Letter to Congress - warning, LONG

[sandnsea]

I may have to rethink the uranium part in light of Tenet's nosedive, all input appreciated. I'm trying to tighten the noose around the appropriate neck.

Dear Congressman/Senator:

In light of recent revelations regarding forged Niger documents, I have become convinced that members of this Administration acted in a reckless manner and intentionally misled the nation and the world into an unauthorized and illegal war. I believe the sense of the Congress when approving the Authorization for War is best expressed by Senator Kerry’s statements on October 9, 2002;

“I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections... Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test.”

The actions of the Administration leading up to the war become clear when placed within these stringent requirements. The attempts to undermine the UN become clear, as Hans Blix stated “There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media” and people in the Bush Administration "who say they don't care if the UN sinks under the East river, and other crude things." It further explains the truth of Paul Wolfowitz’s statement in Vanity Fair; "For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction…." In fact, the existence of weapons of mass destruction, which UN inspections could not uncover, is the only reason Congress authorized military force.

In their attempt to circumvent the will of Congress and invade a foreign nation, the Administration engaged in a series of deliberate lies and deceptions. The recent disclosure by Ambassador Wilson that the forgery of Niger documents was known well in advance of claims of Iraq attempting to procure uranium is only one instance of this Administration’s deceptive behavior. In fact, President Bush’s first statements regarding an Iraqi nuclear threat proved to be inaccurate. On Sept 7, President Bush stated that a report from the IAEA claimed “that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need.” This was immediately refuted by Mark Gwozdecky of the IAEA on 9/27/02 “There’s never been a report like that issued from this agency.” An outline of statements in connection with this forgery is enclosed.

The uranium claims are also not the only information in the State of the Union that was questioned by the CIA and other U.S. scientists before it’s inclusion. “Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” Numerous CIA analysts disagreed and David Albright, a physicist with the IAEA Action Team from 1992 – 1997 stated “Many centrifuge experts believe that this design would not work as the basis of a centrifuge plant.” He further stated in a Knight Ridder report of Oct 4, 2002 that he has been told that scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and other U.S. nuclear weapons facilities disagreed with that assessment but have been ordered not to say anything. He quoted one scientist as saying that "the administration can say what it wants and we are expected to remain silent."

Other statements in the State of the Union Address are equally telling. “Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent” and “U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.” The fact is, this information was based on 1991 reports and there was no new intelligence leading up to the war.

The Administration has reported on numerous occasions that they used the same intelligence as the Clinton Administration in its precursor to the 1998 bombing campaign. Without new intelligence, it is impossible to conclude that any weapons or production facilities existed after the 3 day bombing, yet President Bush avoids the obvious in the State of the Union, stating; “He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.” Whether these materials were destroyed in the bombing campaign became impossible to validate or investigate because, as Ari Fleischer stated on December 2, 2002, “If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.”

The lack of new intelligence is further verified by Secretary Rumsfeld “It was increased worries about terrorism, not new evidence of Iraqi preparations, that was the key reason for going to war…. The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq´s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction." July 10, 2003. This concern regarding Iraq terrorist connections does not even pass serious scrutiny as on October 7, 2002, the CIA sent a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee stating, “Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability.” Clearly there was a lack of evidence regarding an al Qaeda – Iraq link, yet President Bush also claims in the State of the Union Address “that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda.”

The attempts by this Administration to cover up this colossal deception have spanned the spectrum from sly to bizarre to completely ridiculous. We have been told Iraq has had 12 years to hide them, moved them to Syria, dumped them in the river, or destroyed them just before the invasion. We have gone from finding the weapons to finding residue of weapons to finding programs to finding papers indicating programs. Most recently we have apparently been told that WE must find them ourselves, according to Ari Fleischer who said on July 9, "I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are."

The ramifications of the actions of the Administration not only affect the current quagmire in Iraq, which will become increasingly difficult to manage as doubt and skepticism grows. The future of our country and the ability to defend itself against foreign threats will be questioned if a thorough independent investigation is not immediately implemented. The questions are clear. What new and concise intelligence proved that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq in the year 2003? Did this Administration either pressure intelligence agencies to influence the reports or use sketchy intelligence and manipulate it themselves? For what purpose were these actions taken?

I trust that the Senators and Representatives in the Intelligence and Armed Forces Committees understand the grave situation we are facing. I appreciate your integrity and duty to our country in demanding accountability from the President, his Administration, the CIA and any other agency found to be involved.

Sincerely,

[9215]

1. Nice letter

It is hard to figure out where to stop in detailing the lies of the Bushistas.

[Spazito]

2. Excellent Letter!

On the issue of the uranium, you might want to use this quote from Tenet:

"Officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues," Tenet said. "Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa."

and then point out that what it really says is that they knew that the language was "technically correct" on in that it was in the British paper but they knew that the facts within the paper were not correct yet they still used it. It doesn't clear *, it proves that he lied in the SOTU.

Just a suggestion.

It is a great letter!