The Downing Street memo, so far disputed by Washington and London in some of its details but not its authenticity, reports on minutes of a meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his national security team on July 23, 2002. First reported by the London Sunday Times on May 1 of this year, the internal memo states that, in the opinion of “C” (Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service), “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the [Bush administration's] policy.” The author of the memo added that it “seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action.” Since then, several other British government memos have become public that also make the case that the White House was planning the war long before it admitted to doing so.

The Democratic representatives attending the forum said they believed if such information had gotten out prior to the war, neither the House nor the Senate would have supported the Oct. 11, 2002, congressional vote giving the president the power to order the invasion.

To the Democrats taking turns to speak at the forum on Thursday, the memo was tantamount to the first word of tapes in the Nixon White House during the Watergate scandal. Impeachment was on these representatives’ minds as four longtime critics of the war in Iraq, including former Ambassador Joe Wilson, repeatedly urged Congress to hold an official inquiry into the validity and origins of the Downing Street memo.

“We sent our troops to war under dubious pretenses,” asserted Wilson, who traveled at the government’s behest to Niger in February 2002. There he discovered that President Bush’s claim that Iraq was attempting to obtain uranium in Africa was false. The White House later retracted the accusation.

Speaking to the question of impeachment, Rep. Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y., asked point blank, “Has the president misled, or deliberately misled, the Congress?”

The answer is at the heart of Conyers’ push for further investigation. Misleading Congress is an impeachable offense, and Conyers’ petition for an inquiry into the memo seemed a first step in that direction — though no one made that call outright.

“Many of us find it unacceptable to put our brave men and women in harm’s way, based on false information,” Conyers said. Though most of those at the forum voted against the war in Iraq, Conyers, who is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, insisted that the forum was not partisan politicking, but a function of their oversight duty.

As members of Congress crammed into the small room, no bigger than 30 by 50 feet, Democratic representatives spoke and then scurried out to make scheduled votes. After being denied a hearing, then forced to the basement, which Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., called unprecedented, the Democrats believed Republicans had purposely scheduled 11 votes to interrupt the forum.

“Absolutely, it was absolutely timed,” McDermott said in an interview after the forum. “There was no need to do it then. And they were having a major appropriations hearing at the same time. That was also to keep people away, because appropriations are your chance to get money for your district that you’ve been working all year on.”

McDermott spoke as Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., delayed her aide and sprinted down the hall in her high heels to do an interview with Pacifica Radio. Covered mostly by liberal media outlets, the forum got some mainstream news attention, from the AP to the Baltimore Sun to CNN. Democrats who dropped by included Reps. Rangel, Barney Frank of Massachusetts, Virginia’s Jim Moran, and Barbara Lee of Oakland, Calif.

Following the forum, Conyers led Democratic representatives and activists on a march to the White House, hoping to deliver a letter with more than 550,000 signatures of the public and more than 120 members of Congress, mostly but not all Democrats. White House spokesman Scott McClellan told the Associated Press that Conyers “is simply trying to rehash old debates.”

As he left, the mild but indefatigable Conyers was a little angry that the forum was denied a proper room in the Capitol.

“They tried to shut us out,” Conyers said after the hearing. “They tried to cut us off. They put us in a tiny room. The significance shouldn’t be lost on anybody.”

Now, Conyers says he got a call from Obama, who wanted to discuss the congressman’s comments.

“[Obama] called me and told me that he heard that I was demeaning him and I had to explain to him that it wasn’t anything personal, it was an honest difference on the issues. And he said, ‘Well, let’s talk about it,’” Conyers told the Hill for an article published Tuesday. The paper says Conyers told the president he didn’t want to “chat,” and that he’ll be writing Obama soon.

The White House has, thus far, declined to comment on the story.

“A serious assertion of privilege would include an effort to demonstrate to the committees which documents, and which parts of those documents, are covered by any privilege that may apply,” the chairmen say. They want Fielding to provide them with a privilege log that lists each document that’s being withheld and provides a description of the nature of the document, the source, the subject matter, the date of the document, the identity of anyone who received a copy of the document, and the specific legal basis for claiming that the document is protected by executive privilege.

Such logs are commonly required in civil litigation, and Leahy and Conyers note that the Bush administration — like other administrations — has provided them to Congress when information has been withheld in other investigations.

Leahy and Conyers tell Fielding that, with or without the log they seek, their committees will “move to proceedings to rule on your claims and consider whether the White House is in contempt of Congress” on the morning of July 9.

“We were disappointed that we had to turn to these subpoenas in order to obtain information needed by the committees to learn the truth about these firings and the erosion of independence at the Justice Department,” they write. “We are even more disappointed now with yet further stonewalling. Whether or not we have the benefit of the information we have directed you to provide by July 9, we will take the necessary steps to rule on your privilege claims and appropriately enforce our subpoenas backed by the full force of law.”

While there was a kernel of truth to what Cannon said — U.S. attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the president and the attorney general — Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers rightly took him to task for overstating the case. “I regret that my good friend Mr. Cannon continues to describe the conduct of the Democrats on this committee as being politically motivated,” Conyers said. “I just want to try to correct at least one thing here: that a U.S. attorney can be removed at any time, for any reason.”

Cannon tried to interrupt Conyers to clarify his comments, but the chairman refused to yield the floor to him. “Well, you agree with me now, but you said the statement. I mean, you know, people aren’t foolish. They’re listening. There are reasons that a U.S. attorney can’t be removed for any reason whatever or at any time. As a matter of fact, Attorney General Gonzales has repeatedly said there are times when it can’t happen.”

Cannon eventually got a chance to backtrack. Referring to Conyers, he said: “The gentleman’s correct in saying that there are reasons — I was giving a broad statement — there are particular reasons, and that goes to corruption. If you’re removing someone … from a U.S. attorney’s office for a corrupt purpose — ”

Conyers interrupted to say that it would also be improper to fire a U.S. attorney for political reasons. Cannon wouldn’t go that far, insisting: “You can fire a U.S. attorney for political reasons.”