There can be instances when War Powers and Intel Oversight overlap.
Posted on 07/09/2006 9:22:35 AM PDT by prairiebreeze
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652752/posts
where Hoekstra tells an entirely different story.
I asked there, as an update, what got into the guy? Is it blackmail by the senior permanent CIA staff who've got the goods on him for something?
Also, notice that these two threads, which are clearly extraordinarily related, do not share any keywords for cross referencing. Is something going on we ought to know about?
I think Hoekstra has some serious 'splainin' to do here ~ and then the trial, eh?!
There can be instances when War Powers and Intel Oversight overlap.
Intelligence gathering is best distributed, and to a use and point of use.
Moreover George Washington did havge to beg for funds to pay his spies, and it was only his well-demonstrated fidelity to truth, his equally well-demonstrated fidelty to selfless duty on behalf of the his country, and his demonstrated and exceptionally rare adherence to frugality and accountability in public service let any details about those expentidures go unquestioned -- if indeed they were not so questioned, for I'm no librarian of his correspondences.
BTW, imo, the US military, for the most part, still carries fairly well and historically has carried along Washington's extraordinary reluctance to spend public funds except in the most efficient and necessary manner, and frugally beyond those concerns too. (With a few exceptions, sure.)
Hoekstra does seem to be singing a different tune. In the thread you linked he was singing Goss's praises. Maybe just sour grapes as speculated up thread.
Or, he wants something from the WH.
Whatever it is, when you have a flip-flop like this in the space of three weeks from the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, it does seem like there's a pressing, vital, national security type need for the Speker to assign that job to someone else.
I don't think anyone can trust Hoekstra anymore if this is the way he's going to do the nation's business.
Perhaps he's been taking flipflop lessons from Jean Francois sKerry.
? Could be. Sounds like McCarthy's friends are showing him the instruments of torture though.
My Professors left that part out of the notes during my American History 1860 to the Present Course.
How did they manage to keep anything secret?
I'm so surprised at Hoekstra; couldn't he have tried to work through committee and the WH or did he just need to make a name for himself?
Take a look at the thread link in post 61. He was singing a different tune not very long ago, it seems.
(raising eyebrows here)
In my mind Hoekstra and Lugar both need to be "grilled" extensively.
Oh, my! That's sort of what I remembered -- that he was strongly supportive of the administration and of the programs designed to catch jihadists.
So what DID happen? Inquiring minds want to know.
"I do not think the CIA has ever (net out, and a big neg net out, too) served our national interests. The problem with it is intrinsic to it. Simply: you can not be "central" and collect intelligence."
What a preposterous statement.
"Moreover George Washington did havge to beg for funds to pay his spies, and it was only his well-demonstrated fidelity to truth, his equally well-demonstrated fidelty to selfless duty on behalf of the his country, and his demonstrated and exceptionally rare adherence to frugality and accountability in public service let any details about those expentidures go unquestioned -- if indeed they were not so questioned, for I'm no librarian of his correspondences."
BS. The Continental Congress was never told about Washington's spy ring. Let alone did he ever ask for money for his spies from them.
You're talking through your hat.
You're calling Bush a monarch for *possibly* neglecting to inform Congress of one intel program, when every other President before 1980 never had one bit of oversight in their intelligence gathering powers.
Your rhetoric got way ahead of your knowledge of history.
Dramatic speech! Of course, it has little bearing on the issue at hand, but quite flowery. We are talking about Congressional oversight of wartime intelligence programs, not "dictatorial conduct." But I guess you'll gloss over with hyperbole what you can't support with reason.
In fact, you might want to brush up on the history of the Revolutionary War. It seems that one of George Washington's greatest strengths was in intelligence gathering. He had spies and informers all over, and used them brilliantly. Perhaps you can document for me where he informed the Continental Congress of the specifics of these intelligence assets and programs... oh, wait, he didn't (his only communications on that subject were infrequent pleas for money to support "intelligence gathering"). Because General Washington knew that a wartime commander had to make decisions that were unsuitable for a "committee." That's why the Executive branch was designed into the Constitution. Humorously enough, your allusion to Washington's conduct hurts your case rather than helps it...
I think you are mostly correct. I believe that twice George Washington did ask Congress for money for "intelligence gathering" (I don't think he ever got that money, though). But you are dead on accurate that he never revealed his spies, sources, or intelligence operations to anyone (which has made it very hard for historians to track down information on them!). He gave far less info to Congress than the Bush Admin, for sure!
Did you even read the letter? Or at least the section I posted from it above?
Here's one of the things Hoekstra said:
"I have been long concerned 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."
How's he turning on a dime from what he said earlier?
Also, we haven't heard from Chairman of the Senate Intel Committee, or for that matter, Hastert or Pelosi. Perhaps the program was briefed, but Hoekstra just wasn't on the list of people being briefed on that particular program (perhaps that was info that someone on the house intel committee was leaking, so they were excluded from being briefed on this particular program). Hoekstra was angy about Goss, and sent of a letter in anger. He will grow to regret, imho.
You're right, I'm sure. In any case, ultimately Washington got all of his money (for all intents and purposes) from Congress, which would include any money he put into the "Culper Ring."
But my point, and yours, is that he never told the Congress anything about what he was doing or why. They had no oversight of his activities whatsoever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.