Video: Hoekstra slams Bush for keeping secrets from House intel committee
posted at 7:01 pm on July 9, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Among them the existence of at least one “major program.”
Same old problem. You want to defend Bush, but he does. not. make. it. easy.
What good reason could he have had for withholding information he’s legally obliged to share? To make a point about executive privilege in wartime? Because he suspects some committee members of leaking to the press? Spruiell speculates that the programs were under DoD’s umbrella and that the intel committee didn’t have the necessary clearances to know about them. But if that’s true then why, according to the Times, did intel officials go ahead and brief the committee on the programs after Hoekstra found out about them and complained?
The Times was forthright/foolish enough to include Hoekstra’s letter to Bush as a PDF in its sidebar, and it turns out he complained about a lot more than just secrecy:
There has been much public and private speculation about the politicization of the Agency. I am convinced that this politicization was underway well before Porter Goss became the Director. In fact, I have long been convinced that a strong and well-positioned group within the Agency intentionally undermined the Administration and its policies. This argument is supported by the Ambassador Wilson/Valerie Plame events, as well as by the string of unauthorized disclosures from an organization that prides itself with being able to keep secrets.
Tom Maguire notes that this passage barely figures in Lichtblau’s story. I wonder: why would the Times’s chief beneficiary of government leaks, hot on the heels of his patriotic vindication of the Founders’ vision in exposing the SWIFT program, want to downplay Hoekstra’s belief that the press is being used as a pawn in a political vendetta?
This won’t detract from Joe Wilson’s status as an American hero, will it?
I’ll leave you to ponder who might have leaked Hoekstra’s letter to Lichtblau. It’s unclear if the entire intel committee was copied on it; if so, a Democratic member’s the safest bet — although the Times does quote at least one Republican, Heather Wilson, as being unhappy with Bush. If not, then Hoekstra himself is the likeliest candidate. Is he so alarmed by Bush’s secrecy that he’d go nuclear and give the letter to one of the president’s least favorite reporters? Spruiell thinks he might have used the complaint about secrecy as bait to draw the press’s attention to the letter when in fact it was the information about Stephen Kappes and the political vendetta that he really wanted to publicize. But he had no way of knowing that the Times would even mention the vendetta stuff, and surely there are easier ways for the House intel chairman to make his point than by leaking correspondence with the White House which, by the way, is highly damning of the administration’s info-sharing policies.
I don’t know. Too much cloak and dagger for a Sunday night.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Hmmm… interesting… if it is a DOD program, doesn’t the commitee that overseas THOSE funds have oversight jurisdiction? Not the Intell commitee?
Sounds like a case of need to know to me… or at least that case can be made. Once they start asking questions, they need to be briefed so they don’t raise a stink, like is happening now… IF that other commitee was briefed in, and they oversee those funds, this guy is just grandstanding, with the NYTs help.
Romeo13 on July 9, 2006 at 7:27 PM
What the frick is wrong with Hoekstra now…too much recent pub screw up his head? Why oh Why would he do this publicly right now.
Stupid little brat.
Did he threaten any kids? …I so want to use “frisched” in a post.
shooter on July 9, 2006 at 7:56 PM
So if you reveal intelligence programs to congress they get leaked illegaly, and if you don’t reveal them they get leaked legally. Are we basically commiting suicide here? Can a government really function in these times if it is completely fucking impossible to keep a secret?
B Moe on July 9, 2006 at 7:58 PM
After the [leaky] Lehey debacle can anyone blame this administration for keeping a few programs under lock and key? It isn’t as if our Congress can be totally trusted…
Many of my neighbors, and I wanted to get rid of Hoekstra, but the guy reputedly has an inroad with Whirlpool which is a good sized employer in the area. This year he is running only against a liberal named Kimon Kotos. This is the same candidate he beat in ‘04, so maybe Hoekstra is trying to prove he isn’t a Bush cheerleader.
DannoJyd on July 9, 2006 at 10:11 PM
Amazing, and disgusting, how the NYSlimes is giving Hoekstra centerstage on this, but where were they when he and Rick Santorum were giving us the goods on the WMD’s found in Iraq?
Hoekstra sounds like a bitter, angry man. As the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, he may have believed he should have gotten the top job at the CIA that General Michael Hayden was appointed to by President Bush. Therefore, the leaks?
doingwhatican on July 10, 2006 at 3:36 AM
Bush fired Porter Goss because he uncovered the crooked Clinton appointee……..and the Bush’s ae now in bed with the Clintons and coniving together.
