Robert Wexler

Victory! House Judiciary Democrats Want Special Prosecutor for Torture

Bob Fertik — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:11:00 -0400

We won a huge victory today! Thanks to your emails and calls, 15 House Judiciary Democrats joined chair John Conyers in urging Attorney General Holder to appoint a Special Counsel on Torture. Their letter says,

The attorney general acknowledged in his confirmation hearings that waterboarding is torture. Moreover, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the top Bush Administration official in charge of military commissions have also concluded that the United States engaged in torture of detainees. The Geneva Convention and the Convention Against Torture both require the United States to investigate, and if necessary prosecute, alleged violations. Justice Department regulations provide for the appointment of a special counsel when a criminal investigation is both warranted and in the public interest, and when an investigation may pose a conflict of interest within the Department. Since these conditions are present, the signatories below conclude that a special counsel should be appointed.

It was signed by 16 of 23 HJC Democrats (see below).

So will Holder agree? Josh Gerstein says no:

Holder is likely to reject that request – his boss, the president, has indicated he doesn’t see the need for such a prosecutor.

But Gerstein is just making s**t up:

The president restated his opposition to prosecuting C.I.A. operatives who followed the Bush administration’s legal guidelines in conducting interrogations. But as for lawyers or others who drew up the policies allowing techniques he has banned, Mr. Obama said it would be up to his attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., to decide what to do.

Jason Leopold says Holder's DoJ may give Special Prosecutor John Durham authority to prosecute waterboarding as a crime, not just the destruction of the waterboarding tapes:

the agency has been looking into a proposal contained in a final draft of Conyers’s voluminous report that called on Holder to extend the scope of a special prosecutor’s probe into the destruction of 92 interrogation videotapes to include whether the "enhanced interrogation" of detainees broke federal laws against torture, legal sources said.

U.S. Attorney John Durham, who was appointed by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey last year to investigate the destruction of the CIA’s torture tapes had only been given the authority to probe whether the destruction of the tapes amounted to criminal violations.

And Holder made a glowing promise to David Swanson last week:

"And you will be proud of your country."

Stay tuned...

Signers
John Conyers, Jr., Chairman
Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Robert Scott, Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
Steve Cohen, Chairman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
Hank Johnson, Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy
Mel Watt
Sheila Jackson Lee
Maxine Waters
Robert Wexler
Pedro Pierluisi
Luis Gutierrez
Tammy Baldwin
Anthony Weiner
Linda Sánchez
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Daniel Maffei

Our deepest thanks to all 16! By contrast, the seven pro-torture HJC Democrats have some serious explaining to do - or Howie Klein will do it for them and it won't be pretty.

Howard Berman (CA)
Rick Boucher (VA)
William Delahunt (MA)
Charlie Gonzalez (TX)
Zoe Lofgren (CA)
Adam Schiff (CA)
Brad Sherman (CA)

Full letter:

April 28, 2009

The Honorable Eric Holder
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

We write to request that you appoint a special counsel for the investigation and possible prosecution of any violations of federal criminal laws related to the interrogation of detainees in the effective custody or control of the United States in connection with counter-terrorism operations or armed conflicts in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. Many of us previously asked your predecessor, Attorney General Mukasey, to do so, expressing our desire to ensure an independent investigation into serious allegations that high-ranking officials, including lawyers and others from the Department of Justice itself, approved the use of enhanced interrogation techniques that amounted to torture.

Recent events highlight the need for such an appointment. The OLC memos formally released last week provide additional details regarding the purported legal justifications provided by DOJ lawyers for various interrogation techniques, including the slamming of detainees into walls, the use of stress positions, confinement in boxes, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding. The Senate Armed Services Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody, declassified and released on April 21, confirms that these interrogation practices were developed at the request of and authorized by high-ranking administration officials, and that the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere can be linked to these policy decisions. Top Bush Administration officials previously testified that at least three detainees were subjected to waterboarding, and the recently released OLC memos reveal that one detainee was subjected to waterboarding 183 times in a one month period while another was subjected to waterboarding 83 times in one month.

During your confirmation hearings, you testified that waterboarding is torture, and the International Committee of the Red Cross, which had been denied access to detainees held at CIA secret prisons for several years, has concluded that the treatment alleged by fourteen of these detainees constituted torture. Earlier this year, the Bush Administration's top official in charge of military commissions concluded that the U.S. military's treatment of Mohammed al-Qahtani "met the legal definition of torture."

As you are aware, Justice Department regulations provide for the Attorney General to appoint an outside special counsel when: 1) a "criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted," (2) the "investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department," and 3) "it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter." Such counsel is to be appointed from outside the government and should have the authority to secure resources for the investigation and prosecution and have full investigatory and prosecutorial powers.

We believe that these three criteria have been met and warrant the appointment of a special counsel to investigate whether federal criminal laws were violated by individuals who authorized or participated in the interrogation of detainees. First, as noted above, there is abundant, credible evidence of torture and the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees, and criminal investigation is not only warranted, it is also required. The Geneva Conventions obligate High Contracting Parties like the United States to investigate and bring before our courts those individuals "alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed" grave breaches of those Conventions. The war crimes act, 18 U.S.C. § 2441, creates jurisdiction in the U.S. courts whenever the victim or alleged offender is a U.S. national or member of the Armed Forces, and specifically identifies torture and cruel or inhuman treatment, as well as the conspiracy to commit those acts, as punishable war crimes. The Convention Against Torture (CAT) -- signed by President Reagan in 1988 and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1994 -- also obligates the U.S. to conduct a "prompt and impartial investigation" and "submit the case to [our] competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution" whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that torture has been committed in a territory under our jurisdiction or by U.S. nationals. The federal anti-torture statute, 18 USC § 2340A, criminalizes torture and the conspiracy to commit torture and creates jurisdiction in the U.S. courts whenever the "alleged offender is a national of the United States" or "is present in the United States."

Second, a conflict of interest would be presented in having the Department investigate allegations that high-ranking Justice Department officials and lawyers provided legal guidance on and may have been involved in developing interrogation policy. For example, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel and former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales advised the Administration and President to deny detainees the legal protection of the Geneva Conventions, and OLC lawyers wrote extensive legal memos that authorized specific interrogation techniques that likely amounted to torture. While some key individuals are no longer with the Department or Executive Branch, it is impossible to determine at this stage and before conclusion of the necessary investigation whether additional conflicts of interest might exist or arise. When Department lawyers are alleged to have been involved, we believe the Attorney General should turn to a special counsel.

