It's Not Too Late to Impeach! Please Call your Congressional Representative

I sent the following note out to some of my contacts today:

I just called the office of my Congressman, Brian Baird, to advocate impeachment. His Washington D.C. office telephone number is (202) 225-3536.

What did I say in specific? Well first I sincerely told the staffer who answered the phone: "good afternoon." Then I asked to speak directly with Congressman Baird: "Is Congressman Baird available?" To which the staffer replied quite rudely: he asked what I was calling about before informing me that Mr. Baird was busy "in a meeting."

I told him that I was calling with a message about impeaching President Bush and Vice-President Cheney.

When he said that Baird was busy, I left the staffer a more detailed message. It went something like this:

I urge Congressman Baird to support holding President Bush and the Office of the Executive, including Vice-President Cheney, accountable for various alleged criminal actions, malfeasances, and improprieties relating to the function of their official duties. We need to hold them accountable if we are truly a nation of laws and ideals, and not a nation dictated by the will of men.

I believe that impeachment will benefit all Americans. I urge the Congressman to sign on as a supporter of Congressman Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment. Impeachment will be possible with enough support from Congressional Representatives, like Congressman Baird.

Then I said thank you to the staffer for making sure to deliver the message to the Congressman.

Please try it for yourself, call your Representative, Baird or whoever yours is. Finding the telephone number is as easy as looking it up on the Internet. Please do this today or tomorrow. Make sure to speak with a live person - don't leave a voice mail. Remember to first ask to speak directly with your representative. And be friendly. It helps the staffer to listen to your message.

Finally, please talk to your friends about impeachment, and consider sending a message to people in your network asking them to call Congress on behalf of the cause of impeachment.

Sincerely,

RFWW

It's not too late to impeach! Please call your Congressperson! It will only take a few minutes.

In Support of Global Dominance

Our legislators don't represent the will of the people for peace and justice. Instead they all too often represent the will of corporations for global dominance, even to the point of militarism and the use of violence. Here's a comment I made at OlyBlog about Congressman Brian Baird (D - WA 3rd Congressional District):

go to original

Do the terms "liberal" or "conservative" have meaning anymore?

As far as it goes with the occupation of Iraq, Congressman Baird certainly provides liberal support to those (Western multi-national petroleum corporations) who seek domination and control over the oil resource of Iraq.

It's great that Baird is a strong proponent of abortion rights and other things. But I wish he was a support of peace, justice and disarmament. It seems that he is an able and willing supporter of global dominance and a foreign policy of violent militarism. Congressman Baird lives up to a the tradition of the military-industrial-congressional-complex.

The same criticism that applies to Baird also applies, unfortunately, to a majority of US Legislators: they are wedded to a system that represents the interests of the corporations. It's corporatism plain and simple. Regular citizens just don't have access to government anymore.

The people need healthcare and good, stable jobs. But the corporations are making it impossible - with the help of Congress.

If the work is to represent the interests of peace and justice, the government is often less than willing to receive the message. (This is also true at State and local levels, but the degree of receptivity varies on a case by case basis.)

Blocking a Bush Attack on Iran

I attended a Moveon.org Operation Democracy petition event yesterday at the Olympia Office of Washington State 3rd Congressional District Representative Brian Baird. Nearly 600 names of 3rd District Constituents were transferred to Congressman Baird's staffers in order to support Baird's plan to sign on to a bill that would require Congressional authorization prior to a US military attack on Iran.

I also spoke to my disappointment in a response I received from the Congressman in regard to a comment I left with him during his September Town Hall Meeting. He came to Olympia to defend his policy redirection and newfound explicit support for the Bush Administration "surge" in Iraq. I was concerned that he did not take into account the efficacy and potential for a responsible and safe, gradual and phased redeployment (aka withdrawal) of US military forces from Iraq. Today I will stop by his office and deliver documentation of the plan to responsibly withdraw the military from Iraq. Here's a link to the report, it was published by the Center for American Progress. It was co-authored by Lawrence J. Korb, Max Bergmann, Sean Duggan, and Peter Juul.

I implored upon the staffers furthermore my need for the Congressman to do everything in his power to oppose a White House move toward attack in the absence of thoroughly credible, entirely transparent and absolutely verifiable evidence that Iran poses an immediate threat to the USA. period

Given the Bush Administration's use of false pretenses to prompt an unnecessary attack on Iraq - it's crucial that Congress, and my Congressman, do everything in their power to insure against another unjustified, unlawful aggressive attack.

LTE, Surge, Occupation, Iraq, Baird

I sent a Letter to the Editors of my local newspaper, The Olympian, today. I have been meaning to send a letter on this topic for about 3 or 4 weeks now, but I have been struggling to find focus for it. I think it's because of the emotions that are involved. There is a lot of frustration and aggravation. My Representative to the US Congress, Brian Baird, after a visit to Iraq, has decided to come out in support of the Bush Administration "Surge" in troop levels and plan for Further Occupation. I am disappointed, heartbroken...really sad.

