Hoekstra Hypocrisy
Somehow, leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative, working on non proliferation, and putting her contacts at risk, just to get revenge on her husband, is something Hoekstra is willing to protect. But disclose things that the CIA should not be doing, and Hoekstra gets after you like a pit bull.
2 Comments:
In what manner do you think Hoekstra obstructed the Plame investigation? From what I recall, he tried to get a straight answer from the CIA about her supposed covert status, which wasn't confirmed until this year.
What I heard from liberals was that a leak of classified information requires an investigation--and there was an investigation into the Plame case.
In contrast, we seem to have no less than three leaks of classified information where no investigation has taken place (NSA surveillance, banking system monitoring, European prison arrangements).
There's no question that the banking system operation was legal--but no investigation? The other two are debatable (though perhaps you disagree about that). In any case, if an investigation is supposedly mandatory, then why not proceed and find out whether a whistle-blower statute would be correctly invoked in the three instances?
It seems to me hypocritical to be against an investigation where no whistle-blower immunity has been claimed.
H. Res 418 from 2005. His trying to get the CIA to say she wasn't covert in an attempt to make it go away.
Hoekstra seems a little detached from reality. Last year, the right wing bloggers drooled over his leaked letter, in which he claimed that there is a conspiracy within the CIA to discredit Bush. Also, his brilliant coup last year with Santorum of exposing that WMD were found in Iraq. I really shouldn't pay any attention to what he says.
Post a Comment
<< Home