The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States of America 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. President:
We the undersigned write to you because of our concern regarding recent disclosures of a �Downing Street Memo� in the London Times, comprising the minutes of a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers. These minutes indicate that the United States and Great Britain agreed to by the summer of 2002 to attack Iraq, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action, and that U.S. officials were deliberately manipulating intelligence to justify the war.
Among other things, the British government document quotes a high-ranking British official as stating that by July, 2002, �Bush had made up his mind to take military action.� Yet, a month later, the you stated you were still willing to �look at all options� and that there was �no timetable� for war. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, flatly stated that �[t]he president has made no such determination that we should go to war with Iraq.�
In addition, the origins of the false contention that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction remains a serious and lingering question about the lead up to the war. There is an ongoing debate about whether this was the result of a �massive intelligence failure,� in other words a mistake, or the result of intentional and deliberate manipulation of intelligence to justify the case for war. The memo appears to resolve that debate as well, quoting the head of British intelligence as indicating that in the United States �the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.�
As a result of these concerns, we would ask that you respond to the following questions: 1) Do you or anyone in your administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document? 2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization to go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain��s commitment to invade prior to this time? 3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate? 4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq? 5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to �fix� the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?
These are the same questions 89 Members of Congress, led by Rep. John Conyers, Jr., submitted to you on May 5, 2005. As citizens and taxpayers, we believe it is imperative that our people be able to trust our government and our commander in chief when you make representations and statements regarding our nation engaging in war. As a result, we would ask that you publicly respond to these questions as promptly as possible.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Posts: 409 | Location: D/FW | Registered: 25 February 2005
I refuse to sign any letter that addresses him as "honorable"!
"These things which man purports to admire-the noble, the brilliant, the splendid-these are the very things he cannot tolerate when he finds them."-----Mark Clifton
Posts: 5565 | Location: hoffman estates il | Registered: 01 April 2003
I'm with Bill on this one. I have trouble putting the title President on the same line with his name. These letters will have little or no impact if send to the White House alone. They need to be distributed to as many "regular" Americans as possible.
"Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd, Harvey
Posts: 18 | Location: Phoenix | Registered: 30 December 2004
This is the beginnings of the impeachment process!!!!!!!
This letter is Congressman John Conyers letter. He is asking for 100,000 signatures of support for futher investigation into the Downing Street memos. If the memos are varified this is the 1st step towards impeachment. But the process needs support from the People. So poo poo it if you want, but this is a pitition of substance, and must not be ignored.
The above are sites that have information about the Downing Street Memos and a link to the petition to support John Conyers.
You will not have a varified investigation by a Congress person that includes the type of speach most of us would prefer being used about Bush.
So if you would like to see Bush impeached and his administration investigated and at the very least the truth about how and why we invaded Iraq to be brought before our nation then please go to John Conyers site and sign the petition.
And after signing the petition, send the link to every one you know that would like to regain a free America.
Posts: 31 | Location: Arkansas | Registered: 01 January 2005
Earth to Socks. Impeachment is a political process started in the House, the majority of which is Republican. The majority of the country is Republican as well. There is no popular support in the country or political support in the House for impeachment.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
I forgot to add that Congressman J. Conyers is on the Judicial committee. And it is with him, the senior member, that this process must begin.
Please reconsider your scepticism. This is a credible thing to put your support behind.
I fear that because it wasn't labeled impeachment process, most of you have not know the weight behind it.
This is more than a blogger call on one lil letter of decent. This is the real thing and needs at the very least 100,000 signatures. I think 10 times that amount would be more like it.
Thom Hartmann, if you read this, please get permission from Whiffenspoof to put another header on the name of the thread so that others are not misslead into not knowing the significance of this petition.
Posts: 31 | Location: Arkansas | Registered: 01 January 2005
Yesterday Conyers had 80 members of Congress as political support for this letter, and it is this call for signatures to gain popular support that CONGRESSMAN J> Conyers is asking for.
And just to let you know my feet are planted firmly on mother earth.
I can't believe you people are not interested in supporting an investigation. And if the investigation turns up that the memos are credible, then a true impeachment process will begin.