Finally, there can be little doubt that the public interest will be served by appointment of a special counsel. The authorization and use of interrogation techniques that likely amounted to torture has generated tremendous concern and outrage in this country, and has harmed our legal and moral standing in the world. As a country committed to the rule of law, we must investigate and demand accountability for acts of torture committed by or on our behalf. Appointing a special counsel to undertake this task would serve the interests of the Department and of the public in ensuring that the necessary investigation is thorough and impartial, and that the United States fairly investigates serious and credible accusations of misconduct, even where high-ranking government officials may be involved.

We applaud President Obama's efforts to assure America and the rest of the world that this Department's investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be free from political considerations. We are confident that you and the President will uphold this critical guarantee, and will restore the Department's independence and integrity. Yet, as you undoubtedly are aware, Americans on both sides of the political aisle worry that this issue already is mired in politics, with those who oppose investigation characterizing that possibility as a political witch hunt and those who, like us, support accountability expressing concern that the rule of law must be upheld. Given these factors, any decisions that you make regarding prosecutions will be perceived by some as political. Appointment of a special counsel insulates you and the Department from such claims, and instills confidence that the outcome of the investigation could not possibly have been predetermined or otherwise improperly influenced.

The special counsel rules provide for both accountability and transparency. An appointed special counsel would be subject to Department ethics rules and to oversight by you to prevent undue expansion of the investigation. The special counsel would report to you about any decision to prosecute or not to prosecute; you could provide that report to Congress and the public, and would have to report to Congress if the special counsel is fired or the investigation halted. Appointing a special counsel balances the need, recognized after Watergate, to ensure independent investigation of high-ranking officials with the need to avoid prosecutors with unchecked power.

Given the importance of this issue, we look forward to a response to our request at your earliest convenience.

Friday's House Judiciary Hearing on Impeachment: A Victory and a Challenge

dlindorff — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:34:40 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

The dramatic hearing on presidential crimes and abuses of power
held on Friday by the House Judiciary Committee was both a staged
farce, and at the same time, a powerful demonstration of the power of a
grassroots movement in defense of the Constitution. It was at once both
testimony to the cowardice and self-inflicted impotence of Congress and
of the Democratic Party that technically controls that body, and to the
enormity of the damage that has been wrought to the nation’s democracy
by two aspiring tyrants in the White House.

As Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the committee, made clear
more than once during the six-hour session, this was “not an
impeachment hearing, however much many in the audience might wish it to
be” He might well have added that he himself was not the fierce
defender of the Constitution and of the authority of Congress that he
once was before gaining control of the Judiciary Committee, however
much his constituents, his wife, and Americans across the country might
wish him to be.

At the same time, while the hearing was strictly limited to the
most superficial airing of Bush administration crimes and misdemeanors,
the fact that the session—technically an argument in defense of 36
articles of impeachment filed in the House over the past several months
by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)--was nonetheless a major victory for the
impeachment movement. It happened because earlier in the month, House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who has sworn since taking control of the
House in November 2006, that impeachment would be “off the table”
during the 110th Congress, called a hasty meeting with Majority Leader
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Rep. Conyers, and Rep. Kucinich, and called
for such a limited hearing.

It was no coincidence that shortly before Pelosi’s backdown, peace
activist and Gold Star mother Cindy Sheehan announced that her campaign
had collected well over the 10,000 signatures necessary to qualify for
listing on the ballot as an independent candidate for Congress against
Pelosi in the Speaker’s home district in San Francisco. Sheehan has
been an outspoken advocate of impeaching both Bush and Cheney. “Pelosi
is trying to throw a bone to her constituents by allowing a hearing on
impeachment,” said Sheehan, who came to Washington, DC to attend. “It’s
just like her finally stating publicly that Bush’s presidency is a
failure—something it has taken her two years to come to, but which
we’ve been saying for years.”

So determined were Pelosi and Conyers to limit the scope and
intensity of the hearing that they acceded to a call for Republicans on
the Judiciary Committee to adhere to Thomas Jefferson’s Rules of the
House, which prohibit any derogatory comments about the President,
which was interpreted by Chairman Conyers as meaning no one, including
witnesses or members of the committee, could suggest that Bush had lied
or deceived anyone. Since a number of Rep. Kucinich’s proposed articles
of impeachment specifically charge the president with lying to Congress
and the American People, this made for some comic moments, with witness
Bruce Fein, a former assistant attorney general under former President
Ronald Reagan, to say he would reference his listing of crimes to the
“resident” of the White House.

In the end, the rule imposing a gag on calling the president a
criminal fell by the wayside, with witness Vincent Bugliosi. A former
Los Angeles deputy district attorney, accusing Bush of being guilty of
the murder of over 4000 American soldiers and of hundreds of thousands
of innocent Iraqi civilians because he had “lied” the country into an
illegal and unnecessary war, and with committee member Shiela Jackson
Lee (D-TX) suggesting that the president may have committed treason in
invading Iraq, and that he appeared to be preparing to do it again with
an unprovoked invasion of Iran.

Conyers also acquiesced in a Republican effort to minimize public
monitoring and involvement in the hearing, allowing the minority party
to fill most of the available seats in the hearing room with office
staffers who showed little interest in the proceedings. Only a few
dozen of the hundreds of pro-impeachment activists who had come to the
Rayburn Office Building at 7 am in order to get seats in the Judiciary
Committee hearing room were allowed in, with the rest having to remain
in the hall or go to two remote “overflow” rooms to watch the
proceedings on a TV hookup. Conyers also went along with a call by
Republican members of the committee to have some of those who did make
it into the hearing ejected simply for wearing buttons on their shirts
calling for impeachment (the Republican members referred to these as
“signs”), though such small personal tokens are routinely allowed in
congressional hearing rooms.

It was clear that this was to be a tightly controlled and strictly limited hearing.

It was also clear that it was intended to go nowhere.

