Fwd: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message
Does anyone really believe that Mrs. Defense Contractor would actually
vote to withdraw troops from Iraq?
It kills me that every Democrat keeps talking about how an impeachment
could not succeed. All they need is a thorough investigation, perhaps six months work, with enough publicity, and even the Republicans would nto be able to vote against it. The evidence is already staggering, just not formal enough. All we need is sanother representative with Cynthia McKinney's courage, Henry Waxman's persistence and John Conyer's diplomacy - never mind. We'd still have to deal with Speaker-elect's public image concerns.
Frustrating, isn't it?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: senator@feinstein.senate.gov
Date: Dec 18, 2006 7:45 AM
Subject: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message
To: mhullrich@gmail.com
December 18, 2006
Mr. Mark Hull-Richter
[deleted[
Dear Mr. Hull-Richter:
Thank you for your letter about removing the President
from office because of intelligence failures prior to the invasion of
Iraq. I read your comments with interest and welcome the
opportunity to respond.
I appreciate your point of view, but at this time it is
unlikely that efforts to impeach the President would have any
chance of success. Please know that I value your opinion and will
be sure to keep your views in mind as the Senate debates the
situation there.
The Senate vote on the resolution to authorize the use of
force in Iraq was difficult and consequential. It was 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 Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD) program. It was also based on trust that this intelligence
was the best our nation's intelligence services could offer,
untainted by bias, 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 points once again
to major failures in the analysis, collection and use of intelligence.
On top of these intelligence failures, the Administration's
war planning was shortsighted and ill-conceived. By failing to
provide adequate troop levels to secure Iraq and its borders and
ignoring requests from General Shinseki and others to increase
troop levels, the Administration placed the entire mission in Iraq in
jeopardy.
Now that Iraq has adopted a constitution and has voted for
permanent leadership, the time has come to change our role and
downsize the presence of our troops. Logistics support and
training of police and military along with helping to rebuild Iraq
and its infrastructure remain top priorities. But I believe that the
force structure should be downsized this year and either
repositioned outside Iraq or brought home.
In my view, 60,000 American troops in Iraq ought to be
redeployed in the region or brought home by the end of 2006.
Most of the remaining troops could be withdrawn by the end of
2007. From that point onward Iraqi forces have to take primary
responsibility for security.
America cannot withdraw all our forces immediately
without a chaotic result, but we can begin to more clearly redefine
the mission, redeploy some of the troops in the region and bring
our other soldiers home.
To further this effort, it is time to change course and bring
in a new team to run our military, starting with the resignation of
Secretary Rumsfeld. While it is true that, ultimately, the President
is responsible for the failures in Iraq, no Bush Administration
official was closer to the war planning than Secretary Rumsfeld.
Iraq is at a tipping point. There is one last chance to get it
right. The United States must push forward, finish the job, and
exit. Time is running out.
Again, thank you for writing. If you have any further
comments, please contact my office in Washington, D.C. at (202)
224-3841, or visit my website at http://feinstein.senate.gov/. Best
regards.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
Further information about my position on issues of concern to California
and the Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at http://feinstein.senate.gov/issue.html.
Let's start an Impeachment Committee in District 9!
No, I don't believe her. I also don't believe that someone with so much political history does not understandind the significance of a movement to impeach, regardless of the likelihood of indictment, simply for the sake of integrity and justice. Unfortunately, it seems that only the People can get this movement off the ground. After all, we don't have political careers to protect. What does will it tell the rest of the world and future historians about our government, our people, and the validity of our entire Constitution if we can impeach Clinton over extramarital affairs but not Bush over the unjustified slaughtering of hundreds of thousand? Seriously!
WE MUST ORGANIZE NOW!
Please check out http://www.democrats.com/cdic so we can start something locally.
I agree. I don't think
I agree. I don't think Congress could get enough votes to impeach him, but I think they should try. It's the message that counts.
Senator Feinstein's Refusal to Listen to Us
I got virtually the same email from her in response to the impeachment petition I signed a while back, which forwarded my message to her and Boxer. Feinstein's staff sent me a form letter. So I replied to it (through her site), explaining that I understood her concerns that the initiation of impeachment proceedings may "further divide" the country, but that we're now in a dangerous political landscape remeniscent of fascism, that to do nothing at all puts our democracy in even more dire danger.
What happened? Well, about a week later (today) I received the exact same form letter I had the first time. I figured an intern or a staffer would at least notice the first line of my second email, thanking her for her initial response, literally quoting from her first message, and perhaps send a slightly different reply to me or none at all. Frankly, no response at all would have been less insulting than getting the exact same boilerplate I did last time.
Why isn't Senator Feinstein listening to her constituency? We want this criminal administration removed from the White House. This is not a monarchy.
In the next election, I won't be voting for her. I'll instead vote Green or another suitable alternative (of course not Republican, get your mind out of the gutter). I know her staff is busy, but that was still a disappointing response.
I got a letter like this too
Feinstein does not care about her constituents. We don't have a lobbyist to sway her vote.
I guess Senator Feinstein likes Dick
I got this response yesterday from her-I think I it's clear where she stands on issues and I am fearfull it's not really her anymore. She been replaced by one of the "Invaders"-I told her NOT to fall asleep! I got suspiscius several months ago when I received a my response from a petition I signed from the Freepress website regarding keeping the internet open. It was like reading a letter written by a lawyer or even worse-DA-DA-DUMMM!!! -a Republican-last weekshe voted FOR more spying and now, she wishes to hold onto DICK and won't support the idea of impeaching him.
Yup, Our Senator is NOT who she says she is- She's really an alien invader, here on earth to promote Republican idealism-Hail Kang!
Dear Mr. Findeis:
Thank you for your letter concerning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Richard Cheney. I appreciate the time you took to write and welcome the opportunity to respond.
In our most recent elections, the American people expressed clear disapproval with the path this country was on. They are tired of partisan politics and of an Administration that pays little heed to the wishes of the American people. They want-and deserve-a Congress that holds the Administration accountable and fulfills its Constitutional responsibility to check and balance the Executive branch. I share this sentiment and am determined to work hard and across party lines in the United States Senate to promote issues that are of real concern to most Americans, including the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, homeland security, global warming, and lobbying and election reform.
At this time, however, I believe that impeachment proceedings against President Bush or Vice President Cheney will only divide the country even further, frustrating our hopes for a meaningful change in direction, while having little chance of success.
I have been deeply disappointed by many of this Administration's actions and have been outspoken in those instances. Nevertheless, given the challenges our country faces I believe that we need to focus on constructive and cooperative steps that would lead us in the right direction.
Again, thank you for your letter. If you have any further questions or comments, please contact my office in Washington, D.C. at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.
Sincerely yours, Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
Choice
When will we have a choice forDemocratic Senators and congresspeople in District 16.
Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Zoe Lofgren have no democrats opposing them so what choice do we have its them or the other parties.
Nancy Pelosi needs to be replaced
The speaker of the house will not follow the will of the people who elected her. We need Democrats in office who represent the people who elected them not special interests.
She'll not admit anything
How is it that we the public knew that the facts were being distorted by the administation and fixed around the push to war, even before attacking Afghanistan? Just a little bit of research told us that Cheney was bullying and extracting false intelligence from the CIA about Iraq. How is it that Feinstein did not discern this, and even now continues to point to "major failures in the analysis, collection and use of intelligence" as a way of washing her hands of the issue, and absolving herself from doing due diligence regarding Bush/Cheney et al? The answer, I'm afraid, is that she does know the truth, and thinks her constituency too stupid to act.