Of course there are not enough votes in the house to insure that impeachment will go forward. But the very process will at the very least insure that knowledge of the memos gets wide coverage. And if nothing else, that is vital.
Posts: 31 | Location: Arkansas | Registered: 01 January 2005
I thing an argument can be made that there are more Democrats than Republicans in America.
In the 04 elections there were more electorial votes handed in with Bushes name on them. Tho, there is sentiment by many Democrats that the Ohio and Florida electorial votes were not a true representation of the ballots cast.
When one looks at the Senate, which has a more direct connection of votes cast to Senator. You will find that tho there are fewer Senators on the Democratic side of the isle, they represent more people than the Republican side of the isle represent.
Futhermore, one can argue that many Democrats have stopped voting due to the party having moved so far to the right in the last 15 years.
Many progressives have been speaking out against corporatism in the Democratic party for many years. And the DLC with its policy of only supporting candidates that arive with millions of $$ in their pockets need aply as a candidate, have made many Democrats stop voting.
If you combine all progressive parties with the Democrats, I think you will have a significantly fewer number on the Republican side of this argument.
Posts: 31 | Location: Arkansas | Registered: 01 January 2005
This is the beginnings of the impeachment process!!!!!!!
Well, that's different!
As distastful as signing something that addresses dubya as "honorable", I would swim though sewer sludge and crawl over ground glass as well to sign it, if it has a glimmer of a chance to suceed in impeachment.
I also gave it feature status as socks suggested...
"These things which man purports to admire-the noble, the brilliant, the splendid-these are the very things he cannot tolerate when he finds them."-----Mark Clifton
Posts: 5565 | Location: hoffman estates il | Registered: 01 April 2003
Quote/Claim: "I think, if I might remind you that in my language I called it a grave and gathering threat, but I don't want to get into word contests. [Source: White House Web site]"
Fact: "The President made far more dire statements before the war. While Bush did call Iraq a grave and gathering threat, that was not all he said. On 11/23/02, he said Iraq posed a unique and urgent threat. On 1/3/03 he said Iraq is a threat to any American. On 10/28/02 he said Iraq was a real and dangerous threat to America. On 10/2/02 he said, The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency and that Iraq posed a grave threat to America. - Bush, 10/2/02, 10/2/02, 10/28/02 11/3/02, 1/3/03"
Quote/Claim: "I never said imminent threat, and I don�t know anyone who did say imminent threat, but there are a lot of people running around saying that word, but it was not used by the people in the Administration except, I�m told, by one assistant press officer who used it.� [Source: DOD Web site]"
Fact: "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons. -Rumsfeld Testimony to House Armed Services Committee, 9/18/02
I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something? - Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02 "
Quote/Claim: "Other nations around the globe have stood with us�.In the next for years, my Administration will continue to build the coalitions that will defeat the dangers of our time.� [Source: White House Web site]"
Fact: "The once heavily touted 45-member coalition of the willing� list has been scrapped and replaced with a smaller roster of 28 countries with troops in Iraq sometime after the June transfer of power to an interim Iraqi government.� - Reuters, 1/21/06"
Quote/Claim: "If in fact [Saddam] didn't have [WMD], why on earth didn't he let the U.N. inspectors in and avoid the war? [Source: CNN Web site]"
Fact: "UN weapons inspectors worked in Iraq from November 27, 2002 until March 18, 2003. During that time, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) conducted more than 900 inspections at more than 500 sites. The inspectors did not find that Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons or that it had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program....Unable to resolve its differences with Security Council members who favored strengthening and continuing weapons inspections, the United States abandoned the inspections process and initiated the invasion of Iraq on March 19. - Arms Control Association Fact Sheet
U.N. inspectors left Iraq the day before the invasion began in March, and the United States has expressed no interest in letting them return now that its troops control the country. - CNN, 6/5/03"
Quote/Claim: "If we failed to act in Iraq, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day. [Source: White House Web site]"
Fact: "A revised CIA report titled Iraq: No Large-Scale Chemical Warfare Efforts Since Early 1990s, will state that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein gave up his chemical weapons program after the 1991 Gulf War. - AP, 2/1/05"
Quote/Claim: "And, no, the stated policy of my administration towards Saddam Hussein was very clear. Like the previous administration, we were for regime change. [Source: White House Web site]"
Fact: "President Bush ordered the Pentagon to explore the possibility of a ground invasion of Iraq well before the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, an official told ABCNEWS, confirming the account former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill gives in a book written by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind. That went beyond the Clinton administration's [policy], said the source. - ABC News, 1/13/04"
If they can impeach Clinton for lying about a blowjob, then they sure can impeach Bush for invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses. And yes, for my dime � and it is my dime � we can impeach every sob who voted to authorize that invasion�
Of course I signed the letter.
