Another day, another Jane Harman story in the New York Times.
This one seems to confirm aspects of the original CQ story that Tuesday's A1 story did not. Specifically, the Times is now reporting that Alberto Gonzales did have a role in thwarting an investigation of Harman's wiretapped phone call and that he intervened at least in part because Harman was needed to help defend the warrantless wiretapping program.
Over at Capital J, Harman-friendly blogger Ron Kampeas parses the story and comes to this conclusion:
Gonzales also mentioned to Goss at the time that Harman had been helpful in lobbying the Times not to publish its wiretapping scoop, which explains where this whole story got started. At some point Porter Goss talked to somebody who talked to CQ and the NYT.
But anyway, why were they so eager to investigate Harman's phone call, which seems perhaps unsavory but probably not illegal?
For more on the Goss vs. Harman backstory, check out Laura Rozen.
This one seems to confirm aspects of the original CQ story that Tuesday's A1 story did not. Specifically, the Times is now reporting that Alberto Gonzales did have a role in thwarting an investigation of Harman's wiretapped phone call and that he intervened at least in part because Harman was needed to help defend the warrantless wiretapping program.
Over at Capital J, Harman-friendly blogger Ron Kampeas parses the story and comes to this conclusion:
It looks as if the decision to target Harman was initiated by her old nemesis (Porter) Goss, the Intel committee chairman who had gone on to the top CIA job.Back to the Times account for a second: The story relies on a "person familiar with Mr. Gonzales' account," who, if it is not Gonzales himself, might as well be. This person explains that Gonzales didn't actually shut the Harman investigation down. He just wanted to hold off on telling Congress about it, primarily because he didn't want Harman to get tipped off. If that sounds like pro-Gonzales spin, that's because it is.
Initiated. As in, he apparently had the idea himself. As in, he apparently hated her guts.
Gonzales also mentioned to Goss at the time that Harman had been helpful in lobbying the Times not to publish its wiretapping scoop, which explains where this whole story got started. At some point Porter Goss talked to somebody who talked to CQ and the NYT.
But anyway, why were they so eager to investigate Harman's phone call, which seems perhaps unsavory but probably not illegal?
"The view inside the intelligence community was that she was the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, she was too close to an individual who had been deemed an agent of a foreign power, and the matter needed to be investigated," said one former Bush administration official.In other words, they wanted to wiretap a member of Congress to find out if she was an Israeli spy. Harman's claim that this was a "gross abuse of power" is starting to come into focus.
For more on the Goss vs. Harman backstory, check out Laura Rozen.
Harmen is the biggest of hypocrites. She lobby's the NYT to suppress a story exposing a program she supported created by Bush. This massive wiretapping program is a affront to the 4th amendment. This a program that listens on both sides of every conversation, email, VOIP that goes thru the massive servers at ATT and elsewhere. Now she crying about be caught up in a LEGAL wiretap while speaking to an agent of Israel about getting two accused Israeli spies off? If I did this it would be called TREASON.
If a person insists on trashing our Congresswoman, you could AT LEAST spell her name correctly. It is HARMAN; not HARMON or HARMEN.
Treason, you say? Have we lost all respect for due process? IF and UNTIL transcripts (if they even exist) are published on this conversation, people have no right to point partisan fingers. WHY is Jane Harman a target by the left? Because she is a moderate. WHY is Jane Harman targeted by the Right? Because she is a moderate. Soon, we'll have nothing left but elected officials like Maxine Waters and Dana Rohrbacher representing us. Good-bye to common-sense, middle-of-the-road moderates. I hope you enjoy political assassinations, because we're currently witnessing an attempt.
Hang on Jane!
get real. she's no moderate. she voted to authorize the use of force in iraq, which is, for lack of a better word, a crime against humanity. or haven't you seen AP's latest report that 87,215 iraqs have died since the war started?
she willingly supported a policy that saw America unleash all of its military power on a third-world country for regime change. you know, we used violence to achieve a political objective. if that sounds familiar, it's because that's exactly what al qaeda does -- violence to achieve a political objective.
so give me a break. jane's what's wrong with this country pal. she's an insider, she's too pro-israel, and she was seduced by the power of the bush administration.