Get out your red pens!

[Pacifist Patriot]

Please help me edit this plea to my congressmen. It's going snail mail on letter head and I want it flawless. Thanks!!!!


June 1, 2005

Dear Senator/Rep___________:

The American media may be too intimidated to openly challenge the Bush administration regarding the “Downing Street Memo,” 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 memo does 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 and other papers in which individuals describe events in which they were participants or observers.

More importantly, the contents of the memo 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 memo's 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 Memo, 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 for President Bush and his administration engaging 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,
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, let's rip it to shreds and nail this bad boy. And yes, I recognize the "restore integrity and dignity to the American government" line as being deliciously inaccurate, but I'm inclined to go with it.

And a heartfelt thanks to several posters here for info and wording help they didn't even realize they were giving.

[Career Prole]

1. "Surely the evidence for President Bush and his administration"

Last paragraph...should that be "evidence of"?

I love it, by the way. Great letter! :applause:

[Pacifist Patriot]

2. Thanks. That sentence got scrambled a few times.

I reworded it like this...

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.

to avoid the troublesome preposition.

[abluelady]

7. No edits

but can I use some of it to write to my "red" representatives?

[Pacifist Patriot]

3. Based on a suggestion in another thread, I also changed...

"Downing Street" memo to "Downing Street documents. I eliminated memo wherever possible.

[marions ghost]

4. excellent letter

I particularly like your reference to media/primary source early in the text. Not "a primary source"--oh brother...good point

my only points for clarity:

1. para 1 sentence 2 -- a bit confusing
Maybe something like "These documents demonstrate President Bush's pre-emptive state of mind and his flagrant disregard for his legal obligation to congress."

2. para 5 -- sentence 1 is long
Suggest to break after "security" (.) then "The Downing Street Memo shows that President Bush knew this was not true." (Or something short--makes it more definite).

3. para 6 -- too vague and coy...have to think "which president--oh Clinton"
I would just say "Clinton" and not play guessing games.

4. Last para -- basically excellent, but can you tighten up some of the "pairs" connected by "ands"-- eliminate redundancy--for ex:

ie. "a check for the executive branch..."
"illegal warfare"
"a full investigation"

---------------------

Really these points are picky--but you asked....

In general, a fine letter--let us know if any response.
best, mg

[Pacifist Patriot]

6. Thank you. Off to make changes.

You bring up good points.

[Norquist Nemesis]

5. What about the bombings prior to going in?

I think this would bolster the argument. I know within a few weeks after 'officially' going into Iraq, I had read an article about how we were bombing them. The article explained that this was the primary reason why we saw no planes from Iraqi forces. It was clear from reading the article that this was the "preparation" before the war; in effect, to weaken the enemy.

The war games probably are not a point I'd argue. There are war games for all kinds of scenarios and one could argue that it is merely training/planning, but not evidence of intended action. However, bombing IS evidence.

Did the public hear about the bombings in the run up? How were these characterized? I seem to remember statements about 'Saddam' (as if he were at the helm of every gun) fired on us in the no-fly zones. But, if we're flying in an bombing wouldn't a reasonable person expect that those planes dropping bombs would be fired upon????

Anyway, if you're able to include something about the bombings as further evidence that Bush et al LIED and should be charged, I think it would add to an already great and clearly written letter. :)