At one point, after hearing witnesses like Fein, Bugliosi, former
representative and Nixon impeachment committee member Elizabeth
Holtzman, former Salt Lake City mayor and impeachment activist Rocky
Anderson, former House Clinton impeachment manager Bob Barr, former
Watergate Committee counsel and current senior counsel of the Brennan
Center for Justice Frederick A.O. Schwartz, and Elliott Adams,
president of the board of Veterans for Peace, lay out the
administration’s crimes and abuses of power—which included charges of
usurping the legislative powers of Congress, violating international
treaties, war crimes, lying to Congress, an illegal war, felony
violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth
Amendment, defying Congressional subpoenas, obstruction of justice and
more, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chair of the Constitution
subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, appeared convinced that the
abuses were real and serious.

But Nadler, who for two years has been a major obstacle on the
Judiciary Committee to any efforts to move impeachment to a formal
hearing, said, “No president has been removed from office through
impeachment.” He asked the witnesses, “How would you approach
impeachment today so it would be a viable option?”

Former Rep. Holtzman responded, “The real remedy to a president who
believes he is above the law is impeachment. There is no running away
from that.” She said, “An impeachment inquiry, handled fairly, could
work. Maybe I’m a cockeyed optimist, but I believe it could work.”

The basic point, made by Holtzman, by Fein and by many others,
including this writer, is that worrying about the political opposition
to impeachment, both in the House, and in the Senate, not to mention
among the broader public, is completely wrongheaded. Even when
impeachment articles were first filed against Nixon, the public and the
bulk of the Congress were against the idea. It was during the hearings
that the tide turned, as evidence of malfeasance, criminality and abuse
of power became evident through hearing testimony. The same would
happen in the case of President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney. Most
Americans don’t even know that the president made up evidence to
justify the war against Iraq out of whole cloth. They don’t know what
the Geneva Conventions are with regard to torture. They don’t know why
Congress passed the FISA act, which Bush has been feloniously violating
to spy on them (it was passed because Nixon was using the National
Security Agency to spy on Americans without judicial warrants!). They
don’t know the Bush has been refusing to enact laws passed by the
Congress. Public hearings by an impeachment panel would make all these
high crimes and misdemeanors clear on national TV to all sentient
Americans. Moreover, as Holtzman pointed out, the president would not
be able to use the claim of “executive privilege” to withhold testimony
from aides in an impeachment inquiry, the way he has done when they
have been subpoenaed by other House and Senate committees. Impeachment
would be about violations of the very executive actions he would be
claiming privilege on. As well, an impeachment committee, unlike any
other committee of the Congress, is specifically sanctioned and
empowered in the Constitution, meaning that even strict
“constructionist” Federalists on the bench would have a hard time
backing presidential obstruction.

As Holtzman noted, “There is no executive privilege in impeachment,
because refusing to testify is itself an impeachable offense.”

Committee Republicans, aided by two law professors they had brought
in to testify, Stephen Presser of Northwestern University School of Law
and Jeremy Rabkin of George Mason University School of Law, tried to
argue that impeachment was only meant for crimes in which the official,
or the president, was seeking personal gain. This nonsense was knocked
down by most of the speakers, who quoted numerous founders who made it
clear that what high crimes referred to were actions—even taken with
the noblest of intentions—that undermined the Constitution or abused
the powers of the office. As Rep. Nadler said, “Impeachment has nothing
to do with intentions or with good faith. Impeachment has to do with
abuse of power which weakens the balance of power.”

In the end, the hearing petered out, taking no action of any
kind—exactly the result that Pelosi, Hoyer and Conyers cynically
intended.

Now it is up to the public and the impeachment movement to call
their bluff and take impeachment to the next level. Noting that even
Rep. Conyers ended the hearing by saying, “We are not done yet, and we
do not intend to go away until we achieve the accountability that
Congress is entitled to and that the American people deserve,” Rep.
Kucinich and five other co-sponsors of his articles of impeachment
(Robert Wexler, Tammy Baldwin, Keith Ellison, Maurice Hinchey, Sheila
Jackson-Lee, and Hank Johnson) are calling on all Americans to contact
their representatives (202-224-3121) and urge them to join in
co-sponsoring those articles and in calling for a formal impeachment
hearing.

They are also calling on everyone to contact their local and
national media, nearly all of whom have blacked out news of
impeachment. Incredibly, the New York Times, for example, has not even
reported on Friday’s hearing, even as a news “brief.” Those news
organizations, like the Washington Post and the Philadelphia Inquirer,
that did report on the hearings did so only in short, inside articles.
Though the hearing was aired in full on C-Span (and is still available for download), many Americans don’t even know it happened.

Time is short, but even at this late date, it would be a simple
matter to impeach the president on some issues. As several of Friday’s
witnesses pointed out, President Bush has essentially dared Congress to
act, admitting that he openly violated the FISA law—a felony, and
openly admitting that he has refused to enact laws passed by the
Congress, claiming a power—unitary executive authority—not even
mentioned in the Constitution. He has openly admitted to having known
about, and approved, “enhanced interrogation techniques” devised by his
subordinates—techniques like waterboarding which clearly violate the
Geneva Conventions and US law. No hearings would be required to
establish these high crimes and misdemeanors. They could simply be
voted on by an Impeachment Committee and sent to the full House for a
vote.

Even if there were no time for a Senate trial, the simple act of
impeaching the president for one or more abuses of power would serve
notice on future presidents that future such abuses would not be
tolerated. Failure to do so, and allowing this administration to leave
office unimpeached, would send the opposite message: that Congress is
no longer a co-equal branch of government, but is merely a consultative
body, at best, and that a president is in effect a dictator.

That Pelosi buckled and permitted a hearing on impeachable crimes
by the Bush/Cheney administration is a major victory for the
impeachment movement, but it must not be the end of the line.
Impeachment activists need to now redouble their efforts to make
Congress do its Constitutional duty, and initiate a formal impeachment
proceeding.

As former Republican representative Bob Barr, now the Libertarian
candidate for president, told Friday’s hearing, “We had a nuclear clock
during the Cold War. In the ‘90s we had a debt clock. Now we have a
Constitution Clock.”

That clock is getting close to midnight, and it is ticking.
_____________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based investigative journalist and
columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s
Press, 2006 and now available in paperback edition). His work is
available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

O'Reilly Attacks Wexler for Having Real Family Values

Bob Fertik — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:16:48 -0400

Bill O'Reilly is viciously attacking Rep. Robert Wexler (FL19) because he just discovered Wexler moved his young family from Florida to the DC area so he could actually practice family values, not betray them while hypocritically lecturing others about them.

