A Glimpse Into the Mind of Peter Hoekstra

[davidbikman]

House Intelligence bigshot Peter Hoekstra's May 18, 2006 letter to the president was leaked today, and it affords a valuable peak into the pique of one angry Republican. A most revealing passage is quoted in the Times' story:

I have learned of some alleged intelligence community activities about which our committee has not been briefed. If these allegations are true, they may represent a breach of responsibility by the administration, a violation of the law, and, just as importantly, a direct affront to me and the members of this committee who have so ardently supported efforts to collect information on our enemies.

That's right, folks; Peter Hoekstra thinks the president's "violation of the law" is "just as important" as his snubbing of a political ally. So before anyone starts applauding Hoekstra for being one of the few members of Congress willing to remind the president that the Constitution still exists, bear in mind that he clearly did not intend this letter to become public. Hoekstra's reaction is about turf and control, about a player in the intelligence business who knows that power increases with information, and angry that he's lost some. For Eric Lichtblau and Scott Shane of the Times to claim that "the assertion that other intelligence activities had been hidden from Congress is particularly surprising coming from Mr. Hoekstra" is either touchingly naive or downright scary, depending on your perspective.

The Post tepidly covers Hoekstra's letter in an all-too brief story, but at least hits the right notes with their lead; "he White House possibly broke the law by keeping intelligence activities a secret from the lawmakers responsible for overseeing them."

Remember Ricky Santorum and his claim that a few pre-Gulf War, severely degraded shells found in Iraq were the WMD that supposedly brought us there in the first place? Hoekstra, who had jumped onto that rickety bandwagon, blasted U. S. intelligence chief John Negroponte for publicly shooting down Santorum's delusions, accusing Negroponte of attempting "to downplay the significance of relevant facts."

And with that I give you Peter Hoekstra, champion of "truthiness."

* * Always Read More at Times/WaPo Watch * *

[Peanutcat]

1. Like I said on Crooks and Liars--

Is it just me, or is little Petey pissed about being burned by the Bush administration on the "We-found-WMDs!" report? Methinks Petey's objections are too little, too late.

[ray of light]

2. it's all about politics and backstabbing. He got stabbed so

for a little bit...he's going to 'squeeze' them back.

[True Bleu]

4. They're like rats jumping over the side of the sinking ship.

Hoekstra has no nobility in this. A good number of his MI constituents have
been adversely affected by Bushco and his crime syndicate. He's trolling for votes for Nov., nothing more, nothing less.

[amandabeech]

7. Do you think that Petey might be in trouble in his district?

I grew up there, and have many friends and family still there. They're divided among Dems and Reps, but none are conservative "value voters."

Admittedly, Petey hasn't been photographed frolicking with the babes in Babados like his predecessor Guy Vander Jagt, but has he done enough to anger everyone, particularly his base voters in the southern, more populous Ottawa County-Holland part of his district?

Enquiring minds want to know!

[mkb]

6. Cautious And Thoughtful

     I think those concerned for the betterment of society
should be beginning to realize that there are no easy answers
as far as their role in society.
     People should understand that the intelligence situation
is complex and has important lessons for concerned people who
are trying to do good.  The fundamental position of the right
wing is that they need to gather information to protect us
from terrorists.  That position is true, but only to a limited
extent.  It is important to realize that authoritarian power
wishes to control and repress its own population.  Information
gathered regarding financial transactions, internet use, and
many other activities should not be seen as merely used to
fight terrorists.  There is little doubt in my mind that the
information gathered is not being only used in terrorist
inverstigations.  
     There is much evidence for those who have risked their
personal identity and safety and who do so now that the
government has been increasing its intensity of intelligence
used for domestic repression for many years.
     People who only have paid attention to mainstream sources
for information, controlled by the big money corporations,
have not been given these facts that support what I am saying.
 There are the more well known cases such as COINTELPRO and
CISPES programs awhile back, and more recent ones involving
bank record spying during Clinton's presidency.
     The question concerned and decent people need to ask, is
how can I do the right thing for myself and others, without
being identified as an opponent of the hierarchical structure.
 My belief is that every activity you take part has risks and
rewards, and starting out being cautious, and thoughful as the
heading shows, will help you make the best decisions about
proceeding in life.  Reading and communicating on the
internet, being politically active, and making financial
transactions are the most obvious ways that can be traced by
the authorities.  Using the telephone is another way.  There
are many criteria relevant to making choices about what to do,
but I believe that if you are relatively well off, you should
probably try to be more cautious and careful about what you
do, to retain your ability to function, particularly for the
long term, without losing your identity and power.  People who
are less well off probably should be more likely to have a
more open role regarding their participation.
     I think we should remember that there are many facets to
what happens in life, and that being cautious and thoughtful,
while still learning and making progress, is a good way of
seeing things.

[vixengrl]

3. If I may attempt a between-the-lines rendering?

Ahem. Here goes:

"How can we Congressional Republicans cover your butt if we don't know where it is?"

One of the fig leaves tugged over the naked breeches of our Constitutional protections has been, well, the Intelligence Committee was briefed, and they either a)said it was okay, or b) weren't able to say anything for "national security reasons". That turkey won't fly if they don't at least whisper in some senatorial ears every now and then.

[chiffon]

5. Nice read....... n/t