Replies to Emails to Congress

From: Opinion@coleman.senate.gov

Thank you for taking the time to contact me concerning a British memo about pre-Iraq war intelligence.

As you may know, on May 1, 2005, the London Sunday Times published a memo written by British foreign policy aide Matthew Rycroft based on notes he had taken during a July 2002 meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair and his advisors. The memo reflected Mr. Rycroft's opinion that the U.S. was intent on removing Saddam Hussein from power and was fixing intelligence around that policy.

Clearly there have been shortcomings in intelligence about Iraq 's prewar capabilities. However, the U.S. was not alone in our assessment about Saddam's weapons programs. Foreign intelligence agencies, including the British and Australian services, as well as the UN, believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction ( WMDs ). UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which passed unanimously in 2002, stated that Iraq posed a threat to international peace and security because of its WMD proliferation.

After Saddam was removed from power, the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) was assigned the task of investigating Saddam's WMD program. The ISG report by Charles Duelfer details Saddam Hussein's attempts to end U.N. sanctions against him while preserving his capacity to reconstitute his WMD programs once the sanctions were lifted.

Saddam Hussein used WMDs against his own people and clearly did not abandon his WMD ambitions. He personally directed efforts to hide and preserve documentation related to Iraq 's nuclear program and prevented Iraqi scientists from leaving Iraq , enabling him to restart his WMD programs. Although stockpiles of WMDs were not found in Iraq, the facts contained in the Duelfer report show that Saddam Hussein maintained the capacity to rebuild his WMD programs in a short amount of time, and that he was actively undercutting the sanctions against him. Given the multiple sources of pre-war intelligence, as well as the findings of the Duelfer Report, there is little evidence to support the Rycroft memo.

In order to address failures with pre-war intelligence, however, I worked closely with my colleagues in the 108 th Congress to construct and pass a comprehensive intelligence reform bill, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 (S. 2845) which became public law on December 17, 2004. I also supported Ambassador John Negroponte to be the first Director of National Intelligence for the United States and oversee this major intelligence reorganization.

Thank you once again for contacting me. I value your advice. If I may be of further assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me again.

Sincerely,
Norm Coleman
United States Senate

visit http://www.cdomusic.com/music_military.htm and listen to "Thank You", "Freedom Isn't Free" or "Your Long Journey Home" to see why the the memory of our troops must be honored by the truth whatever it may be.

Thank you for writing me about the "Downing Street" memo, which recently surfaced in Great Britain. This memo was written by British national security aide Mathew Rycroft based on notes he took during a July 2002 meeting of Mr.Blair and his advisers, including Richard Dearlove, the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service who had recently met with Bush administration officials.
Please know that the Senate vote on the resolution to authorise the use of force in Iraq was difficult and consequential based on hours of intelligence briefings from Administration and intelligence officials, as well as the classified and unclassified versions of an important National Intelligence Estimate that comprehensively assessed Iraq's WMD program.It was based on trust that this intelligence was the best our Nation's inteligence services could offer, and fairly presented. In this case it was not.
The bottom line is that Iraq did not possess nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in 2003 when the war began. Saddam Hussein did not have an active nuclear, chemical or biological weapons program. Considering the statements that were being made by the Administration, and the intelligence that was presented to Congress which said otherwise, this is quite disturbing and points once again to failures in the analysis, collection and use of intelligence.
In order to address these intelligence failures, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform bill, which i voted for. This law will make consequential changes to the structure and organisation of 15 agencies which make up our intelligence capabilities. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I will be sure to monitor this issue closely.
Again, thank you for writing. I hope you will continue to keep me informed of your views and concerns. If you should have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call my Washington, DC. staff at (202) 224-3841, or visit my website at http://feinstein.senate.gov.
Sincerely yours.
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator.

