Admin
Verse of the Day
The Newsroom
Recent Posts
- Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
- Be Careful With Those Pardons Mr. President….Updated
- Living With Caylee
- Malia and Sasha Obama Get The First Look At What Will Be Their Bedrooms At The White House
- Elephants Have Musical Preferences Too
Recent Comments
- ~J~ on Is Obama the anti-christ? I Don’t Think So
- Sue on Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
- newton on Is Obama the anti-christ? I Don’t Think So
- newton on Is Obama the anti-christ? I Don’t Think So
- ~J~ on Be Careful With Those Pardons Mr. President….Updated
- ~J~ on Is Obama the anti-christ? I Don’t Think So
- Jonathan on Is Obama the anti-christ? I Don’t Think So
- Jonathan on Is Obama the anti-christ? I Don’t Think So
- Jonathan on Is Obama the anti-christ? I Don’t Think So
- Sue on Changes
Blogroll
Newspaper Rack
Categories
Very interesting.
Written by GussFor the second time in as many weeks, a senior House Republican may have divulged classified information in the media.
In an opinion article published in the New York Post Thursday, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., reported the top-secret budget for human spying had decreased — the type of detail normally kept under wraps for national security reasons.
“The 2008 Intelligence Authorization bill cut human-intelligence programs,” Hoekstra wrote in the piece, in which he also criticized “leaks to the news media.”
Formerly the chairman of the intelligence committee, Hoekstra is now its highest ranking Republican. In its recent budget authorizations, that committee kept from public view all figures and most discussion of spending on such classified items as human spying. Hoekstra’s apparent slip was first noted on the liberal Web site, Raw Story.
If Mr. Hoekstra wants to break ranks and disclose that information, that’s fine with me,” said Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy expert who has long pushed to declassify overall spending on intelligence. “But it is the sort of thing he has harshly criticized in the past.”
Indeed, Hoekstra’s penchant for openness appears to be selective. He has aggressively attacked unnamed opponents guilty of such leaking, accusing them of “recklessly and illegally” disclosing secrets “for political or other motives” in reports published by his committee.
He’s even exacted punishment for suspected transgressions. Last October, Hoekstra stripped the credentials of a Democratic committee aide he believed may have leaked a then-classified document to The New York Times. A month later, he quietly reinstated the aide’s access.
Hoekstra spokesman Jamal Ware said his boss’ op-ed discussed the spending without disclosing the underlying classified information.
““This is a partisan push being made by Democrats and their surrogates…there’s nothing there,” he said. Ware added that he himself had used similar language in a May press release, which stated the intelligence spending bill “cuts human intelligence programs.”
Secrets are apparently hard to keep these days. On July 31, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, allegedly disclosed a secret court ruling during a television interview with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto.
~J~ Says:
August 11th, 2007 at 10:01 amVisit ~J~
If I felt like doing the research right now I could show you the name of a Democrat in the DOJ who has leaked to the New York Times and is about to be investigated and hopefully prosecuted for it.
~J~ Says:
August 11th, 2007 at 10:16 amVisit ~J~
Per Michael Isikoff the leaker’s name is Thomas M. Tamm, previously worked in Justice’s Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR)—the supersecret unit that oversees surveillance of terrorist and espionage targets.
What he doesn’t tell us is that if you check here you will see he gave the DNC $300 in 2004. Not a great amount, but nothing listed for giving anything to the RNC.
You have to check individual search and then type in his first and last name.
Guss Says:
August 11th, 2007 at 10:26 amVisit Guss
What’s your point?
Guss Says:
August 11th, 2007 at 10:29 amVisit Guss
Sometimes I don’t understand what you’re trying to get at. Are you saying that Democrats did it too, so that makes it okay? I just don’t understand where you’re coming from. Are you trying to tell me that he gave money to the Democrats so that makes him dishonest and the story can’t be true?
Guss Says:
August 11th, 2007 at 10:36 amVisit Guss
Why don’t you just come out and say that Republicans can do wrong? This is not a partisan issue. If someone is leaking secrets, they should be prosecuted. It doesn’t matter if they’re Democrat or Republican. I would post this no matter who it was that was leaking information.
Try not to get so offended every time I post something.
~J~ Says:
August 11th, 2007 at 11:26 amVisit ~J~
Look at the headline of your post. That’s why I showed you the other information, and you’re right. All leakers should be punished regardless of party. You’re beginning to sound like a nagging husband.
david Says:
August 11th, 2007 at 11:07 pmVisit david
I hate it when you two fight like this. Almost seems like you’ve had years of experience doing it
You know you’re both playing tit-for-tat, don’t you? 
~J~ Says:
August 11th, 2007 at 11:30 pmVisit ~J~
David,
We talk on the phone and laugh at ourselves. We don’t take our “arguments” here seriously, and neither should you.
david Says:
August 12th, 2007 at 9:00 amVisit david
Don’t worry–I don’t take them seriously at all. I’m just teasing. I find this one particularly funny. It seemed like a “Yes, you did; no I didn’t argument.” I can picture you as kids stuck in the back seat of a car together.
~J~ Says:
August 12th, 2007 at 9:04 amVisit ~J~
That kind of sums it up, David, but in the end we still love each other. I guess we need to watch it here though because others might think we’re being mean to each other.