of Maryland. He was well-known as a staunch Federalist, and was impeached for allegedly letting his partisan leanings affect his court decisions, but he was acquitted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase

Anyone who isn't scared just doesn't know what's going on. Find out what's going on and what you can do about it.

Naomi Wolf - The End of America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

COMarc January 19th, 2008 11:24 pm

"I don't think Waxman will surprise me because I'm pretty sure he's under strict orders not to do so. And so far, in the last year, he hasn't violated those orders yet."

COMarc,

Sadly, I suspect you are right.

H.R.3835:
"To restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers."
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 10/15/2007) Cosponsors (2):Dennis Kucinich and Peter Welch.

Two cosponsors for this bill would indicate that Congress is not very interested in "restoring" Constitutional checks and balances for the citizens of this country.

There is some "good news", however; "Sen.Jane Harman's (H.R. 1955): The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, a/k/a as the "Thought Crime" bill, is reported to be Dead On Arrival in the U.S. Senate."

http://www.bordc.org/index.php

First I send those A@@holes in the White House 20 emails a day just to irk them, that is a slow day for me, right there they lied.
Sorry to burst your bubble Gail January, H R 1955, S 1959 is in Committees, not the Senate itself. Check A to Z on that, last action was 10/24/2007 read by Senate twice sent to Committees on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Of course since it was sent by the Senate it is in the Senatorial Branch of Committees, only Committee that has discharged this bill so far is Judiciary. Only 2 summaries, intro. on 4/19/2007, second and final summary, so far, H. REPT. 110-384 PartI on 10/16/2007, amended by House Homeland Security same date Judiciary discharged, sent to Senate Committee of Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, only bill is S 1959 which is actually H R 1955, no NEW bills, no Amendments, The House didn't even have the decency to have a voice vote, they so suck, I hate them badly(exempt; Kucinich)more each second, nanofrigginsecond. When you reread this damn thing always something new you see, they are to establish a Center of Excellance for the 'Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism', which shall from here forward be referred to as the 'Center', WTF? They are establishing other Centers for other studies, this into that into this, but it "would not affect direct spending or revenues."Friggin psychofrigginpaths and we do not make use of the Second and Tenth while we still have them? Not to mention a frightening letter I was unhappily made privy to from Rep. Jane (bitch) Harman responding to the ACLU, very creepy. That woman is right where she belongs.
Little Brother, I apologize for thanking you this late for a wonderful story, rants come first at my age, the preceding poster was correct, submit this to CD or another site, get some cred! Thanks again.

Thanks for the kind words about my "Uncle Max" story upthread.

COMarc's more straightforward 11:24 pm critique is dead-on and beautifully expressed.

It exposes the rotten and corrupt consequences of lesser-evilism in a way that Daniel David, Nader2000, and SEQUOIABISON, our resident True Believers in supporting moderate Democrats to supposedly oppose and reform such political corruption and misfeasance, are unable or unwilling to confront.

The democrats had better do more than demand answers. They had better be grabbing people in the White House right by the nose. Why do people treat this criminal administration with dignity and deference?
Grab ahold of em'! Throw their sorry backsides in a cop car, drive em' to the station-house and throw em' in a jail cell!They're criminals! Start acting that way!

" ..
There is some "good news", however; "Sen.Jane Harman's (H.R. 1955): The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, a/k/a as the "Thought Crime" bill, is reported to be Dead On Arrival in the U.S. Senate." .. " (Gail)

I hope so.

What happened to the Whitehouse e-mails?

Don't ask, don't tell.

Much the same thing happened to the visitors logs when it was revealed that part-time 'reporter' and full-time gay male prostitute James Gannon/ Jeff Gluckert was revealed to be spending time overnight at the Whitehouse.