Thank you for contacting me with your views on the misuses of intelligence by the Bush Administration. I appreciate hearing from you.
In May 2005, the Sunday Times of London cited a previously secret British government memorandum which disclosed that by the summer of 2002, the United States and Great Britain had agreed to invade Iraq. Known as the Downing Street Memo, this memo alleges that because of President Bush's determination to act militarily in Iraq, intelligence and facts were fixed around the policy of military action.
In light of the Downing Street Memo, I recently joined Senators Kerry, Lautenberg, Durbin, Johnson, Kennedy, Harkin, Bingaman, Corzine, and Reid in urging the Senate Intelligence Committee to examine the use of intelligence by policy makers. As we stated in our letter, "the American public must have the highest confidence that policy makers are using intelligence judiciously never manipulating it to justify war, but always to protect the United States. Thev contents of the Downing Street Memo undermine this faith and only rigorous Congressional oversight can restore it."
The American people want and need accurate information from our intelligence community and straight talk from our political leaders. I voted against granting the President the authority to wage a unilateral war against Iraq, and I will continue to push the Bush Administration to develop a foreign policy based on sound intelligence rather than molding intelligence to fit a preexisting agenda.
Once again, thank you for you letter and for caring deeply about this critical matter.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator.

Dear M:

Thank you for contacting me regarding our policy in Iraq, particularly in regard to the faulty intelligence that was presented to the United Nations and Congress on the eve of war. I agree the contents of the Downing Street memo are very troubling, and you can rest assured that I will be looking into this matter very closely. I suspect this subject will remain a topic of heated public debate for some time, and I certainly understand your concerns.

I share your general disappointment at the Administration’s handling of the Iraq war, which has put us in a position where leaving that country risks chaos and staying has immeasurable financial and social costs. An immediate priority for Congress must be to ensure that the American people are getting truthful and accurate information about when and how we will bring our troops home, and that our soldiers, guardsmen and reservists receive all the benefits they are entitled to on their return.

In regard to the faulty intelligence we now know existed before the war, I understand why you and many members of Congress feel as though they were duped by the Administration. I cannot fault anyone -- members of Congress or the American citizen -- for feeling as though this nation was manipulated into war. It is my hope that this experience will serve as a lesson to the intelligence community and future administrations that they will be held accountable for the information they present to the country and should think twice before letting policy bias override hard intelligence. We should hope that the criticism engendered by the Iraq case will prevent similar mistakes in the future.

Thank you again for your message, M. Please do not hesitate to keep in touch on this or any issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about the so-called Downing Street Memo.

Though I have not yet been able to verify the contents of that memo, its contents, if true, are disconcerting. Given my concern about this issue, I have contacted the British Embassy here in Washington.

I will keep your comments in mind as I try to get to the bottom of this issue.

Thanks again for writing.
Sincerely,

Ken Salazar
United States Senator

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about our country's leadership. I appreciate you taking the time to write.

I do believe that President Bush has truthfully stated the reasons to go to war in Iraq. In doing so we have maintained a coalition with many other countries throughout the world, including Britain. I do feel that the President has done a good job at trying to rebuild Iraq. It will not be an easy or quickly resolved task, but we will do our best to help Iraq to become a stable and productive country.

Thank you for writing to share your concerns. I look forward to hearing from you again. If you would like more information on issues important to Colorado and the nation, please log on to my website at http://allard.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

A

Wayne Allard

United States Senator

Dear Mr. Allard,
If this so called "Downing Street Memo" is correct, it implies conspiracy and treason by what it says "fixing the intelligence" around the justification for military invasion. I really think you must reread the memo because you "as I said" are missing the point.
Thank You,
Michael R. McKenzie
Saginaw, Michigan

Six (6) Representatives, Washington state signed the Conyer's Letter to President, Downing Street Minutes.

Listed;

Brian Baird

Norman Dicks

Jay Inslee

Rick Larsen

Adam Smith

Jim McDermott

Sent letters to Senators Murray and Cantwell re; DSM on June 17, 2005 using formatted letter from tool kit; added this paragraph

' We are a military family, with 2 loved ones, now combat Iraq veterans having served and both are facing 2nd deployments to Iraq. I am a speaking out member of Military Families Speak Out and I do NOT want to have to wear another hat, Cindy Sheehan's Gold Star Families for Peace. Membership requirement; a loved one killed in Iraq. "

Dear ___________,

Thank you for your letter regarding the memo from a high-level British meeting about the war in Iraq that was leaked to the Times of London. I commend you for taking such an active interest in global affairs.

