Jane Harman is Going to Have Bad Day

-

harman222.jpgRepresentative Jane Harman denies that she agreed to lobby on behalf of two AIPAC employees facing espionage-related charges in exchanging for AIPAC lobbying Nancy Pelosi to allow Harman to assume the chair of the House Intelligence Committee.
But there’s growing clamor over an National Security Agency intercept that, if true, seems to call into question Representative Harman’s insistence that she would not do this — even if she didn’t.
What is on the tape is on the tape — and several officials are reporting off the record that they heard the tape and Jane Harman’s comments. If this is true, I hope that Representative Harman will put the entire truth out there.
I have always been aware of Jane Harman’s closeness to AIPAC — but that said, I also know that Jane Harman gave a “no false choice” speech at a New America Foundation/National Iranian American Council conference a few years ago that strongly endorsed an engagement strategy with Iran. During that conference at at other meetings I have had with Representative Harman, she boldly admitted that she was wrong on key aspects of the Iraq War, on trusting the administration on the WMD intelligence, and on other fronts.
And thus despite this uncomfortable news about the Lawrence Franklin, Steve Rosen, and Keith Weissman espionage case — that really does need more attention and needs to proceed in the courts — I think that Harman is a leading national security Democrat who was willing to see the folly and destructiveness of the zero-sum game approach that American presidential administrations and Middle East negotiators have been applying in the Middle East.
But this is serious stuff — and I look forward to Jane Harman’s statements as this tape controversy unfolds.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

85 comments on “Jane Harman is Going to Have Bad Day

  1. susan says:

    http://tinyurl.com/c9q8vt
    Jonathan Turley writes:
    Israeli Foreign Minister: The United States Does What Israel Decides Should Be Done
    Published 1, April 22, 2009
    At a time when the Harman scandal is focusing attention on the power of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Congress, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is quoted in his very first interview on foreign policy as saying “Believe me, America accepts all our decisions.”
    Lieberman claims the country has such a hold on American politics that it would be ideal to “bring the U.S. and Russia closer.”
    Lieberman is controversial and caused an outburst last year when he told Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a key U.S. ally, to “go to hell.” Sounds ideal for a diplomat in the new Israeli government.
    The Lieberman comments come in the same week as National Union Chairman Ya’acov “Ketzele” Katz wrote a letter to remind him “not to forget you’re Jewish.” The letter was prompted by a report that Emmanuel irritated an American Jewish leader by saying “In the next four years, there will be a peace agreement with the Palestinians on the basis of two states for two peoples, and it does not matter to us who is the prime minister.”
    It is astonishing to see these stories which only fuel objections to the degree of power exercised in Washington by Israel and Israeli lobbyists. It is unclear what these men think they are achieving in such public statements, but it is making things pretty hot in Washington this week.

    Reply

  2. questions says:

    Daro,
    Snark is snark. Yes, I got the reference.

    Reply

  3. Daro says:

    @Questions
    “”[T]oo much” for what? What should I think for youthinks?”
    If you don’t understand the meaning of the quote then I would suggest despite your English ability you were not fully educated in Western Europe or the US.
    Don’t worry. Plenty of other people get it…

    Reply

  4. Mr.Murder says:

    Condi Rice was shook loose from the torture authorization. More to come…. spooks got long memories, which is good because Condi can’t recall too many things in detail….

    Reply

  5. rich says:

    Stein defines the DOJ view as having a “prima facie case” that they’d “caught Harman in a ‘completed crime’.”
    Via TPM, Philip Weiss summarizes Scott Horton’s interview of Jeff Stein:
    “On hearing the tape, Justice Department lawyers’ felt that they had caught Harman in a “completed crime” that demanded investigation. Stein defined completed crime as a “prima facie case that a crime was committed, in this case, that she did something in exchange for something, in other words, a sort of pay-for-play or influence peddling kind of thing… It looks like, by just merely promising to do that, merely promising to do that, she had committed a crime…. to do a favor in exchange for something of value, which is to say, to get appointed to be the chair of the House intelligence committee.’
    “http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/on_day_three_of_the.php?ref=fp1
    Sort of conflicts with Steve’s stated view of the matter.

    Reply

  6. Pacos_gal says:

    So was it one phone call taped, or two, or more?
    Jeff Stein has added the information that not only did the contact tell Harman that Sabin would withhold donations from Pelosi if Harman wasn’t picked for Intelligence Chairman, but that Sabin did in fact tell Pelosi that and Pelosi didn’t take it very well. (went ballistic is how TPM puts it) That insinuates maybe 2 calls at least.
    Interesting that Pelosi who on Tuesday said she couldn’t remember being briefed on the taping, now can remember it but that she couldn’t talk about it.
    It seems that if she was told by Sabin that donations weren’t going to be coming her way, maybe that is something she would remember.
    According to Stein these tapes are still highly classified, which means that Harman must know they won’t be released in their entirety, making any statements about Holder releasing them, to be a moot point.

    Reply

  7. Carroll says:

    Posted by questions, Apr 22 2009, 2:20PM – Link
    “[T]oo much” for what? What should I think for youthinks?
    And for that matter (sorry for the dearth of iambs), if MJ thinks that Rosen’s not convictable, then what do you think about histhinks?>>>>>>>>>>
    MJ may be anti AIPAC but he is Pro Israel and a Jew and that is his first loyalty.
    There are dozens of anti AIPAC,pro Israel, pro J Street Jews like MJ. They might be doves on making I-P peace but they are and always will be
    Jews and Israelis first and foremost and do anything, slant anything, say anything to protect Israel’s favored client relationship with the US.
    Like Levey and the others, their deepest fear is the US will stop supporting Israel.
    They may disapprove of Israeli spying and think it’s harmful but they don’t want a trial, or any scandal or any public notice or outrage that could hurt US support of Israel. They want a peace for I-P but they also want that US taxpayer money, aid, trade favortism and arms to keep flowing to Israel.
    Therefore everything they say,write has to be viewed with that in mind.

    Reply

  8. questions says:

    “[T]oo much” for what? What should I think for youthinks?
    And for that matter (sorry for the dearth of iambs), if MJ thinks that Rosen’s not convictable, then what do you think about histhinks?

    Reply

  9. Daro says:

    “questions” doth protest too much, methinks.

    Reply

  10. questions says:

    What I get out of the criticism of the case, maybe via Rosenberg, but at this point I’m not sure where all I’ve seen this basic line, is that the handover of secret evidence that is at the core of the charges may well be normal behavior rather than pathological or criminal behavior. It would seem to be murky near as I can tell
    Since I’m closer to being a LOBBY denialist than a LOBBY reificationist, I don’t generally give a lot of credence to the conspiracy readings of these events. I see enough structural issues in Congress to bring about a range of events that I don’t really need to add in a den of Israeli spies in every nook and cranny of the US gov’t. So I could see its being possible that, rather than deliberately putting in a weak prosecutor so that the case would fail, the gov’t has actually found that the case is weak.
    As I said above, I’m not a lawyer and so I can’t at all evaluate the validity of this argument, but it makes enough sense to me that I won’t dismiss it out of hand. And given that Rosenberg is pretty completely anti-AIPAC and even he thinks it’s a weak case, then maybe indeed it is.

    Reply

  11. Sand says:

    Questions: “…I’m out of my depth on legal issues and on espionage issues…”
    But I think you are smart enough to realize that for a case such as this — the prosecution team needed to be damn hot — like having a Patrick Fitzgerald on board, and maybe if there was such ‘a plot’ [esp. during the Bush years] one way to help create such a ‘weak case’ could be to pull certain members off the team, and maybe put in place a prosecution team that might not have the reputution as being part of the DoJ’s ‘A-Team’ so to speak?
    The supposed balls-up by the prosecution team in the Ted Stevens case comes to mind. Except — in his case we were talking about one little power hungry guy that seems to get away with it [and note note, is now out of office] — with the AIPAC case — we ‘could’ be talking about a whole ‘foreign’ organization that is still well embedded and can continue to cause immense trouble for years to come.

    Reply

  12. questions says:

    Sand,
    The “plot” thing was a bit of snark. I think someone posted here that JStreet is actually part of AIPAC, so it occurred to me that maybe MJ is as well. Maybe everything is…. (More snark.)
    And POA, I wasn’t citing a “weak case” as coming from my own work. I was citing MJ Rosenberg who, it would seem, is on your side of things. So if MJ thinks it’s a weak case, then maybe it is. I’m out of my depth on legal issues and on espionage issues, so I’m not going to render a judgment. Rather, I am simply noting that there’s an anti-AIPAC guy out there who thinks the case is weak.
    Crabs at a brothel?

    Reply

  13. Mr.Murder says:

    Another prime point to make:
    OPPOSE the COnyers committee hearings on torture, this is a free pass from GOP elements and Democratic hawks to waive liability in return for “I can’t recall” testimony.
    Without the threqat of prosecution there is no grounds for meaningful disclosure of others illegal acts.
    BE WARNED- you allow this move forward with free passes for torturers then it opens up your own personal liability as party to these acts.
    Might not want to travel overseas on anyone with good extradition terms @ the World Court, etc.

