Will Hoekstra's informants speak to the press? Have they already?

[Rose Siding]

Mr. Hoekstra has also been an outspoken critic of government employees who leak classified information to outsiders and of the news media for printing articles about it, and he has suggested that tougher legislation may be necessary.

But on Sunday, discussing how he learned of the administration's failure to brief the committee, Mr. Hoekstra said, "This is actually a case where the whistle-blower process was working appropriately."

"Some people within the intelligence community brought to my attention some programs that they believed we had not been briefed on," he said, adding, "They were right."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/10/washington/10hoekstra.html?hp&ex=1152504000&en=f930180e7294711a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Will the informants be mollified by a letter, and briefings after-the-fact? The press could already have the story. Maybe they won't print it. How cowed are they, after being attacked so recently by the bushies on all fronts? Every defense offered since the banking scoop stipulates how willing they are to withhold information that they consider too sensitive.

We know that Hoekstra believes that the program in question may be illegal ("If these allegations are true, they may represent a breach of responsibility by the administration, a violation of the law...") When does that quaint concept of accountability kick in?

Just a few years ago, Hoekstra's revelation would have been nothing more than a brief prelude to a scandal, a warm up to a hot frenzy of investigation on behalf of the press, that may have dealt a death blow to another administration.

I'm betting it's already out there. What do you think?

[TomInTib]

1. I think it's out there and Hoekstra's trying to get in front of it. nt

[ninkasi]

2. It must be really bad

if Hoekstra is concerned. When will Congress start to do it's job? I hate all of the dithering they do about what may, or may not be legal. They are the ones who pass the laws, don't they know?

[Rose Siding]

3. Their mindset is purely partisan, so there had to have been some pressure.

If the opposing party controlled the Senate, bush would be toast. I can only imagine that he took the step he did because the whistleblower included a Democrat on the intel panel, too, when he went to the chair. That would have leveraged Hoekstra to take this (at best) inadequate step.

4. Emptywheel did essay on this.

Hoekstra's Threat
by emptywheel

""I had a feeling there was something more--a lot more--to the Lichtblau-Shane story reporting a surveillance program that Peter Hoekstra hadn't been briefed on. Only I wasn't sharp enough to do what texas dem did--look for the letter referenced in the article. Thanks to texas dem, we can see clearly that Hoekstra's complaints about undisclosed surveillance programs are nothing more than a threat leveled in response to the Administration's departure from previous efforts to gut the intelligence agencies.""

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/07/hoekstras_threa.html

[noonwitch]

5. I'm not sure Hoekstra is all that trustworthy

I don't trust West Michigan republicans.

[Rose Siding]

6. No way- I bet a dem was tipped, too, so his hand was forced.

As chair of the cmte, it was appropriate for him to take action and if a dem knows about the program it may not be all over yet.