First of all, it is very important that we get our facts straight in this matter. The memo in question was not sent from the President to the British. The "secret" memo was the minutes of a high-level meeting of British officials which included Prime Minister Blair and other members of his cabinet. The crux of the memo was the report of a man identified as "C" about his recent trip to Washington and his subsequent feeling that "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the war in mid-2002. There is no evidence to support this allegation by an unamed source.

After September 11, 2001, the President and our allies could not take any chances with the possibility of deadly weapons finding their way into the hands of terrorists who would certainly seek to use them. Saddam Hussein had flouted 17 UN resolutions since the end of the Gulf War in 1991 and the intelligence given to the President clearly indicated Hussein possessed an active weapons program and weapons of mass destruction. Hussein had previously used chemical weapons to kill many of his own people and invaded Iraq's neighbors both in Kuwait and Iran. Acting on the best information available, the President, with the approval of Congress, acted to remove the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Even former President Clinton felt - based on the intelligence available to him - that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Many of the intelligence weaknesses in the American policy-making process are being addressed by massive intelligence reform per the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which also led to the creation of the Director of National Intelligence position to organize our fifteen intelligence entities. As a member of the Senate Committee of Homeland Security and Government Affairs, I intend to closely monitor the impact of this reorganization on intelligence gathering.

I believe it is important to remember that the debate in the UN over going to war with Iraq was not based upon whether Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction or not, but was simply a matter of process in terms of how long inspections would be allowed to continue before force was used. Saddam had long thumbed his nose at UN inspectors and resolutions and possessed the capability to produce these weapons, which still made him a clear and present danger to the United States.

The claim that the war in Iraq has not been waged on a sound legal footing is simply false. This is evidenced by UN Resolution 1382, which promised "serious consequences" if Saddam Hussein failed to comply with inspections and dismantle his WMD program. Furthermore, the President sought Senate approval to go to war which he received by an overwhelming margin of 77-23. Since the war was waged under a sound legal rationale and the administration did not "cook the books" in terms of intelligence, it is difficult to get to the place where one can challenge the President's integrity.

I believe the President did the right thing in removing Saddam Hussein from power. I think the second-guessing by some members of Congress, at this point, only serves to help the insurgents in this conflict as it undermines the morale of our troops and strengthens the resolve of our enemies. I therefore must decline to sign on to the partisan letter being circulated by House Democrats which you mention.

Once again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me again.

Sincerely,
Tom Coburn
United States Senator

TC: ds

Dear Friend :

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for an investigation into the actions of President George W. Bush and the Bush Administration's justification for going to war with Iraq . I am pleased to learn your views and appreciate the opportunity to share mine.

Like you, I believe it is critical that the Bush Administration come clean with the American people about its justifications for going to war with Iraq , especially in light of recent revelations about the Administration's war planning included in the so-called Downing Street Memo. For this reason, I, along with several of my colleagues in the House of Representatives, sent a letter to President Bush asking him to answer a series of questions, including whether the Administration sought the support for the war from U.S. allies before seeking Congressional authorization to go to war and whether the there was an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons of mass destruction in order to help with the justification for the war. While I have yet to receive a response from the President, please be assured that I will continue to work to hold the Bush Administration accountable for its actions leading our country into war with Iraq .

Again, thank you for letting me know your views. Please feel free to visit my website at www.house.gov/degette where you can sign up for my e-newsletter to stay up-to-date on current events on Capitol Hill. I look forward to our continued communication.

Sincerely,

D

Diana DeGette

Member of Congress

Dear __________:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about our country's
leadership. I appreciate you taking the time to write.