    Reply

  14. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Hmmmm. Or maybe there’s a weak case against these guys”
    Hmmm, you gotta love it. Questions is as predictable as crabs at a brothel.

    Reply

  15. Mr.Murder says:

    The GOPers wanting to block Guantanimo’s closing have ties to the money trail of contractor abuse(a literal use of that term).
    IF Gitmo closes THEN civil discovery for liability suits can take place and the procedures for that are far tougher to defend against than the word of US warlord tribunals that we’ve used to prop these illegal wars up with.
    Push hard, follow the money….

    Reply

  16. Sand says:

    I think as soon as Rosen’s plot came out that he was planning on suing the AIPAC leadership [that includes Steny Hoyer’s sister BTW] and threatening to spill the beans on how AIPAC works… then I think things got a little tricky.
    Rosen, Steven J.
    vs.
    American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Inc.
    http://www.irmep.org/ila/rosen/default.asp
    Also, this sorta important stuff could start coming out:
    “….The ‘AIPAC Two’ aren’t the only ones on Trial by Douglas M. Bloomfield [ex-AIPAC lobbyist]
    http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/030509/opedAIPACtwo.html
    “…One of the topics AIPAC won’t want discussed, say these sources, is how closely it coordinated with Benjamin Netanyahu in the 1990s, when he led the Israeli Likud opposition and later when he was prime minister, to impede the Oslo peace process being pressed by President Bill Clinton and Israeli Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres.
    That could not only validate AIPAC’s critics, who accuse it of being a branch of the Likud, but also lead to an investigation of violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
    “What they don’t want out is that even though they publicly sounded like they were supporting the Oslo process, they were working all the time to undermine it,” said a well-informed source…”
    A trial, or even a civil case that might highlight the fact we still have many of those same operatives now working with and in the Obama administration.
    —————–
    I will say this — If it is legally possible to declassify those tapes… because they would not be part of a on-going or re-opened investigation — and Harman agrees to have her ‘complete’ telephone call out in public — then I’m all for hearing the context of the call. And if it turns out to be what is alledged that Harman acts as basically an AIPAC lackey agreeing to interfer in an espionage case then I think it’s important to have that type of information come out. Hell with the Blago case — this has far more national security reaching implications — esp. again if what is alledged turns out to be true, and there was a chance Pelosi didn’t get to know what she was up to — and for Harman to get the chair of the intelligence committee.
    ——————–
    Where you got MJ being part of a PLOT god only knows? He just knows how AIPAC works — same as
    Bloomsfield.

    Reply

  17. questions says:

    I seem to recall that MJ Rosenberg, formerly of AIPAC, and now against it, posted some weeks ago that he thought the charges against Rosen should be dropped. So is this a PLOT? Perhaps only to those who look for plots whenever AIPAC is mentioned. Maybe MJ is part of the PLOT and he only pretends he’s not. Hmmmm. Or maybe there’s a weak case against these guys. But no, AIPAC is guilty in all cases and the cases are all airtight. I forgot for a sec.
    Dan K, love the image of Greenwald’s brain!

    Reply

  18. Dan Kervick says:

    It sure looks like Harman and her legal advisers have decided on the tactic of playing to the civil libertarian crowd with a lot of huffy outrage about abuses of power, overreaching etc.
    It’s political divide and conquer: a rhetorical commissurotomy designed to separate the two hemispheres of Glenn Greenwald’s brain.

    Reply

  19. Don Bacon says:

    Perhaps this is another “controlled burn” with Harman as the temporary fuel only eventually to be made good as new (unlike Larry Franklin) and with the two AIPAC guys let off the hook as the pawns they were. (h/t rjj)
    from Karen Kwiatkowski:
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski91.html

    Reply

  20. ... says:

    wiretapping is what happens to other people, not her, lol….

    Reply

  21. DonS says:

    Via TPM. and others, Harman is shocked, shocked . . . about just about this eavesdropping, that if it happened to her, a Congressperson no less, why it could happen to you, an ordinary slob of a citizen.
    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/harman_if_there_are_tapes_out_there_bring_it_on.php?ref=fp2
    So why did she and the rest of the rubber stampers fall over themselves to authorize warenntless wiretapping?
    Methinks the lady doth protest extraordnarily too much.

    Reply

  22. Don Bacon says:

    So, the plot sickens, I mean thickens. The timing is interesting.
    Harman was only recently added to the published speakers list at the upcoming AIPAC Policy Conference May 3-5, the annual Israel pep rally that brings fond praise from politicos of both US parties. This year it features Senator Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
    Shortly after this agenda change, or shortly before?, the new(?) revelations on Harman’s two-year-old Justice interest surface, and now the long-delayed trial of the two AIPAC recipients of US classified information may be dropped.
    I see it as AIPAC adding Harman to the conference agenda to force the US hand, the tape then surfacing from either a whistle-blower or, more likely, AIPAC, and finally a top-level US decision to drop charges before the big AIPAC convention which will include (judging from the past) over 7,000 attendees with half the US Senate and many House members included in that total.
    Score one for AIPAC using Harman as its tool to force the US hand.
    I predict that the applause meter needle will hit the peg when Harman is introduced to speak at about 10:30 am on Sunday, May 3, in Washington DC.
    The other new speaker added to the agenda, by the way, is Maj. Gen. Ido Nechustan, commander of the Israeli Air Force. It’s unusual for AIPAC to have military speakers at this political conference.
    http://www.aipac.org/about_AIPAC/Learn_About_AIPAC/2841.asp

    Reply

  23. Alec Dubro says:

    I can’t see any justification for Harman’s conversation, whether she
    followed through or not. But is Harman getting a harder time of it
    than Ted Kennedy or other Irish-American politicians did for
    backing the Republican cause in Ireland? I’ve been blacklisted and
    castigated by enraged Zionists, but something about the level of
    outrage over Israeli shenanigans, as opposed to all the others,
    makes me uncomfortable.

    Reply

  24. questions says:

    David N,
    What a nice ramble! But how does one devise a system with a different set of incentives? Select only those legislators who don’t want the power? Plato suggests this, but he does so in the context of an unworkable and grossly repressive system. Pay for all campaigning? Well, the boundary issues (who’s a legitimate recipient of public financing? How much is enough money? How do we stop money from entering at the margins?) are perhaps insuperable.
    In a way, we’re stuck with careerist opportunists whose major checks on behavior are opposition research, the utter craving for re-election, the drawing of safe districts, and the puffed up chest and tail feathers that signal away any competition (I think this is called a “war chest”.)
    There’s such a compelling logic to the functioning of Congress as a group, a society, a system, a response to a structured set of pressures, a set of individuals, a desire for organization and the subsequent rebellion against organization when it gets in the way…. I doubt we could build it much differently.
    So where so many see the horrors of corruptive influence and are sure that AIPAC or whatever CAUSES the problems, I see structures that are inherent. Of course Harman was pressured. Of course she kind of knew the pressure was an issue. Of course she promised. Quite reasonably she hoped not to keep the promise. Possibly she did keep the promise at some level. Nothing shocking; and what’s more, from my point of view, nothing really dismaying.
    By the way, Thom Hartmann thinks Gonzo’s use of the tape as a pressure source is more the issue than AIPAC or anything else. Wiretapping leads to political snooping leads to pressure for legislative support of admin goals. (I think Hartmann used the word “blackmail.”)

    Reply

  25. David N says:

    This is a perfect example of how Washington works.
    Her defense, which is being treated as acceptable, is that she lied.
    She said that she would lobby on behalf of the agents, then did nothing.
    Well, nothing wrong with that, after all. It’s what politicians do.
    Another reminder — as if we needed it — is that what’s wrong with Washington is not the things they do that are illegal (though that doesn’t seem to count, as they are never really held accountable or prosecuted just for breaking the law or violating the Constitution — move along, don’t look back). What’s wrong in Washington is the things they do that are legal.
    Or maybe what’s wrong is that there is no difference. I’m rambling again . . . . . .

    Reply

  26. Carroll says:

    Every time a Harman gets caught red handed the usual suspects throw everything but the kitchen sink into the discussion.
    This leak is not about Harman and torture memos, or Harman and Iraq or Harman and wiretapping or Harman and Bush or the repubs going after the dems or the CIA revenge against the dems…although it may have benefited some of those politics.
    It’s about AIPAC and those in congress who collaborate with AIPAC. There are people who want AIPAC’s reign in congress to end. And exposing Harman is a small warning shot to congress. There are years of FBI tapes of AIPAC and years of NSA intercepts. I imagine today some congresspeople are trying to remember what they might have said in conversations with certain people.
    It’a taken 20 years to get AIPAC’s true nature into public discourse..let’s not take our eye off the ball.
    “For many years I have felt that the situation in the Middle East was very nearly hopeless. The fundamental problem for us is that we have lost our freedom of action in the Middle East and are committed to policies that promote neither our own national interest nor the cause of peace. AIPAC (the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee) and its allied organizations have effective working control of the electoral process. They can elect or defeat nearly any congressman or senator that they wish, with their money and coordinated organization”
    ..Senator J. William Fulbright
    The Price of Empire,1989, Pantheon Books, p. 183

    Reply

  27. Pacos_gal says:

    I think TPM is on the right track with the question of why has this come out now? What is going on within intelligence that this information (confirmation of a NSA wiretap on a suspected foreign agent) would be released? Is it the upcoming trial of those AIPAC employees on espionage charges? It must have been a planed release to get 3 people to talk about it.
    It is doubtful that the caller is Saban since the caller referred to him as being willing to withhold donations from Pelosi if Harman didn’t get the intelligence job. Since it is the NSA, that implies that the caller was of a foreign origination.
    Is the investigation ongoing or over in regards to this specific caller? Since releasing this information obviously lets the caller know that he is being monitored/investigated.
    There is a lot of information that we don’t know about what was going on and what is going on with the investigation that Harman was “caught up in”.
    Some information has trickled out today through the NYT but whether we’ll ever get any thing in depth is questionable.
    Gonzales obviously had something on someone (Harman) and used it, it’s called blackmail and is it really surprising that it was used.