------------------------------ "In a big country dreams stay with you like a lover's voice across the mountainside" - Big Country
Posts: 872 | Location: Western edge of the continent | Registered: 04 October 2003
Mark, Clinton was impeached for lieing in Federal court. The topic is irrelivant. Clinton represented the executive branch of government and the Paula Jones case took place in a Federal venue. He put the executive branch in direct conflict with the judiciary. He won in the court of public opinion by making those who weren't paying attention believe the impeachment was about his sex life.
Impeachment though is a political process. All the letters in the world won't get Bush impeached. Republicans hold the majority in both houses of Congress, the State houses and the electorate. There is no political will to go through another impeachment, especially as weak as the effort to impeach Clinton was.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Don, the topic was not irrelevant. It was a partisan witch-hunt. For all Clinton�s brilliance, he was a fool for lying under oath � but he was set-up, and it was merely for partisan politics. I find that a pretty crappy way to spend my dime.
The direct result of the Bush Administration�s fraudulent actions was that people died. People died. Needlessly, in my point of view, and I do not feel I am ignorant of the circumstances. I find this killing to be immoral. And these people were killed on my dime. My taxes paid to have people killed. I am ashamed and I am outraged.
Of course I signed the letter. Of course it won�t matter. I am just a small voice.
But I am a voice.
------------------------------ "In a big country dreams stay with you like a lover's voice across the mountainside" - Big Country
Posts: 872 | Location: Western edge of the continent | Registered: 04 October 2003
Mark as you may remember, I opposed the war on financial unhumanitarian grounds. I am opposed to spending my tax dollars to improve another country and I don't really care if it's Iraq or Madagascar.
With respect to Clinton, I don't know how you get set up to tell a lie. It seems like a choice to me.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
The majority of the country is Republican as well. ----------------
% (give or take) + a boat load of electronic voting machines = majority ----------------
There is a deserved remark, you said it well, Kate----WLH
_quote by Socks _________________________________________________________________ Futhermore, one can argue that many Democrats have stopped voting due to the party having moved so far to the right in the last 15 years.possibility
If you combine all progressive parties with the Democrats, I think you will have a significantly fewer number on the Republican side of this argument ------------------
You are correct and you can�t depend on their figuring out what it cost them, to stay out of the Democrat Party, but the Republicans can depend on them. I realize that some do vote Democrat after they carried their champion as far as they think he is voicing their wisdom. Say thanks to Ralph. WLH ---------------------
I realize that if a dog is to lazy to scratch flees he might be brain dead, I made the trip and signed the letter, if it doesn�t happen it will not be because I didn�t do some small part. WLH
: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. THOMAS JEFFERSON:<br /> http://spaces.msn.com/members/WmHoward
Next time you post, you might try the quote button at the bottom of the "post a reply" screen; it makes it easier to see what part you're quoting and what part is you.
"The hand that erases writes the true thing." ~Meister Eckhart
Posts: 8052 | Location: usa | Registered: 29 February 2004
What a bunch of cry babies I am seeing on some of these threads. I guess we should of treated the terrorist to one of those Hollywood parties. Oh that's right they got one of those parties at Abu Ghraib. I think Madonna was sorry cause she didn't get to attend. Yep and the Left are still weeping over that one too.
"Knowledge is it worth such torment; <br />To see the dark side of shadows"
Discussion Community 