Obviously O'Reilly's biggest problem is that he can't read, because Wexler explained his family's move in his book!

Bill O'Reilly is the last person who should be talking about family values after paying Andrea Mackris (right) as much as $10 million to settle her lawsuit for sexual harassment.

Apparently O'Reilly prefers Vito Fossella's version of family values: leaving his first family back home - and in the dark - so he could start a second family in DC!

Update 1: O'Reilly is on a jihad against Wexler because Wexler called FOX News racist. During tonight's attack, Juan Williams helpfully listed a few of FOX's racist actions like the Barack-Michelle "terrorist fist bump." Thanks for making our point, Juan!

Update 2: Wingnuts are screaming that Wexler is avoiding taxes by claiming his principal residence in Florida, not in Maryland. But guess what?

"NOT A PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE" is actually a significant thing. It means Wexler is paying the higher (non-resident) property tax rate in Maryland on his home there. This distinction costs him quite a bit of money.

Perhaps Wexler's real sin is that he didn't take bribes from government contractors in the form of an expensive DC houseboat like Duke Cunningham - or dump his disabled wife to marry a rich young woman with eight houses like John MCCain.

Update 3: Let's ask the question rightwingers won't ask - how many Florida Republicans keep their families in DC instead of Florida? Here's the list - start calling and report what you learn in the comments below.

Jeff	Miller	FL01	202-225-4136
Ander	Crenshaw	FL04	202-225-2501
Ginny	Brown-Waite	FL05	202-225-1002
Cliff	Stearns	FL06	202-225-5744
John	Mica	FL07	202-225-4035
Ric	Keller	FL08	202-225-2176
Gus	Bilirakis	FL09	202-225-5755
Bill	Young	FL10	202-225-5961
Adam	Putnam	FL12	202-225-1252
Vern	Buchanan	FL13	202-225-5015
Connie	Mack	FL14	202-225-2536
Dave	Weldon	FL15	202-225-3671
Ileana	Ros-Lehtinen	FL18	202-225-3931
Lincoln	Diaz-Balart	FL21	202-225-4211
Tom	Feeney	FL24	202-225-2706
Mario	Diaz-Balart	FL25	202-225-2778

What's sauce for the goose and all that...

Update 4: The Sun-Sentinel is running a web poll whether Wexler should have a "real home" in South Florida, and rightwingers are spamming the poll. Please vote no here:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-72408poll,0,4279566.poll

Book Chat with Robert Wexler

Bob Fertik — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:29:55 -0400

I will host a Book Chat at FireDogLake On Sunday at 5 p.m. Here is my introduction.

Rep. Robert Wexler's new book is called "Fire-Breathing Liberal: How I Learned to Survive (and Thrive) in the Contact Sport of Congress."

Even before it was released, it rose to the top of the Amazon political best-seller list on the basis of pre-orders by Wexler's large base of netroots fans who admire his willingness to fight for his - and our - political beliefs.

But Wexler doesn't just preach to the choir. This week, Wexler appeared both on FOX News and on the Colbert Report, where he was famously embarrassed with questions about cocaine and prostitutes.

And Wexler doesn't mince words - he called for impeaching George Bush even on FOX.

Obviously the timing is right for Wexler's book. Two years ago, Democrats took over both houses of Congress by winning 30 seats in the House and 5 seats in the Senate. This year, Democrats could pick up another 15-30 seats in the House, 5-10 more in the Senate, and elect Wexler's close friend Barack Obama as President.

So the real question isn't why Robert Wexler wrote a book promoting liberal Democratic politics, but why he is the only Congressman who has?

Perhaps it's because Congressional Democrats don't understand why they won in 2006 and why they are heading for victory again in 2008.

Democrats won because George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the Republican Party steered America so fast and far to the right that we all went sailing over the cliff, yet they still have their pedal to the metal and the steering wheel jammed to the right.

Congressional Democrats seem to think Americans just want the country to turn right more slowly. But Americans want a real turn to the left, not a slower turn to the right.

Americans want economic growth. Bush's pro-oil policies have tripled the price of oil, and this is killing our economy - not just at the gas pump, but also in the grocery store. Bush's pro-rich tax cuts have created a massive gap between rich and poor, and emptied the federal treasury so we can't fix our roads or pay our teachers. Our economy is being strangled by powerful corporations, and we need to break that stranglehold to unleash entrepreneurship and grow once again.

Americans want affordable, accessible health care for everyone. We know we're paying for it through premiums and taxes that are higher than any country in the world. But we know that much of our health care money is lost in insurance and hospital bureaucracies that spend our money looking for ways to deny us the care we paid for, not to provide that care. We need a single-payer system like other industrialized nations have.

Americans want to solve our energy and environmental crises, which share a common cause: our dependence on fossil fuels. We want solar energy, windpower, and electric cars. And we want them now, so we need a massive, focused effort like the Manhattan Project to bring it about.

Americans want to restore our moral leadership in the world. We want to bring peace to Afghanistan, which we thought we solved in 2001. We want to bring our troops home from Iraq, where Bush sent them on the basis of lies. We want to negotiate with Iran, not start an even wider war with nuclear bombs. And we want to end torture and close our own Gulag Archipelago of secret prisons around the world.

Finally, Americans want our Constitution back. We don't want our President to be a Dictator who can start wars for oil, give massive no-bid contracts to his friends, wiretap all our emails and calls, lock people away without trial, corrupt every agency in the executive branch, and ignore Congress or lie to its face. And if we end up with that kind of President, we want to see him impeached - and then indicted and jailed.

On all of these issues, Americans know Republicans want to go in the wrong direction. So they are voting for Democrats in the hope that we will bring about the kinds of changes we have fought for since FDR.

But we're not seeing those kinds of changes. The Democratic Congress led Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid has been a massive disappointment. None of our nation's problems have been fixed, and some have been made even worse due to right-leaning "Bush Democrats."

At the top of the list is Iraq. We've already wasted over 4,000 American lives and over $562 billion in our tax dollars, and 70% of Americans want to bring our troops safely home. But Congress just voted to give Bush another $163 billion so he can keep our troops there for another full year. Why did 80 Democrats in the House and every Democrat in the Senate vote with George Bush?