    Reply

  28. Outraged American says:

    Steve’s famous! Is Congressman Jane Harman An Israeli Agent of
    Influence?
    From the Huffington Post:
    Did it? Harman says it ain’t so. The controversy, she says, is a
    “recycled canard,” old news that doesn’t deserve a scintilla of
    attention. But Steve Clemons of the always valuable Washington
    Note says, like a number of other bloggers, that it does. He says
    Harman is having a “bad day” and needs to make a fuller
    explanation of what did or did not happen.
    http://tinyurl.com/cxmutx

    Reply

  29. Linda says:

    POA,
    Doesn’t much matter if she waddles or slithers, if she does either. She quacked on the tape like a fowl that waddles. Walk like one, talk like one. It’s not appropriate behavior for a member of Congress.
    And worse yet, since you are in CA, you’ve got Jay Bybee in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for life though Congress should impeach him.

    Reply

  30. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “And as far as I can tell, we so far have no clear press reports about exactly what kind of intercession Harman promised – just something about “waddling in”‘
    No, if its Harman, she would “slither in”.

    Reply

  31. DonS says:

    Nuance aside — and not knowing she was being taped — what horrendously improper, perhaps even ‘quaisi-traitorous’ judgment did Rep. Harman show to engage in this discussion?
    This can of worms will never, IMO, been opened sufficiently to have a debate on the propriety of a Congressperson discussing a case involving espionage against her own country with an agent of the suspected spy’s handlers. “Waddle into” may have been the means by which Rep. “Harman sought to hedge her commitment to her benefactors. “Get lost” was the appropriate response, and, I will be informing the FBI of our discussion.

    Reply

  32. rich says:

    I agree. Dearth of evidence that “Jane Harman interfered at all in the Franklin/Rosen/Weissman affair” is not the same as the evidence that Jane Harman agreed to interfere in the investigation of two AIPAC officials — which we do have.
    Yet that does not mean she did not make good on her promised quid pro quo.
    What we have now closely parallels Rod Blagojevich’s situation: taped evidence of a discussion of wrongdoing, that we did not yet /do not yet know actually occured. Harman, like Blagojevich, discussed a quid pro quo that violated legal statutes. She knows it too, even if Blagojevich seemed not to, saying “This conversation never happened.”
    We didn’t know whether Blagojevich actually extorted money or favors when the story initially broke or whether he was just engaged in bluster surrounding ordinary but mutually beneficial political arrangements. His statements appeared damning, but evidence of the actual act was not yet known.
    Same with Ms. Harman. The appearance is damning, but the specifics are not yet known. It’s implausible to think the rest of the story isn’t also on tape.
    Why do I have the feeling that Ms. Harman will be treated with far more deference than Mr. Blagojevich?
    And — CQ made the quid pro quo plain (as does TPM):
    “Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.
    Harman was recorded saying she would “waddle into” the AIPAC case “if you think it’ll make a difference,” according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.”

    Reply

  33. Steve Clemons says:

    Interesting comments above. I agree with POA that it would really move this story forward and the issue overall if the identity of the suspected Israel agent were disclosed or uncovered.
    I spoke with the author of the CQ article, Jeff Stein, who did a brilliant job on this investigative piece. I can’t tell you how hard it is to get three officials with knowledge of the intercept transcript to speak — and this all of course builds on the great sleuthing that Tim Burger did a couple of years ago. At that time though, it was tough to get any further that Tim did.
    I don’t see evidence that Jane Harman interfered at all in the Franklin/Rosen/Weissman affair — but I am bothered by her knowledge that this was a discussion she should not have been having.
    But the deeper issue is the Israeli agent — and the game underfoot at that time. Pursuing that thread is the only way that this story can move in the direction it should.
    Since so much has been leaked of the transcript, someone really should put the identity of the suspected agent into the public.

    Reply

  34. Sand says:

    hmmm…”waddling in” ~~ also, could it mean that with her ties with the administration she subsequently found out she didn’t have to create such a fuss at the DoJ anyway?
    Interesting timeline parallels:
    @ tpmmuckraker
    “– Around mid-2005: The Justice Department expands its investigation into the AIPAC spying case to include whether Harman schemed with AIPAC to have wealthy supporters lobby House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi to reappoint Harman as the top Democrat on the House intel committee. In return, it was alleged that Harman said she’ll press DOJ to go easy on Steve Rosen and Ken Weissman, two former AIPAC staffers implicated in the Franklin indictment.
    — Aug 2005: Rosen and Weissman are indicted (pdf) for their role in the AIPAC espionage. [Doj Prosecutor: Paul McNulty]
    * Oct 2005 – Franklin pleads guilty to unauthorized disclosure of classified information, and is later sentenced to almost 13 years in prison.
    Parallel:
    Aipac Prosecutor McNulty nominated to the position of Deputy Attorney General on October 20, 2005,
    oops — has to resign under a cloud May 14th, 2007.
    Rosen brings in McNulty into his suit:
    “…Rosen, for decades as the top foreign policy analyst at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee said federal prosecutor Paul McNulty pressured the organization to dismiss Rosen in 2005 as part of a government campaign to prosecute two senior AIPAC officers with espionage…
    …”We could make real progress and get AIPAC out from under all of us,” McNulty was quoted by Rosen’s suit as saying…”
    http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/ss_israel0238_03_23.asp
    very curious.

    Reply

  35. Sand says:

    hmmm…”waddling in” ~~ also, could it mean that with her ties with the administration she subsequently found out she didn’t have to create such a fuss at the DoJ anyway?
    Interesting timeline parallels:
    @ tpmmuckraker
    “– Around mid-2005: The Justice Department expands its investigation into the AIPAC spying case to include whether Harman schemed with AIPAC to have wealthy supporters lobby House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi to reappoint Harman as the top Democrat on the House intel committee. In return, it was alleged that Harman said she’ll press DOJ to go easy on Steve Rosen and Ken Weissman, two former AIPAC staffers implicated in the Franklin indictment.
    — Aug 2005: Rosen and Weissman are indicted (pdf) for their role in the AIPAC espionage. [Doj Prosecutor: Paul McNulty]
    * Oct 2005 – Franklin pleads guilty to unauthorized disclosure of classified information, and is later sentenced to almost 13 years in prison.
    Parallel:
    Aipac Prosecutor McNulty nominated to the position of Deputy Attorney General on October 20, 2005,
    oops — has to resign under a cloud May 14th, 2007.
    Rosen brings in McNulty into his suit:
    “…Rosen, for decades as the top foreign policy analyst at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee said federal prosecutor Paul McNulty pressured the organization to dismiss Rosen in 2005 as part of a government campaign to prosecute two senior AIPAC officers with espionage…
    …”We could make real progress and get AIPAC out from under all of us,” McNulty was quoted by Rosen’s suit as saying…”
    http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/ss_israel0238_03_23.asp
    very curious.

    Reply

  36. Dan Kervick says:

    Don,
    So far, there is nothing to suggest that Harman was involved in any kind of espionage. Presumably this suspected Israeli agent is someone who works for Aipac, and has talked to any number of members of Congress in that capacity. The fact that this person was himself under investigation for espionage does not mean Harman knew that person was under investigation for espionage, or that she was involved in espionage herself. Maybe she knew and maybe she didn’t. But so far we’ve got nothing on this from the press.
    And as far as I can tell, we so far have no clear press reports about exactly what kind of intercession Harman promised – just something about “waddling in”. I’m no lawyer, and so I wouldn’t necessarily be able to tell the difference between what’s legal and what’s illegal even if I knew all the facts. But my guess is that powerful veteran members of Congress like Harman know how to make deals that stay on the side of technical legality, although they might “create the appearance of impropriety” if revealed. Call me cynical, but I tend to think the average member of Congress does three or four things before breakfast every day that would create the appearance of impropriety if revealed.

    Reply

  37. Don Bacon says:

    Sorry, Dan, dog bites man it isn’t.
    This is Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, who was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.
    This is a powerful congresswoman. This is a suspected foreign agent. This is espionage. This is not at all like you calling your local prosecutor, no way.
    Put it this way: Even Steve is concerned.

    Reply

  38. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “What I see floating around on this site is an analogy between AIPAC and, say, the devil”
    Nah, that’d be ‘ol Dick Cheney.
    I’d be more prone to make the analogy to a big fat blood suckin’ leech if I had AIPAC on my mind.

