|
|
| Author |
Message |
keesan
|
|
impeachbush.org
| 
Jan 19 18:32 UTC 2006 |
I got this response from my representative when I sent him an automatic
request to impeach Bush at impeachbush.org.
Dear Cynthia:
Thank you for your recent comments concerning the possible
censure of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Like you, I
believe that this administration was misleading in their justification
for the Iraq War.
I believe the President and his administration misled the
Congress and the American people in the lead up to the war in Iraq.
I believe they continue to hide the true costs of the war, have no plan
to rebuild or competently democratize the country, and hold the
international community in contempt. For all of these reasons, and
many more, I have been working with my Democratic colleagues to
shine a light on their misdeeds. One such troubling incident was the
Downing Street Memo, which contains the minutes of a meeting
held by high ranking British foreign affairs staff prior to the Iraq
War.
Among the Downing Street Memo's findings are statements
that American intelligence was being "fixed" around the existence
of weapons of mass destruction and that the US Defense Department
gave little thought to reconstruction and other post-war problems.
The Downing Street Memo is troubling and should be explained by
the Bush Administration. Unfortunately, because the President's
party controls both branches of Congress, as well as the
investigatory agencies of the executive branch, it is highly unlikely
that any official investigation, or a successful move to censure, will
be launched.
However, the move to censure President Bush is neither
rooted in Congressional precedent nor politically realistic in a
Republican-controlled Congress. A censure resolution would not
have the force of law and would do nothing more than fulfill an
emotional need while simultaneously trivializing the transgressions
that brought about the censure in the first place. The Constitution
only provides the Congress with the ability to impeach, convict, and
remove a President from office. In our entire history, only two
Presidents have been impeached. In both cases, the US Senate sided
with the President and failed to convict him of a high crime or
misdemeanor. Impeachment is an extraordinary action. If
undertaken haphazardly - as the Republican Congress did in the case
of President Clinton - it harms all of our governmental institutions.
Again, thank you for being in touch. For news on current
federal legislative issues, please visit my website at
www.house.gov/dingell; you can also sign up there to receive my e-
newsletter. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me
again if I may be of assistance with this or any other matter of
concern.
With every good wish,
Sincerely yours,
John D. Dingell
Member of Congress
|
| 54 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 1 of 54:
|
Jan 19 18:42 UTC 2006 |
I read Honorable Rep Dingell's response as "The Republicans will destroy the
very fabric of our government over a blowjob. On the other hand, we need more
than a Mussolini to convince ALL of Congress to eject this turd so let's keep
the course and hope the elections turn things around."
A very wise strategy, imo.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 2 of 54:
|
Jan 19 18:47 UTC 2006 |
I like John Dingell, even though he is old enough to have remembered
both impeachments.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 3 of 54:
|
Jan 19 18:58 UTC 2006 |
Why should his age be an "even though"? I think people should forget
about age and respond to the person. But otherwise, I agree: I met him on
a field trip in Monroe County, which he joined because he wanted to learn
about the groundwater problems of a new constituency after districts were
rearranged.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 4 of 54:
|
Jan 19 19:13 UTC 2006 |
It was a joke Rane. Old enough to have remembered both
impeachments...he'd have to be 138 years old. I think Mr. Dingell would
have found that humorous.
|
klg
|
|
response 5 of 54:
|
Jan 19 20:53 UTC 2006 |
Just goes to show that some politicians will say just about anything to
be elected.
|
twenex
|
|
response 6 of 54:
|
Jan 19 20:53 UTC 2006 |
Wow. Maybe you're catching on.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 7 of 54:
|
Jan 19 23:10 UTC 2006 |
*hi 5!*
|
rcurl
|
|
response 8 of 54:
|
Jan 20 00:31 UTC 2006 |
Re #4: but that doesn't explain why you even *care about* his age so much
to make a joke about it.
|
tod
|
|
response 9 of 54:
|
Jan 20 00:35 UTC 2006 |
re #5
Honestly, most first time communications from constituents are just a request
for self affirmation. Unless you're a powerplayer from some organization,
a politician isn't going to be the one responding but rather they're going
to have one of many staff replying to you with their template response.
What is telling in this case though is that such a template exists for an
inquiry to impeachment of GW or Cheney. 8D *CHUCKLE*
|
nharmon
|
|
response 10 of 54:
|
Jan 20 00:51 UTC 2006 |
Come on Rane, even you can laugh once in a while.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 11 of 54:
|
Jan 20 05:21 UTC 2006 |
I do laugh at things that are humerous.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 12 of 54:
|
Jan 20 09:11 UTC 2006 |
Re#9 I interned for one of the senators from my home state at the
time (Dodd, CT) for a semester. My primary responsibility was to
reply to constituent letters.
Most letters were from people trying to get into the military, out
of the military or asking about an INS related issue. After that,
were those expressing an opinion on a particular issue. Given the
volume of mail we handled, there was a well structured process for
sorting and counting (opinion letters were considered very valuable
polling data) so that we could pass on an accurate read of constituent
views to the Senators senior staff.
Computers weren't nearly as common at the time...we banged out each
response (everyone got a response) by hand on an IBM Selectrex, and
I'm certain the process is far more automated, but each letter was
considered very important. It was assumed that anyone bothering
to write/type and mail something to their representative could be
assumed to speak for some number of others who did not bother or
have the wherewithall to do so themselves.
The responses to views pro/con/alternative on key or common issues
did have prewritten material which would be included in whatever
else was sent in the reply to the constituent but they did change.
I saw the "boiler plate" updated on several issues in the 6months
I worked there as the Senator evolved or outright changed his views.
|