The question of the ascension of Alcee Hastings to the position of Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is one that will go along way toward answering the question uppermost in many people’s minds in this post election Democratic honeymoon”

Are the Democrats serious about national security?

Forget for a moment that Hastings would replace a steady, if unspectacular Jane Harmon who has taken a common sense approach to her duties, including a thoughtful appraisal of the domestic spying allegations. Also forget about Hastings impeachment nearly 20 years ago from the federal bench. He was, after all, found innocent by a jury of his peers. And reading this account by Byron York, one can see where reasonable doubt could have played a role in the juror’s decision.

On the other hand, there is an enormous amount of damning evidence as well – including Hastings’ behavior immediately after discovering that the FBI had arrested his co-conspirator. But it is all water under the bridge. It is what Hastings has done since his election in 1992 that should concern us.

And that record reveals a man who believes that the United States is the root of most of the problems in the world today. It reveals an admirer of Fidel Castro. It reveals a man with enormously troubling positions on issues vital to the security of the United States.

A sampling:

Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)

The bill was supposed to deter arms and technology sales to China. Is it good that a potential chairman of the House Intel Committee doesn’t care about a potential enemy improving the quality of it weapons which could someday be used against the US?

Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)

While this might be expected of any your run-of-the-mill liberal members of Congress, the fact is that the bill required the UN to initiate common sense reforms on things like budget and personnel matters – issues that any well run organization should be held accountable for. More should be expected from an Intel Chairman than knee jerk ideological reactions.

Voted NO on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)

Here’s a jawdropper. I’d love to hear Hastings justify lifting the travel ban on Cuba, especially after this bill made the minimum demands that the ban be lifted “only after the president has certified that Cuba has released all political prisoners, and extradited all individuals sought by the US on charges of air piracy, drug trafficking and murder.”

Voted NO on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)

Should we have withheld our UN payments until a genuine democracy (us) was returned to our seat on the Human Rights Commission? Or should we go ahead and acquiesce while Libya, Iran, and other hell holes and human rights nightmares sit in judgement? Hastings didn’t think so.

Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)

Even with amendments that addressed many civil liberties objections, Hastings still didn’t think it necessary to support the bill.

Voted NO on scheduling permitting for new oil refineries. (Jun 2006)

The recent spike in gas prices was not so much a crude oil supply problem but rather a refined gasoline supply problem. That’s because we haven’t built a new refinery in this country in 20 years. We actually import refined oil products. This bill would have allowed for expedited refinery approval.

Voted YES on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR.

It all makes perfect sense. Not only oppose new domestic refineries but oppose finding new domestic supplies.

Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)

A small matter but experts say that such nationwide standards would make it easier to spot illegal entrants to the US. And the bill also had a provision to toughen asylum requirements by expanding the number of relevant factors – another small but important step in keeping the homeland secure.

Voted NO on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005)

Where are tomorrow’s officers going to come from? Hastings wants to make it harder for both the military and students to find out.

Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004)

While not necessarily a bad vote, reforming the intelligence community was the number one priority spelled out by the Commission. One would think that someone deadly serious about our intelligence agencies would have voted for the measure and then worked to shape the reform measures that he though necessary.

****************************************

It should be noted that Hastings, while getting close to a zero rating from most conservative groups, also supported the deployment of SDI as well as voting to continue the Iraq War – despite voting against it at the outset which no one should hold against him. He is not entirely disinterested in improving our military and his record on veterans affairs is exemplary.

But the votes above reveal someone who, in my opinion, does not share the urgency nor the seriousness of purpose that the times demand. For that reason, the Democrats would do well to find another candidate (if Pelosi is deadset on allowing her personal vendetta against Harmon to potentially harm national security) who shows the same kind of thoughtfulness as Jane Harmon brought to the position of Intel Chairman.

Whether that is possible within the current ideological context of the Democratic party will determine whether the nation can trust the party to carry out its responsibilities of governance during a time of war with the zeal and seriousness that our situation requires.