Message Preview
From: Your Name <you@example.com>
To: vernon.ehlers@mail.house.gov
Subject: Tell Representative Ehlers to Support an Immediate End to the Occupation of Iraq!
I was disappointed to see that you voted against H. Con. Res. 63 on February 16. While you were correct in stating that the plan failed to offer a "new idea" on Iraq, it was a vote that could have made clear the opposition of the House of Representatives to President George W. Bush's plan to escalate the war in Iraq by sending an additional 21,000+ troops to the country. Despite the failings of the resolution when it came to offering an alternative or being a binding resolution, it did offer Congress an opportunity to make their opposition known.
Moreover, in reading your statement to the House explaining your vote, I was particularly disappointed to see that you while you bemoan the fact that the debate over H. Con. Res. 63 offered no room for debate about alternative approaches, you reject off hand "a cut-off of funds" and a "premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq." In so doing, you argue that such a move would "foment a terrorist breeding ground for radical Islamists." However, at the same time, you also cite the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq and the deaths of innocent Iraqi citizens while arguing that we must "ensure that those casualties were not suffered in vain." To do this, you argue that "we must seek to end this conflict and stop the casualties."
I am writing to you today to remind you that the best way to end the conflict is to support the immediate withdrawal of US soldiers from Iraq. There are numerous reasons to support an end to the war, ranging from the fact that the invasion was illegal under international law and that the United States has systematically abused the Iraqi population through overt military force, collective punishment, detentions, and routine humiliation. However, since you raise the prospect of "radical Islamists," I am compelled to remind you that a new study by Mother Jones magazine has demonstrated that terrorism around the world has gone up by 600% since the invasion. Within Iraq, the main force motivating "terrorism" is the presence of US soldiers, as recent surveys have shown that over 80% of the Iraqi population wants the United States to leave, in addition to showing that there is substantial support for military resistance to the occupation.
Congress could make a bold move to end the war if it refused to fund the war. By voting in favor of appropriations bills each time they appear before Congress, Congress is giving the President approval for the war. Not only that, Congress is limiting its own voice in the conduct of the war. According the Campbell vs. Clinton case filed in US District Court in 1999 over President Bill Clinton's prosecution of the war in Serbia without Congressional approval, the court ruled that because Congress had appropriated funds for the war it did not have a voice in the prosecution of the war. The President is free to conduct the war how he wants as long as funding continues. However, if Congress sets a date at which it will stop funding the war, the occupation would be effectively ended. Moreover, it would not harm United States troops, if anything, removing soldiers from Iraq would improve their safety by removing them from the war zone. A bill that stopped funding would not be about withdrawing support for the troops, rather it would withdraw support for an illegal war and occupation that is maintained by a disastrous policy.
Representative Ehlers, you said that you wanted an opportunity to offer a real solution on Iraq, now is your chance. Start calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq!
Your Name
Your Organization
123 Your St.
Yousville, YO 12345
Phone: (123)456-7890
Fax: (123)456-7890x123
p.s.
Your Personal Statement
--
Delivered by CitizenSpeak!
Report abuse to abuse@citizenspeak.org [1006]
To: vernon.ehlers@mail.house.gov
Subject: Tell Representative Ehlers to Support an Immediate End to the Occupation of Iraq!
I was disappointed to see that you voted against H. Con. Res. 63 on February 16. While you were correct in stating that the plan failed to offer a "new idea" on Iraq, it was a vote that could have made clear the opposition of the House of Representatives to President George W. Bush's plan to escalate the war in Iraq by sending an additional 21,000+ troops to the country. Despite the failings of the resolution when it came to offering an alternative or being a binding resolution, it did offer Congress an opportunity to make their opposition known.
Moreover, in reading your statement to the House explaining your vote, I was particularly disappointed to see that you while you bemoan the fact that the debate over H. Con. Res. 63 offered no room for debate about alternative approaches, you reject off hand "a cut-off of funds" and a "premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq." In so doing, you argue that such a move would "foment a terrorist breeding ground for radical Islamists." However, at the same time, you also cite the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq and the deaths of innocent Iraqi citizens while arguing that we must "ensure that those casualties were not suffered in vain." To do this, you argue that "we must seek to end this conflict and stop the casualties."
I am writing to you today to remind you that the best way to end the conflict is to support the immediate withdrawal of US soldiers from Iraq. There are numerous reasons to support an end to the war, ranging from the fact that the invasion was illegal under international law and that the United States has systematically abused the Iraqi population through overt military force, collective punishment, detentions, and routine humiliation. However, since you raise the prospect of "radical Islamists," I am compelled to remind you that a new study by Mother Jones magazine has demonstrated that terrorism around the world has gone up by 600% since the invasion. Within Iraq, the main force motivating "terrorism" is the presence of US soldiers, as recent surveys have shown that over 80% of the Iraqi population wants the United States to leave, in addition to showing that there is substantial support for military resistance to the occupation.
Congress could make a bold move to end the war if it refused to fund the war. By voting in favor of appropriations bills each time they appear before Congress, Congress is giving the President approval for the war. Not only that, Congress is limiting its own voice in the conduct of the war. According the Campbell vs. Clinton case filed in US District Court in 1999 over President Bill Clinton's prosecution of the war in Serbia without Congressional approval, the court ruled that because Congress had appropriated funds for the war it did not have a voice in the prosecution of the war. The President is free to conduct the war how he wants as long as funding continues. However, if Congress sets a date at which it will stop funding the war, the occupation would be effectively ended. Moreover, it would not harm United States troops, if anything, removing soldiers from Iraq would improve their safety by removing them from the war zone. A bill that stopped funding would not be about withdrawing support for the troops, rather it would withdraw support for an illegal war and occupation that is maintained by a disastrous policy.
Representative Ehlers, you said that you wanted an opportunity to offer a real solution on Iraq, now is your chance. Start calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq!
Your Name
Your Organization
123 Your St.
Yousville, YO 12345
Phone: (123)456-7890
Fax: (123)456-7890x123
p.s.
Your Personal Statement
--
Delivered by CitizenSpeak!
Report abuse to abuse@citizenspeak.org [1006]