I do believe that President Bush has truthfully stated the reasons to go
to war in Iraq. In doing so we have maintained a coalition with many
other countries throughout the world, including Britain. I do feel that
the President has done a good job at trying to rebuild Iraq. It will not
be an easy or quickly resolved task, but we will do our best to help Iraq
to become a stable and productive country.

Thank you for writing to share your concerns. I look forward to hearing
from you again. If you would like more information on issues important to
Colorado and the nation, please log on to my website at
http://allard.senate.gov.

Sincerely,
A
Wayne Allard
United States Senator

WA:st

Because of a vendor email problem, this may be a duplicate email. If that
is the case, we apologize for the inconvenience. Thank you for your
understanding.

Thank you for contacting me to support investigating the Downing Street Memo. I appreciate hearing from you on this matter.

You should know that in mid-June, I joined Congressman John Conyers and several of my colleagues in sending a second letter to
President Bush to request an explanation of the allegations charged in the Downing Street Memo, as first reported in the London
Times. This document suggests that the United States and Great Britain had already decided to invade Iraq before the White House
sought Congressional approval.

It is imperative that the American public be given straightforward and honest answers about the Administration's justification
for invading Iraq. Our government is responsible to the people it represents and I believe it is time for the current
administration to detail the intelligence which ultimately led to the war in Iraq.

Again, thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts. I hope all is well in Lake Stevens, and I look forward to future
correspondence.

Sincerely,
Rick Larsen

U.S. Representative
Washington State - 2nd District
www.house.gov/larsen

It looks as though my Rep. is blind. I also wonder about how high his "ethical standard" really is. It looks as though his belief system is screwed up.

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

Dear Mr. Brown:

Thank you for contacting me regarding impeaching President Bush. I appreciate your taking the time to contact me on this issue.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution also states “The President… shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Dear Bruce,

Thank you for your e-mail message. It was good to hear from you. I regret the delay in my response. I receive more than one thousand letters and e-mails each week and cannot respond to each one personally as quickly as I would like.

I also appreciate you taking the time to share with me your suggestion that President Bush be impeached. Although you and I may oppose many of the President’s actions, I must tell you it would be nearly impossible to impeach this President, given the strong Republican majorities in both the House and Senate. However, I can assure you I will keep your comments in mind, and, when circumstances call for it, my colleagues and I will continue to speak out against the administration. In the meantime, I will do all I can to hold
President Bush accountable while fighting for San Diego families and our core values in Congress.

Once again, thank you for contacting me. As your representative, I both need and value your perspective. Please sign up for my E-Newsletter on my website, www.house.gov/susandavis, if you would like to receive monthly updates about what is happening in Congress.

With warm regards,

Susan A. Davis
Member of Congress

Well, she has signed Conyer's letter at least.

Dear Mr. Fearn:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Downing Street memo.

Since October, 2002, when I voted against our use of military force in
Iraq, I have remained critical of the Bush Administration's handling of
this war. The classified Downing Street memo, which was produced by
British Prime Minister Tony Blair's staff, gives minutes of his meeting
with government defense and intelligence officials on July 23, 2002. The
document alleges that the Bush Administration was already committed to
going to war against Iraq in the summer of 2002, and suggests that the
Administration manipulated intelligence to support their case to go to
war.

This memo simply asserts what my colleagues and I have been saying for
years–that the Administration was not adequately prepared, neither with
evidence nor with a plan for peace, to take our servicemen and women into
war. However, I strongly support our troops in the Middle East and around
the world. These self-sacrificing men and women have left behind their
families to serve their country, and it is my belief that Congress must do
everything in its power to provide these servicemembers with the
protection and benefits they need and deserve.

As a strong supporter of an open and transparent government, I welcome
Congressional investigations into the Downing Street memo and other
pre-war intelligence. The American people deserve nothing less than the
truth.

Again, thank you for taking the time to be in touch with me. Please do
not hesitate to contact me again, if you have any other questions or
concerns.