Ditto on Bush's illegal wiretapping. Newspaper reports and Congressional hearings show that Bush started wiretapping law-abiding Americans in defiance of the Constitution and FISA long before 9/11. Only a few Members of Congress have the vaguest clue how extensive the wiretapping is, and they cannot tell another soul what little they know. Yet 105 Democrats in the House and 30 Democrats in the Senate voted to let Bush continue wiretapping us without a warrant - and gave immunity to Bush and the telco's who flagrantly defied the law. Why?

Robert Wexler is right in the middle of these fights. He serves on both the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs Committees, so he deals with domestic and foreign disasters. When TV lights are on, he gets to grill White House officials like Alberto Gonzales, Scott McClellan, and Condi Rice. And when TV lights go off, he gets to privately urge Democratic leaders to stand and fight, not surrender and retreat.

So let's welcome Robert Wexler to FireDogLake and find out why he - almost alone among Democrats - is willing to fight the most corrupt and dangerous President America has ever had.

In Defense of Robert Wexler

davidswanson — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:08:35 -0400

My review of Congressman Robert Wexler's book includes plenty of criticism of him. I would add my extremely negative view of the new get-tough-on-the-nonexistent-threat-from-Iran bill that he's cosponsored. But this attack on him is utter nonsense.

Was Wexler late in coming to impeachment? Of course, he was. But not as late as many other Congress members, and not as late as many more who we hope will still come around. We want to welcome them with open arms, not attacks for showing up tardy.

Is there more that Wexler could do for impeachment? Of course, there is. But he has already taken the almost unheard of step of publicly whipping his colleagues and committee chairman. He has uniquely put his voice in the media. He has uniquely assigned both congressional staff and campaign staff to work on the issue, and to work in cooperation with grassroots groups.

While Congressman Dennis Kucinich has taken the lead, as Wexler openly acknowledges and praises, Wexler has taken steps that nobody else has taken and done more for impeachment than anyone in Congress other than Kucinich.

Does Wexler hope to generate support for his election campaigns and sell copies of his book? Does he hope to generate some fame for himself, maybe even take pleasure in some talk of a vice-presidential nomination? Maybe even raise some money to pay the salaries of all the staffers he - and NO OTHER MEMBER OF CONGRESS - has working on impeachment?

Well, what could be better? What would indicate more life in our tattered democracy? Electing saints who cared nothing for public opinion would be the death of a democracy. Electing anti-politicians who didn't want to compete is by definition not possible. The wonderful thing about Wexler is that, even compared to most politicians, he's willing to make a lot of noise for positions actually held by his constituents. Sure, he's attracting attention to himself - but for exactly what we want him to attract attention to himself.

Already a quarter millenium back, as democracy was being born, David Hume pointed out that there is very little harm, if any, and often much good, in people taking pride in their good behavior. Would we prefer they did the right thing but with indifference to people around them? Or did the right thing but with shame and secrecy? Or did the wrong thing?

Let's grow up, here. I want to see every congress member who claims to take a position to do more than cosponsor a resolution. I want them to make it a focus of their next campaign. I want them to write a book about it. I want that book to be a best seller. I want them to get on TV and talk about it endlessly. I want them to pressure their colleagues to get on board. Why wouldn't I?

Now, perhaps I'm corrupt as well. Perhaps AfterDowningStreet and Democrats.com hope to build their membership and run ads for Wexler's book and run ads from other poor chumps attracted by all the work we do to try to make impeachment happen, while meanwhile I'm secretly traveling around the country giving speeches promoting impeachment, and I make a living at it, and I might write a book someday and want people to buy my book too.

But I hardly see the harm in putting ourselves out for impeachment. I think the Congress member who just signs a resolution and then goes out and tells everyone it's only for show and not really possible can be thanked for doing something more than most and yet can also be upbraided for hypocrisy and counterproductive actions. But the member of Congress who publicly and privately devotes endless hours to pushing for impeachment as a real possibility? We're going to condemn him because he's running for reelection and selling a book? That's where you lose me.

And that's where you'll have to completely condemn every single member of Congress. Kucinich, too, sends people to his campaign website. His website, too, asks for money and Email addresses. And he should do that, and I would complain if he didn't. Our job is not to complain that he's promoting himself. Our job is to ask even him, as our leader in Congress, to do more, and to ask everyone else in Congress to catch up to him. And if he writes another book, our job is to make it a bestseller - and maybe even read it, and maybe even learn something.

McClellan Strengthens Wexler's Case for Impeaching Cheney

Bob Fertik — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:47:53 -0400

When Scott McClellan testified before the Judiciary Committee on Friday, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) only got 5 minutes. But he used it brilliantly as you can see.

Wexler wants to know who told Scooter Libby to leak Plame's identity, and narrows the suspects down to Bush and Cheney. If McClellan believes Bush was innocent, then that leaves Cheney.

Could there be a more impeachable offense than willfully exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative - endangering her life, the lives of her sources, and her entire anti-WMD program - as a way to "get" her husband for telling the truth about Bush's pre-war lies?

You go, Wexler!

Ducking Impeachment in Congress and the Newsroom

dlindorff — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:35:01 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

On Monday last week, something important happened in Washington.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the Democratic representative from Cleveland, OH,
who early in the primary season won some of the biggest applause lines
in the Democratic presidential candidate debates, introduced 35
articles calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush for
high crimes and misdemeanors.

You'd be excused if you didn't know this happened. There was almost
no reporting on the event that day or the next, which took several
hours to accomplish, along with several hours Tuesday for to be read
into the Congressional Record. Kucinich's address to the House was
broadcast live on C-Span. But it was not announced in advance or
highlighted on the C-Span website, and there were not many news reports
on the historically significant fact that articles of impeachment had
been filed against the president during subsequent days.

A week later, it has still not been reported in the New York Times,
the nation’s self-described “newspaper of record,” even though the
Times had just days before Rep. Kucinich’s action, editorialized about
the enormity of the president’s lies in tricking the country into
invading Iraq—one of the crimes leading Rep. Kucinich’s long list.

A number of papers did editorialize against impeachment, including
the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Florida Sun Sentinel—but it says
something that these publications thought it more important to attack
Rep. Kucinich’s action than to actually report on it as a news item.

