Michigan Republican Peter Hoekstra wrote a strong letter in May accusing the White House of concealing intelligence activities from Congress. Hoekstra, who chairs the House intelligence committee and, with Pennsylvania Republican senator Rick Santorum, has accused intelligence czar John Negroponte of downplaying the import of rusty chemical munitions found in Iraq, says that any concealed programs might amount to “a violation of the law.”
Let’s pause a moment to savor the irony in hearing Hoekstra, one of the chief enablers of the imperial presidency, yowl about the rule of law. Ok, that’s long enough.
There’s no reason for civil libertarians or fans of the Constitution to take heart from Hoekstra’s letter. It was sent in mid-May, and the New York Times story on it says that the administration sent emissaries bearing tribute to Hoekstra since then. More significantly, though, it appears that Hoekstra was simply having a mini-Gingrich moment.
Among Gingrich’s claims to fame is his decision, as House speaker, to shut down the federal government from pique over being relegated to a back seat on Air Force One. Hoekstra didn’t threaten to do that — and he’s not in a position to do so regardless — but if he can’t match Newt’s clout, he’s at least in the running to match Newt’s pout.
The Times says the letter was sent the same day the Senate was rubber-stamping the appointment of General Michael Hayden as CIA director to replace Porter Goss, Hoekstra’s friend and predecessor as intelligence committee chair, who was forced out by the White House. Hoekstra was vocally if not altogether coherently opposed to Hayden’s appointment; Hayden is best known as the author of the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping program, which Hoekstra supports.
One needn’t, however, rely on implication to divine Hoekstra’s motivation; he’s kind enough to spell it out.
“I have learned of some alleged intelligence community activities about which our committee has not been briefed,” Mr. Hoesktra wrote. “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.”He added: “The U.S. Congress simply should not have to play Twenty Questions to get the information that it deserves under our Constitution.”
Thus are we reminded of the tripartite foundation upon which our country rests: the Constitution, the law, and Peter Hoekstra’s injured pride. I’m all in favor of Congress at least pretending to exercise some executive branch oversight, but that’s not what Hoekstra intended here; he’s just pointing out that he can’t rubber stamp the president’s excesses if he doesn’t know about them, and that he deserves to know about them because he has so faithfully — ardently, as he says — rubber stamped them in the past. All hail democracy’s saviour.
Nicely done. I actually laughed out loud (and in a public place) over “[Hoekstra]’s just pointing out that he can’t rubber stamp the president’s excesses if he doesn’t know about them, and that he deserves to know about them because he has so faithfully — ardently, as he says — rubber stamped them in the past.”