Hoekstra’s Leaks/Cheney’s Leaks
Steven Benen writes most of the post I was going to write (thanks Steve!) in response to the news that Pete Hoekstra is a big fat hypocrite about intelligence leaks. Steve links to Justin Rood’s coverage of Hoekstra leaking details about the supposedly secret intelligence budget; RawStory first noticed Hoekstra’s leak. And then Steve provides a chronology (how could I not love that?!?!?!) of Hoekstra’s wingnuttery:
Given Hoekstra’s hackish history, this week’s alleged disclosure ispar for the course. After all, Hoekstra has had a series of recentintelligence-related embarrassments.
- In November 2006, Hoekstra pushed the administration to publishonline a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. Theidea was to let far-right bloggers "prove" that Saddam had WMD, butHoekstra’s plan led to the accidental release of secret nuclear research, including a basic guide to building an atom bomb.
- In October 2006, Hoestra "stripped the credentials of a Democraticcommittee aide he believed may have leaked a then-classified documentto The New York Times. A month later, he quietly reinstated the aide’s access."
- In July 2006, Hoekstra called a humiliating press conferenceto announce, "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" –despite failing to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
- In June 2006, Hoekstra and Rick Santorum wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed, alleging that some officials in the intelligence community are attempting to destroy the Bush administration — and America itself.
I would add just one event to this chronology: In July 2006 Hoekstra wrote what was perceived as a critical letter–but was actually one solidly supporting some of the Cheney-Rummy moves to keep DOD in charge of certain areas of intelligence.
I raise that–and link to Steve’s post–because I think it important to understand Hoekstra as more than just an unmotivated hack. Rather, each step of his hackery can be understood largely as a move in a Neocon chess game over information, largely doing the bidding of Cheney.
Not to mention the implications it would have on Cheney’s maniacal oil jones. Actually, that should be mentioned….
Assuming you are making your case trough the list you have written to describe the context:
.If the bill really included a clause that declassify the top line of the U.S. intelligence budget,then his disclosure of such only amounts to telling people the name of bill that declassified that specific information.That only if this was not to be made clear any way.
.The disclosure that intelligence agencies will conduct research on climate change does not have any national security significance.
.The disclosure that the 2008 Intelligence Authorization bill cut human-intelligence programs informs our enemies as much as disclosure of the top line of the U.S. intelligence budget.An certainly it causes for less damage then the actual reduction and if disclosure presses congress to rectify this problem that that damage is worthwhile.
endof
You appear to be reading all of the things I’ve put in for context as things Hoekstra leaked. The only thing he leaked was the decrease in HumInt.
EW
I am sorry about not understanding you intent correctly.
Can i assume that it was public knowledge that intelligence agencies will conduct research on climate change?
And are you arguing that by linking this research with supposed decrease in budget for human intelligence(the classified information), senator is trying to stop this activity?
Does the 2008 Intelligence Authorization bill really cut human-intelligence programs because their is conflicting information on this front?
I also erroneously took senator’s assertion on its face value .
Can i assume that it was public knowledge that intelligence agencies will conduct research on climate change?
And are you arguing that by linking this research with supposed decrease in budget for human intelligence(the classified information), senator is trying to stop this activity?
Let me correct myself, now. The Global Warming stuff is a leak, but (as you pointed out) probably not one that could be argued harmed national security. But the HumInt one is. I haven’t double checked Hoekstra’s assertion. But we should.
And yes, I’m assuming that Hoekstra is trying to 1) suggest the Dems are not serious about terrorism, bc they cut HumInt, and 2) trying to denigrate and perhaps prevent the study on global warming.
So Cheney thinks that he can stop, or sidetrack Climate Change studies? Yawwwwwwnnnnn.
In an age of Open Source technologies and new social structures, it’s downright baffling that Cheney continues to be so preposterously out of touch with the shifting technical, social, cultural, economic, and political paradigms. (I’m not being snarky; I find it downright bizarre. And quite alarming.)
If Hoekstra wants to shill for Cheney’s right-wing, corporatist base, that’s his affair. Meanwhile, the Financial Times, Asia Times, The Economist (and TIME, Newsweek, and the NYT) are all reporting on climate-related conflicts, commodities impacts, and humanitarian topics. And those publications are all parts of multinational conglomerates, which suggests that Global Warming has gone mainstream.
Meanwhile, people in the insurance industry, who have to pay for storm damage started worrying about Climate Change in the 1990s. People who grow food, or who forecast crop production, are interested in all things weather-related, and their bottom lines are definitely reality-based.
Cheney, Hoekstra, and the rest of these wingnuts are tiresome. And less relevant by the day. So if Cheney succeeds in screwing up US federal government Climate Change studies, it’ll only continue to sink us internationally. No one who has to factor climate or weather into their business estimates is going to use the bogus info; they’ll find more credible sources. They have to.
A thoughtful discussion on impeachment…
Bill Moyer’s Journal: Tough Talk on Impeachment
You might well ask what impeachment has to do with whistleblowers. Well, if not for the excesses and indiscretions of our current administration (Executive Branch) and the lack of resolve on the part of congress (Legislative Branch) in straightening things out, we wouldn’t have so much trouble in Justice (Judicial Branch), getting current laws upheld, wrongdoing investigated by various investigative agencies, and cases prosecuted, and such a hostile work environment for those who point out problems and illegalities, which I believe would mean fewer people labeled whistleblowers who are just trying to ethically do their federal jobs!
Click on the whole long address to view. Well worth watching the whole thing. There are two parts. Thanks Professor Nan for showing me this exists!
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/jour…..efchange=1
Is the Bush/Cheney Administration Desperate Enough To Bomb Iran?
Yes and the result could likely be terror attacks against the US
Learn what could happen when the United States is hit by another terrorist attack by Islamic extremists that creates an extreme response by Washington in The Final Presidential Executive Order at http://www.swissconfederationi…..erve14.htm
This is a fictional case study from a new free online book by Ron Holland, “The Swiss Preserve Solution†& read how the government reaction to another attack could dramatically curtail personal, financial, religious and civil liberties in the United States.
Ron lives at Wolf Laurel Resort in NC.