My best regards.
Sincerely,

Mark Dayton
United States Senator

MD:kmj

Below is the response I received from Senator Tom Coburn. I must say that he is the only senator that does respond to me when I email him. The last correspondence I received from Senator Jim Inhofe (R) was in reference to the Customer Checking Account Fairness Act and that was in April. Since then he has not bothered to respond to any of my eamils.

I can say at least I am TRYING, which I can not say for the Congressman and Senators that are SUPPOSE to REPRESENT the PEOPLE IN THEIR STATE!

______________________________________________________________________

Dear Friend:

Thank you for your letter regarding the so-called "Downing Street Memo" from a high-level British meeting about the war in Iraq that was reported in the Times of London.

I must respectfully decline to support a Congressional investigation
into the President's decision to go to war with Iraq. The President made it clear in his June 6th press conference with Prime Minister Blair that it is inaccurate to suggest that the decision to go to war had already been made prior to his presenting the case against Saddam Hussein to the United Nations (UN). The President went on to say with the Prime Minister in resolute agreement- that war was their last option in dealing with Saddam.
Numerous efforts were made to make Saddam comply with UN resolutions
but he disregarded these efforts.

The "Downing Street Memo" was the minutes of a high-level meeting of
British officials which included Prime Minister Blair and other members of his cabinet. The crux of the memo was the report of a man now identified as Richard Dearlove, the head of British Secret Intelligence Service sometimes known as MI6, (the original article simply named him "C") about his recent trip to Washington and his subsequent feeling that "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the war in mid-2002. Both the 9/11 Commission and the British investigation into this subject has found no evidence to substantiate Dearlove's claim. Whether his was an attempt to undermine Tony Blair during the recent British elections is unclear, but what is clear is the Bush administration was looking at all options in terms of dealing with Saddam, which is not an illegal or unexpected action.

The claim that the President manipulated intelligence to bolster the
case for war is simply not true. After September 11, 2001, the
President and our allies could not take any chances with the possibility of deadly weapons finding their way into the hands of terrorists who would certainly seek to use them. Saddam Hussein had flouted 17 UN resolutions since the end of the 1991 Gulf War and the intelligence presented to the President clearly indicated Saddam possessed an active weapons program and weapons of mass destruction. Hussein had previously used chemical weapons to kill many of his own people and invaded Iraq's neighbors, both in Kuwait and
Iran. Acting on the best information that was available, the
President,with the approval of Congress, acted to remove the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Even former President Clinton felt - based on the intelligence available to him at the time - that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

The allegation that the President acted illegally in deciding for the
U.S. to go to war with Iraq is simply false. The war in Iraq has been waged on a sound legal and Constitutional footing. The U.S. House and Senate approved the use of force in Iraq and UN Resolution 1382 promised "serious consequences" if Saddam Hussein failed to comply with inspections and dismantle his WMD program. Furthermore, the 2002 meeting featured in the memo was held before the United States went back to the UN for a second time and secured UN Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote from the Security Council.

UN resolution 1441 begs the question: Why would the President seek to
make his case before the United Nations a second time if he had already made his decision to go to war prior to going to New York to address the General Assembly?

The President sought Senate approval to go to war which he received by an overwhelming margin of 77-23. These senators received the same
intelligence on Iraq as the President.

Since the war has been waged on a sound legal and Constitutional
grounds and with no real evidence that the administration distorted
intelligence, it is difficult to conclude that the President is guilty of a crime.

I believe the President did the right thing in removing Saddam Hussein
from power. Second-guessing this decision, at this point, only serves to encourage the insurgents in this conflict and undermine the morale of our troops who are fighting to stabilize Iraq. During this difficult time when our nation is at war not only in Iraq but against terrorists around the world, we must stand united in our efforts to protect our nation and secure peace around the world. I therefore must again decline to support any investigation into the Bush administration's decision to go to war
at this time.

Once again, thank you for contacting me.

Sincerely, A
Tom Coburn
United States Senator

Curt,

Tom has not signed on as a cosponsor as of now, but we do expect him to support the legislation.

