The Next Hurrah: Why Are Pete Hoekstra's Knickers in a Twist?

October 18, 2006

Why Are Pete Hoekstra's Knickers in a Twist?

by emptywheel

Laura Rozen has been cataloging the back and forth between Jane Harman and Pete Hoekstra. First, Jane Harman unilaterally released the executive summary of the report on how Duke Cunningham executed his graft (a fair response, I think, to all the clear propaganda they've got Fred Fleitz churning out over there). Then, Pete Hoekstra got wee bit upset with her for having done so.

Today the committee's Ranking Member, Jane Harman, unilaterally and without the consent and authority of the full committee, released an interim, internal report by the committee's independent counsel into the actions of former Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

Cunningham's actions to enrich himself as a Member of Congress are reprehensible, but it is reassuring that the committee's independent counsel has found no instances of wrongdoing on the part of other committee Members or the committee's staff.

That said, the unilateral decision by Harman to break our bipartisan, written agreement to review the Cunningham matter by releasing an incomplete, internal committee document that has not been reviewed by the other committee Members is disturbing and beyond the pale.

Beyond the pale!! Those are fighting words. But then, when you read the report, it's not clear what Hoekstra is so upset about.

It could be one of several things. First, it might be that the summary describes all the resources Hoekstra has, thus far, been unwilling to provide. We know there has been a squabble over whether the committee would subpoena Duke, for example, and the report mentions that.

It also might be the little network of influence the summary describes, admitting the influence of Brent Wilkes, Dusty Foggo, and Brant "Nine Fingers" Bassett.

I suspect, though, the real doozies Pete Hoekstra is trying to hide are the conclusions on the domestic spying program Duke Cunningham set up for his buddy Mitch Wade, CIFA, in the name of the War on Terror. The report says the following of CIFA:

5. As a direct consequence of the conspiracy between Cunningham and Wade, Cunningham requested and obtained HPSCI support in FY03 for a new counterintelligence project at the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA). Obtaining HPSCI support was integral to Cunningham's strategy to obtain funding for this project, which was to be run by Wade's company, MZM. Because of Cunningham's insistence, HPSCI staff agreed to support this project, despite staff's concerns that it was a "pork barrel" project and a waste of taxpayer money.

6. Over time, HPSCI staff learned of numerous "red flags" associated with the counterintelligence project, including frequently expressed questions about the ethics and integrity of Wade, doubts about the value of the project and MZM's performance, and grave concerns about the propriety of the Cunningham-Wade relationship. Despite these red flags, the responsible HPSCI staff members continued to accept and support Cunningham's growing requests for this project from FY03 through FY06. [my emphasis]

So let's see here. The Republicans, staking their reputation and electoral prospects on their ability to fight the GWOT, are in fact inventing programs of doubtful value, and contracting them out to their buddies, who in turn slather the Republicans with gifts of antique furniture and houseboats. And note the curious absence of any mention of congressmen here? I guess it's just staffers who vote to approve domestic spying programs these days.

I've been arguing for a while that this is a great new scam, outsourcing your domestic spying program. Looks like some on the House Intelligence Committee agree with me. And they seem to agree that spying on Jesus' General and Quakers doesn't help our efforts to fight terror.

I guess I can understand why Pete Hoekstra wouldn't want you to know that.

October 18, 2006 at 10:33 in Bush/Republican Scandals, Congress, Contributor--emptywheel | Permalink

The comments to this entry are closed.

The Next Hurrah

October 18, 2006

Why Are Pete Hoekstra's Knickers in a Twist?

Comments

Recent Posts

Contributors

Categories

Archives

Where We Met

Links