Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Memo to Nancy Pelosi: Stick to Your Guns...Jane Harmon Must Go!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 06:46 PM
Original message
Memo to Nancy Pelosi: Stick to Your Guns...Jane Harmon Must Go!
Let's get this out and in the open now. Jane Harmon must go!

Congresswoman Jane Harmon should be removed from the House Intelligence Committee because she has clearly failed in her responsibility and capacity there, and in doing so, she betrayed her party, the American public, and far worse, she failed our troops in their mission. Failure in such matters can not be tolerated. The failure must be singled out, made an example of, and yes, punished. Harmon’s failure can only be attributed to one of two things: she either willingly participated in misleading her fellow members in Congress as to the nature of the so-called threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the United States, or she was not intelligent enough to sit on the Intelligent Committee because she was used by the White House who saw her as an easy (dumb) target. Either would require her immediate removal from the Committee.

Worse, the suggestion that she somehow should be promoted to chair the committee is preposterous and must, for three reasons be opposed: the past, the present and the future.

The Past: Contrary to what a lot of neocons and apologists for Bush's failed Iraqi invasion continue to say, "everyone on earth" did NOT believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or that he had "reconstituted his nuclear program". The U.N. inspectors (who actually know something on the subject, along with Hans Blix and Scott Ritter) were adamant that Hussein did not have WMD. That wasn’t good enough for the White House, and it wasn’t good enough for Jane Harmon either.

Harmon, in her critical and lofty position, was privy to intelligence that many other Democrats were not as the White House led this nation to war. Harmon facilitated the White House lies to her fellow Democrats in Congress in her breathless urgency that we were all in great peril from Saddam's ability to attack the U.S. with WMD's. Her role in misleading Democrats and the public is, in my eyes, far more insidious than even that of Judith Miller, who used the New York Times as a mouthpiece for White House propaganda.


Still, in spite of the fact that the average Democrat in Congress was not privy to much of the classified material that Harmon was, they nonetheless were able to make up their own minds, draw the correct conclusion about the so-called "evidence" of WMD, and courageously vote against Bush's pre-emptive war. One of those brave Democrats was none other than House Speaker-Elect, Nancy Pelosi. She and a substantially large group of Democrats in the House and the Senate refused to authorize America's first "pre-emptive" war". And time and circumstances have now proven them right.

On the other hand, Jane Harmon was a hold over of the Gephardt/Dashle crowd that had been complicit in Bush's illegal, immoral and disastrous policies. Want to hear an ugly truth about our Democratic Party in those days? The crowd in Bush's White House, between 2001 and 2003 did not even need a Republican "rubber stamp" congress to achieve its ends because it had enough traitorous Democrats helping them all the way, hell, even cheering them on as they cavalierly violated our Constitution and international law. And through it all, Jane Harmon was one Democrat that Bush could count on.

The Present: Harmon and her supporters (including the Bush White House and many within the Corporate Media) are working a public relations campaign to see her seated as Chair of the Intelligence Committee, a position that depends not on seniority, but the appointment by the Speaker of the House. The insinuation is that Harmon has "earned" the chairmanship. The truth is that she should be fired from the committee as soon as the new Congress convenes in January.

The Future: The American people want and need to know how it came to be that Intelligence was cooked-up, manipulated by the Defense Department, the CIA and the Pentagon and fed to unsuspecting members of Congress in order to wage war in Iraq.

The American public is expecting probing questions into how did 3,000 Americans wind up dying to create this Civil War in Iraq.

Our citizens are angry and are expecting a thorough investigation into how we came to piss away $11 Million every hour since this war began, how tens of thousands of our troops are wounded and how and why some 500,000 Iraqi innocent civilians have died in vain.

We want to know how it is that we went to war wasting blood and treasure to essentially give over a great part of Iraq to Iran. Jane Harmon is part of the problem. She certainly can not be trusted to provide the scrutinizing of the Iraq War policies when she should be scrutinized herself. No wonder the Republicans are crossing their fingers that Harmon becomes the chair to that committee: the fox would be guarding the henhouse.

Speaker-Elect Pelosi has promised to clean the House. Well, the very first sweep of her broom should be toward the House Intelligence Committee. And Jane Harmon should be the very first to enter her dust bin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
KingFlorez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. She was in the minority, how much could she have known?
I'm not saying she should be chair, but let's remember who was in control when the war started. Democrats weren't privy to everything. A lot of Democrats were duped into supporting this war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. She should have known.
As I point out, a lot of us were never "duped" into believing the fraudulent "evidence" the White House presented. The DU archives during that critical period are replete with posts from many here and articles that countered every single piece of evidence that the Bush Cabal tried to sell as fact.

Indeed, the very day of Colin Powell's "presentation" to the U.N. the posts here were attacking each of his "items of evidence" as already debunked nonsense.

As I said in the OP, she was either complicit or not intelligent to be on the Intelligence Committee. Your post suggests the latter. I suspect the former.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xkenx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
20. Dems. WERE privy to enough information before the war.
I went to a Wes Clark PAC (Securing America) meeting a year ago at which Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) spoke. He was asked about prewar intelligence and replied that the Dems. in Congress knew enough that the claims about WMD, nukes, and the like, were bogus. That's why Levin voted against IWR, along with others. The ones who voted for it were trying to cover their backsides politically, so that their opponents couldn't portray them as weak on terror. The courageous ones, like Levin and Wes Clark, had the defense creds and integrity to call it as it was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-28-06 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
46. Congresscritters on the intel committee get more info
than members not on the committee, even minority members. They have numerous closed sessions where classified material is discussed and they are not allowed to share that info with anyone not on the committee.

In addition the chair and the ranking minority member get additional info (in theory the same info) over the other committee members. She would have had the same briefings as Hoekstra/Goss Roberts & Rockefeller.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. One correction
It is dependent on senority. That is why Hastings would be next in line. Only by kicking Harmon entirely off the committee can she keep Harmon from becoming chair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. no, she gets to appoint this one office, it is NOT dependant on seniority
all of the other posts are, or at least almost all. But not this one.
Besides, being a AIPAC neocon in D clothing, she leapfrogged over two or three others just to get where she is at the moment, before the new congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Then why is Hastings the only alternative?
Surely we can find someone who wasn't impeached for accepting bribes to replace her then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. no, he is the second highest ranking person, and he really really wants it.
he has been pushing the black caucus hard for support. He has been calling in all chips. He dislikes and distrusts harman (so do I) and thinks that his judicial impeachment stuff is way in the past.

He is not the only alternative. She can pick any congresscritter she wants - even a GOPer. In fact, that was not unheard of before the age of Gingrich. Truly expert people, regardless of party affiliation, were put in charge of certain critical positions. That disappeared when the GOp politicized everything. and every vote. and every position. They came close to destroying our country. We have a lot of work to do. but to get there, we cannot afford to have a AIPAC loving, pseudo-neocon like harmon in charge. It would be like putting Lieberman in the highest levels of the democratic strategists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Well, I want her fired from the committee completely.
Edited on Mon Nov-27-06 06:58 PM by David Zephyr
We need questions asked and questions answered. Harmon is part of the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. I agree she doesn't deserve the position
even if it takes kicking her entirely off the committee. I do wish we had an alternative aside from Hastings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
3. you got it backwards.
1st - America
2nd - our troops
3d - the Democrat Party.


That is the way they should line up. In order of importance.
And worse, she puts AIPAC ahead of all those three. Yes, she has to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
7. I heard she has ties to AIPAC. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. not just ties - bondage with kevlar and titanium wrappings.
can you imagine one subpeona with her in charge of that committee? One investigation that might - just might - adversely impact Israel? No way. She is a paid agent of AIPAC and has different goals than most of Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemonFighterLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
9. Jane, you ignorant slut- SNL
I am convinced- You're Fired!
I never liked how she talked when I saw her on c-spn. She appeared to love the war as much as dubby did.
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BelgianMadCow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
10. I am glad to find out about Pelosi's stance on the war
if I interpret correctly, she voted no on the IWR. Very good...

You have argued your case convincingly. Hope dems read DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BelgianMadCow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. By the way I think you mean Jane HarmAn
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. Here's the scorecard:
"Pelosi voted against a resolution put forth in Congress in October that authorized President Bush to use force against Iraq if necessary. Sixty percent of House Democrats voted against the resolution, but it ultimately passed through both houses of Congress." http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/07/sprj.irq.pelosi/index.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
13. when someone stabs you in the back
do you ask them to push deeper? harmon stabbed pelosi in the back and that`s a big no-no in the world of machine politics
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
17. While I'm not enthusiastic with Hstings, I really don't want Harmon chairing
this committee. I'd like to see Rush Holt get this chair. He's a smart dude and this would be a great pick for this critical committee. Hastings is damaged goods, but if it's a binary choice, I'd go with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-28-06 04:27 AM
Response to Reply #17
39. I don't see why it has to be Hastings or Harman. I agree. Rush Holt.
Defuse this "controversy" AND get Harman out of there. If she needs to put some new faces on the Cmte, she can add Dennis Kucinich and Lynn Woolsey. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
18. She's Not Entitled To The Chair, Nor Should She Have It
Jane Harman is not our best choice for the position, she's too closely aligned with Pubs and far too accommodating to * & Roberts. When she needed a lawyer because the FBI was investigating her she chose GOP honcho Ted Olson, a very telling move. Here's more on Miss Jane:

What’s for Dinner?
On the House Intelligence Committee, it’s a heaping plate of
controversy.

“Oct. 25, 2006 - While reportedly under investigation for her ties to an influential pro-Israel lobbying organization, California Rep. Jane Harman last month hosted a private dinner for the group that was attended by two top Bush administration officials—Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff.

The Sept. 13 dinner took place at the home of Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, and was attended by over 120 top financial backers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The highlight of the evening was a panel discussion in which Harman played the host, questioning Negroponte and Chertoff about Mideast developments, international terrorism and homeland-security issues, according to an AIPAC official.

The dinner was hardly an unusual one for AIPAC. The group often arranges such elite pow-wows at the homes of senior members of Congress and government officials (one in the mid-1990s was hosted by then Vice President Al Gore) as a way for AIPAC to both demonstrate its political clout and to provide a perk for major donors.

But last month’s event raises new questions about recent reports that the FBI was investigating whether Harman, an outspoken supporter of Israel, last year may have agreed to improperly influence an ongoing Justice Department probe of AIPAC. The reports of the probe came just a few days after Harman released a politically sensitive House report that included important new details about the investigation surrounding the activities of disgraced former GOP Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham.” cont.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15419753/site/newsweek/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Excellent post and the Ted Olson connection is indeed "a telling move"
Thanks for the informative post and links, Me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. Things Are Not Always What They Seem
Part of the hubbub over the position comes from what was done in 2001, and the CBC is determined that Harman will not finagle another move which knocks one of their members out of the box again. So the issue involves more than simply considering what Harman wants and the so called rancor on Pelosi's part.

<<<snip>>>

“After Harman lost her gubernatorial bid, Pelosi urged her to run for Congress again. Harman's choice was made easier by the fact that then-Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) had promised her in writing that she could reclaim her seniority on the Intelligence Committee. That bumped a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Sanford D. Bishop Jr. (D-Ga.), off the committee and jumped her over another African American, Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.), in seniority.

Black members of Congress were upset by what they saw as a slap by House Democratic leaders. Last year the black caucus asked for a meeting, and according to one witness, Pelosi promised not to slight either blacks or Latinos when plum slots came up on the Intelligence and Homeland Security committees.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-harmanpelosi21nov21,0,1305354,full.story

and then there is the issue of wiretapping


“The second reason is that the Democratic chair of the Intelligence committee should not be supporting Bush's illegal wiretapping program. Here is Harman defending the program on Fox News last year:
HUME: And outline, if you will, your concerns about those briefings.