Best regards,

Alan

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

From: Curt Wechsler [mailto:wechslertoo@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 5:54 PM
To: Makovsky, Alan
Subject: H.R. 375

Dear Alan,

I understand that you are the most knowledgeable person in Representative Lantos' office on this subject. I've been unsuccessful in getting a confirmation of Tom's support. Could you please report the status of expected cosponsorship of this legislation?

Sincerely,

Curt Wechsler

--begin Sullivan's letter to constituent, OK Congressional District 1--

Dear [constituent]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me regarding U.S. military forces withdrawing from Iraq and H.J. Res. 55, the Homeward Bound Act. It is good to hear from you on this issue and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

On January 30, 2005, 8.5 million Iraqis voted in an historic election that was fair, transparent and democratic. They were not deterred by terrorists and sent a strong signal to the rest of the world that the Iraqi people are taking charge of their own destiny by displaying a strong desire for democracy, sovereignty and civil rights throughout Iraq. The Iraqi National Assembly has drafted a permanent constitution that is expected to be ratified in a nationwide referendum scheduled to take place this October.

Like you, I believe our brave men and women serving in Iraq should come home as soon as possible. However, we are at a stage now where we must not leave until the new Iraqi government is secure and Iraqi security forces are able to defend their country. While the number of troops in Iraq has been steadily decreasing, setting a firm withdrawal date has the potential to send a signal to the insurgents and terrorists throughout the world that we are giving up on Iraq regardless of status and that on a given date anarchy and disorder are free to prevail with the consent of the U.S.

H.J. Res. 55 was referred to the House Armed Services Committee and
awaits further legislative action. Please know that should this legislation
come before me on the House floor I will keep your thoughts in mind.

Again, thank you for contacting me. It is an honor to serve you in
Washington. If you would like more information on issues, or would like to share your thoughts with me via e-mail, you may visit my website at
http://sullivan.house.gov. Please do not hesitate to contact me again should you have further concerns on federal legislation or programs.

--end of his email message, no hard copy ever sent--

My reply:

Saturday, October 01, 2005
[via webform, at Rep. Sullivan’s homepage]

This is your idea of progress in the war on terrorism?

"Four years later, Osama bin Laden is still at large and there's not the slightest evidence that our vaunted government operations have made even a bit or progress in penetrating his operation. Terrorist attacks around the world have increased, not decreased. The U.S. military is overstretched and ill-used in an occupation that is going so poorly the few officials in touch with reality simply hope that it won't be too blindingly obvious the U.S. tail is between its legs when it leaves. Military morale and recruiting are in trouble. Anti-Americanism is increasing around the world, including among people who have seldom succumbed to it in the past." --Alan Bock, "Katrina and 9/11: Criminal Incompetence", http://www.antiwar.com/bock/?articleid=7210

This is your idea of democracy in action? and a constitutional basis for democracy in Iraq?

"Sunni Arab opposition to Iraq's draft constitution has increased the potential for instability.
Gen. George Casey, speaking at a Pentagon news conference with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, said his prediction in July that "fairly substantial" troop withdrawals could begin next spring was based on a key assumption: that satisfactory progress on the political and security fronts would continue.
"Now this constitution has come out, and it didn't come out as the national compact that we thought it was going to be," he said.
"And there's division there ... and that caused the situation to change a little bit," Casey said.
Indeed, violence in Iraq has increased as Sunni insurgents strike at Shiites and try to undermine the October voting on the proposed constitution. At least 200 people have been killed in the past five days, including 13 U.S. service members.
In Princeton, N.J., on Friday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a rare reference to the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq - nearly 2,000
In Iraq, the Sunni Arabs who ran the country under former President Saddam Hussein but represent a minority of the population, boycotted last January's elections and thus had a smaller voice in the drafting of the constitution.
Sunni leaders have urged their followers to reject the constitution, saying it would leave them weak compared to the Shiites and Kurds who were repressed under Saddam.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said Thursday that if the Iraqis do not reach a political accommodation by the end of the year the Bush administration should consider a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces. "We can't stay for an unlimited time, due to the strain on our forces," Levin said.
source: Sep 30, 9:56 PM EDT "U.S. commander doubts Iraq troop cutbacks" By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