GW Bush is anti-constitution and refuses to uphold the laws of the USA. Thus he cherry picks what he will enforce and constantly tries to overide the congress with an imperial presidency.
He is promoting his old man’s ‘one world order’ agenda which Clinton agrees with.
Since the House of Reps is the most powerful branch of government he must attack its power and authority. It is a scheme by this false conservative to destroy our ‘independent republic’ through his ignorant and pompous statements about democracy.
GW Bush is destroying our middle class for a reason…..he will contiue to attack the powers of the ‘peoples house’..he must to destroy America.
LZVandy on July 10, 2006 at 6:55 AM
I’m pretty bugged by those in the comments here who suggest that Hoekstra is the problem. He’s not.
The problem, as we see with Bush in many others areas such as immigration, is that Bush is weak at executing law. And hey - constitutionally, that’s his job. He is the Executive branch. He should execute and enforce existing laws.
This is law. He should respect the law and brief Congress. And then if someone leaks it, no matter who, he should prosecute the shit out of that person to deter future leaks and publicly tar and feather each person who does it. But Bush would never do that; he’s too buddy-buddy. He’s playing the game and he has used the media just like everyone else in Washington does.
I think it’s become obvious that we need someone who goes to Washington with the idea that the media will receive no leaks. Period. And that leakers will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. These arrogant jerks are playing with my country for their private agendas and I’m quite tired of it.
beatcanvas on July 10, 2006 at 7:12 AM
What in the hell is going on??? Does anyone care about the country anymore??? I’m beginning to think I’m crazy…
Aunt B on July 10, 2006 at 9:40 AM
Bush, from the get-go, has made little effort to build a really strong working relationship with Congress, to the detriment of both his admin and Congress, and ultimately the country. Why? Who knows? Does it really matter?
It seems that when Congress is not really engaged in policy, they revert to form and it’s exclusively about politics. So tiresome.
One more point: I agree that this leakmania is getting ridiculous. But I think there is some validity to the notion that the WH has overplayed the secrecy bit with the net result being (indiscrimate?) pushback via leaking. Sort of the boy crying wolf idea–if everything is a secret, then is anything really a secret? Also, the WH is not above leaking itself which puts it in the awkward position of parsing levels of leaking. Random thoughts for a Monday AM.
honora on July 10, 2006 at 10:44 AM
There’s a little more to this, IMAO. A few points:
The Executive branch (which includes the military) absolutely must keep secret anything that could be used by our enemies against us in this war.
The Legislative branch seriously believes they have the responsibility of oversight. (Some confuse this with civilian control of the military, which is indeed Constitutional, but is what the President as Commander in Chief, Secretary of Defense, and that army of terrified civilians in DoD are all about.)
The more people who know about a secret, the less chance there is it will stay a secret.
Congress has an abysmal reputation for keeping secrets.
Those who oppose the war erroneously believe that it’s their duty to expose secrets if they think it will undermine the war effort and cause it to end earlier, even if that means losing.
Many in Congress and many more who work on congressional staffs oppose the war.
Taken together, that means informing Congress as a whole about any secret program related to the war on terror assures that it will not stay secret. And we wonder why, as the press loves to preach, that this is the most secretive administration in history? Yeah, folks…we’re at war, and the enemy’s spies work in Congress and the “mainlining media”. As long as there are no significant consequences for those who commit treason and share secrets with the enemy, the administration must strictly limit the information going to Congress, including the intelligence committees (a group even more inaptly named than military intelligence).
Applying the adage, “If everything is the top priority, then nothing is a top priority.” and substituting the word Secret for Top Priority doesn’t work, honora. If everything is secret, then everything really is secret, and it’s not up to the people who have access to the information to make the decision when the information can be released. That responsibility belongs to the classifying authority alone. There are guidelines for declassification of information. Joe Workerbee doesn’t get to determine on his own that something shouldn’t be classified and send it to the New York Times.
on the Mark... on July 10, 2006 at 11:20 AM
One other point - although Hoekstra sent a letter to the White House identifying a failure to brief them on some classified programs, he did not identify what those programs were. That bears repeating: He did not identify the classified programs to the media and the enemy.
NYT and other mainlining media outlets, make a note. It’s possible to complain about something you believe is wrong without destroying the programs.
on the Mark... on July 10, 2006 at 11:29 AM