    Reply

  39. Carroll says:

    I am sure POA and some others here who followed the Franklin and AIPAC scandal for more than a 5 minute rant know full well that the FBI and “another government agency” had both been investigating AIPAC for sometime on something much larger than Franklin…he just got picked up on their wiretaps that were aimed something much bigger.
    Same for Harman, she got caught as a blip in the larger investigation.
    The “other agency” whether it is the CIA or NSA or both has been one of the main sticking points in the trial. Early on there was a ‘problem’ over classified info that the FBI and this “other unnamed agency” shared. The FBI can’t reveal what the “other’ agency has or shared without that agency’s permission and settling matters on it’s national security implications. That has been a major problem in the case for the FBI prosecution and a problem the defense has used to their advantage.
    Common sense says that if both a domestic agency,the FBI, and a foreign security agency, the CIA or NSA, were both investigating AIPAC to the point where their information intersected then there is a huge,huge, gaint size pony buried under all the AIPAC shit.
    Also says that if the “other agency” doesn’t want the information put out in court they still have a use for it remaining restricted to them alone.
    Which means they still have a use for it and are still continuing to investigate AIPAC.
    Franklin was blip, Harman is a blip…10 to one, the FBI and the “other agency” get AIPAC in the end…they have been after AIPAC too long to quit now. What ever they are after it is bigger than a corrupt congresswoman and bit player like Franklin.

    Reply

  40. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “My guess is you’ll find…a lobby that lobbies. Very scary. It probably lobbies for positions its directors take to be pro-Israeli. It probably exaggerates threat levels to generate donations. It probably gives campaign money to supporters, threatens to fund primary opponents, treats MCs to stand up snacks with toothpicks (isn’t there some ethics reform that makes sit-down dinners with lobbyists unacceptable?). It probably makes phone calls, writes op-eds, advertises, starts e-mail and letter writing and phone call inundations. And it looks like it maybe asks Harman to talk to her friends at Justice”
    You forgot the part about espionage, questions.
    And, uh, it probably resorts to blackmail and pay-offs as well.
    But don’t worry about this one, questions, its goin’ nowhere. The right can’t go after Harman, because they’d have to go after Gonzalez too. And the left can’t go after Gonzalez, because they’d have to go after Harman too. Then, throw in the capo, AIPAC, and neither side is going to screw with it.
    However, it certainly underscores the collusion between the right and the left that has brought our country to its knees. These people are ALL fuckin’ crooks.

    Reply

  41. Sand says:

    DK… Yes, it would be helpful if we knew she did a ‘Domenici’ ~ Maybe, just maybe that little titbit would be fodder during an AIPAC trial?
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030400507_pf.html
    Glenn Greenwald: “…As for those wondering what the possible crime would be, the allegation is that Harman agreed to use her influence as a member of Congress to intervene in a pending criminal proceeding directed at AIPAC officials in exchange for receiving something of value (namely, AIPAC’s lobbying for her to be appointed Chair of the House Intelligence Committee). It’s exactly what Pete Domenci was accused of: trying to influence DOJ prosecutions for political ends, though in the case of the allegations against Harman, it’s even worse, since the suggestion is that she agreed to interfere in the criminal proceedings in exchange for AIPAC’s support of her quest to become Intelligence Committee Chair…”
    Coz, ultimately according to Stein’s piece Harman wasn’t the target… “…part of “a court-approved NSA tap directed [was] at alleged Israel covert action operations in Washington…”
    Would it be just wishful thinking if I thought there actually might be an AIPAC trial.

    Reply

  42. questions says:

    Okay, just for you POA:
    INVESTIGATE AIPAC!!!!!!
    There, I said it. My guess is you’ll find…a lobby that lobbies. Very scary. It probably lobbies for positions its directors take to be pro-Israeli. It probably exaggerates threat levels to generate donations. It probably gives campaign money to supporters, threatens to fund primary opponents, treats MCs to stand up snacks with toothpicks (isn’t there some ethics reform that makes sit-down dinners with lobbyists unacceptable?). It probably makes phone calls, writes op-eds, advertises, starts e-mail and letter writing and phone call inundations. And it looks like it maybe asks Harman to talk to her friends at Justice. We’ll see, I guess.
    I’ve had tossing around my brain the following thoughts over the last hour or two (glad you have fog lights as I am merely muddying the water — to mix metaphors in an artistic and delightful manner):
    What we know, we know through analogy, not directly. No Platonic Forms, no knowledge of the Kantian noumena/things in themselves. Human knowledge is indirect, comparative, analogical. I tend therefore to look for analogies in order to understand events. Is Iraq like Viet Nam? Or is it like some other war? The analogy one draws highlights some aspects of the war and probably masks others, but this process is central to what knowledge is. Is Harman like a regular MC, or like Stevens or Jefferson? Or is she like a spy (I can’t really conjure a name right now). Is AIPAC like all other lobbies, or like some enemy agent? And so on.
    What I see floating around on this site is an analogy between AIPAC and, say, the devil. That is, it’s the cause of evil in America, it is that without which America can return to some prior grandeur, or at least to some proper notion of self-interest. AIPAC is the Platonic ideal of corruption and dirty dealing. AIPAC must go. AIPAC is often, by the way, broadened into the much murkier ILOBBY. Without AIPAC, the US would be enlightened, properly self-interested, moral, fair to the Palestinians, humane….
    Drawing the analogy this way brings up numerous problems. First, the US is plenty wicked without AIPAC’s help. US self-interest could easily be taken to being tied to hegemony, economic domination, wage-slavery around the world, exploitation that is beyond shameful. If the US’s self-interest could be this wicked, then I can’t begin to understand how US self-interest is much of an issue vis-a-vis Israel. Second, the notion that there is this monster-under-the-bed that is the LOBBY or AIPAC suggests that Congress and the US are victims and not agents, are unable to render independent judgments in the face of the wily and dangerous LOBBY. Third, this monstrous LOBBY seems to fail often enough to suggest that it’s not the omni-omnium it’s been painted to be. Thus, I think that the lurking analogy between AIPAC/THELOBBY and wickedness itself is untenable.
    I kind of think that there is no monster under the bed, that MCs are pressured in multiple directions and respond to pressures based on what makes re-election most likely, occasionally based on ideology (which is generally tied to re-election), or based on money (which is tied to re-election). Once in a while an MC will stand up for what seems true (generally if it will help with re-election).
    Harman’s support for AIPAC is apparently pretty public; as Dan Kervick notes above, it’s unclear at this point if she actually did break any laws. The more I read, the less I know…. The investigation was interrupted by Gonzo it looks like, and as Kervick noted, Gonzo might be more the story here. (I wonder if he’s part of THELOBBY? I really never know who’s in and who’s out. It feels very middle-schoolish or HuffPo-ish to have this dilemma!)
    And Rich, I hope I didn’t leave you with the impression that I thought you were one who tossed “LOBBY” around. I tend to address more than one person at a time and I generally assume that people know whom I’m referring to. Sorry about the imprecision.

    Reply

  43. Dan Kervick says:

    I dunno Dan it looked as if she was in a pretty good position to fling some weight around and throw a few spanners in the works.
    Could be Sand. I suppose we’ll find out when we learn more about what’s on these tapes. But being in a position to obstruct justice isn’t the same thing as actually promising to obstruct justice. So far, we have no strong indication that they had the goods on her.

    Reply

  44. Sand says:

    OT: but even when she’s lost her job — she still seems to find the time to yap about her fear of Iran on the Telly…
    March 2009:
    MSNBC Interview – Transcript
    MSNBC INTERVIEW WITH REP. JANE HARMAN (D-CA)
    SUBJECT: FOREIGN POLICY, INCLUDING AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN INTERVIEWER: ANDREA MITCHELL
    http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=448379&keyword=&phrase=&contain=
    OT again: Rosen seemed really upset when Harman didn’t get the top spot at the CIA… AIPAC obviously has a very high opinion of Harman…
    http://www.meforum.org/blog/obama-mideast-monitor/2009/01/dod-biden-aides-named-jane-harman-passed-over.html

    Reply

  45. Sand says:

    DK: “…Wouldn’t she have to threaten them in some way, or do something more tangible to materially impede the investigation?…”
    I dunno Dan it looked as if she was in a pretty good position to fling some weight around and throw a few spanners in the works — all under the rubic of ‘national security,’ and to push the meme that certain diplomatic ties to foreign ‘ally’ countries might be affected if we look as if we are stepping on their toes? Maybe even helping to give the State Dept the nod to push the Doj not to pursue certain investigations – maybe?
    From Philip Weiss ~ noting Harman at the time was the ‘Ranking Member’ of the House Intelligence Committee:
    “…The ranking member slot gave her unusual access and prestige — she was a regular at White House meetings, received top secret briefings, and appeared on !!!national TV shows more than any other House Democrat!!! Again, you have to understand that Intel is different from every other House committee. Membership is split evenly between the two parties; the difference between chairman and ranking member is pretty insignificant…”
    http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/04/debunking-the-jtas-claim-that-jane-harman-had-no-political-motive-for-intrigue.html#more