HARMAN: All right. Well, first of all, the program we were briefed on in a very closed environment in the White House, with no staff present, on a basis that we could not discuss it with anyone, was basically a foreign collection program. I still support that program. And I think the leak of that program to The New York Times and maybe elsewhere compromises national security...”

http://adam_conner.mydd.com/story/2006/11/17/15445/570
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Nancy, please kick Harman to the CURB!
It's NOT a catfight, media whores. It's patriotism and good politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemonFighterLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
27. OMG
Death squad Negroponte and Skeletor Chertoff. those two clowns alone should disqualify her. It is the company she keeps. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Any Guesses As To Who She Thought
would win the election? A dinner for publican bigwigs less than 2 weeks before....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemonFighterLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-28-06 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #29
43. That is just disgusting
Apparently she thought dubby done a heckuva job.
:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spag68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
21. Harmon
Anyone paying attention, knows that she rolled over for the bushies. The question is, why? Anyway, don't let all this crap about the dems. infighting worry you. I think it's a smokescreen to lull the rethugs into having hope, before the hammer falls. At any rate, I hope so. I think most here know Pelosi as a tough pol. who will make the right moves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
22. Her last name is spelled "Harman"
might be a good idea to change it in your post. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Thanks.
Ah, but mispellings are the hallmark of a David Zephyr post. Thanks, sparosnare. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
williesgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
26. Neither Harman nor Hastings should get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Agreed. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. The third ranking Democrat seems to be a decent enough person. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-28-06 04:23 AM
Response to Reply #30
37. Rush Holt. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-28-06 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #37
41. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, I think, is next in line. He was elected in '96. Holt was elected in '98. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-27-06 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
31. I'll take anyone over Hastings
Talk about perfectly wrapped gift for the GOP propaganda machine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sueh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-28-06 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
32. I'll not forget when she let Bush off the hook for illegal wiretapping.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-28-06 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #32
38. That's the big one, right there. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-28-06 12:19 AM
Response to Original message
33. I agree David...
Pelosi can find someone better. She has proven herself not up to the job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-28-06 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #33
45. What about Hastings, Kentuck?
Will his past impeachment compromise the Democrats promise to restore ethics to the House after the Delay, Foley, Ney, Cunningham mess? I am concerned it might.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-28-06 02:52 AM
Response to Original message
34. I can't believe Harman's constituents just passed up a golden opportunity to replace her.
Marcy Winograd, an outstanding progressive and president of LAPDA, ran against Harman in the Primary.

http://www.winogradwatchdog.com

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-28-06 04:16 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. One reason...Harman is my rep
and this is a very conservative area (the South Bay area of the County), we used to be represented by "B1"Bob Dornan. The area I'm in will only vote in a moderate Democrat and we're lucky to get that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-28-06 04:50 AM
Response to Reply #35
40. Sorry to hear that.
Harman has been bad, but Dornan was a nightmare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-28-06 04:23 AM
Response to Original message
36. I agree. I smell a rat with the media cheerleading Harman to stay. Two Words: RUSH HOLT.
I'll say it again. RUSH HOLT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-28-06 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #36
42. Completely agreed
Harmon sold America out- time and time again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-28-06 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
44. Harman's amongst 16 congress critters under investigation...
... for her trying to curry favor with Pelosi to stay on as committee chair. This is starting to stink more!

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Members_of_Congress_under_investigation#Rep._Jane_Harman_.28D-Calif..29

Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.)


Jane Harman is under investigation by the Justice Department for allegedly (with the help of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) enlisting wealthy donors to lobby House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to retain Harman as the head Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. The investigation into the alleged campaign to support Harman for the leadership post began in mid-2005 after media reports said that Pelosi might name Rep. Alcee Hastings to succeed Harman. In addition to investigating alleged calls made at Harman’s behest by wealthy Democratic Party contributors to Pelosi, the probe is also looking into whether, in exchange for help from AIPAC, Harman agreed to try to persuade the Bush Administration to go easy on AIPAC officials involved in a broader investigation. Both Harman and AIPAC have denied the allegations. Harman won reelection in November 2006.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-28-06 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
47. Thank you so much for the information
NPR had a bit on this this AM, and they made it sound like Pelosi didn't like Harmon because she didn't like the way she dressed, or she stole her boyfriend, or something. Definitely trivialized what is obviously a very good reason for the "dislike."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 10th 2024, 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC