Why we are at war

Four years ago our Congress passed the Iraq resolution. Since then many of them have claimed they were fooled/misled by faulty intelligence. I remember watching the presentation that Powell made to the U.N. in disbelief; if I could see through all that bullshit, why was congress going along with it?

Wednesday morning I listened to Bush press conference. Same BS, different war. I got pissed enough that I called and left messages with all three of my reps- Feinstein, Boxer and Tom Lantos (I'm in SF, but in the 12th district, not Pelosi's). Lantos is one of the sponsors of the absurd non-binding resolution that's wasting three days in the House this week.

I then decided to also email all three, and I wrote a letter where I quoted some of Bush's BS from the press conference. I submitted the letters through the Senate and House websites, and they were all the same with some minor changes for all three at the end; For Lantos I complained about the House resolution, etc.

A few weeks ago, Feinstein announced that she was looking into federal legislation to prevent the San Francisco 49ers from moving 50 miles south to Santa Clara. Ludicrous. So I commented at the end of her letter that she should make Iraq/Iran her #1 priority and quit worrying about the Niners.

I do not have an exact copy of the letter I sent her, since I had to submit it through a web form. But it was identical to the one I sent Lantos, except for the end where I mention the 49ers. So I have paraphrased that bit. Below is the letter to Feinstein and her response (emphasis added to highlight the portion I had to reproduce from memory):

Feb 14, 2007

Dear Senator Feinstein,
This morning I listened to the President's press conference. In his prepared statements and his Q&A he made one thing very clear to me; President Bush intends to attack Iran. He is using many of the same schemes and misinformation techniques that he used several years ago to persuade the congress to pass the Iraq resolution.

This morning, when asked about the quality of the intelligence concerning Iran supplying IEDs, he evaded giving any meaningful answer and instead he made the point that he was not sure which level of Irani government ordered the IEDs. He did this several times:

Q. Critics say that you are using the same quality of intelligence about Iran that you used to make the case for war in Iraq, specifically about WMD that turned out to be wrong, and that you are doing that to make a case for war against Iran. Is that the case?

THE PRESIDENT: I can say with certainty that the Quds force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops. And I'd like to repeat, I do not know whether or not the Quds force was ordered from the top echelons of government. But my point is what's worse -- them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and it happening? And so we will continue to protect our troops.

He did not address the quality of the intel. Later on...

THE PRESIDENT: No, I heard your question, and I told you, I was confident that the Quds force, a part of the Iranian government, was providing weaponry into Iraq. And to say it is provoking Iran is just a wrong way to characterize the Commander-in-Chief's decision to do what is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm's way. And I will continue to do so.

And yet one more exchange:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I want to follow up on Iran one more time. You saying today that you do not know if senior members of the Iranian government are, in fact, behind these explosives -- that contradicts what U.S. officials said in Baghdad on Sunday. They said the highest levels of the Iranian government were behind this. It also -- it seems to square with what General Pace has been saying, but contradicts with what your own press secretary said yesterday.

THE PRESIDENT: Can I -- let me -- I can't say it more plainly: there are weapons in Iraq that are harming U.S. troops because of the Quds force. And as you know, I hope, that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. Whether Ahmadinejad ordered the Quds force to do this, I don't think we know. But we do know that they're there, and I intend to do something about it. And I've asked our commanders to do something about it. And we're going to protect our troops.

Q But given some of contradictions, Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: There's no contradiction that the weapons are there and they were provided by the Quds force, Ed.

Q What assurances can you give the American people that the intelligence this time will be accurate?

THE PRESIDENT: Ed, we know they're there, we know they're provided by the Quds force. We know the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. I don't think we know who picked up the phone and said to the Quds force, go do this, but we know it's a vital part of the Iranian government.

What matters is, is that we're responding. The idea that somehow we're manufacturing the idea that the Iranians are providing IEDs is preposterous, Ed. My job is to protect our troops. And when we find devices that are in that country that are hurting our troops, we're going to do something about it, pure and simple.

Now David says, does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to protect our troops. That's what that means. And that's what the family members of our soldiers expect the Commander-in-Chief and those responsible for -- responsible for our troops on the ground. And we'll continue do so.

He is obviously sending US Officials out to say that Tehran was behind the IEDs, but not saying it himself. This will allow him to deflect blame, yet again, when it might be proven that Tehran did not order the IEDs.

Senator, IT IS YOUR DUTY to stop this man. His administration will lead us into a war and to the deaths of tens of thousands of people. He will create thousands of terrorists with no other agenda than to kill Americans.

Senator, make this your one and only priority. Stop worrying about the 49ers leaving San Francisco and deal with this. It is more important than your job, your legacy and every other issue you are facing.

This time you cannot claim that you were misled. You must stop this lunatic.

Sincerely,

XXX
San Francisco, CA

There were 837 words in the body of that message, roughly 10 of them in the jibe about the 49ers. Here's the response I got this morning:

Dear Mr. XXX:

Thank you for writing to me about my involvement in the matter of the 49ers leaving San Francisco.  I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

I have read your letter and first would like you to know that I spend virtually all of my time on matters concerning California and our nation.  However, I am also a 49ers fan and was Mayor of San Francisco for nine years, during which I negotiated with the organization on several matters.  I would very much like to see them remain in the City of San Francisco.

Again, thank you for writing.  Should you have any additional concerns or comments, I hope that you will contact me again.  You can always reach my Washington, DC staff at (202)224-3841.

Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein, United States Senator

Is she fucking kidding?  At first I thought it might have been an auto-response, but what are the chances that there is a bot over there that can ignore the other 800 words about Bush's lies and pick up on the fact that I think the 49ers legislation is a waste of time?  On top of that, when you submit on her site you have to pick a category, and I selected 'Iraq'.

Are the people who actually write to the Senator so stupid that they would accept this drivel from their rep?  Maybe she read the whole letter but felt compelled to defend her actions concerning the team's move, rather than indicate her intentions on the real issue at hand.  I am perplexed and disgusted.

If you are as outraged as I am, you can contact her at her number above to voice your displeasure, or submit a message on the http://www.senate.gov website (California) and let her know how asinine her response was.