Heard from my rep! - it's a pro war form letter. Here's my response to her

kitkat65

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-22-05 05:05 PM
Original message

Heard from my rep! - it's a pro war form letter. Here's my response to her

Dear Congresswoman Pryce, (R-Ohio, 15th district)

I appreciate the speed in which you have responded to my pleas concerning the Iraq war. However, since the letter you sent (see attached) fails to address the two issues that I have contacted you about — (1) the use of torture and (2) the allegations resulting from the Downing Street memo — I am writing again just to make sure you understand my position and again ask that you act in good conscience regarding these issues.

Torture:
I have attached my original e-mail to you that contains my plea that you to address the use of torture by the United States as well as the policy of endless detention of “enemy combatants.”

It’s been with great sadness and disgust as I have watched this issue become polarized along party lines within the House and Senate. The responsibility of pursuing the humane treatment of prisoners should not fall on the shoulders of either Democrats or Republicans. It is the responsibility of Congress as a whole to honestly assess and rectify the policies that allow such aboniminations to occur.

I have heard the argument that citing examples of prisoner abuse at the hands of Americans is irresponsible because it only acts to incite more violence against Americans. I hope that you are able to see the flaw behind this argument. First of all, it is the act of torture that angers, not the discussion of it. And secondly, by denying the discussion, the process needed to rectify the situation becomes broken. To deny only serves to condone, and I am asking that you put politics aside and firmly state that torture and abuse against even our enemies is not an American value.

The Downing Street Memo:
I have added my name to the growing list of American citizens asking that the House begin a Resolution of Inquiry regarding the Downing Street memo. The memo clearly indicates that the Bush administration was intent on regime change in Iraq through the use of military action despite all public statements to the contrary. I truly believe that as more Americans become aware of the memo’s revelations that Congress and the American public may have been systematically misled into an unpopular and disastrous war by the Bush administration, that you will undoubtedly be getting more demands from your constituents to take action.

Now I’m glad that you sent the letter you did because it goes to the very reason why the Downing Street memo is so important and that is the validity of the reasons we were given to wage war in Iraq. That you are still embracing those reasons within your letter despite published evidence to the contrary only emphasizes the need for answers.

You state that Bush upheld the “will of the international community by enforcing the 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions.” While we had some allies in the “Coalition of the Willing” we did not have U.N. blessing and U.N. weapons inspectors actually had to prematurely end their investigation because of Bush’s ultimaturm that Saddam leave Iraq even though Saddam had been complying with Resolution 1441. I might also add that the demand for Saddam to leave Iraq was not a condition in the Resolution.

You are right in stating that Saddam had used WMDs and had a previous record of being incompliant with the United Nations weapons inspectors. And given the horrible events of 9-11, we had every right to demand that Saddam begin complying with U.N. weapons inspections or face the consequences. I do not have any problem with this argument.

The problem I have is that it appears that the Bush administration had already declared war on Iraq in March 2002 before Congressional approval and without the benifit of open debate, popular consensus, or support from the international community.

From the memo:

“C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”

and also

“The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.”

You try to paint a rosy picture of current Iraq using words like freedom, better health care, increased economic activity, etc. and I know that in your heart, you would indeed wish these good things for the Iraqis. But I watch and read the news and the ideal Iraq you portray looks very different from the reality of the death and suffering these people are experiencing as a direct result of this invasion.

You end your letter with the invocation of 9/11 and the U.S. right to protect itself “even in the face of citicism from those who refuse to acknowledge our right of self defense, and who have little regard for their own self-interest to be safe and secure from the forces of terrorism in the world.”

I ‘m not sure who you mean these critics to be. I certainly hope it is not the people who are asking for the Resolution of Inquiry because I’d hate to end up having to but heads with my Congresswoman over the simple matter of fair representation within my government. Since it’s vague, I’ll try not to take it personally.

But, just in case, I’d like to state one point.

Make no mistake. I do believe in the right of self-defense. But I also believe that the validity of our Democracy lies in a transparant government and the role that the checks and balances system plays in holding government officials who have abused their power accountable. And if this current government fails to enforce the laws of the Constitution, then the real threats to this great nation are not terrorists, but the politicians whose only concern is their self-interests.

Sincerely,
XXXXXX XXXX