...for your consideration.....

"
The President took the nation to war based on his assertion that Iraq
posed an imminent threat to our country. Now the evidence that
backed that assertion is falling apart.

If the Bush administration distorted intelligence or knowingly used
false data to support the call to war, it would be an unprecedented
deception. Even if weapons are now found, it'll be difficult to
justify pre-war language that indicated that the exact location of the
weapons was known and that they were ready to deploy at a moment's
notice. With a crisis of credibility brewing abroad and the integrity
of our President and our foreign policy on the line, we need answers
now.

Please join me in asking Congress to establish an independent,
bipartisan commission to investigate the distortion of evidence now, at:

http://www.moveon.org/distortion/

A President may make no more important decision than whether or not to
take a country to war. If Bush and his officials deceived the American
public to create support for the Iraq war, they need to be held
accountable. "

...not my words...but my thoughts... please sign up if they are yours....

kj

And they wanted to impeach Clinton for a blow job. <img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/confused.gif" width=15 height=22>

If they find that Bush did lie to serve his own agenda( and I think he did), not only should he be impeached, but he should be turned over to the world court to be tried as a war criminal.

Amen to that!

... and we have a great deal of concrete evidence that he lied to us - even if his lies were because he was disinformed by his advisors

I've signed the MoveOn document...

<FONT size="1">edited to clarify my thought - such as it is!</FONT s>

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by Wyldflower on Jun 17, 2003 ---</FONT></center>

I don't remember who first put the "move-on" site, but I signed up and get their emails. (Many thanks to whoever it was--Wyld? Was it you?) Needless to say, I sent this on, also.

I looked at that site when Wyldflower first put it up and I'm not too sure if I can sign it, me not being an Amrican Voter? If it turns out that I can I'll cirtanly sign.

But even if I can't I wish you all the best in the world to getting him out.

The Labour back bencher's Know they haven't got a chance of getting back in, next time around, (especially with him now trying sell us out without our say so! I think he fancies him self presadent of Europe.) So they order an enquiary to take place into his 'Grounds for War' asking all the same questions you want Bush to answer. It was all over the papers and news a week or so ago, then nothing more has been said? I hope they do get him out before the next election.

But then who do we get to replace him? We think Robin Cook (Our Foreign Secretary) who via a spectacular publicity stunt of resigning his post in outrage of Blairs actions has his eye on the post.
Turned his back on the foreign shore, so to face it from the tenth door. So to speak.

Still would be slightly better than blair still in power and then haveing succeeded to the post of Head Of Europe. Blair head of Europe and Bush still in charge of America, Really don't want to think of that.

Anyway if anyone knows if I can sign, please let me know.

If I'm not mistaken, Beverley, MoveOn focuses on getting the attention of the US congress regarding these issues. Most Senators and Representatives filter their email and generally only pay attention to their own constituency. So chances are, you may not be able to sign this form... but that shouldn't stop you from helping the effort... I'm sure you are in touch with other folks on this side of the water, and if you pass the message on to as many as you can, it certainly would help!

Is there a set line of succession if Blair were removed from office? Who would then assume the role of Prime Minister?

If Bush were to be impeached (as he well deserves), we would also have to impeach his cabinet... here is the succession if the President were removed from office:

<FONT size="1">Vice President (Dick Cheney)
Speaker of the House of Representatives (J. Dennis Hastert)
President Pro Tempore of the Senate (Ted Stevens)
Secretary of State (Colin Powell)
Secretary of the Treasury (John Snow)
Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld)
Attorney General (John Ashcroft)
Secretary of the Interior (Gale Norton)
Secretary of Agriculture (Ann Veneman)
Secretary of Commerce (Don Evans)
Secretary of Labor (Elaine Chao)
Secretary of Health and Human Services (Tommy Thompson)
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Mel Martinez)
Secretary of Transportation (Norman Mineta)
Secretary of Energy (Spencer Abraham)
Secretary of Education (Rod Paige)
Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Anthony Principi)
Secretary of Homeland Security (not yet set by law) (Tom Ridge) </FONT s>
<img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/eek.gif" width=15 height=15>
Scary...huh?

Move On is definitely a world wide organization now. Their anti-war petitions were signed by people from many countries. They actually started in response to the attempt to impeach Clinton.

We, the public don't get to vote for the party leader; only the party its self can vote their party leader in or out. We the public can only vote for the party as a whole. We can only vote for individuals in local government elections.

The Three main parties over here are
Labour (red rose)
Conservative (blue torch)
Librel Demarcrates (yellow bird)

within the parties there is a ranking order, not defined by age or experience. If you hear the term 'Back Benchers' this refers to those who are regarded as being more in touch with the grass roots of the party. (This term is rarly or to my knowlage has never been aplyed to the leader, because by the time they have sold them selfs out to get to the top they have long since lost any real conection to real problems!)
If the leader is going to be 'asked to leave' its usualy because of the inishel insistance of the Back Benchers, though not always the case.
Its quite common for parties to change their leader, in the middle of term or even before or end, to try and win back public favour if the leader has sawyed public favour against them, that they know they are not going to win the next election with that particular leader in front.

With Blair losing so much Public and world favour over the War; and ripping the country to shreds over the Europe issue (now he doesn't have a war to keep him happy!) it hopefuly looks like Labour is laying down the ground work to oust him out.
Who we get to replace him however?!?!?!?!?!?

If all this is as clear as mud, then I know I have explaind it right.

P.S when I get time I will have another good look at the site to see if I can do something.