Ahem.

Looking forward who will be the most effective chairman? Oversight is critical so my choice would be the member who will be most effective in leading oversight that aims at improving the performance of intelligence organizations.

Leadership credentials are first in my mind, knowledge and experience are second,  and the past relationships or lack thereof are a distant third if the choice is mine.

What is Pelosi's case that Hastings will be the best chair going forward? What is the case that the committee will be most effective with all new members?

The I'm Feeling Lucky search on Google for harman aipac brings up the an October 25, 2006 article from the Washington Post with the following:

Federal law enforcement sources confirmed yesterday that the FBI opened an investigation in 2005 into whether Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) improperly enlisted the aid of a pro-Israel lobbying group, but they cautioned that no evidence of wrongdoing was found.

The inquiry focused on whether Harman had made promises to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in exchange for its support of her desire to become chairman of the House intelligence committee if Democrats take control of the House, several law enforcement sources said.

I just find it curious that this bit of "score settling" didn't rate a mention.

Sounds like they are both shot and Pelosi should go to Door Number 3. Who would the next ranking member be?

Hmmm, both Hastings and Harman have been the subject of FBI investigations, I suppose that's one kind of intelligence experience.

Why not just avoid both headaches and go to the #3 member, El Paso Congressman (and retired Border Patrol agent) Silvestre Reyes?

Am just sick that Pelosi would consider replacing Harman, who's been a credible and competent Ranking Member. Harman's clearly the best qualified person for the job, and committee will be especially important in coming session. It's asinine to consider going with an ethically-challenged longtime member (whom even people with modest interest in politics can remember was impeached) or a novice.

Appointing Harman would send a message that competence is valued -- what a refreshing change from the Bush hackocracy. Dumping Harman would give the GOP and their acolytes too much ammo too early in this new session. Business as usual, and politics of rancor.

Who's zoomin' who here, Grace? Harman has been treated with kid gloves for years. She was given her seniority and chair back after she dropped out to run for governor, and under caucus term limitation rules she's not eligible to be chair again. She has given little but spite in return, not to mention her personal behind-the-scenes jihad against Pelosi.

There's also the little matter of the Congressional Black Caucus, who a getting a bit tired of committee chairs going to marginal Democrats like Harman, especially after African-American support made the Dem victory possible.

...also, it escapes me where her reputation for competence comes from, given that she completely blew the call on the war despite having access to the "secret" evidence others were assuming existed.

There's also the little matter of the Congressional Black Caucus, who a getting a bit tired of committee chairs going to marginal Democrats like Harman, especially after African-American support made the Dem victory possible.

Charlie Rangel getting Ways & Means not good enough?

Hastings is a disgrace, and if he had an R after his name anyone on this forum would agree. I don't like Harman much, but Hastings shouldn't even be considered for a security clearance, let alone be chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

1) Have ANY of you guys ever been within 100 miles of the Intelligence Community?? I almost wet my pants laughing at some of the defenses of Jane Harman posted above.

I only need to say two words re Harman and anyone with a SCI clearance will start snickering:

BOEING. FIA.

2) Let me introduce a few FACTS for some of you innocents.

In 1999, Boeing received a huge contract from the National Reconnaisance Office (NRO) to build the next generation of spy satellites -- a generation known as FIA (for Future Imagery Architecture).

By September of last year, Boeing had spent BILLIONS and had still not delivered. Negroponte finally gave up in disgust and moved a major chunk of the contract to Lockheed.
See http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/091905p01.xml .

3) The NRO likes to keep a low profile. They are also richer than God. So a contractor has to really REALLY screw the pooch for the Pentagon to make a public move like this. And when the contractor's lawyers don't let out a peep at the loss of business, you know the pooch must have gotten sodomized as well.

See http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/fia.htm . The money quote from the later cite is this:
"Between the time the contract was awarded to Boeing in 1999 and 2005, the government had spent over $10 billion on FIA, including about $4 or $5 billion in cost overruns. The first phase was projected to have a total cost of between $20 billion and $25 billion. By 2005 about 5,000 Boeing and subcontractor employees were enaged on the program, working at windowless buildings at Seal Beach and El Segundo.

In July 2005 a panel reviewing FIA recommended that Boeing stop work on the electro-optical spacecraft, the primary component of the FIA program. Boeing evidently had over-promised and under delivered"

4)Ha ha ha Anyone want to guess which Congressional District contained Boeing's FIA facilities?

Anyone want to guess which Member of Congress tried to prevent the transfer of FIA work from Boeing to Lockheed? After, we're not talking just about Boeing. We're talking about all the local businesses (e.g., real estate) who get rich serving Boeing's FIA employees. We're talking about the "Gravy Train". See
this 2001 article on the FIA award's impact on the LA economy:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/010319-fia.htm

5) The question of why Jane Harman might have been very reluctant to say ANYTHING against Bush Administration officials for the past 5 years -- to object to ,say, warrentless NSA wiretapping of US Citizens -- is left as an exercise for the reader.

The question of whether Jane Harman kept Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats well informed about the more questionable acts of the Bush Administration is also left as an exercise for the reader.

It's important for Dems to cultivate the track record of folks in Nat'l Security, who can become rock solid on the basic issue of trust and security with the American public.

People who could someday lead major intelligence and military agencies and departments, in the event of a Dem presidency.

Harman is clearly such a person.

Not everyone likes her track record on Iraq, but when you lead, you need to really think big, expansively.

Just as one example, if you have the presidency, the president will set the policy, and people he/she appoints will carry that policy out.

You need people with the strength and resume and connections at that point to carry it out, and those factors can be more important than what their own personal policy choice might have been had it been up to them.

Particularly when you've got a woman who has the momentum in these regards, you need to continue to build the investment, because unfortunately there are many fewer women with these resumes.

Tossing Harman is a bad idea; let her know who the speaker is, make it clear what the policy direction will be, what the process will be, and hold her to commitments made, etc, but let's build strength and prepare for the future.

Murtha is one thing, people may object to some of his behaviors and positions, but he is rock solid as a person, and has widespread trust, you can lean on him.
Harman is clearly the strong card on intel.
We need to learn how to ask and demand from individuals that they play with the team, by leading, as opposed to just tossing strong players who are perceived to have taken some wrong positions.

Here's the key point in that FBI quote:

but they cautioned that no evidence of wrongdoing was found.

Note,by the way, that the warrentless NSA program Jane Harman was accepting --WITH A LACK OF CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT --was viewed with strong misgivings even by senior officials WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ITSELF:

See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/02/politics/02spy.html?ex=1293858000&en=bfc4dce63f5455e4&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

An excerpt:
"In a letter to Mr. Specter on Sunday, Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat who is also on the committee, said the panel should also explore "significant concern about the legality of the program even at the very highest levels of the Department of Justice."

The New York Times reported Sunday that James B. Comey, then deputy attorney general, refused to sign on to the recertification of the program in March 2004.

That prompted two of Mr. Bush's most senior aides - Andrew H. Card Jr., his chief of staff, and Alberto R. Gonzales, then the White House counsel and now the attorney general - to make an emergency hospital visit to John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, to try to persuade him to give his authorization, as required by White House procedures for the program.

Officials with knowledge of the events said that Mr. Ashcroft also appeared reluctant to sign on to the continued use of the program, and that the Justice Department's concerns appear to have led in part to the suspension of the program for several months. After a secret audit, new protocols were put in place at the N.S.A. to better determine how the agency established the targets of its eavesdropping operations, officials have said.

Asked Sunday about internal opposition, President Bush said: "This program has been reviewed, constantly reviewed, by people throughout my administration. And it still is reviewed.

"Not only has it been reviewed by Justice Department officials, it's been reviewed by members of the United States Congress," he said. "It's a vital, necessary program."

But Mr. Schumer, in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," said the White House should have to explain the apparent internal dissent over the program.

"I hope the White House won't hide behind saying 'executive privilege, we can't discuss this,' " Mr. Schumer said. "That's the wrong attitude."

"A discussion, perhaps a change in the law," he said, "those are all legitimate. Unilaterally changing the law because the vice president or president thinks it's wrong, without discussing the change, that's not the American way."

=============

Excellent points.

But I wonder about how the rule limiting the terms of committee chairs really applies here.

Democrats have not been committee chairs because they haven't been in control. So Harman hasn't really had a chance to serve as chairperson. She's only had the chance to serve as the ranking Democrat on the committee, which isn't the same thing.