    Reply

  46. Sand says:

    DK: “…Wouldn’t she have to threaten them in some way, or do something more tangible to materially impede the investigation?…”
    I dunno Dan it looked as if she was in a pretty good position to fling some weight around and throw a few spanners in the works — all under the rubic of ‘national security,’ and to push the meme that certain diplomatic ties to foreign ‘ally’ countries might be affected if we look as if we are stepping on their toes? Maybe even helping to give the State Dept the nod to push the Doj not to pursue certain investigations – maybe?
    From Philip Weiss ~ noting Harman at the time was the ‘Ranking Member’ of the House Intelligence Committee:
    “…The ranking member slot gave her unusual access and prestige — she was a regular at White House meetings, received top secret briefings, and appeared on !!!national TV shows more than any other House Democrat!!! Again, you have to understand that Intel is different from every other House committee. Membership is split evenly between the two parties; the difference between chairman and ranking member is pretty insignificant…”
    http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/04/debunking-the-jtas-claim-that-jane-harman-had-no-political-motive-for-intrigue.html#more
    And even when she’s lost her job — she still finds time to yap about her fear of Iran with Andrea Mitchell == and notice they are more than happy to let her.
    http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=448379&keyword=&phrase=&contain=
    OT: Rosen seemed really upset when Harman didn’t get the top spot at the CIA… AIPAC obviously has a very high opinion of Harman…
    http://www.meforum.org/blog/obama-mideast-monitor/2009/01/dod-biden-aides-named-jane-harman-passed-over.html

    Reply

  47. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Perhaps the more interesting allegations are the ones related to Gonzalez”
    And, of course, the identity of the “Israeli agent”.
    Then again, that might not tell us much, seeing as how most of Washington DC apparently qualifies.

    Reply

  48. Dan Kervick says:

    This seems like a dog bites man story. Yes, Rep. Harman, like many other US representatives, is a big Aipac supporter, and helps advance its agenda. In return, they support her. What else is new?
    So far, all I’m hearing is that Harman offered to “lobby” or “press” the DOJ. What does that mean? And whether she did it or not, is it illegal? If I call up my local prosecutor and say, “I don’t like the fact that you are prosecuting Joe Schmoe,” have I obstructed justice? Wouldn’t she have to threaten them in some way, or do something more tangible to materially impede the investigation?
    Politicians offer “quid” every day in exchange for various kinds of “quo”. That’s how politics is done. Unless the quo is money, or some other form of personal enrichment, or the quid is something it is illegal for them to do, then it is just a straight-up political horsetrade, isn’t it?
    Perhaps the more interesting allegations are the ones related to Gonzalez.

    Reply

  49. PissedOffAmerican says:

    I note questions is more than willing to investigate Harman, yet says nothing about investigating AIPAC. These kinds of incidents truly underscore the national security IMPERATIVE that we stop screwing around with AIPAC, and require them to register as a foreign agent. Or better yet, kick their slimy spying meddling lying asses out of the United States. Enough is enough.
    “So glad the politeness didn’t continue for any longer than that one thread”
    Don’t be so sensitive, I wasn’t rude in my comment. I was sarcastic. And I see you devoted your usual volumnous response, filling the thread up with fog. Hey man, you should know by now, I’ve got Halogens.
    Insert smileycon here…
    Or, if you’re overly sensitive, make it a smirkycon.

    Reply

  50. rich says:

    questions,
    “I don’t deny Harman’s probable criminality (sorry about the spelling by the way). What I was trying to say is that all the ILOBBY as omni-omnium rhetoric gets old.”
    I’ve never engaged in the I-Lobby rhetoric, on either side, because what isn’t obvious is stupid and unproductive. As you say, how helpful is more of the same?
    Precisely for that reason, I believe care, accuracy and principle in discussing the issue when facts do arise and incidents such as Harman’s do occur is absolutely essential.
    … as for “gambit”, I’m not playing chess or strategy games, defending Israel or Harman or spying for that matter”
    Never said you were: I meant ‘gambit’ in the general sense. It will pay off for everyone if we can refrain from excusing Ms. Harman with sad sophistry when more precision is called for.
    Look, politics is a messy business and there’s a fine line between ordinary horse-trading and what Rod Blagojevich and Jane Harman did. If you’re not asking for money, or you’re not asking a foreign national & registerd lobbyist for a quid pro quo, you might be on solid ground. But it sure looks bad.

    Reply

  51. PissedOffAmerican says:

    NU’s Katz reminds Emanuel he’s Jewish
    By MATTHEW WAGNER
    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710730438&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
    National Union chairman Ya’acov “Ketzele” Katz sent a letter to White House chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel last week admonishing him not to forget his Jewish and Israeli origins.
    Katz claims that in a private meeting with the unnamed leader, Emanuel said, “In the next four years, there will be a peace agreement with the Palestinians on the basis of two states for two peoples, and it does not matter to us who is the prime minister.”
    In the letter, a Hebrew version of which was provided to The Jerusalem Post by Katz’s parliamentary aide, Katz wrote: “For many Israelis, this report is a cause for worry because it reveals a condescending attitude toward our prime minister and Israeli public opinion. This is an attitude that Israel does not expect from a real friend such as the US, and all the more so from an Israeli Jew who has succeeded in being appointed White House chief-of-staff.”
    Katz went on to compare Emanuel to the biblical Esther, who ended up at using her influence with Persian King Ahashverosh to intervene on behalf of the Jews of the Persian Empire.
    “For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father’s family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?” Katz wrote, quoting from the Book of Esther (4:14).
    Katz was hinting that Emanuel should use his influence to protect Israeli interests, which, he believes, are best served by preventing the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
    Continues….

    Reply

  52. samuelburke says:
  53. questions says:

    http://innovation.cq.com/liveonline/54/landing
    Jeff Stein interview on the story. Obstruction of justice may not be the operative term.

    Reply

  54. questions says:

    Rich,
    I don’t deny Harman’s probable criminality (sorry about the spelling by the way). What I was trying to say is that all the ILOBBY as omni-omnium rhetoric gets old. So far, at least, it looks mostly like Harman attempted to obstruct justice, a crime I believe, and failed. The wire tap would seem to support this.
    She is a national security winger and attracts winger money on that basis. I doubt that the money caused her to be a winger, since generally the scholarship on lobbying suggests that money follows views (that is, you already are leaning towards wingerdom and so winger money comes right to you). The corruption here may well be more in Harman’s personal view of the world than in structures in Congress. I may well be wrong on this point, and would be happy to be corrected. I can say with certainty that my requirements for proof of causal chains differ from the requirements of many other posters here. It’s not enough for me to find seeming relations, correlations, numbers or events that always move in tandem or the like. There’s enough real uncertainty about how lobbying and corruption and money work their magic that I will reserve judgment.
    My sense of the time before we launched the war is that we were primed and ready and evidence didn’t really matter. OA’s phone calls, and the calls of the left press, and even some more mainstream outlets mentioned above were insufficient for stopping the war machine. The Bush admin wanted war (fully documented all over the place), the bulk of the population wanted war, facts were not about to get in the way.
    I tend to think the Iran situation is very very different. We are not at all in the mood for war anymore. We remember how awful it is, we’ve scarred a generation, we’re dead broke, we don’t really give a damn about weapons anywhere else right now. No one wants a draft, no one wants to send troops anywhere. I honestly don’t think we’re talking to Iran to say we did so we can bomb. I’m not even convinced Israel is doing any more than playing the right wing domestic rhetoric game. Again, I could be wrong about this since I’m capable of being wrong for sure, and since I’m not an IR specialist. But I doubt Iran is on the carving platter here or in Israel.
    My reading of the situation at this point is that there’s a great deal of uncertainty and distrust that is structural and that will be played through largely rhetorically as leaders juggle domestic politics on the international front. Iran and Israel don’t really want war, the US certainly doesn’t want war, but they all talk tough because that’s what one does. I think these are peacock feathers for the domestic audience and pufferfish for the international audience.
    As for Harman, let the inquiry go forward. Maybe the dems will strip her of her committees at this point and, as I noted above, she’ll be out of Congress soon enough.
    (And rich, as for “gambit”, I’m not playing chess or strategy games, defending Israel or Harman or spying for that matter. I think Harman attempted to obstruct justice and thought it was a great career move and/or ideologically correct given her sense of the world. It wasn’t. I think Congress is less vulnerable to THE (alleged) LOBBY than others here tend to think, and I have a different take on lobbying in general. No gambit at all. Just a different sensibility.)

    Reply

  55. DonS says:

    I’m waiting for the “it’s just a lobby like any other lobby” pov to check in.
    But as Kumbaya Obama says, let’s look forward, not backward. Accountability? What is it good for? Espionage? All in the eye of the beholder or some such.

    Reply

  56. Don Bacon says:

    You know, the Iran issue isn’t rocket science. Iran wants to retain the right to enrich uranium to low levels like many other countries do under UN safeguards, while the US position has been that they shouldn’t, and also that Iran has an “illicit” nuclear program (untrue according to the NIE).
    Meanwhile the US is now saying let’s talk. What’s to talk about? The US wants a sign that Iran will back off while the US and its trusty allies blather falsehoods. They won’t get it, Iran will be called intransigent and it’s Katy bar the door.
    Meanwhile US allies Israel and India do have illicit programs and they’re home free. Even North Korea gets more respect.

