Dear Madam Speaker:

You have taken the reins of the House with skill and vigor. In just 10 weeks you have passed important legislation and struggled to cobble together a meaningful opposition to the Iraq War. Now, however, you have an obligation—to convene an investigation into impeaching Dick Cheney—that cannot be avoided without violating your own oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

I have been writing here for nearly 2 months that the uncontroverted evidence at the Libby Trial demonstrated that Dick Cheney provided aid-and-comfort to enemies of the United States. (see here)

Today, Valerie Plame testified before the House Government Operations Committee. In addition to confirming her covert status (reconfirmed by the DCI in a written statement) at the time she was outed, she directly stated that her network, and her project that dealt with counterproliferation, was compromised.

Dick Cheney informed Libby of Plame’s CIA employment, and started the process to discredit the Wilsons’ revelation that Saddam Hussein had not tried to purchase uranium in Niger by falsely stating that Plame sent her husband on some boondoggle. (Imagine the Wilsons’ pillow talk: Valerie: “Darling, I think you need a vacation from your retirement. Why don’t you go away for a week?” Joe: “Well, may be you’re right, I have been relaxing poorly.” Valerie: “Why don’t you go to the Riviera?” Joe: “Nah, that wouldn’t be any fun. I think I’ll go to Niger. My birthday’s coming up, and I’m told they make a killer yellowcake”.).

The Republic Party called Victoria Toensig, a former Intelligence Committee staffer, to rebut both Plame and the DCI, claiming she was not covert within the meaning of a particular statute. Ridiculous as that is, it really does not matter for Cheney’s culpability. Plame testified that her outing, not the statute or legal definitions, compromised her operation and her network. The most benign term to describe her outing, which she used, was “recklessly”. Since we know that Cheney was quite deliberate in mounting a campaign against the Wilsons, and was told of Plame’s CIA status, we also know that the outing was more than reckless.

To make the argument as favorable as possible to Cheney, however, let us assume that his actions were “reckless” and no more. If a Vice-President of the United States is reckless with respect to US national security, and provides aid-and-comfort to enemies of the United States, has he not violated his oath of office? Should anyone continue in the Office as Vice-President of the United States, a sacred trust, if he has treated national security recklessly?

Madam Speaker, investigating Dick Cheney to determine if articles of impeachment should be brought is no longer a choice, it is your duty. Otherwise, reckless (or, more likely, deliberate) behavior compromising the national security of the United States will go unpunished. And, if Patrick Fitzgerald says it would be inappropriate for him to testify about the results of his investigation, remind him that he spent taxpayers’ money, and that impeachment is not a criminal trial, but rather an action for removal for malfeasance of office.

As Sir Edmund Burke wrote, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.” (Paul Abrams via Huffington Post)