"Attacks seemed staged to kill or maim as many civilians as possible, tearing through busy markets and commercial streets. At least 10 people were killed in Hillah and 102 in Balad. At least 22 of those killed both days were women and children.
Insurgents have vowed to derail the Oct. 15 referendum, opposed by Iraq's Sunni Arab minority, and the recent surge of violence has killed at least 200 people - including 13 U.S. service members - in the past five days.
The Sunni-led al-Qaida in Iraq, the most feared insurgent group, has declared "all-out war" on Shiites, and since a Shiite-majority government took power April 28, suicide bombers have killed at least 1,345 people, according to an Associated Press count.
Intimidating Shiites from voting in the referendum could boost Sunni attempts to reject the charter, and the tactic was having an effect among some in Balad and surrounding Shiite towns.
Mohammed Kadhim, 25, a Shiite shopkeeper in the town of Dujail, said he would not allow his family to vote. "I'm responsible for their safety after what happened in Balad, and what is happening in the whole country with the occupation forces and the government."
Hussein Ali, a 67-year-old Shiite in Balad, also said he would stay away from the polls. "I will not take part in this game that kills Iraqis," he said.
The sharpening Sunni-Shiite divide is a blow to hopes that the constitution would unite Iraqis and bring stability.
source: Sep 30, 10:40 PM EDT "Bombings kill 110 Shiites over two days" By ALI AL-FATLAWI, Associated Press Writer, in HILLAH, Iraq

You wrote, in a studied refusal to accept the civil war in Iraq for what it is:

"On January 30, 2005, 8.5 million Iraqis voted in an historic election that was fair, transparent and democratic. They were not deterred by terrorists and sent a strong signal to the rest of the world that the Iraqi people are taking charge of their own destiny by displaying a strong desire for democracy, sovereignty and civil rights throughout Iraq. The Iraqi National Assembly has drafted a permanent constitution that is expected to be ratified in a nationwide referendum scheduled to take place this October." –Rep. Sullivan

Meanwhile, the Iraqi administration which you are so keen to praise is well aware of Iraqi opposition to the U.S. Occupation Forces, the American troops who have sorely overstayed their welcome in Iraq, after liberating it from Saddam Hussein:

“[W]ith the notable exception of the Kurdish population, support for the American military among Iraqis is virtually nonexistent two and a half years after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government. Before January's elections, polls taken by Sadoun Dulaimi (now the country's defense minister) indicated that 85 percent of Iraqis wanted a US withdrawal "as soon as possible." On a recent trip to the country, this journalist found that dissatisfaction with the occupation has, if anything, grown.

I just Spoke a Legislative Correspondent for Sen. Casey.

They tell me that Casey plans to vote for the Supp. But will vote for a new bill, Salazar - ? I didn't get the other name on the bill, that they tell me will implement the Iraq study group recommendations.

I have not heard of this bill till now.

They did tell me, after I lobbied them to tell the Sen. how disappointed we were in that position and in his vote against Fiengold, that they cannot say for sure and doesn't want to quote him. They seemed to indicate that it was possible that Casey could still change his vote, but it sounded like a heavy lift to me.

They went on to say how the Sen. agrees with us in principal. I told them that he should vote his principals and put them into practice then.

They thanked me and told me to call them anytime.

Here's their number. Send to your networks. 202-224-6324

David Gibson
Coalition For Peace Action,

OK. Just spoke with Nuku Ofori, Fatah's LD on Iraq.
He told me that Fatah was not taking a position until the actual language of the Bill was released, which it was today, and that he was to brief the Congressman on the bill.

He also told me that we can expect a "No" vote if there is no exit language in it, which seems to be the case.

David Gibson
Coalition For Peace Action,