So I have been having difficulty writing this letter. Composing a short succinct, direct and to-the-point letter to the editors of my local paper has eluded me. But this morning the impetus struck, and somewhat hastily, as will be obvious after reading the letter I sent (below), I played around with it and drafted a letter, which I sent. Then I had to bike very fast to get to work on time. I made it in about 15 minutes, which included a 3-5 minute pit-stop at the bakery. It's a 3 1/2 mile ride. You do the math. I was going fast. (oh okay, it's about 20 mph.)

So that's a little bit of my day. Here's a letter that I sent to the local paper. I definitely could have taken a few deep breaths and a walk around the block before making a final edit prior to sending. I'll work on that... Anyway, I hope it gets the point across, and that it's not too hard to read. Sorry for the punctuation and other errors:

I attended Representative Brian Baird's September 21st Town Hall Meeting at Capital High School. I am concerned about Rep. Baird's change of direction, his explicit support for the surge. He reported having difficulty finding Iraqis who supported the surge. He didn't mention talking to ordinary Iraqis. In fact he didn't mention discussing the surge or occupation with any Iraqis in opposition.

Representative Baird claimed that withdrawal would result in a "bloodbath." I also, can imagine the spike in violence that a hastily executed withdrawal might cause. But it's also a possible that violence could be lessened, if the USA were to commence, in good faith, upon a responsible and complete, phased, withdrawal, say, over the course of one year. This idea of a responsible withdrawal was something that Rep. Baird did not seem to consider, nor has he indicated consideration in correspondence with him since the Town Hall Meeting.

The invasion was unnecessary. There was no threat, posed by WMD or otherwise, prior to the invasion. Supposed evidence of a WMD threat has reasonably been shown to have been contrived. The management of the occupation has been incompetent. The failures can be traced to the topmost command in Washington D.C.. Instead of supporting the Bush Administration policy, I want my Representative to represent me, and to support two things. One, hold the Bush Administration, and associated entities, to account for any malfeasance relating to the invasion and occupation. Two, I want a responsible withdrawal of US forces from Iraq to commence immediately.

Represent

I attended a Town Hall Meeting with Brian Baird, who is my Representative to the US House of Representatives. The Town Hall Meeting was announced after a mass of dissent toward the Representative's change of direction regarding the surge in troop levels and the occupation of Iraq.

According to Rep. Baird, after "working very hard" to find Iraqis who support the surge, he was successful in finding 13 people. Two were MPs. 11 were Sheiks from a specific area of Iraq. But the Representative found no support amongst ordinary, common Iraqis for either the surge or the occupation.

I was disappointed and aggrieved to hear of Rep. Baird's change of direction. I recently received a letter from the Representative, which has prompted me to become more active in expressing my opinion on this matter.

I would like to say that I agree with Baird, insofar as I feel that the US has a responsibility to stabilize, to remedy, to repair Iraq. The US pre-emptive attack was without warrant. There was no justification for the invasion. I allege that the "facts" regarding evidence of WMD threat were "fixed" to meet the policy of the invasion (www.downingstreetmemo.com).

But culpability for an aggressive and belligerent military action is a separate, though very closely related issue. Holding our leaders accountable for fraud or any other potential malfeasance would be helpful in the stabilization of Iraq.

But more importantly there must be a change in the mission. The mission must be changed from being anti-insurgency to providing for the basic security of all Iraqis and beginning reconstruction and rebuilding of the infrastructure (by military personnel.) Reconstruction must be on par with current standards in the domestic USA. Water, sewage, electricity, schools, hospitals, roads, etc. all must be repaired to at least prewar standards.

That said, I just don't know if the military option is feasible in providing for the reconstruction and re-stabilization of Iraqi civil society. I don't know if the US military is the right entity for the job...

Here's a copy of a letter I just wrote to Representative Baird:

Dear Representative Baird,

I received a letter from your office in acknowledgment of my attendance at a recent town hall meeting, which you sponsored in Olympia Washington. I am glad that I was able to attend, and I appreciate your support for civic engagement. I hope you were able to hear and listen to the views and opinions of your constituents despite the somewhat hostile environment in the Capital High School Performance Center Auditorium that night. Unfortunately, I was only able to stay for two and a half hours, until 9:30 p.m., so I didn't get to hear the rest of the comments, or your responses to them.

I care about the USA and also that the actions of the USA genuinely and accurately reflect what I think and feel to be the best aspects of the character of Americans. I believe that Americans are capable of great hospitality - even compassion, I believe that Americans are generous and that we have an interest in equitable and fair relations amongst all people. After all, America was born out of dissent over unfair taxation - taxation without representation - that was essentially a colonial power's effort to exploit its "subjects."