From what I can see Harman backed the Bushes on wiretapping and advocating sanctions against the NYT for publishing the story. Here's a URL:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/12/122953.shtml

What source do you have that suggests a different position?

The optics of backing Hastings over the eminently qualified Harman are horrendous

Why?

You think Democrats should not be ashamed of elevating a wrongfully convicted man? Seems like an excellent thing to do to me.

Alcee Hastings was acquitted at trial. Those senators who voted to acquit at his impeachment trial read the evidence. Those who convicted him could not be bothered.

Don't you think it is a good idea to consider the evidence before judging a person?

Jane Harmon is a hack by the way.

Best, Terry

I was wondering what lukasiak meant above when he said
"I guess you forgot the 'This post brought to you by the Democratic Leadership Council'..."

but then I took a look at Kenneth Baer's bio
(link in title to the above article) and noticed the following:

"During the 2004 election, he was a senior advisor to the Lieberman for President campaign"

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Actually, this is indirectly a point in Jane Harman's favor. Whatever her faults, she's Joe Lieberman.
The Jewish Journal explains:
http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=16145

The money quote:
"Lieberman seems to genuinely like, admire, support and crave the approval of two men who are anathema to most Democrats: President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. He might also be one of the last Democratic voters left in America who thinks the Iraq War was a great idea, brilliantly executed by a smart president, leaving America and Israel much stronger than before. "

Hmmm. I just found an interesting Oct 20 TIME article about Jane Harman and why Nancy Pelosi is upset with her. Title is
"Feds Probe a Top Democrat's Relationship with AIPAC"

See
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1549069-3,00.html

A few extracts:
------------
"Did a Democratic member of Congress improperly enlist the support of a major pro-Israel lobbying group to try to win a top committee assignment? That's the question at the heart of an ongoing investigation by the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors, who are examining whether Rep. Jane Harman of California and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) may have violated the law in a scheme to get Harman reappointed as the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, according to knowledgeable sources in and out of the U.S. government. "
--------
But congressional sources say Pelosi has been infuriated by pressure from some major donors lobbying on behalf of Harman ...
...A congressional source tells TIME that the lobbbying for Harman has included a phone call several months ago from entertainment industry billionaire and major Democratic party contributor Haim Saban. A Saban spokeswoman said he could not be reached for comment

Crap. Here a corrected list of references cited in the post above. TPM dropped them for some reason:

[1]http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.asp , enter "Saban, Haim" and select election cycles 2000,2002

[2]http://www.brookings.edu/comm/news/20020509saban.htm

[3] http://www.sptimes.com/2002/06/30/Columns/Jewish_voters_noticin.shtml

[4]http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083

[5] http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20021219.htm

[6]http://www.atljewishtimes.com/archives/2003/011703cs.htm

[7]http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/pollack/20030620.htm

[8]http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.asp (enter "Saban, Haim" and
choose 2004 )

The last thing we beed in this role is another AIPAC shill.

Why do we pay attention to this Joe Lieberman shmuck?

First of all, I don't think the notion that Harman may be good material for some future job is an argument for giving her this job. It's not like any President is going to have trouble filling seats with qualified people; plenty of talented people dedicate their lives to seeking those seats. Nor do we know that such a thing is in the cards.

If we're going to play identity politics and advocate Harman as a woman, I think the CBC has a better case for Hastings as a black. No black has ever been as senior in Congress as Pelosi is now, and the Dem Pres front runner is also a woman. Giving this seat to Harman seems to mean bending the rules, and said rules were already bent once to give Harman this seat over a black man.

This is a repost of something that was deleted I believe as a technical glitch

Baer in typical fashion has his real agenda wrapped in the "public" argument. He has employed this technique several times in the past and while I wouldn't call it outright dishonest it is certinly disingenuous and deceptive. What is Baer's real agenda? Getting the right-wing Bush- shill Harman the committee chair. Read Baer carefully. His primary argument isn't the unsuitability of Alcee Hastings; it is the fact that the chair "belongs" to the "eminently qualified" Jane Harman who has been utterly out of step with Democratic supporters for the last five years, as we well know, and whose putrid politics like Baer's other hero, the Republican Senator from Connecticut, serve the Bushies and their DLC/rightwing Dem supporters. If his argument was REALLY about the unsuitability of Hastings, Baer would have called for a third candidate. So far, Pelosi has made the right moves.

and if the Republicans elevate Lott it will negate their commitment to a big tent; and if Bush doesn't back off his scummy judicial appointments it will negate his commitment to bipartisanship; and if Bush ignores every suggestion concerning the Iraq occupation it will negate his openness to listen to new ideas; and if...

and if Pelosi goes with Harman it will negate the Democrats commitment to changing course in Iraq; and if Pelosi goes with Hoyer it will negate the mandate of change, and if....

Behind the propaganda campaigns for Hoyer and Harman, lie the tentacles of the AIPAC machine.

Bravo to Nancy Pelosi for recognizing something that DC Dems in general are afraid to acknowledge: if the Democratic party cannot break with AIPAC on foreign policy, they will be paralyzed in their Iraq policy, and lose the greatest edge they have over the Republicans. A historic opportunity for a political realignment will be lost.

No on Hoyer.

No on Harman.

And by the way, no on Hastings.

if the Democratic party cannot break with AIPAC on foreign policy, they will be paralyzed in their Iraq policy, and lose the greatest edge they have over the Republicans

Aren't both the 08 contenders for President, deep in the pockets of AIPAC...Hillary and McCain, as well?

I fear that we are stuck in Iraq for another 4 years at least. Short of simply packing up our troops and leaving, there simply is no way out of there.

1)Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. Something I'm reminded of every time one of my posts disappears here at TPMCafe.

2) I'm not worried about ZOG. If one could join a wealthy, powerful global conspiracy simply by getting circumcised and learning a little Hebrew, you would have Gentiles lined up around the block. Especially if you made Madonna and Dr Laura into rabbis, hee hee hee.

3) No, I worry more about a small group of billionaires who -- for various reasons --are strong supporters of Israel, even when
it harms America. Some of those billionaires (e.g., Conrad Black) are not Jewish. Plus, Needless to say, there are a number of Jewish billionaires who are not strong Zionists. When speaking of Haim Saban, one needs to remember that there is also George Soros.

4) But if you want to see the power of the Israel Lobby's patrons, just look at what S Daniel Abraham did to Howard Dean's presidential campaign:

j) November 2000-2002: A large Democratic donor is billionaire S Daniel Abraham of West Palm Beach, Florida --who donates over $2.3 million to the Democrats in 2000-2002. [See Reference 9 below]
Mr Abraham has long been a strong advocate for Israel in US foreign policy circles via his Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation [See Ref 10]

k) March 18,2003: S Daniel Abraham donates $2,000 to Howard Dean's campaign [11]

l) September 11, 2003: Howard Dean receives a storm of criticism from the Democratic leadership after saying that the US needs to be evenhanded in the Israel-Palestinian issue [12]

k) November 2003-Feb 2004: Howard Dean campaign is destroyed in Iowa primary by barrage of attack ads from a mysterious group "Americans for Jobs and Healthcare". Leader of group refuses to disclose funding sources. Disclosure to FEC not required until end of quarter. [13]

l) March 2004: FEC report indicates that attack group "Americans for Jobs" received $1 million in funding, with the largest donation --$200,000 -- coming from S Daniel Abraham.[13]

m) November 2004: Instead of $Millions, S Daniel Abraham only gives the Democrats $81,500 in the 2004 election [11]

n) October 2004: John Kerry attempts to criticize Bush's invasion of Iraq but can only make incoherent, strangled sounds.

o) Jan 2005: Capital Hill Democratic insiders are aghast when Howard Dean is put in as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee during a revolt by grassroots activists in the party.

PS I worked in Howard Dean's campaign. Anyone remember how Howard Dean's campaign manager announced ,just before the Wisconsin primary, that Dean should throw in the towel if Dean didn't win Winconsin? As I recall, that campaign manager was a former president of AIPAC. Dean fired his ass immediately, but it was too late.

---------
References:

[9] ,">http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.asp>, enter "Abraham, S Daniel"
and 2000,2002

[10] http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/1_abraham.html

[11] http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.asp , enter "Abraham, S
Daniel" and 2004

[12] http://www.cbs2.com/politics/politicsla_story_254070009.html

[13] ;;sid=200">http://www.public-i.org/report.aspx?aid=194&;>;;sid=200