    Reply

  57. rich says:

    Don Bacon,
    I think you’re right on the likely integrity of pro-engagement U.S. officials towards Iran.
    I do trust Obama on this point — but I do not trust Dennis Ross in this matter at all, and no one should. It’s possible Obama wanted Ross at the table as an advisor, but didn’t want him in charge of Iran policy — which had made me optimistic. But not so much in the current context: Obama’s gotten too much wrong, obviously wrong, dead wrong.
    As with Tony Blair, skill with language and interpersonal integrity does not necessarily translate into policy judgment or lawful behavior.
    But why listen to me? Certain experts read the signals far more skillfully (because they have to): Iran still sees a disaster in the offing, which will track precisely the storyline you suggest. Pretend talks; pretend failed talks; supposedly necessary U.S. aggression based on that fiction.
    Nut graf:
    “It would have been so much better to pick Ariel Sharon or Ehud Olmert [than Dennis Ross] as special envoy to Iran,” joked Kazem Jalali, a conservative member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of Iran’s Parliament.”
    http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=99770
    “The appointment of Ross is an apparent contradiction with [President Barack] Obama’s announced policy to bring change in United States foreign policy,” said Iran’s State Radio on Wednesday, accusing Ross of being in league with Israel.
    Announcing the long-anticipated appointment, State Department spokesman Robert Wood said that Ross would offer “strategic advice” and perspective on the region, coordinate new policy approaches and take part in “inter-agency activities.”
    “It would have been so much better to pick Ariel Sharon or Ehud Olmert as special envoy to Iran,” joked Kazem Jalali, a conservative member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of Iran’s Parliament.
    “The appointment of Dennis Ross, whose track record shows his unacceptable radical viewpoints about Iran, is inconsistent with Mr. Obama’s claims about his willingness to create change in Iran-US relations and contains no positive messages for Iran,” Jalali told IPS in a telephone interview from Tehran.
    Ross, who is currently a counselor at the Washington Institute of Near East Policy, served as the point person on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in the Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush administrations. He has advocated tough policies to force Tehran to halt its nuclear program, which Iranian authorities have repeatedly said is for peaceful purposes.
    Mohammad Abtahi, a former deputy to President Mohammad Khatami, believes Iranians must face this appointment cautiously.
    “Difficult circumstances are shaping up for Iran, as though everything is heading toward a final ultimatum,” said Abtahi, a moderate ranking cleric in Tehran, told IPS. “I think things are heading toward a point where a unanimous confrontation of Iran may coalesce.”

    Reply

  58. Don Bacon says:

    Regarding Harman “strongly endorsed an engagement strategy with Iran”, that’s also Dennis Ross’s (Obama’s Iran envoy) plan.
    from The Nation: In November, Iran specialist Patrick Clawson, Ross’s colleague at WINEP, described any US-Iran dialogue that might emerge as mere theater. “What we’ve got to do is…show the world that we’re doing a heck of a lot to try and engage the Iranians,” he said. “Our principal target with these offers [to Iran] is not Iran. Our principal target with these offers is, in fact, American public opinion [and] world public opinion.” Once that’s done, he implied, the United States would have to take out its big stick.//
    The Ross/Obama(?) idea is that the US needs to go through the “talk” motions (as the US did with Iraq) before military aggression, in order to help justify it. ‘Well, we did everything we could but those damn Iranians just wouldn’t listen to reason.” (i.e. toe the line)

    Reply

  59. rich says:

    questions,
    While I’m in genreal agreement that life ‘is messy’ and that many operate in good faith, accumulating evidence does not support the main thrust of your comment.
    “I’m doubtful that one phone call to each member’s chief foreign relations staffer would have been sufficient to stop the drumbeat towards war.”
    It was not a single phone call, as this thread makes clear. It was thousands. The ‘intel’ was debunked in Newsweek and other MSM outlets, for all to see. Why, even staffers in Senate & House offices could’ve –and did — read the evidence disproving Bush’s claims. As pointed out above, State’s best experts in nuclear enrichment & weaponization, Thielmann & Woods, debunked the aluminum tubes claim, sent that assessment up the line to Mr. Powell — and their analysis was published by Newsweek.
    “I remember numerous conversations with people who were as convinced that war was needed as I was that war was a mistake.”
    So what? Public opinion did not favor the Iraq War. Honest disagreement does not level the available evidence.
    Re the graduate student thesis: it made a total mockery of Tony Blair’s ‘case’ for war. That’s all the mighty nation of Great Britain could come up with! With all the military intelligence resources at MI5’s disposal, they couldn’t find sh!t to support Tony Blair’s political agenda. For the record, it was not ‘just floating around’; rather, Blair used it to fatten up the 28-page dossier he substituted for evidence. For all Blair’s famed erudition, he couldn’t make the case for war based on the merits or on national security — he had to manufacture some basis for his poltical judgment. Think about that: Blair freakin’ had to rely on a graduate student’s Masters thesis. For a war. And it made him into an articulate laughingstock.
    questions:
    “They lobbied, they weren’t rewarded. Now, maybe I’m misreading the situation. Please explain what exactly Harmon got out of all of this, what exactly Israel got out of all of this. She ended up on the wrong end of a legal (?) wiretap that showed some intent to obstruct justice. She attempted but failed to obstruct justice.”
    Yes, you are misreading the situation. (Disclaimer–we don’t know the upshot/full facts yet..) Someone can commit a crime but not succeed. You can have a quid pro quo where the exchange takes place but the promised wheeling-n-dealing is not successful.
    Your gambit here is inexcusable.
    “What exactly Harmon [sic] … [or] Israel got out of all this” is totally irrelevant.
    Your argument is like planting a bomb that doesn’t go off, and then claiming it isn’t a crime because no one died.
    So, seriously. You can rob a bank and not get any money—still a crime. Assault w/o battery is still a crime. If they conspired to commit a crime, and did crime; their success or failure is moot. (I say IF — b/c we just dont’ know.)

    Reply

  60. Carroll says:

    Steve, that PC ‘if’ fence you are sitting on regarding Israelis like Harman in our congress is bound to get uncomfortable after a while.
    Yea, I know you have to play with all sides, but really….you showed more objectivity and some outrage when you went after Schumer for his Israel centricness on the Bolton appointment…what’s changed? Harman’s “speech’ on Iran doesn’t make a rats ass, it’s not what she ‘says’ it’s what she ‘does’.
    The Harman wiretap is what it is. She says it is a lie and just anti semitism on the part of those officials who have quoted it. Well, let’s all listen to it and find out is they are lying or Harman is lying. Simple as that.
    And her motives, whether personal ambition, or Israel/lobby loyalty don’t matter.
    She agreed to try to infer with a US investigation on behalf of some Israeli or jewish interest and further made an attempt to in return for personal gain or some personal agenda ..that’s a no-no.
    If she had been trading money for favors as in the case of Duke and other congressional criminals she would be indicted already.
    You think Harman, Schumer or any of the others corrupted on the Israel issue are really going to be “pure” on US security interest or any US interest with their Israel loyalty in the equation?
    When pigs fly.
    The bottom line is the pro Israelis in the US that go to any and all lengths to bend America’s government to Israeli interest never learn. Obviously aren’t capable of learning, will never learn and will keep on with their activities until we are all forced to choose a side… Israel and pro Israel Jewish interest or America and American’s interest.
    And American and Israeli interest will also be identical when pigs fly.

    Reply

  61. Outraged American says:

    I’m a journalist who covers the world. In fact, a long time ago, I
    even interviewed Steve.

    Reply

  62. Outraged American says:

    Harman was also behind the “Violent Radicalization and
    Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007” HR 1955, which
    passed the house and which many critics from both the “right” and
    “left” claim tramples upon our Bill of Rights to a frightening degree.
    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1955/show
    On Harman’s bill, from a dissenter, a prof. at Cal. Poly Pomona:
    “Unless the public applies pressure on the Senate, which appears
    ready to pass this unconstitutional Orwellian throwback to another
    era, Harman’s bill will turn the United States into a police state to
    protect the liberty the president tells us the terrorists hate.”
    http://www.hnn.us/articles/44578.html

    Reply

  63. Don Bacon says:

    Come on, POA, admit it, credit where credit is due — Pelosi tossed Harman from intelligence is spite of Steve thinking Harman is cool.
    http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/003536.php

    Reply

  64. questions says:

