Perhaps it can be chalked up to a quick timeline for circulating the
letter (.pdf, 700+ kb), but I'm very disappointed that Mark Udall (CO-2) didn't sign onto the
Conyers letter with 88 of his colleages.
The letter merely asks the President to explain the discrepancies between what was reported in the lead-up to the Iraq war and the contents of the recently-leaked British memo, from well ahead of the war, which states that Bush had already decided to go to war.
It can't be too hard to sign onto a letter that asks a number of obvious and important questions.
To give the benefit of the doubt, I'm certainly willing to hear what may have happened to prevent Rep. Udall from signing on, but in equal fairness I want to say that this is a crucial issue for our time, very important to consituents in CO-2, and it would surprise me to hear that his office wasn't aware of the circulation of this letter.
(at this point, I'm also going to give Rep. Udall the benefit of the doubt and assume that he would have signed on if he could have)
So, I'll be writing in a few minutes to ask him why he didn't sign on, and including the link to the letter and Rep. Conyers diary. I'll follow up with a phone call, too, because I'd really like his staff to know that folks in the district noticed his absence.
I'm looking forward to hearing back from his office with details.
Did your rep. sign onto the letter?
[update 13:44, 5/7/2005 -- had to go away for a few hours, but prior to leaving, used the contact form on Rep. Udall's web site to check in on this issue. Unfortunately, there was a server-side problem and the message may not have gone through. I'll call anyway, but may have to send a paper letter. Thanks, all, for comments and listing whether your rep. signed on.]
[update 8:10 MDT, 5/13/2005 -- Still haven't heard from Rep. Udall's office. Called again this morning and left a message for a staffer. If you're in Rep. Udall's district, too, please call (202-224-3121, ask for Mark Udall's office) and request that he sign onto Rep. Conyers' letter.]