|
Dear Senator Nelson:
The American media may be too intimidated to openly challenge the Bush administration regarding the “Downing Street” documents—containing meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002, a full eight months prior to the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003—but the American legislature has a constitutional obligation to investigate. These documents demonstrate President Bush’s prior knowledge and state of mind when he broke the law in fulfilling his legal obligation to Congress.
I am disturbed by the media silence regarding this issue, particularly the claim by producers and editors that the documents do not constitute a primary source. Their motivation for asserting this false claim is suspect as they know full well a primary source reflects the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer. Examples include: diaries, journals, speeches, interviews, letters, memos, manuscripts, minutes and other papers in which individuals describe events in which they were participants or observers.
More importantly, the contents of the documents have already been corroborated by key individuals such as Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Joseph Wilson, etc... We are not being presented with an opinion piece, but a recounting of a meeting. The authenticity has been verified as a report from a high-ranking source to the highest levels of the British government.
As required by H.R.Res. 114, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, the administration was required to report to Congress that diplomatic options had been exhausted before or within 48 hours after military action had started.
Within 48 hours after the attack on Iraq, President Bush supposedly informed Congress in writing that Iraq posed a serious and imminent threat to national security; obviously, given the recent information revealed in the “Downing Street” documents, President Bush knew that was not true at the time. This is a clear violation of the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, and would constitute a premeditated illegal act by our President.
Surely a legislative body with the courage to impeach a president for his semantic gymnastics before a federal grand jury can find it within themselves to investigate a president whose suspected illegal actions resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of our fellow human beings.
The United States Constitution
Article II Section. 4. 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.
Article I Section 2. Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Article I. Section 3. Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
I am by no means a constitutional scholar, but I am a citizen with a vested interest in preserving American representative democracy. I interpret our founding document to mean that Congress has a duty to preserve that democracy by serving as a check and balance for the Executive branch. Surely the evidence suggesting President Bush and his administration engaged in illegal and unjust warfare constitutes valid suspicion of treason and other high crimes warranting a full and public investigation. I urge you to work with your colleagues in Congress to restore integrity and dignity to the American government.
Regards,
--------------
I am attaching Bush's March 21, 2003 letter to congress as an enclosure. The first two paragraphs contain the key information.
On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338)......
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