    So glad the politeness didn’t continue for any longer than that one thread!
    In the midst of whipping Congress for laziness, for having been purchased by one lobby or another, and the like, please try to remember that people in Congress might be a little less indecent than you think. Re the Iraq War and Powell and knowing that everything was false — my guess is that the whole situation was a whole lot messier than OA is willing to say. Now, I have no idea who OA is in real life, but even if OA is actually Gen. Powell himself, I’m doubtful that one phone call to each member’s chief foreign relations staffer would have been sufficient to stop the drumbeat towards war. I remember numerous conversations with people who were as convinced that war was needed as I was that war was a mistake. I had all sorts of skeptical sources, but others were unconvinced. So noting that there was a discredited student thesis floating around (was it a doctoral thesis or an undergrad thesis?) would not have convinced many people who were ready for war. What pushes us towards war is WAY MORE than weapons programs and the like. It’s a whole psychic apparatus that had been primed and engaged. Powell’s talk may not even have actually been necessary.
    Next, POA, my point (above in this thread carried over from the one you cite) is that the last paragraph of the CQ piece basically says Harmon didn’t get what she wanted. I didn’t make that up. If people lobby for something and don’t get that something, then SO WHAT? They lobbied, they weren’t rewarded. Now, maybe I’m misreading the situation. Please explain what exactly Harmon got out of all of this, what exactly Israel got out of all of this. She ended up on the wrong end of a legal (?) wiretap that showed some intent to obstruct justice. She attempted but failed to obstruct justice. Pretty stupid on her part, criminal even. But she failed. So where’s the major AIPAC/LOBBY coup here? She failed. further, as Josh Marshall notes, “agent” is unclear, so no one quite knows thus far who contacted Harmon.
    In terms of “rot” in Washington, I’m less than convinced. I’m a foolish Congressional optimist which basically means that I think people in Congress have to cope with huge amounts of pressure, unbelievable limited sources of information, the constant need to raise money and be loved by their constituents or lose their jobs. I think they do the best they can for the most part, with the caveat that there are certainly crooks and liars floating around. Harmon would seem to risk being a crook if what she attempted was obstruction of justice. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know about this.
    If there’s criminal behavior, nail the bums; certainly investigate. If there’s a den of spies, nail the bums, certainly investigate. My personal guess, though, is that an imperfect institution does its imperfect best while lacking many of the tools one would need to do a better job. I kind of doubt the spy thing is as huge as many here, and I kind of doubt the criminality and dual loyalty issues play out as many here seem to think.

    Reply

  65. Outraged American says:

    Clinton was no saint: his bombing of the Sudan’s primary
    pharmaceutical factory on the day that the Lewinski / cigar
    revelations were due to come out is just one example.

    Reply

  66. Sean Paul Kelley says:

    Steve, if it were any other nation than Israel we were talking about everyone, including you, would be baying for blood. Not to mention her resignation, if indeed, the story is true.
    Funny, why is it a guy gets impeached for a blowjob but others, when it comes to making ‘honest foreign policy mistakes’ that are ever more destructive than Clinton’s bimbroglios, the same standards of honesty and decency don’t apply.
    The rot has certainly set in in Washington.

    Reply

  67. rich says:

    Outraged,
    I recall Tony Blair’s ‘dossier’ was exposed as worthless because it was based on an American graduate student’s Masters thesis. Some of that made it into Powell’s speech.
    I’ll never forget the fundamental absurdity of Blair actually waving a 28-page ‘dossier’, Joe McCarthy-like, as though it proved anything. It was laughable. He didn’t actually present any evidence whatsoever, and that spoke volumes. What was worse, of course, was everyone pretending that Blair had acted in good faith.
    Other aspects of Mr. Powell’s speech were disproven, in the mainstream US media, prior to his UN speech.
    ‘Outraged’ is correct: no way can any member of Congress claim to’ve been ‘misled’ on the intel re Iraq. I’m confident that goes for wiretapping, torture, and more: and of course it’s laziness, at root. Why embrace all the work of, you know, doing your job?

    Reply

  68. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Comical, isn’t it?
    Golly, looks like my occassional rants about Harman were just a bit justified, eh? And then some?
    I got a kick oughta questions’ premptive spin…
    http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/04/saudi_minister/#comments
    …at the bottom of that thread. One more politician gets caught turning tricks for her pimp, AIPAC, and questions uses the event as an example of AIPAC’s lack of control over Washington DC. Yeah, right. Thats it, it means AIPAC isn’t exercisingh extreme political leverage over our nations so-called leaders. WTF??? Where is the logic in that? My bet? Harmanm is just the tip of the iceberg. Do we really think this mewling mouse Reid is any less subservient to the Israelis? How about that witch Pelosi? This is endemic in the Democratic Party. Harmon isn’t the exception, she’s the rule.

    Reply

  69. Tony C. says:

    “Or can we reasonably assume it’s been a regular pattern of
    occurrence over the last 20 years?”
    Of course we can make that assumption – the system is rotten to
    its core. But of course this type of corruption goes far beyond
    Israel and AIPAC. Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc., etc., etc.

    Reply

  70. Daro says:

    And we’re supposed to assume this is the sole, isolated example of this ever happening with AIPAC and politicians?
    Or can we reasonably assume it’s been a regular pattern of occurrence over the last 20 years?
    Does this now make me an anti-Semite for daring to suggest this?

    Reply

  71. Outraged American says:

    Steve, that article I posted about Powell’s presentation before
    the UN has a few factual inaccuracies, but if you do a web search
    on Powell’s UN presentation, you will find verification that it was
    indeed based upon an OUTDATED student thesis.
    I spoke with Glen Rangwala of Cambridge Univ. a few years ago,
    and he confirmed that Powell’s UN presentation was based on an
    old student thesis. He was the first to raise the alarm, as far as I
    know.
    Steve, I would suggest that you call Rangwala, and talk to him
    yourself.
    This because it’s very important that we make clear to the world
    that the U.S. congress WAS WARNED (if by no one else, by my
    friend and me) that Powell, Blair and the Cheney administration
    was lying to the world and the U.N. in the run-up to the second
    US led invasion of Iraq.
    Every single time I hear a congressperson say that they were
    misled on Iraq’s WMD, I want to scream, because again, my
    friend and I called EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF CONGRESS and
    presented proof that Powell’s presentation was full of false and
    OUTDATED information.
    Now, 1.2- 1.4 million dead Iraqis later, 4 million displaced,
    traitors like Jane Harman are still claiming that “they didn’t
    know” that they were lied to by the Cheney administration about
    Iraq’s non-existent WMD. BULL.
    BTW: over at the Huffington Post, the comment section is
    hopping angry at Harman and AIPAC — finally America is
    waking-up to the disasterous influence of the pro-Israel lobbies
    on U.S. foreign and domestic policies.
    We would not have a “War on Terror/ Islam/ Our Bill of Rights”
    were it not for our support of Israel, and now it appears, the
    “average” American is waking-up:
    Huff. Post comments (est. 99% against Harman/ AIPAC/ pro
    Israel lobbies — obviously the pro-Israel Hasbara unit of
    posters haven’t received the alert yet that Harman/ AIPAC are
    under attack…)
    http://tinyurl.com/cpzpnm

    Reply

  72. rich says:

    Steve Clemons @ 11:07AM —
    O.A. @ 10:43AM is not alone.
    I, too, called many members of Congress and presented them with proof that Powell’s UN speech was full of lies. Friends did the same.
    Newsweek had interviewed Greg Thielmann & Houghton Woods (the State Dept’s top experts on nuclear weaponization) — and both stated unequivocally that the aluminum tubes could not have been used for story. Those tubes could not have been intended for or used for enriching uranium.
    That’s what OUR guys said — publicly.
    Thielmann was later quoted as saying “his jaw hit the floor” as he watched Powell’s UN speech, and his colleagues had the same reaction. They were stunned. They knew Powell had been provided with contrary evidence because they had supplied the facts discrediting Mr. Powell’s childish visual aids.
    Powell knew, and Harman knew, that there was no evidence for invading Iraq. I’ve posted that point many times here, so I’ll leave off.
    Point is, Harman’s after-the-fact ‘I was wrong’ admission doesn’t cut her any slack.
    It is not her assessment of the intel that was wrong — she KNEW there was no evidence to back Bush’s claims. It was her JUDGMENT in going ahead anyway that is in question.
    Note that would not matter if she’d only exercised her mandated Power to debate and Declare War, AS A legislator. I’d be perfectly happy and would have no objection at all, had she mustered the scant courage to do it right. But that would’ve entailed a public debate about threat level, the moral cause and political case for war with Iraq, as well as a discussion of the evidence. But that is what America is all about; and we can’t have that in this country anymore.

    Reply

  73. questions says:

    http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=hsnews-000003098436&cpage=1
    The link to the CQ story I posted on an earlier thread….
    Note the last paragraph of the piece points out that she didn’t get what she wanted. I’d guess, again, she’ll be primaried and out of office. The lobby pressure failed here, at least according to CQ. It’s worth remembering this fact. And note Don Bacon’s dollar donation numbers — she gets money from sources other than “pro-Israel” ones. Look at the whole context before having a panic attack. There’s more uncertainty than a prima facie look would suggest.

