Rove and Treason--A letter from Carl Levin

[ray of light]

Thank you for contacting me about the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame, a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee. Divulging the identity of an undercover CIA agent for what appear to be partisan political purposes is not only unconscionable but could violate federal law. But more importantly, it could endanger the life of the agent and their associates and contacts and damage our nation’s efforts to protect Americans as a whole.

In 2003, I cosponsored a Sense of the Congress resolution that called upon the Attorney General to appoint an independent Special Counsel to investigate allegations that a high-ranking official or officials within the Bush Administration purposely disclosed Ms. Plame’s identity to the media. That amendment, which was defeated by a procedural point of order, was intended to send a clear message that the American people deserve a credible and independent investigation free from any hint of political influence.

Despite that vote, a special prosecutor was later named and an investigation is ongoing. However, during the course of the last several months, new allegations have emerged that warrant Congressional action. Most notably, Newsweek magazine reported in July that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Carl Rove had discussed Ms. Plame’s job with a reporter.

On July14, 2005, I cosponsored an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act (H.R.2360) that would have prohibited a federal employee who disclosed classified information, including the identity of a covert CIA agent, from holding a security clearance. Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated on a party line vote. I also joined 25 of my colleagues in writing a letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and Speaker of the House of Representatives Dennis Hastert (R-IL) calling on them to request that appropriate committees of Congress hold oversight hearings on the issue. Notwithstanding that letter, I am not aware of any such hearings having been held.

The disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity sends a potentially chilling message to every CIA employee and asset now operating undercover anywhere in the world. These men and women play a critical role in the defense of our national interests, and they should never have to worry that their identity will be compromised, especially for partisan political purposes.

I will continue to push for Congress to act on this matter and I will be sure to keep your views in mind. Thank you again for contacting me.


Sincerely,
Carl Levin

[dweller]

1. consider sending him and invite to join

in here at DU.


curious to see if you get a reply now that you have once before.

dp

[ray of light]

2. Please explain what you mean.

[Dynasty_At_Passes]

3. He thinks that Carl Levin should join here and other blogs.

It would make for good and important participation, for him to hear the concerns that everyone has and have good followup for all legal arguments or other doctrines that need serious attention.

Example: http://citizenspook.blogspot.com

Is there a possible treason charge here?

[ray of light]

12. OH..

so you want him to blog?

[dweller]

18. hey sorry i missed your reply

yes, i meant join in discussion here. Conyers did briefly, Elizabeth Edwards has.

i confess it's a simplistic measure, but why not try and get some of these Dems to listen in?

dp

[evilqueen]

4. it's a form letter

He has form letters for each issue. I tested this by sending two different emails about different cases of alleged detainee abuse. Got the same exact response to both.

Try it if you don't believe me.

[PurityOfEssence]

6. Yeah, but it's damn good form, don't you think?

Boilerplate is necessary when dealing with the world. To subtly craft a response to every human is hard enough for us civilians to do, but for those who represent many, it's impossible.

If this denigrates the man, then think of this: his response is one of condemnation of the lock-step jackbooted thugs, and he's not shy about sending this out. He's one of the most respected--for good reason--Senators out there. Only two Senators standing for re-election in the '02 mid-terms dared to vote against the Iraq War Resolution; he's one, and the other was Wellstone, who I still believe was killed by this mob.

Is your nose bent out of shape because you haven't been coddled by personal purple prose from one whose life is so busy that it's hard to fulfill obligations? Is this some form of proof of feckless disregard for all that's good and true?

The man responded. He responded with measured invective against the forces of darkness. To have even taken the time to compose such a thing shows decency. This is a man with an unerring moral compass and the strength to follow it.

Do you understand the dynamics of mass communication? Is anything done under those restrictions merely proof of insincerity?

We have many great and courageous statesmen sprinkled amongst the benchwarmers and opportunists these days. It's easy and cheap to slag everyone as disinterested, compromised or co-opted, but we should revere those who stand against the tide of selfishness, and he's one who does.

[Catrina]

7. Excellent post!

Thank you ~

[evilqueen]

8. yeah, true

Levin always sends me a response to my letters (I'm a Michigander too!). I'd like to know someone there in his office is actually reading them, though. I don't always get the impression anyone is, unfortunately.

Levin was wrong on Galloway, but he felt insulted by the truths Galloway was telling. He needs to put that aside and really listen to what was said, and to what we're saying, even if it won't win him any points in the Senate.

[PurityOfEssence]

16. Actually, Levin was well within his rights and measured on Galloway

Galloway sat right there and railed and insulted Levin as being one of the deluded or dishonest tools who voted for the Iraq War Resolution, and if you watch the video of that, Galloway is very obviously realizing he was completely wrong.

Levin took a lot of heat for being against the IWR, and he was VERY public about it. Remember the "Town Hall" meeting that the ever-insipid Ted Koppel ran? Levin was right there on stage being calm, rational and truthful as he adamantly opposed the blitzkrieg. (It was quite a show, actually; Jan Schakowsky stood up from the audience and blasted the warmongers.)

As I said before, Levin was one of only two Senators who were standing for re-election right after the IWR who voted against it.

Galloway was providing the world a service by telling it like it was, but he got carried away; not everyone in Congress is a tool or a fool, and it was most insulting to one of our elder-statesman heroes. Still, Levin didn't seek revenge or completely slag the man; he's got more dignity and you can see that he was truly enjoying watching Coleman get his face torn off.

See the video again.

[safi0]

17. Levin and Wellstone

Weren't the only senators up for re-election in 02 who voted against the IWR. There were 2 others: Dick Durbin and Jack Reed

[welshTerrier2]

9. well said ...

it is not the method of communication but the position taken and the passion used to fight for it ...

[Dynasty_At_Passes]

11. How can you tell when its really a form letter?

Alot of the time you might be speaking directly to them, and not a form letter its hard to tell when that happens.

[welshTerrier2]

5. the limits of Fitzgerald's investigation

Fitzgerald's charter will enable him to prosecute the violation of law that resulted from outing a CIA agent ... he'll be able to prosecute clear instances of lying to a Grand Jury and any other "cover-up" ...

but he will not go further into the policy crimes that resulted in the blatant lies that led up to the invasion of Iraq ... he will not focus on the suppression of the voices of those in the CIA who knew the case for war was being fabricated ...

and that is the nature of the "larger crime" ... information was fabricated and Congress and the American people were told lies to get a buy-in for war ... but this will not be included in the case Fitzgerald brings ... if we want the American people to learn the truth, Congress will have to hold hearings ...

whether republicans will ever allow this to happen or whether Democrats will push for these hearings as one of the most important issues facing the country remains to be seen ... sadly, i doubt the Democratic Party has the passion to make this a major battle ... without hearings, we may get some satisfaction from a parade of bad guys when Fitzgerald presses his case ...

but most of the big fish who are strangling our government, and the puppets they control, will likely go free in the end ...

[Dynasty_At_Passes]

10. Forgive me for not understanding.....

But if Fitzgerald can not prosecute those crimes, why did his Grand Jury just indict reporters from Sun Times and the Repoter and chief for taking illegal money and bribes related to whitewashing the 9/11 commission?

It was closing in on the GOP senator as well, and this is the Chicago Illinois grand jury.

[welshTerrier2]

13. do you have a link and some details for this??

taking bribes is exactly the kind of thing Fitzgerald will prosecute ... but, for example, he will not be redoing the work of the 9/11 Commission, which was appointed by the WH and, i believe, approved by the Congress ...

if the 9/11 Commission itself "whitewashed" the truth about what really happened on 9/11, it's going to take Congressional hearings and investigative journalism to prove it; not Fitzgerald's office ...

anyway, is your point that Congress should NOT hold hearings ... consider the possibility of a special prosecutor with a political bias; a second investigation, which includes members of both major parties, would be an important safeguard ...

[tinfoilinfor2005]

14. I only hope the crazy right doesn't do to Fitzgerald

what the gales of November did to the lake boat of the same name. We have to keep this on page one to keep this ship afloat.

[Independent_Liberal]

15. Keeping this kicked!