So I am writing to you with an eye toward the past, as well as toward the future, when I express my concern and disapproval over your change of direction in regard to your policy on Iraq. I am concerned that America is becoming that colonial/imperial force that the founders of our own government rejected.

I am also dissatisfied with the content of your letter of acknowledgment. At the Town Hall Meeting I expressed (in a handwritten statement on a note card that was delivered to your staffers) my concern that you hadn't considered the possibility of a gradual withdrawal. It sounded to me like you opposed a withdrawal that would be sudden and shocking (like the invasion) which would likely result in a major security vacuum and further violence - a "bloodbath."

But if the withdrawal were to take place over the course of one year, allowing the security situation to fill in organically as the US forces withdraw gradually, I think there is the potential to prevent much violence. So much of the violence in Iraq is the result of the US presence.

I agree with you that the US has an obligation to work toward a stabilized Iraq. I am concerned that the military option is not the best option. For one, it seems that the military mission is vague. Is it to destroy insurgency? Well, how can our military personnel destroy something which they cannot identify?

I think that the mission must be changed. It must be changed to this: provide basic defense for the Iraqi Civilians, begin reconstruction immediately, and in earnest. Increase troop levels if needed. Rebuild the infrastructure to current US standards. Give the Iraqis something to feel pride in. Restore the water, sewage, electricity, roads, schools and hospitals to pre-war standards.

Make that the mission and those the goals for the occupation. And set certain criteria to enable the withdrawal.

Without that change in mission, and without holding the Bush Administration accountable, and to the standards of Justice, then there is no other reasonable option, in my mind (as well as in the minds of the vast majority of my fellow constituents) but to commence immediately upon a safe and responsible complete withdrawal.

Thank you, Mr. Representative, for taking the time and making the effort to read and understand my comments.

Sincerely,
Robert Whitlock

I am still trying to draft a letter to the editor of the Olympian. Hopefully these ruminations will assist that effort. Stay tuned.

Town Hall Meeting with Brian Baird

Rep. Baird was fixated on the notion that withdrawal would cause further violence. But he seems not to have considered that a responsible, safe and gradual withdrawal would most likely reduce the level of violence. Violence would be reduced because it is the presence of the USA in Iraq that is exacerbating much of the violence.

It was a good meeting. But Rep. Brian Baird is not facing the same reality as 90% of those who attended the meeting. The occupation is very unpopular in Olympia.

There were moments when tempers flared. There were outbursts. All in all it was interesting. I left before it ended. I was disappointed to learn that Rep. Baird didn't talk to any normal every day Iraqis before he made the decision to support the Surge. He talked to 11 parliamentarians and two Sheiks among the Iraqis that he consulted. He also met with members of the American government and military in Iraq prior to making his decision to lend his explicit support to the Surge and to the Occupation.

He feels that the USA has a responsibility in Iraq - a responsibility to right many wrongs. I agree with him that the USA has a responsibility. But he supports the US military role in providing these many reparations.

I disagree with him, and disapprove of his stance, insofar as my perception of the ability of the US military to accomplish the reconstruction mission. In fact, the mission is to hunt insurgents. But it is the presence of the US military that is feeding the insurgency. So it is a cyclical game of cat and mouse. The way out is to stop playing the game.

Change the mission. 1. Make the mission priority to reconstruct the civilian infrastructure.

2. Hand over the keys to the Iraqi government for real. Trust the Iraqi people to manage their own governmental/political process.

3. Hold the Bush Administration accountable. I support holding prominent war planning decision makers in confinement until such a time and place that a fair trial can be made for the assessment of any wrongdoings that may have been committed in re: the invasion and occupation of Iraq...

Rep. Brian Baird share a lot apparently in terms of our views of Iraq. We both believe that the USA has a responsibility to foster progress and change. But we differ fundamentally on the analysis of progress. His understanding seems very narrow and limited. He sees a few specific instances of progress and thinks that justifies the heavy handed military presence. - I think the military presence, in its current incarnation, is part of the problem.

Another thing that struck me was the defensive tone the Representative took from the very beginning.

Also - The Representative didn't listen very well to many of the comments and questions... He often provided (what were to me) unsatisfactory responses and answers. It was like something was missing... Something important. It was like he had well-thought out and rehearsed political responses to many of the citizens' comments. A lot of his statements sounded canned, phony and stale.

I am glad that I went and would be interested in hearing others' perspectives on how the Town Hall Meeting went.

Finally, I encourage the Representative to truly think over the ideas that were shared at the Mtg. and to not fear changing his position accordingly. There is no shame in admitting a wrong like this. It would be the honorable thing to do.

Waging offensive military campaigns in the name of resource acquisition is inhumane, immoral, illegal - fundamentally anathema to the tradition and spirit of the USA.

The fundamental reason for the US presence in Iraq is unjust. It is time to radically shift the military and diplomatic mission - or else to begin immediately a full scale, safe, responsibly and complete (likely over the course of one year) military withdrawal.