My Response to Shays

[Don1]

Dear Representative Shays,

Thank you for at least responding to my original email, regarding the Downing Street Minutes. While your entire response is a culmination of irrational talking points and apologies, I would like to focus on the egregious assault on logic and humanity of just one item.

You wrote that “an investigation would likely not yield important new information about how the U.S. government should manage current challenges.” No. Since the United Nations did not conclude that there was evidence for the war, since weapons inspectors showed that WMDs had been destroyed prior to the war, since there was inconsistent intelligence on the issue of WMDs, and since our closest ally, the British government, believed the pro-war intelligence to be “fixed,” there needs to be an investigation of whether or not the incorrect bits if intelligence were in fact “being fixed.”

As to how such information could change how the “government should manage current challenges,” there are possibilities. For one, perhaps—oh, I don’t know—Congress might start believing that the international opinion and democratic nature of the United Nations is a reason for less bias than the “Simon Says” attitude in which the Republican Party follows the Bush regime. Or—here’s a better one—if Congress actually learned from past mistakes, then next time it would stand up to the Bush Administration when it wanted to kill 100,000 innocent civilians, including 50,000 Iraqi children.

One of the great benefits of being rational is that one can admit that there is a possibility that one is wrong and when one is wrong, one can learn from mistakes. You, sir, were wrong in not listening to the intelligence that supported the option of diplomacy in Iraq. You followed the crazy wing of the Republican Party and are complicit in the deaths of innocent children. You offer a weak apology that it may have been better if the State Department handled business, rather than the military, but you have not learned from your mistake. You offer nothing new, just the same old “stay the course” Bush rhetoric.

Stand up for humanity. Demand an inquiry.


Sincerely,
Your Independent-Turned-Democrat Constituent from Shelton,
xxx


P.S. Below you can find your response to my original request for inquiry.

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

Dear Donald:

Thank you for your email expressing support for a Congressional investigation into the so-called Downing Street memo. I appreciate you taking the time to share your views with me.

The Downing Street memo is the record of a July 23, 2002, meeting in the office of the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, attended by his senior national security team. The notes were leaked to the press in May 2005, and indicate the belief of British intelligence analysts that President Bush had decided to use military force in mid-2002 and that the President wanted to justify the use of force by emphasizing the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Because the memo is now public and open to public scrutiny and debate, it seems to me that a Congressional investigation of the British government's perception in 2002 is unnecessary. In addition, an investigation would likely not yield important new information about how the U.S. government should manage current challenges.

Despite agreements among the international intelligence community, Republican and Democrat lawmakers, and both the Clinton and Bush Administrations that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs, stockpiles of these weapons were not found. I do not believe Presidents Clinton and Bush lied about the threat of WMDs. Rather, it seems to me the President's decision was based on intelligence that turned out to be incorrect. The disagreement now is whether the United States should have given Saddam more time to prove he had destroyed his weapons. President Bush felt we had waited long enough, and I supported his decision to use force.

The Downing Street memo also warned Great Britain's leadership that there was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath of military action. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, which has oversight of the Department of State and the Defense Department, I know the concern about postwar planning was well founded. For example, we know mistakes have been made by the President, Congress and the intelligence community. We did not take proper steps to prevent the looting that took place when coalition forces first entered Iraq. It is clear we should not have disbanded the government, the army or the police.

Our military's role in removing Saddam Hussein from power and ending his regime was highly successful, but the task of winning the peace and rebuilding Iraq should have been placed in the hands of the State Department instead of the Department of Defense. Had the military remained focused on capturing the remaining elements of Saddam's regime and fighting terrorists, had the State Department been called upon to take a greater role in the reconstruction efforts, and had Congress asserted the oversight role granted to it by our founding fathers, the reconstruction may have proceeded without such resistance and turmoil.

I have long believed the quickest route home for the brave men and women of our military is to help the new Iraqi government run its own democratic nation. The most important way to accomplish this goal is to focus our efforts on training an effective Iraqi security force. The bottom line is Iraqis want to defend their own country, and I strongly support the United States' commitment to ensuring that in addition to training, they have the tools and manpower necessary to do so.

Please do not hesitate to contact my office again. Because mail is delayed by Anthrax screening, e-mails, phone calls, faxes, and in-person visits are the most effective ways to communicate with my office. I also have recently begun a periodic e-newsletter and would be happy to send it to you. To request this e-newsletter, and for other information, please visit my website at www.house.gov/shays.

Sincerely,

Christopher Shays
Member of Congress

[Don1]

1. I finally got a response after 3 months!!! Woohoo!!!

And of course, like the anal obsessed a$$h013 I am, I sent out a response back on the same day. Am I a sucker or what?

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

Dear Rep Shays,

Thank you for finally responding. I seriously had given up on you there, but I find your response very polite. Respectfully, I seriously disagree with your conclusions.

There are simply too many friends of the Bush Administration making a profit now on the war. I have gone to unbiased SEC reports to confirm this information. So, it is indisputable.

And it's not just war. Recall the tens of thousands of Iraqi kids dying that we are talking about. Look at what the decision that you have made has caused:
http://www.yourtaxdollaratwork.com/
Tens of thousands of Iraqi kids. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Two thousand American soldiers. Hundreds of thousands traumatized.

Why do you continue to strike deals with Lockheed Martin when they have 86 violations for corruption? Why do you continue to subsidize them when they lay off tens of thousands of Americans? Halliburton who overcharges constantly by hundreds of millions? Do you like spending my taxpayer money on overcharges of $108 million on something like what-was-it a piece of silverware?

