A Congressman's Reply While Sitting on the Fence

the following is the letter i will be sending my congressman in response to his reply to a letter i posted here on March 7, 2006:

In response to your March 22, 2006 correspondence in which you replied to my February inquiry about your position with regard to H.Res 635, 636, and 637 introduced by Rep. Conyers (D-MI) (essentially is the first step toward impeachment) I am compelled to question why you seem to remain on the fence.

Your letter indicates that three months after this legislation was introduced you have yet to decide whether or not to support Rep Conyers. Furthermore, you stated that your decision will be made after “a thorough and complete analysis of their implications and listening to constituent views.”

I would certainly hope your concerns are focused on the “implications” of this president remaining in office rather than the “implications” of supporting impeachment. I’m sure even you can no longer deny the growing body of evidence that this war waged in Iraq was based on deceit and deception.

Intelligence failures during 9/11, faulty intelligence at work in Iraq, spying on American citizens in absolute disregard for the law, the recent Libby disclosures, etc., I ask you Congressman McNulty what more must this president do before you would consider his acts to be high crimes and misdemeanors? What will be the impact on American society when the myth that no man is above the law is exposed, when that man is not responsible and not held responsible for his actions?

Insofar as listening to your constituents I find it disingenuous to present the position “they have mentioned” i.e. that if the president is removed from office he would be replaced by President Cheney which you suggest “comes under the category “be careful what you wish for…”. Those who support that claim do not know their Constitution i.e. Article 2, Sec 4 which addresses removal from office starts with the words “The President, Vice President…”

Indeed Rep Conyers mentions the Vice-President by name in his legislation. Unless your one in a million, who believes that Dick Cheney, a man approved of by 18 percent of the country, had nothing to do with the president’s actions why not rid this country of all the cancer? And yes I know who succeeds the Vice-President and if the Democrats could only muster the spine to take over the House then I’ll know it won’t be a Republican who supported high crimes and misdemeanors.

I strongly suggest you give this issue all of your immediate attention before this president wags the dog in Iran while we are told to “support the troops” and “stand behind the commander-in-chief” in a time of war which will have strong implications and grave consequences for our country.

Thanks for sending your statement on the President’s State of the Union I find it incredulous that you are just now admitting that “Bush has enormous credibility problem on domestic and foreign policy” I guess this comes under the category “better late than never”.

Finally, I disagree in the strongest terms with your statement’s conclusion that “we gave the Iraqi people the chance to have a new way of life”. The reality is we gave them a war based on a series of lies and we will give them a civil war if we demand they defend their own government. What government do they have now that was not coerced by force?

We as a country are responsible for the current state of civil chaos in Iraq and we should hold ourselves accountable before the world body for the death and destruction of our shock and awe foreign policy. A great nation acts honorably. Removing our troops from Iraq and declaring “peace with honor” is not honorable.