Speaking of letters to Specter, here's the one I wrote him last week, after he backed down from his statement that John Ashcroft should recuse himself from the Wilson-Plame investigation.
Dear Senator Specter,
Your staff suggested I write if I want a personal response, and I hope you will take time to respond to this constituent’s concerns.
I read on the morning of October 3, 2003 that you believed Attorney General Ashcroft should recuse himself from the Wilson-Plame investigation because of his close ties to Karl Rove and the White House. Later that day, I read that you had backed away from this statement, claiming to have been “misquoted.”
Mr. Specter, our national security apparatus is what keeps Americans safe. It is widely acknowledged, even by administration officials, that Ms. Plame and her work on weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed by a member of the Bush administration for the political goal of discrediting her husband, Joseph Wilson; Wilson, as you know, angered the White House and members of your party by “blowing the whistle” on the administration’s uranium claims (a/k/a Yellowcakegate). Instead of advocating an independent counsel, it seems that you would prefer that the president be investigated by his own political appointees: if this was not allowed to stand under Clinton, why is this allowed to stand under Mr. Bush?
Mr. Specter, I need this question answered, and answered clearly without political doublespeak. It is my fervent belief that loyalty to the commonwealth of the country trumps any allegiance to a political party or ideology: in fact, I would go so far as to argue that putting loyalty to a party before loyalty to the country is the very definition of treason.
To that end I ask, Mr. Specter, that you please answer the following questions for me, clearly and in plain English:
• Is your refusal to support an independent counsel motivated by partisanship?
• If this is the case, please explain to me why you believe political partisanship is more important than making sure our intelligence professionals, who are trying to protect our nation and citizens, aren’t targeted for political reasons by the very government they serve.
• If this is the case, please also explain why finding out the facts behind Mr. Clinton’s illicit dalliance with Ms. Monica Lewinsky was a more important national security issue (important enough to warrant an independent counsel) than finding out the facts behind the politically-motivated exposure of a deep cover CIA agent working on nonproliferation issues.
• Given that you supported an independent counsel to look into the Clinton scandals but do not support an independent counsel to look into the Wilson-Plame affair, do you believe that protecting Republicans from political embarrassment is more important than protecting American citizens from weapons of mass destruction?
• Does your loyalty to the party trump your loyalty to the country? Please square this with your refusal to support an independent counsel for Wilson-Plame.
I realize these are complicated questions, and perhaps some smack of polemic. However, as I am a constituent and I pay you to represent me in the Congress, I deserve a response, which I hope will be speedy and personal: a “form letter” is unacceptable. I am a tax-payer, a homeowner, and a parent. If my personal safety, or my family’s, has been put in jeopardy by the outing of Ms. Plame (and I believe we are all less safe now) then it is you as my representative that owes me an explanation. I look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
Brendan Skwire
Dear Senator Specter,
Your staff suggested I write if I want a personal response, and I hope you will take time to respond to this constituent’s concerns.
I read on the morning of October 3, 2003 that you believed Attorney General Ashcroft should recuse himself from the Wilson-Plame investigation because of his close ties to Karl Rove and the White House. Later that day, I read that you had backed away from this statement, claiming to have been “misquoted.”
Mr. Specter, our national security apparatus is what keeps Americans safe. It is widely acknowledged, even by administration officials, that Ms. Plame and her work on weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed by a member of the Bush administration for the political goal of discrediting her husband, Joseph Wilson; Wilson, as you know, angered the White House and members of your party by “blowing the whistle” on the administration’s uranium claims (a/k/a Yellowcakegate). Instead of advocating an independent counsel, it seems that you would prefer that the president be investigated by his own political appointees: if this was not allowed to stand under Clinton, why is this allowed to stand under Mr. Bush?
Mr. Specter, I need this question answered, and answered clearly without political doublespeak. It is my fervent belief that loyalty to the commonwealth of the country trumps any allegiance to a political party or ideology: in fact, I would go so far as to argue that putting loyalty to a party before loyalty to the country is the very definition of treason.
To that end I ask, Mr. Specter, that you please answer the following questions for me, clearly and in plain English:
• Is your refusal to support an independent counsel motivated by partisanship?
• If this is the case, please explain to me why you believe political partisanship is more important than making sure our intelligence professionals, who are trying to protect our nation and citizens, aren’t targeted for political reasons by the very government they serve.
• If this is the case, please also explain why finding out the facts behind Mr. Clinton’s illicit dalliance with Ms. Monica Lewinsky was a more important national security issue (important enough to warrant an independent counsel) than finding out the facts behind the politically-motivated exposure of a deep cover CIA agent working on nonproliferation issues.
• Given that you supported an independent counsel to look into the Clinton scandals but do not support an independent counsel to look into the Wilson-Plame affair, do you believe that protecting Republicans from political embarrassment is more important than protecting American citizens from weapons of mass destruction?
• Does your loyalty to the party trump your loyalty to the country? Please square this with your refusal to support an independent counsel for Wilson-Plame.
I realize these are complicated questions, and perhaps some smack of polemic. However, as I am a constituent and I pay you to represent me in the Congress, I deserve a response, which I hope will be speedy and personal: a “form letter” is unacceptable. I am a tax-payer, a homeowner, and a parent. If my personal safety, or my family’s, has been put in jeopardy by the outing of Ms. Plame (and I believe we are all less safe now) then it is you as my representative that owes me an explanation. I look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
Brendan Skwire
<< Home