The Hoekstra Letter

Is anyone really surprised that the New York Times would write a whole article about a once secret letter (nothing is ever secret when it comes to the NYT’s) to President Bush from Peter Hoekstra, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and not once mention the REAL story in the letter? (h/t JustOneMinute)

Sure, the author goes on and on about the fact that Hoekstra was upset over not being briefed about a intelligence program:

In a sharply worded letter to President Bush in May, an important Congressional ally charged that the administration might have violated the law by failing to inform Congress of some secret intelligence programs and risked losing Republican support on national security matters.

The letter from Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, did not specify the intelligence activities that he believed had been hidden from Congress.

But Mr. Hoekstra, who was briefed on and supported the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and the Treasury Department's tracking of international banking transactions, clearly was referring to programs that have not been publicly revealed.

But fails to mention this part in the letter about Steve Kappes, who was at the time of the letter being brought back into the CIA as Deputy Director under nominee Hayden:

“I understand that Mr. Kappes is a capable, well-qualified, and well-liked former Directorate of Operations (DO) case officer. I am heartened by the professional qualities he would bring to the job, but concerned by what could be the political problems that he could bring back to the agency. 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. I have come to the belief that, despite his service to the DO, Mr. Kappes may have been a part of this group. I must take note when my Democratic colleagues – those who so vehemently denounced and now publicly attacked the strong choice of Porter Goss as Director – now publicly support Mr. Kappes’s return.” (.PDF of letter here)

Wh-wha-what! The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee believes the Deputy Director of the CIA was involved in the leaks of our classified national security secrets!

And the New York Times mentions that not once.

How about the fact that Hoekstra is convinced the Plame story is part of these schemes to undermine the Bush administration?

Any mention? Nope.

But Tom Meguire did find the Washington Post writing a story where they added “domestic” to the letter written by Hoekstra. Problem is that no where in his letter does he mention that the program he is complaining about is domestic:

In a sharply worded letter, the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee has told President Bush that the administration is angering lawmakers, and possibly violating the law, by giving Congress too little information about domestic surveillance programs.

Isn’t that special? My how they jump to conclusions based on what they HOPE they will find don’t they?

The Washington Post does allude to the fact that the Hoekstra letter contained his disappointment over the Kappes appointment, but fails to mention WHY he was disappointed over Kappes. Another shocker huh?

Stephen Spruiell has some extensive analysis over the briefing part of the letter:

We should, I suppose, consider ourselves lucky that the NYT didn’t find out which programs Hoekstra was referring to and splash their details all over the front page. But I keep wondering: Are these the alleged “special access programs” that disgruntled ex-NSA employee Russ Tice told the Senate Armed Services Committee about last May; at around the same time that Hoekstra sent his letter? On May 12th, Congress Daily reported (via Nexis):

A former intelligence officer for the National Security Agency said Thursday he plans to tell Senate staffers next week that unlawful activity occurred at the agency under the supervision of Gen. Michael Hayden beyond what has been publicly reported, while hinting that it might have involved the illegal use of space-based satellites and systems to spy on U.S. citizens. Russell Tice, who worked on what are known as "special access programs," has wanted to meet in a closed session with members of Congress and their staff since President Bush announced in December that he had secretly authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens without a court order. In an interview late Thursday, Tice said the Senate Armed Services Committee finally asked him to meet next week in a secure facility on Capitol Hill.

Is it just a coincidence that Hoekstra wrote his letter to President Bush so soon after Tice started talking about these programs? And what are we to make of Tice himself, who was fired from the NSA after he repeatedly accused a co-worker of being a Chinese spy and was ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation that found him to be paranoid?

Whatever the case may be, it’s of concern that one of the administration’s closest allies on intelligence-gathering is suddenly starting to rebel. Is this just about the firing of Porter Goss and the hiring of Stephen Kappes? Or is this in some way related to weird whistleblower Russ Tice? And if so, is there anything to the claim that the administration has improperly withheld information from the intelligence committees, given that the NSA directed Tice to the armed services committees instead?

My point is that perhaps the intel committee was not briefed because the NSA believed in good faith that it was a matter for the armed services committees. If the programs are the ones that Russ Tice testified about (and Hoekstra made several statements on FNS about “the whistleblower process” leading me to believe that they are), then we know that the NSA believed them to be a matter for the armed services committees. Hoekstra obviously disagreed, and perhaps his arguments were persuasive.

Interesting argument. If the NSA believed that the program did not need to be briefed to the House Intelligence Committee since it fell under the DoD umbrella, what’s the problem? Hoekstra obviously disagreed and when he stomped his feet enough Bush caved and briefed them.

Me thinks Spruiell is on to something here regarding Tice. The nutcase testifies about some secret programs to the Armes Services Committee and then all of a sudden Hoekstra writes the letter. He wanted to be in the loop obviously.

But the big story here is the fact that he acknowledges the CIA coup, and even pointedly referrers to the Plame affair as an example.

The New York Times and the Washington Post doesn’t see it that way I suppose. Hell, they don’t even mention it in passing.

Other’s Blogging:

• Right Voices
• Say Anything
• Sweetness & Light
• Macsmind
• Dinocrat
• Hot Air
• Captain’s Quarters
• Old War Dogs

Curt

See author page