On April 25, 2006, I wrote to Rep. Dave Weldon, Florida, asking him to co-sponsor and support H.Res.635. On May 4, 2006, I recieved a response from him that was full of the normal neo-con prevarications.
People should start talking plain English to our politicians. Quit letting them equivocate. Start calling them on their lies. Just look how good it made us all feel when we watched Stephen Colbert, Ray McGovern and others like them take our politicians to task! It's time to take our government back!
First, let me clarify. I did not contact you only to let you know that I support impeaching George Bush. I contacted you to elicit YOUR support of impeaching George Bush.
Now, I will address the rest of your response to me.
You state, “Since 1991, every Administration has believed that Iraq has been a credible threat to its neighbors and to the United States.” I submit to you this statement, made by then US Secretary of Defense (now Vice President of the US) Dick Cheney during a speech at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington in August 1992:
And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.
Doesn't sound to me that Cheney believed Iraq was much of a threat after all. Further, no other Administration has anything to do with what this one has done and is doing (with the notable exception of the first President Bush, perhaps).
You state, “Iraq directly supported terrorism by subsidizing families of Palestinian suicide bombers, harboring known terrorists, and financially supporting terrorist activities.” My first and strongest rebuttal to that is at that time these terrorists and their groups were not International terrorists. Rather, their activities were more or less confined to their own regions and were reciprocated by their opponents, which were also their neighbors. Further, in many instances, these “known terrorists” were not even designated as such by our own government until AFTER the Iraqi Enduring Freedom began on October 7, 2001. While on the surface your statement is true, once one delves a little deeper into the subject as reason would dictate, one discovers that it’s a misleading statement when used to justify U.S. aggression in Iraq.
You state, “In spite of renewed promises to abide by its U.N. obligations, Iraq continued to fire upon U.S. and British pilots enforcing the United Nation’s northern and southern no-fly zones.” Sir, these “no-fly zones” were unilaterally proclaimed by the U.S., the UK, and France at the end of the Gulf War in 1991. They were never specifically authorized by the U.N. Security Council. They were a violation of Iraqi sovereignty. ONLY the Security Council can decide what measures can be taken to enforce Resolutions. Many international lawyers have spoken out against the no-fly zones calling them illegal. The New York Times called them “legally untenable and politically unwise,” and France itself withdrew from enforcing them because of concerns regarding the legality of them. So with all due respect, Sir, citing the no-fly zones really does nothing to further your position.
You state, “Saddam Hussein’s forces fired at coalition aircraft over 3,000 times after March 1991, when the no-fly zones were first established, and more than 330 times between the passage of Resolution 1441 in November 2003 (sic) to the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Again, the no-fly zones were not ‘established’, but rather unilaterally proclaimed by three member countries. Iraq was a sovereign nation, independent of rule by any other nation. Resolution 1441, signed November 2002, had nothing to do with airspace except to the extent that the UNMOVIC and IAEA could freeze an area over a site of suspected weapons production and to the extent that the UNMOVIC and IAEA have unrestricted and unfettered access to any and all sites to be inspected.
You state, “When the United Nations refused to act upon its own declaration, the United States acted in its own defense.” No, Sir, we did not act in our own defense. Was America under attack by Iraq? Before you answer that, let me remind you that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and there is no credible evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. What the US and its allies did was act in aggression despite their failure to obtain a U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force on the grounds that Iraq was in violation of Resolution 1441. What we did, Sir, was make the unilateral decision to attack, invade, and occupy a sovereign nation. If it was felt by the US and its allies that Resolution 1441 gave them the authority to act, then there would have been no attempt made by them to obtain said authority through another Resolution by the Security Council, which, by the way, was rejected by the Council. As additional proof that the U.N. Security Council was not prepared to move in aggression, the UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors were still performing inspections and had to be recalled by the U.N. because of the imminent invasion. Just prior to that, it was reported by UNMOVIC and IAEA that evidence had been found that Iraq was in compliance with Resolution 1441 but more inspections were needed.
You state, “Operation Iraqi Freedom has been a decisive victory for the removal of terrorism around the world and for the liberty of Iraqi citizens, who can now vote on their own government.” This, Sir, has to be the most ridiculous statement you've made thus far. Operation Iraqi Freedom has been a decisive victory for no one. Not the US, not the Middle East, and most definitely not for the Iraqi citizens. Liberty? Define liberty for me, Mr. Weldon. Because the liberty that the Iraqi people see is far different than anything I've ever known the word to mean. The country has little running water, next to non-existent electricity, the infrastructure of the country is just about decimated. The citizenry are under attack from ‘insurgents’ and U.S. and allied forces. (Which reminds me. How many allied troops do we still have over there?) The citizens of Iraq will pay for their “liberty” for millions of years because of the depleted uranium we have unleashed into their environment, not to mention the lingering effects of the white phosphorus beyond the horrific casualties it creates immediately. So, the Iraqi citizens get to dip their fingers in some purple ink and call themselves voters. There is civil war in their country. Their children, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, husbands and wives are losing their lives by the thousands. This, Sir, is not a measurement of victory.
You state, “Article ii, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states, ‘The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’ President Bush has shown courageous leadership in the aftermath of the tragedy of September 11, 2001. I do not believe that President Bush has done anything that constitutes the term ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’.” To begin with, I resent your implication that there was any kind of link between 9/11 and Iraq. That said, you do not believe that President Bush has done anything constituting 'high Crimes and Misdemeanors'? How about failure to comply with his own Executive Order 13292? While I understand that Executive Orders are not laws, failure to comply typically results in dismissal. What about illegal wiretapping? What about unauthorized detainee transfers to countries that utilize torture in their prisons? How about misuse of government funds? Violation of the Geneva Conventions? How about holding without trial and subjecting to torture individuals arbitrarily designated as “enemy combatants”? And finally, how about conspiracy to commit fraud? Fraud, you might ask. Yes!! Fraud. This administration conspired to defraud the American people by citing known faulty intelligence to terrify our nation and march us into an unwarranted war.
You state, “Again, thank you for contacting me. If I can be of any assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to call on me. It is a pleasure to serve you in Congress.” Sir, I have called upon you. I have called upon you to do what a majority of Americans want done. If you truly find pleasure in serving, then serve. Serve the interests of the majority. We want our country back. We want to begin rebuilding the integrity upon which this great country was founded. We want our representatives to do the right thing and be a part of the solution to the problem of George W. Bush. Sir, if you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem.