    Reply

  74. rich says:

    I posted links to this a couple posts down @ 2am — TPM is on this following CQ.
    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/04/must_read_5.php
    http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=hsnews-000003098436&cpage=3
    “Looks like POA hit the trifecta” (w/apologies to George Bush).
    Let’s give credit to Jane Harman for pushing the “no false choice” view regarding Iran. And for “boldly admitt[ing] that she was wrong on key aspects of the Iraq War,” etc. After all, it’s possible to be a “both-and” politician, fully engaged while necessarily working in the middle of all these exchanges.
    But it looks like Ms. Harman’s ability to counter Bush & the Exec was badly compromised. Particularly re wiretapping and torture, both of which she was briefed on if I recall correctly. Even if she’d actually wanted to resist, there seem to’ve been political costs. Her politics surely hampered her ability to be true to her sworn oath.
    Here’s the thing: do after-the-fact apologies really explain Harman’s political judgment?
    She would’ve earned great credit had she outed the torture & wiretapping — easily sufficient to overcome any doubts about her AIPAC relationships. In fact, that simple act would’ve contradicted claims she’d been compromised, and turned her into a hero in the process. Instead, she’s stuck. Instead, going-along to get-along is no longer the concern. Harman, fully on board with abhorrent Bush policies, is the likelier scenario. Far more plausible they were all working together, in the privileged style to which they’ve become accustomed.
    It’s one thing, when history pans out differently, to pay lip service where proven wrong, as Steve notes Jane did. It’s quite another to ensure there is no precedent preventing future bad acts by the next Dick Cheney.
    And that’s one major concern here, all else aside. Going Forward, we’re not setting necessary precedents to end torture once and for all. Done by Divine Right of Prznts only invites the next POTUS to behave in bad faith equal to both Obama and Bush. This matter is not up to the individual man occupying the Oval Office.
    Jane Harman presents the same probem from a different perspective: she can cry mea culpa all she wants. Going forward, her admission sets NO precedent. She is not lifting a finger to codify restraints, consistent with the Constitution, that would clearly require a Declaration of War, outlaw torture, repair wiretapping laws, etc. She displays no interest in correcting a broken system that has nearly broken the United States economically and militarily (in the ways that matter).
    That’s a big problem:
    Torture by waterboarding two guys 266 times in one month is not about getting information. Many have speculated that Congressional Democrats were compromised in some way; I didn’t bother, sans direct evidence but my guess is Ms. Harman’s not alone.
    Never mind ‘laying blame’, that most dishonest of memes. Accountability does not equate to fingerpointing, and laying blame has never excused blatantly unlawful acts. Right now we we have a wide open invitation for abuse of power — at whatever scale any future Przntl whim dictates. Harman’s reticence in the face of Bush’s policies, and passivity in setting a decisive legal precedent going forward, are damning. Never mind AIPAC: that’s just symptomatic of a wider systemic problem. The core issue at hand is Harman’s near-total lack of judgment.

    Reply

  75. ... says:

    The star of the show one night at the AIPAC policy conference last year, Saban left Israel years ago because– like so many other Israelis– he wanted to play on a wider field, the U.S. He has called himself an ardent Zionist. Through the Saban Center at Brookings, he pushed the Iraq war among the liberal intelligentsia. Or its director of research, Kenneth Pollack, did, to disastrous effect.
    from mondoweiss
    http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/04/is-haim-saban-the-israeli-agent-scheming-with-jane-harman.html#comments
    Saban is emblematic of the dual loyalty problem, the extent to which Zionism has created dual loyalty in its American advocates. The star of the show one night at the AIPAC policy conference last year, Saban left Israel years ago because– like so many other Israelis– he wanted to play on a wider field, the U.S. He has called himself an ardent Zionist. Through the Saban Center at Brookings, he pushed the Iraq war among the liberal intelligentsia. Or its director of research, Kenneth Pollack, did, to disastrous effect.
    Saban supported Hillary Clinton and is a powerhouse in the Democratic Party. When former California congressman, and Israel lobbyist, Mel Levine began raising money for Obama last year, there was speculation that the big fish was Saban, who lives in southern California, but who never came on board publicly for Obama. Saban is also engaged in lobbying efforts to counter the disgust over Israel’s behavior among the young: for instance, through his Saban fellowships.
    Saban gets away with ardent Zionism, as do American politicians, because they can say that American interests and Israeli interests are utterly congruent. We are in a war against a common foe. But of course, two countries’ interests are never completely aligned.

    Reply

  76. Arun says:

    The problem is that we do not know who was on the line with Harman and we do not know fully what was said. The real interesting part of the story may also be not what Harman may or may not have done, but rather, why the revelation now?
    TalkingPointsMemo has some of the relevant points,
    e.g.,
    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/04/more_on_that_suspected_israeli_agent.php

    Reply

  77. ... says:

    “This comment never happened”
    that is all you need to know… i am sure wigwag and questions agree…

    Reply

  78. Tony C, says:

    Steve,
    How on earth do your reconcile these two excerpts?
    “Representative Jane Harman denies that she agreed to lobby on behalf of two AIPAC employees facing espionage-related charges…”
    “…I look forward to Jane Harman’s statements as this tape controversy unfolds.”
    It’s painfully obvious that she is lying through her teeth, is it not? She exclaimed “This conversation doesn’t exist.” ON TAPE, after tacitly agreeing to help AIPAC.
    And:
    “Justice Department attorneys in the intelligence and public corruption units who read the transcripts decided that Harman had committed a “completed crime,” a legal term meaning that there was evidence that she had attempted to complete it, three former officials said.”
    Your approach towards people like Harman and Powell suggest that you are frightened of losing access, (too) much like most mainstream “journalists”.
    There are plenty of examples of drug dealers and other criminals contributing in positive ways to the welfare of their communities, yet no one seriously believes those mitigating factors should absolve them of wrongdoing. Your defenses of criminals like Harman and Powell (who was criminally negligent, at least) suggest that you believe those who are in powerful political positions – as long as they are doing something constructive – should be judged differently.
    Just to be clear, I am well aware that Harman is technically innocent at this stage, but come on…

    Reply

  79. Steve Clemons says:

    Thanks Outraged — very interesting stuff. best, steve

    Reply

  80. Outraged American says:

    That article on Harman from CQ Politics is damning. Harman was
    legally wiretapped, but then agreed to help the Cheney
    administration kill the story about ILLEGAL warrantless
    wiretapping in exchange for some sort of immunity?
    And the “paper of record” the New York Times, went along?
    Aluminum tubes…
    Also Steve, I called Harman’s office in the run-up to the Invasion
    of Iraq: Parte Due, to tell them that Powell’s speech before the
    U.N. was based on a plagiarized student thesis, see here:
    http://tinyurl.com/cp6mm6
    A friend and I called every single member of Congress to tell
    them that Powell’s presentation was full of lies and distortions
    and WE PRESENTED THEM WITH PROOF, like the name of the
    graduate student from whom the U.S. State Dept. had taken their
    outdated information.
    We often got through to foreign policy congressional aids so NO
    ONE in Congress at that point, especially Harman, has any
    excuse that they were mislead on Iraq’s non-existent WMD.

    Reply

  81. Don Bacon says:

    Getting tossed off of Intelligence put a hurt on Janie’s income from The Lobby.
    Campaign contributions, Jane Harman (D-CA)
    Top 5 Industries, 2005-2006, Campaign Cmte
    Industry Total Indivs PACs
    Lawyers/Law Firms$58,971 $48,200 $10,771
    Pro-Israel $53,150 $43,150 $10,000
    Securities &
    Investment $51,750 $44,750 $7,000
    Real Estate $50,127 $40,127 $10,000
    Retired $42,850 $42,850 $0
    Top 5 Industries, 2007-2008, Campaign Cmte
    Industry Total Indivs PACs
    TV/Movies/Music $66,288 $24,000 $42,288
    Misc Manufacturing
    & Distributing $36,816 $31,816 $5,000
    Lawyers/Law Firms $30,250 $20,250 $10,000
    Pro-Israel $25,600 $19,100 $6,500
    Real Estate $25,400 $15,400 $10,000
    Big drop from Lawyers/Law firms too.

    Reply

  82. Don Bacon says:

    Getting tossed off of Intelligence put a hurt on Janie’s income from The Lobby.
    Campaign contributions, Jane Harman (D-CA)
    Top 5 Industries, 2005-2006, Campaign Cmte
    Industry Total Indivs PACs
    Lawyers/Law Firms$58,971 $48,200 $10,771
    Pro-Israel $53,150 $43,150 $10,000
    Securities &
    Investment $51,750 $44,750 $7,000
    Real Estate $50,127 $40,127 $10,000
    Retired $42,850 $42,850 $0
    Top 5 Industries, 2007-2008, Campaign Cmte
    Industry Total Indivs PACs
    TV/Movies/Music $66,288 $24,000 $42,288
    Misc Manufacturing
    & Distributing $36,816 $31,816 $5,000
    Lawyers/Law Firms $30,250 $20,250 $10,000
    Pro-Israel $25,600 $19,100 $6,500
    Real Estate $25,400 $15,400 $10,000
    http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00006750
    Big drop from Lawyers/Law firms too.

    Reply

  83. Cato the Censor says:

    If these allegations are true, this is just one more example of the dysfunctional, corrupt nature of this nation’s political elite. Is there any way, short of a violent revolution, to just dump our incompetent masters and mistresses?

    Reply

  84. Outraged American says:

    Steve, you seriously must be the nicest/most naive man on Earth. I
    lived in Harman’s district- like most of the L.A. area congressional
    representatives, she should just have D-Israel behind her name.
    And, inadvertently, you prove how strong AIPAC is, not that Pelosi
    doesn’t cave-in to the Israel lobbies on a second-by-second
    basis…

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *