Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Can Schumer be the Next President, Please?

In response to the N.Y. Daily News article that reports that Rove informed Bush in 2003 that he was involved in the Plame/CIA leak, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) fired off a letter to Bush, asking many of the right questions. He doesn't specifically ask Bush if he was a party to the attempted White House cover-up or why Bush did nothing to correct the Rove-was-not-involved spin put out by his White House. Still, Schumer's letter--posted below--is a decent start. It may even get him some press. (Hats off to David Corn's Blog)

Dear Mr. President,
I read today with profound concern news reports that you had conversations with your Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in 2003 about his role in the leak of Valerie Plame's name. Earlier, of course, the White House issued emphatic and blanket denials of any involvement in the disclosure or confirmation of Ms. Plame's status as a CIA agent to members of the media.
In light of these reports, I urge you to make public the details of Mr. Rove's involvement, your understanding of that involvement, and an explanation as to why Mr. Rove was neither dismissed nor his security clearance revoked when you learned of his participation in the Plame affair.
According to the news account, after the Department of Justice informed the White House that it had launched a criminal investigation, you were "furious" at Mr. Rove for talking to the press about the Plame leak and scolded him about it. Particularly troubling is the allegation that you were not angry at the leak itself, but rather the "clumsy" handling of the leak. In other words, it seems like you may have been angry that White House officials were caught, not that they had compromised national security. If true, this is of course very problematic. As a result, the American people deserve to hear the facts immediately as to those conversations.
In light of these reports, and the fact that you long ago promised to fire anyone involved in the leak, I urge you to immediately and publicly clear up the record. If it is true that you had conversations with Mr. Rove about his involvement in talking to the press about the identity of Valerie Plame, a covert agent with the CIA, the American people deserve to know the answers to several questions. Among them are these:
* How often did you have conversations with Karl Rove about the Plame leak and on what dates?
* Did these conversations take place after you learned that the Department of Justice had initiated a formal criminal investigation into the matter?
* What was the substance of these conversations?
*Did you instruct Mr. Rove to cooperate fully with the investigation?
* When you and Vice President Cheney were interviewed by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, did you and Mr. Cheney inform him of Karl Rove's involvement and your knowledge of it?
*You promised in 2004, after your alleged anger at Mr. Rove over his involvement, to fire anyone involved in the leak. If these new reports are true, given your 2004 promise, why did Karl Rove continue to work at the White House after you learned of his involvement?
* If these reports are true, when you learned of the involvement of Karl Rove in speaking about classified information, i.e. , the identity of a covert agent, what discussions took place about suspending Mr. Rove's security clearance? Why was it not suspended?
I--along with the American people--look forward to hearing you set the record straight on this important issue.

Respectfully,

Charles E. Schumer

10 comments:

dusty said...

Great letter..too bad Bushie will ignore it. But its out there :)

Karen Zipdrive said...

Sorry about the super skinny margin- I have asked recent referrer
"the-goddess.org/whatshesaid/2005/10/ sour-duck-feminist-blog- community-and.html"
to delink me so her lengthy taglines stop blowing out my margins.

Karen Zipdrive said...

***THIS JUST IN***
Bush's reply to Schumer:

T H E W H I T E H O U S E

Dear Senator Shirmer,

I would like to help answer you're questions but I cannot comment on a ongoing invesdigation.

Sincerly,
George W. Bush
The President

CLD said...

I saw the original on Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo yesterday. How he got a copy, I have no idea. But I'm glad Schumer jumped on this so quickly. Bush will never respond, but it's nice to see someone hasn't given up on trying.

Karen Zipdrive said...

With any kind of luck, Schumer is jumping on Bush to further an ambition to be considered as a Democratic presidential candidate.
Maybe he's savvy enough to realize the Democrats are in desperate need of a leader who's not afraid to take on the Bush criminals.
I love the guy, from what I've read, seen and heard.

JimBob said...

I wonder if all the fuss and legal problems (and ensuing bad press) garnered by this president and the previous one will inspire their successors to be a little more open and honest in their dealings...?
.
.
.
nah, probably not.

Karen Zipdrive said...

Nah.
The thing is, ALL politicians have personal agendas that by nature include some degree of dishonesty.
What counts is, which one's rhetoric serves me best as a lesbian and as a patriotic American taxpayer.
Clinton was a brilliant, visionary, compassionate, adulterous, untreated sex addict, but he was cool about gays.
Bush is a lying, stupid, silver spoon, drunkard and cokehead who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, and he is not cool about gays.
So fuck him.

JimBob said...

i like your thought process. it makes the debate about who to vote for so much easier!

CLD said...

Too bad Clinton allowed DOMA to pass... that was NOT being cool about gays. Neither was "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". He sold us out on that one.

Other than that, I loved him as president.

Karen Zipdrive said...

Clinton had to do some odious things to keep the sharks at bay, and DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell were elements of that.
But he was also a man who would attend the DC HRC dinners, sign proclamations for gay events, and was open about his personal acceptance of gays.
No, he wasn't perfect in his performance, but we always had a sense he could sincerely "feel our pain."
This jackass we have now intentionally used us as bogeymen for the snake handlers and radical fundamentalists who hate gays.
Clinton may not have furthered our cause much, but he sure as hell didn't try to drag us back to the pre-Stonewall days and he was never a hatemonger liek Bush.