Even the Washington Post’s news report was an example more of the
sclerotic state of American journalism than of genuine reporting. It
began:

“Having failed in efforts to impeach Vice President Cheney, Rep.
Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) escalated his battle against the
administration this week by introducing 35 articles of impeachment
against President Bush, using a parliamentary maneuver that will
probably force a vote today.”

Any journalism student who wrote a lede like Post staff writer Ben
Pershing’s in a classroom exercise would have gotten a “D” or an “F”
for it. Talk about backing into a story! First of all, Kucinich hasn’t
“failed” in his effort to impeach Cheney. Congress has failed to
impeach our criminal vice president and regent. Technically, Kucinich’s
Cheney impeachment bill is still lodged in the House Judiciary
Committee, where it is now joined in political limbo by the Ohio
congressman’s new Bush impeachment measure.

The unwillingness of the nation’s news media to seriously consider
the need for Congress to respond to and challenge the president’s clear
abuses of power—even as they themselves condemn of those abuses of
power—is a blot on the journalistic profession perhaps worse, and of
more lasting consequence, than their failure to act as watchdogs and
critics during the run-up to the Iraq War, when they acted more as
patriotic cheerleaders than as news organizations.

As impeachment advocates, including Rep. Kucinich, have pointed out,
unless this president and vice president are impeached by the current
Congress, any—and probably every—future president will feel empowered
by unchallenged precedent to ignore laws passed by the Congress, to go
to war without Congressional approval, to spy on Americans in violation
of the law, to ignore court orders, to abrogate international treaties,
and to lie to Congress and the American people. Unless Congress asserts
its rights under Article I, it will no longer even be a co-equal branch
of government, but instead will have been reduced to nothing more than
a debating society.

Editorialists, while refusing to honestly report on this
Constitutional crisis, have been parroting the claim of gutless and
calculating Democratic Party leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in
saying that with the nation at war and with a critical election
approaching, there are “more pressing” matters to consider than
impeachment, and that impeachment would be a “diversion.”

This is nonsense. As hundreds of American troops continue to die
each quarter in a war that never should have happened, and that was
launched five years ago and continued for half a decade thanks to
administration lies and deception, there is nothing more important
facing this nation than restoring Constitutional government and
Constitutional checks and balances—something that can only be done
through the Constitutional process of impeachment.

The American people instinctively know this. In polls, fully half or
more of the public consistently continue to say, even at this late
date, that they want the president impeached. Considering the media
blackout on the issue, this is truly astonishing and even heartening.
But it will take more than polls to get impeachment rolling. The public
needs to start demanding that its representatives take action, on pain
of being voted out of office.

I was at an anti-war forum in New Jersey last Friday evening
sponsored by a group of peace activists calling themselves the Iraq
Forum Organizing Team. When forum panelist Rep. Rob Andrews was asked
by an audience member whether he favored impeachment and supported Rep.
Kucinich’s articles of impeachment, Andrews fudged. He claimed,
ingenuously, that the articles had been sent to the House Judiciary
Committee for hearings, and said that he personally thought that Bush
had committed an impeachable “high crime” by outing the identity of a
covert agent of the CIA, Valerie Plame, and added that if the Judiciary
Committee “develops a bunch of evidence” to support that charge, he
would vote to impeach.

As I pointed out to the congressman, he certainly knows that that is
a cheap dodge. I said that he was well aware that the way legislation
moves forward in Congress is that members like himself sign on as
co-sponsors of legislation they favor, and that then, and only then,
those measures get hearings. Without co-sponsors, bills go to committee
to be killed by inaction, which is the intention of sending Kucinich’s
articles of impeachment to the committee. I said if Rep. Andrews were
honestly to believe that the president might have committed any high
crimes, he should either file articles of impeachment himself, or
co-sign the excellent set of articles already filed by Rep. Kucinich.
Instead, Andrews, like the rest of the Democrats and Republicans in the
House, with the notable exception of Rep. Wexler and California Reps.
Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, have avoided Kucinich’s articles like the
plague.

The audience loudly applauded this condemnation of Rep. Andrews.

We are at a critical point on impeachment. The elected leadership is
afraid to challenge even this unprecedentedly unpopular president, who
continues to defy Senate and House subpoenas, continues to promote war
and to violate laws and treaties, and who is now conspiring with his
vice president to launch yet another, bigger, war against the nation of
Iran.

At the end of the day, if we get to January 19 without any
impeachment hearings, we may see Bush and Cheney depart Washington, we
may even see a Democratic president and a Congress with a significant
Democratic majority in both houses, but it will be a hollow victory.

The nation’s democracy will at that point have been left a smoking ruin.
______________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006).
His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34162';
digg_title = "Ducking Impeachment in Congress and the Newsroom";
digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n\r\nOn Monday last week, something important happened in Washington. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the Democratic representative from Cleveland, OH, who early in the primary season won some of the biggest applause lines in the Democratic presidential candidate debates, introduced 35 articles calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors.\r\n\r\nYou\'d be excused if you didn\'t know this happened. There was almost no reporting on the event that day or the next, which took several hours to accomplish, along with several hours Tuesday for to be read into the Congressional Record. Kucinich\'s address to the House was broadcast live on C-Span. But it was not announced in advance or highlighted on the C-Span website, and there were not many news reports on the historically significant fact that articles of impeachment had been filed against the president during subsequent days.\r\n\r";
digg_skin = 'standard';

Wexler Pushes Impeachment In New Book, "Fire-Breathing Liberal"

Bob Fertik — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:54:13 -0400

Time (ET)	All Books	Biogra phies	Political Leaders
Tues 7 pm	95,695
Wed 12 am	173
Wed 1 am	98
Wed 8 am	26		2
Wed 9 am	24		1
Wed 10 am	22	3	1
Wed 1 pm	17	2	1
Wed 3 pm	15	2	1

Update 1: We're moving up the Amazon sales rankings towards the top!

Update 2 Wed 12:34 a.m.: I just got a call from Congressman Wexler enthusiastically thanking all of us for making his book a success!

For too long, Democrats have watched with dismay as paper-wasting polemics by rightwing heroes like Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter have become major best-sellers.

Now it's our turn to support a Democratic hero by pre-ordering Congressman Robert's Wexler's new book Fire-Breathing Liberal - and putting it right at the top of the best-seller lists where it belongs.

