I have a beautiful theory. It’s even more beautiful than I am. And, as all those who have actually seen me in the flesh will attest, that is a very high standard. (Helpful hint to any repressed Christians who may be in our midst: rapidly muttered Hail Marys or Our Fathers have proven effective in preventing unchaste thoughts.)

(Grudging truth-in-blogging admission: One of the beauties of the internets is that if you suppress vital information – like a photograph, for instance – you can claim anything you want. Assuming always that friends and family can never be moved to turn you in, no matter how high the reward. If Osama bin-Laden can remain free despite a $25 million reward, I don’t see why I can’t remain beautiful.)

The beauty of my theory lies in the fact that no one can ever disprove it. Because my theory cleverly argues that there will never be any proof. Or not until the classified papers of this Bush administration get de-classified.

I have figured out why Peter Hoekstra wrote that letter to President Bush. And why he arranged for it to be leaked.

The crucial information came from WaPo’s piece on the Hoekstra letter:

Much of Hoekstra’s letter to Bush outlined the chairman’s objections — which were widely known — to the appointment of Stephen R. Kappes as CIA deputy director under Hayden. Kappes quit the CIA in 2004 in a dispute with then-Director Porter J. Goss. Goss preceded Hoekstra as House intelligence committee chairman, and many Republicans remain loyal to him.

Let’s see now, Hoekstra wrote President Bush a long letter objecting to the appointment of Kappes as CIA deputy director. In passing, he happened to throw in the tidbit that he had proof that the President had violated the law. Can there be any doubt that Hoekstra’s letter was a blatant attempt to blackmail President Bush into shooting down Kappes’ appointment?

Bush didn’t listen. And so Hoekstra delivered on his implicit threat: he leaked the letter.

Now, I want you to think about that for just a moment. In politics, would you leak a letter like that just for vengeance, just because you were playing political poker and someone called your bluff? Not if you’re any good at the game. And let’s go ahead and assume that someone who has risen to chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee is pretty good.

If you’re that good, you would leak that letter only with an eye to the future. It wouldn’t be about vengeance for the past, but only about getting the President’s attention next time you send him a Dear George letter.

So this is what the leak of Hoekstra’s letter tells me: Peter Hoekstra fully expects to send Bush another such letter which says I know you broke the law thusly, and by the way this is what I really, really want for the holiday season, except who has the patience to wait till December, you know?

And then I start thinking: what if Hoekstra never comes up with another red-handed violation on Bush’s part? Wouldn’t it be foolish of him to rile the President now by leaking this letter if he may never be in a position to capitalize on it in the future?

Swift on the heels of that comes the thought: why leak the letter now? It was written three weeks ago. What made Hoekstra leak the letter now?

So that’s the second thing the leak of Hoekstra’s letter tells me: Peter Hoekstra just became aware of another violation of the law by the President.

Hoekstra surely wouldn’t be where he is today if he let the grass grow under his feet. So I’m betting that the second Dear George letter has already been delivered. Of course, we’re not going to find out in a hurry, because George isn’t likely to ignore this one too. So Hoekstra will never have to arrange for it to be leaked to the press. It will be classified and buried wherever sensitive classified Presidential papers get buried till it’s time for them to see the light of day.

So there will be no direct proof (or otherwise) till Bush’s sensitive classified Presidential papers are de-classified. Alert students will have recognized, though, that indirect proof of my theory could well be available in the short-term.

For example, if we learn tomorrow or next week or next month that Hoekstra has contracted a sudden case of death, or that he has resigned from public life without explanation, we will know exactly what to make of it, won’t we?

Unfortunately, by putting this in print we have probably just assured Peter Hoekstra a long political career, or death by entirely natural causes (as opposed to apparently natural causes), or both.