and the REASON we send it there instead of to the Congressional offices is this:
Q: “Won’t the new ‘irradiation process’ (due to the anthrax scare) delay your mailings?
A: Because of this process, we are using Nancy Pelosi’s home office.
(the first mailings late last year may not have been ?delivered?received?answered?)

From (Name & Address):

To the Honorable House of Representatives of the United States:

The petition of _____________________, a citizen of the State of _________________, and of the United States, respectfully showeth:

That, Jefferson’s Manual section LIII, 603, states that impeachment may be set in motion by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination; and

The memorial goes on to set forth that, George W. Bush has intentionally misled the Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war against Iraq, intentionally conspired with others to defraud the United States in connection with the war against Iraq in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371; and

The memorial goes on to set forth that, George W. Bush has admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805; and

The memorial goes on to set forth that, George W. Bush has conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of the “Federal Torture Act” Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution are part of the “supreme Law of the Land”; and

The memorial goes on to set forth that, George W. Bush has acted to strip Americans of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to legal counsel, without charge and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the President of a U.S. citizen as an “enemy combatant”, all in subversion of law; and

The memorial goes on to set forth that, In all of this George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

In conclusion the memoralist says:

Having thus submitted to your honorable body the facts of his case, your petitioner begs leave to observe that it appears from those facts:

First. That the said George W. Bush has, in his capacity of President of the United States, been guilty of usurping a power which the laws of the land did not give him.

Second. That said George W. Bush has exercised his power, be the same usurped or legitimate, to the detriment of every citizen of the United States.

Wherefore, and inasmuch as the said George W. Bush has violated the most sacred and undoubted rights of the inhabitants of these United States, your petitioner prays that the conduct and proceedings in this behalf, of said George W. Bush, may be inquired into by your honorable body, and such decision made therein to impeach, to appoint managers to conduct the impeachment trial in the Senate, and to inform the Senate of these facts by resolution (Manual Sec. 607; Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 9) for trial and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States;

And your petitioner, as in duty bound, will pray.

Signature Date
——————————————————— ————

Print Name: __________________________________

Makes you wonder what the results would be if they simply asked,

“do you favor sending more combat troops to Iraq?”

and only allowed “yes”, “no” or “not sure” as answers.

Besides, how can you be moderately in favor of a troop increase? 18 percent(half of the 36 percent) said this. If they were allowed to say “not sure” or I don’t know, what would the numbers have been? I’m sorry, but this is a weasley survey.

Having our soldiers “pacify” Baghdad - even if theoretically possible - still places them in a position of being unable to accomplish anything themselves (formation of a government) that constitutes “completing their mission.”

IMO, any legitimate american military objective is one that can be accomplished exclusively by US military, absolutely regardless of the actions or wishes of foreign politicians or nationals.

I love the talking point you brought up about “terrorrism or an actual attack on the US by an identified state”. The Intelligence agencies - our government - concluded the war in Iraq has made terrorism a worse threat. By occupying Iraq, we are recruiting FOR terrorists. Can you explain how we are more safe from an attack “by an identified state” with our military pinned down in a civil war on the other side of the globe???

I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak.

If you are interested in a view of the inside of the Pentagon procurement process from Vietnam to Iraq please check the posting at my blog entitled, “Odyssey of Armaments”

http://rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com/2006/11/odyssey-of-armaments.html

The Pentagon is a giant, incredibly complex establishment, budgeted in excess of $500B per year. The Rumsfelds, the Administrations and the Congressmen come and go but the real machinery of policy and procurement keeps grinding away, presenting the politicos who arrive with detail and alternatives slanted to perpetuate itself.

How can any newcomer, be he a President, a Congressman or even the new Sec. Def.Mr. Gates, understand such complexity, particularly if heretofore he has not had the clearance to get the full details?

Answer- he can’t. Therefore he accepts the alternatives provided by the career establishment that never goes away and he hopes he makes the right choices. Or he is influenced by a lobbyist or two representing companies in his district or special interest groups.

From a practical standpoint, policy and war decisions are made far below the levels of the talking heads who take the heat or the credit for the results.

This situation is unfortunate but it is absolute fact. Take it from one who has been to war and worked in the establishment.

This giant policy making and war machine will eventually come apart and have to be put back together to operate smaller, leaner and on less fuel. But that won’t happen until it hits a brick wall at high speed.

We will then have to run a Volkswagen instead of a Caddy and get along somehow. We better start practicing now and get off our high horse. Our golden aura in the world is beginning to dull from arrogance.

BTW: the 2006 election was an off-year Congressional. It’s a very long throw home from deep, deep left field to interpret the results as somehow universal agreement “of the people” with the policies of any political party (ever).