There's a reason The Nation, America's leading progressive magazine, named Robert Wexler the country's "Most Valuable Congressman." It's the same reason right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh refers to him as "disgusting." It's because for the last twelve years Wexler has been Congress's most outspoken liberal – taking on Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Ken Starr, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Alberto Gonzales, General David Petraeus, and, when necessary, even his own party.

In Fire-Breathing Liberal, Wexler brings readers onto the floor of the House and puts them at the center of some of the last decade's biggest controversies. He passionately describes how he defended Bill Clinton from impeachment, and how he stood up against the Bush Brothers when the "butterfly" ballots in his Florida district wrongly flipped the 2000 presidential election, with the crucial help of the Republican-controlled U.S. Supreme Court

He offers an honest and brutal assessment of the Iraq War and explains why he was one of the earliest supporters of bringing our troops home. He writes with force about why he started a nationwide movement to impeach Vice President Cheney and organized almost a quarter million Americans to sign up at WexlerWantsHearings.com.

He is the one man that Bush Administrations officials fear when they testify before Congress, and his Youtube video interrogations of Alberto Gonzales, General Petraeus, and Condoleezza Rice are runaway hits. Just last week he was the one Member of Congress who demanded that former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan testify before Congress, and he is the only elected official to call for arresting Karl Rove and other renegade Bush officials under the Congressional power of Inherent Contempt.

While he certainly breathes fire in his book, Wexler also shares some of the funniest stories from the corridors of Congress, including how he unexpectedly became The Colbert Report's most talked-about guest.

This weekend, the world witnessed Robert Wexler at his best as he delivered a passionate address and took hostile questions while representing Barack Obama before the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee.

Congressman Robert Wexler may represent South Florida in Congress, but in truth he speaks for every liberal and progressive American who is outraged by the disastrous Bush Administration and corrupt congressional GOP. Wexler speaks for us when he takes on Bush, Cheney, Tom DeLay, and Ken Starr. He calls out Republican lies and even is willing to stand up to fellow Democrats when our party is too passive.

Robert Wexler gives us voice – so let's support him and his progressive call to action. And let's show the nation that a Democrat can rule the best seller list, not just Hannity and Coulter. Robert Wexler has earned the recognition and respect - and so have we.

Bob Fertik

p.s. The book will be in stores and be shipped on June 24 but I hope you will preorder it today.

p.p.s. When we send you this email, Fire-Breathing Liberal was ranked #95,695 on Amazon. You can see how our campaign is doing by clicking the book page link and then doing a simple text search (Ctrl-F) for Sales Rank. You can also chat about this campaign below.

Wexler for Veep?

Bob Fertik — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 08:44:00 -0400

Among all the speeches before the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee struggle, one speaker stood out: Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL).

Brad Friedman came to a surprising conclusion:

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), who argued brilliantly for both Obama and the voters of the state of Florida, should be named Barack Obama's Vice-Presidential running mate.

He has been one of the few members of Congress who has truly fought on behalf of the people, the Constitution and the voters over the past decade of chaos and coup, and as a favorite son of Florida, he could help deliver the Sunshine State for the Democrats this year in a way that only the naming of Florida's Gov. Charlie Crist as Veep on the Republican ticket could potentially counter.

Wexler is also Jewish and ardently pro-Israel which, needless to say, will come in handy in both Florida and the rest of the country as the filthy Republican attempts to swiftboat Obama as "a secret time-traveling Nazi Muslim", which has already begun and which, you can bet your bottom dollar, will increase 10-fold in intensity between now and November 4th.

Finally, Wexler is also among the few names that I can think of who appropriately matches the "Change" promise that Obama has been running on for so long.

What do you think? Do you agree with Brad?

A Fire-Breather in Congress

davidswanson — Tue, 13 May 2008 17:05:09 -0400

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) has written a book, soon to be released, that is as different from most congress members' books as Wexler is from most congress members. He's titled it "Fire-Breathing Liberal: How I Learned to Survive (and Thrive) in the Contact Sport of Congress." Wexler is depicted on the cover with the Capitol in the background and his fists in the air.

Wexler is a fighter and a liberal, and - yes - one CAN be both. But Wexler, I think, is more of a fighter than a liberal. He's unusually willing to speak up and fight for controversial positions. He does so loudly and articulately, and he goes for the jugular. But I don't find in his book any passionate or deep liberal world view. In fact, at times, Wexler expresses viewpoints that I find disturbingly illiberal.

I would have titled the book "Fire-Breathing democrat." I made the 'd' lowercase on purpose. Wexler, far more than most members of Congress, appears to take the positions supported by his constituents. It is his constituents who turn out, more often than not, to be liberal. That Wexler listens to them so extensively and carefully and then acts on their wishes with a resolve and determination that can singe your eyebrows is what makes Wexler that rarest of Congress Members, a Democrat with a spine.

Wexler is not the only aggressive progressive in Congress. His most daring positions - on impeachment, on Iraq, on elections - are a step behind someone like Dennis Kucinich, who also pulls no punches. But Wexler has a voice in the media that is unique, I think, because his positions are not so far opposed to those of the corporate media that he's shut out, and because he likes a fight. In his book, he's smart enough to quote right-wing media attacks on himself rather then running from them. More Democrats do the wrong thing, more often, because they're afraid of media attacks, which would actually benefit them, than for any other reason.

Wexler's book is not an outline of his view for our political future. And it's not a campaign book laying out positions. While it is an autobiographical account of Wexler's years, thus far (since 1996), in Congress and a brief account of how he got there in the first place, the book's larger aim seems to be civic education. Wexler explains to readers how elections are won and lost, how positions are advanced, how compromises are made, and how bills actually become what nowadays passes for "law." This is an education that every American needs. "I want," Wexler writes, "to bring you inside the system in the hope that we can begin to change it together."

Some may recall seeing Wexler passionately defending against the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, or demanding a full recount of the 2000 election in Florida. Wexler represents the district with the butterfly ballots and the mythical "Jews for Buchanan" votes. Others may know of Wexler as the House Judiciary Committee Member who began pushing last year for Chairman John Conyers to take up the impeachment of Dick Cheney. Wexler did that, in large part, because his constituents asked him to, because he listens to them, and because he knows how to think in terms of offense. A Democratic Party that played offense would be holding impeachment hearings and forcing John McCain to defend every impeachable offense.

Others may recall seeing Wexler in recent months grill various Bush witnesses in committee hearings. Since Wexler came out for impeachment, his questioning of witnesses has out-shown most other representatives'. Just go to Youtube and look up Robert Wexler.

Wexler voted to authorize Bush to attack Iraq, and now says he regrets having done so. He claims to have believed the White House lies about Iraq, something I think could only be true if Wexler were far less intelligent than he is. In fact, Wexler claims that those who said there were no "weapons of mass destruction" prior to the invasion were just guessing and explains that it only became clear the White House was lying when no weapons were found. Actually, of course, that would only prove that the White House had been mistaken. While the evidence that Bush and Cheney and gang were lying has piled up over the years, it was abundant prior to the vote. Kucinich circulated an analysis of it to his colleagues. Here's the evidence, old and new:

http://afterdowningstreet.org/keydocuments

Wexler also claims not to have known that his constituents would disapprove of that vote. That seems possible. But Wexler now knows that his constituents want out of Iraq, and yet he has voted over and over again to fund the occupation, and he is not leading a fire-breathing charge against the funding bill now under consideration. I suspect that nonsensical "Don't defund the troops" sound-bytes and a misguided notion that militarism goes very well with a fighting image are weighing on Wexler more heavily than the opinions of his constituents this time (except perhaps the opinions of some campaign donors -- somehow these books manage to avoid the whole topic of donors).

Wexler was one of three Democrats to vote for immediate withdrawal when the Republicans proposed a parody of Rep. John Murtha's withdrawal proposal as a political stunt. Wexler is not afraid to stand alone or lead the way, but that doesn't mean he always does so when liberals might wish he would. Wexler likes to talk about withdrawal proposals as a way to "put pressure on the Iraqis," as if 80% of them don't want full withdrawal and haven't wanted it for years. Wexler writes of how much he loves "The Star Spangled Banner," a war song.

The real liberals in the House, on the other hand, don't know how to breathe fire. The current war funding bill has been arranged to include separate votes on the war money and on other matters. The Blue Dog (rightwing) Democrats joined with the Republicans last week to block a vote on the Rule to bring the whole thing up, because they opposed spending money on things like helping veterans and wanted to proceed only with creating more veterans. The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), of which Wexler is a member, has many more members than the Blue Dogs and could easily block the Rule in opposition to the war money if Speaker Pelosi finds a way to buy off the Blue Dogs. But CPC Co-Chairs Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, and Out of Iraq Caucus Chair Maxine Waters won't do it, and won't persuade enough progressives to fall in line if they do. They're not breathing enough fire.

Social Security is a topic where Wexler has breathed liberal fire. Of course, he bought into the pretense that Social Security is broken and in danger of collapsing, because outside of that frame one couldn't be part of the debate. But once he'd done that, he made the best move possible by releasing a detailed study of how Social Security could be fixed by eliminating the cap on payroll taxes that currently makes income above $90,000 tax free. And Wexler helped win the debate, holding off the destruction of Social Security, while the cap on taxes still remains.

Wexler's fire breathing also breathed new life into the impeachment movement last year, which has only stalled (though it's far from over) because too many Democrats on the Judiciary Committee refuse to listen to their constituents the way Wexler does. Publicly lobbying your colleagues and the chairman of your committee to do something that has been publicly opposed by your party's leaders, the other party's leaders, and the corporate media is almost unheard of. But Wexler did it when he asked his colleagues and ordinary citizens to join him in pushing for the start of impeachment hearings. Wexler made new and brilliant arguments for impeachment and presented a case that won over some congress members and a lot of other people. Thus far, 235,000 people have signed his petition at

http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com

Wexler has received a Backbone Award for his efforts:

http://www.backbonecampaign.org/storydetail.cfm?id=219

Wexler is also rare in his willingness to talk about the stolen 2000 election as stolen and to openly admit the high probability that other elections have been stolen since the advent of DRE (electronic) voting machines and the misnamed Help America Vote Act. Yet, Wexler seems to believe that machines with "paper trails" or paper ballots scanned by optical machines solves the matter. In fact, collecting paper ballots or receipts is only valuable if they are counted, and optical scan machines have resulted in as many highly questionable elections as have DRE machines. I expect that when Wexler realizes this, or realizes that his constituents realize it, he'll advance the fight.

Wexler's book defends his positions and his past work, but it is not pretentious, and he includes plenty of accounts of failed efforts and questionable decisions as part of the civic education process. He also admits to compromising his positions under pressure. President Clinton persuaded Wexler to back a corporate trade measure ("fast track" negotiating) that he knew his constituents opposed and that he says he opposed. In return, Clinton gave Wexler opportunities to participate in foreign policy, especially in the Middle East.

Wexler's district is heavily Jewish, and he is Jewish. Throughout his book he never makes a distinction between the needs of the Israeli people, the plans of the Israeli government, and the desires of his Jewish constituents. All would appear to be one, had Wexler not already told us that his constituents opposed the war. Never does Wexler suggest that the Israeli government may be doing what is not in the best interests of the Israeli people, although the bulk of his book is a denunciation of a Republican-run U.S. government radically resisting the will of the American people. Perhaps Wexler's listening to his constituents could sometimes benefit from a finer grained analysis.

Wexler recounts his foreign travels on U.S. diplomatic business, including a meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad. He writes that Assad asked him whether Bush was crazy enough to attack Syria. Wexler said yes, and writes that he was grateful, in this instance, that such a thing was true. Fire breathing, yes. Liberal, no. Likely in the long run to improve the chances of peace? Of course not.

But Wexler also writes at some length about his involvement in efforts to aid Indonesians following the recent tsunami, and how aid and friendship build peace:

"I remember seeing a sign, a white bed sheet on which someone had written by hand in paint and magic marker, 'America is here. Where is Bin Laden?'"

Wexler understood this to be an expression of gratitude for American assistance. Wexler also worked with and nominated the President of Indonesia for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Wexler's book contains positions I don't like, but many more that I do, and it is a remarkably open and honest book for a politician to have put into the light of day.

If you want to know how Washington works, read this book.

If you want some hope that it can work better, watch what Robert Wexler does next.

If you want a representative who listens to you, retire to Palm Beach, Florida.