All of the information is available to us on the Internet now you know. I can show you the DOJ files on these characters online, if you like. I can also show you a breakdown of exactly where the war money is going. You know, like how much mercenaries get, how much vehicle armor companies make, or how much the Bush family profits from this war.

I also go to thomas.loc.gov to read the Congressional transcripts all the time. I know, for example, when you tell me the "Senate Select Committee on Intelligence" decided something that it is not too meaningful as the committee is controlled by your party. I can look up the membership to see who chairs and vice-chairs it, and see the membership is 8-7 Republican versus Democrat but with some hawkish Democrats on board, like Feinstein whose husband is a defense contractor. Conflict of interest? Why do you allow it? Shouldn't you people be abstaining from votes when this happens? By the way, I can also read that report you are talking about:
http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf

I do not come to the same conclusion as you about its content at all. First, the minority party members of the committee did not necessarily always agree with the conclusion nor with your idea that inquiry is over. In the report, Senator Durbin writes, "...this report should be considered incomplete as the Committee's inquiry is far from finished." Senator Wyden wrote, "In reality, the Administration repeatedly and independently made the case for war not by relying on U.S. intelligence, but by ignoring or directly contradicting the same." Finally, Senator Mikulski writes, "While the investigations must continue, reform must begin."

But the most eggregious problem is with your interpretation of the ramifications of these facts, leading you to believe that no further inquiry is needed. You should perhaps take a closer look around the neighborhood of page 66, you know the part that reads "...the IAEA reported that the documents were forgeries."

Of course the 511-page document you alluded to names many other inconsistencies, but let's skip listing them. My time is money and so is yours apparently. My money.

Let's skip the whole aptly-named agent CURVE BALL fiasco, too, for the same reasons. And, of course, because I am not trying to embarass you people just because you listened to an agent named CURVE BALL. Again, this is my money, so we'll skip that issue, too.

So, on to the important part:
(1) the documents were forged and made their way into the US intel community;
(2) the conclusions of the forged documents were used to get the nation to occupy Iraq;
(3) those touting the legitimacy of the information profit from its illegitimacy;
(4) in several places, in the Intel committee's report, they take on faith some interesting miscommunications. In other words, when the President says something like "Oh, I thought they said they were certain about it," you just take this official's word for it. These verbal accounts that are described to the committee members are also not in accord with the written accounts;
(5) the Downing Street Minutes show that UK intel felt the Bush Administration was fixing intel.

Merely because of (1), an inquiry is quite deserved. You must ascertain who forged the documents. According to the latest and best information of the Italian Parliament, there are some suspects right now whose names are available. You could start there, if you really wanted to. If interested, La Repubblica, an Italian newspaper, quotes from the parliamentary report, stating that the suspects are "Michael Ledeen, Dewey Clarridge, Ahmed Chalabi and Francis Brookes." Reference:
http://www.repubblica.it/2005/j/sezioni/esteri/ciagate2/ciagate2/ciagate2.html

Additionally, because of (2), (3), (4) and (5) the connections between the Bush Administration and whoever forged the documents must also be identified. That connection must be checked for communications in regard to the act of the forgery. There must be a bi-partisan committee to do this investigation.

So, I find that I must repeat myself to you from my previous email with you:
"As to how such information could change how the 'government should manage current challenges,' there are possibilities. For one, perhaps—oh, I don’t know—Congress might start believing that the international opinion and democratic nature of the United Nations is a reason for less bias than the 'Simon Says' attitude in which the Republican Party follows the Bush regime. Or—here’s a better one—if Congress actually learned from past mistakes, then next time it would stand up to the Bush Administration when it wanted to kill 100,000 innocent civilians, including 50,000 Iraqi children.

One of the great benefits of being rational is that one can admit that there is a possibility that one is wrong and when one is wrong, one can learn from mistakes. You, sir, were wrong in not listening to the intelligence that supported the option of diplomacy in Iraq. You followed the crazy wing of the Republican Party and are complicit in the deaths of innocent children. You offer a weak apology that it may have been better if the State Department handled business, rather than the military, but you have not learned from your mistake. You offer nothing new, just the same old 'stay the course' Bush rhetoric.

Stand up for humanity. Demand an inquiry."

Finally, sir, I appreciate your polite tone, but the human carnage you and others are responsible for must be fought against. Like I explained before, I have become a Democrat instead of an Independent. There is nothing you have told me to change my mind. I will be voting against you and convincing others to vote against you, too. You may want to know that the Bush Administration has radicalized all Independents like me. In my city, Shelton, interestings have happened. The Democratic challenger to the Republican incumbent mayor has received the highest percentage ever while still losing. A new third party has suddenly cropped up, nabbing two seats on the City Council. Clearly, your Congressional seat is in serious danger and it is all because you refuse to split from that crazy man in office.

Nice emails neither seriously addressing content nor compassionate for humanity cannot help you, because the things at stake are too great.


Thank you,
xxx


"Shays, Rep" <[e-mail]> wrote:
Dear Donald:

Thank you for following-up on my letter to you regarding an investigation into the Downing Street memo. You indicated you still disagreed with my position and I appreciate you taking the time to contact me again.

While concerns about pre-war intelligence are well-founded, there have already been numerous investigations into this matter, including those done by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Iraq Survey Group headed by David Kay and Charles Duelfer and the independent Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. It seems to me an investigation into a memo that is already public will spend money without yielding important new information about how the U.S. government should manage current challenges

in Iraq.

Donald, I respect your position and hope you'll stay in touch.

Sincerely,

Christopher Shays
Member of Congress



CS:mpm

I cannot guarantee the integrity of the text of this letter if it was not sent to you directly from my Congressional Email Account: [e-mail]. If you have any questions about the validity of this message, please email me or call my Washington, DC office at: 202/225-5541.