When last I saw Nancy Pelosi and Haim Saban, they were at the AIPAC conference in June. Pelosi was dangling the dogtags of Israeli soldiers taken hostage by hostile forces. Weirded me out: I wondered if she dangles American dogtags? While Saban, truly a glorious presence in a platinum tie, was showing off his multicultural display of the young American-Israel army, his Saban fellows, and telling his amazing personal story of going from Cairo to Israel and on to buy Power Rangers in Japan…
Well: here Pelosi and Saban are again. In a Time magazine piece two years ago suggesting that California Congresswoman Jane Harman, who is Jewish, was illegally using AIPAC muscle to lobby her own party boss, Pelosi, to make sure she got appointed the top Dem on the House Intelligence Committee.Harman's bio says she's the ranking Dem.
I bring all this up because Harman is being spoken of for the director of the CIA under Obama. Do you think AIPAC muscle has anything to do with such rumors? Key excerpt from the Time piece:
has donated at least $3,000 to Harman's campaign, according to Federal
Election Commission records, and the Saban Center for Middle East
Policy, which he sponsors at the prestigious Brookings Institution,
boasts Harman among its biggest fans. "When the Saban Center talks, I
listen," Harman said at a Saban Center briefing in February on U.S.
strategy in Iraq. Harman quipped that, in order to attend the session
at Brookings, she had to "blow off" a senior intelligence official's
appearance before a House committee.
What would Harman blow off for Saban at CIA?
P.S. The Time Magazine piece touched on the famous AIPAC spying case that drags on and on, going nowhere, for a reason. Writes a friend: "Well the AIPAC spy case was in court again on October 18th but
nothing in the media about it. Truly frightening. While trying to find
any news of it I did find this October 25th radio discussion with Grant Smith, [author of the great new book on the birth of AIPAC, America's Defense Line] involving the case, and the usual contextual suspects, especially,
in light of Obama's likely new role as POTUS, Dennis Ross ("Israel's
lawyer"), who is an Obama consultant on foreign policy…"
Representative Harman as CIA director is a truly terrifying thought. Politicization of intelligence: you haven't seen anything yet.
I didn't know about the Time story, but it confirms what I already pretty much knew, that Harman somehow got on Pelosi's enemies list, which is what makes me doubt she'll be head of the CIA or anything like that. Maybe she'll get some mid-level appointment to get her out of the way . . . .
I saw the Jane Harman name, she is listed for consideration for the CIA and National Security Intelligence….Also listed is William Bratton of JINSA for Homeland Security.
Politico has the appointment names under consideration given to them by the Obama staff.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15142_Page2.html
Homeland Security secretary: Former Sen. Gary Hart (D-Colo.); William Bratton, Los Angeles police chief and former New York police commissioner; former Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Ind.), a member of the 9/11 Commission; Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.); Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
CIA director: Former Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Ind.), Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.)
Director of National Intelligence: Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif
Also mentioned is Larry Summers for Treasury, formerly of Harvard who stepped down after he called his own students anti-semites for criticizing Israel.
I have angonized all the way down to the line over my support of Obama, as Phil says, it's the 'Obamaquity' that has gotten me. As Obama has tapdanced from one side to the other I have no idea what he actually stands for on foreign policy.
Anyway seeing Harman's name and Will Bratton's name up for such sensitive offices as the CIA, DHS and National Intelligence finally threw it for me.
I go to vote in two hours. I am going third party. I have no douobt Obama will win but personally I am not going to reward politicans like this any longer with my vote.
Americans deserve a 100% American government and president and we shouldn't have to 'guess' at what a politican's real intentions or real loyalties or real beliefs are..whether they are to his own abmition, to another country, whatever.
One bright possibility is that expectations have been so raised for CHANGE…that if we don't get real, real Change all the way around, including Iraq, Israel and ME as well as the economy..then we have a good shot at finally getting that long needed second American revolution.
In, let's say, 200 top posts in White House administration, how many are being given to Jewish Americans? 1% – in line with Jewish representation in general population, or more?
In, let's say, 200 top posts in White House administration, how many are being given to Jewish Americans? 1% – in line with Jewish representation in general population, or more?
Posted by: Eva Smagacz
>>>>>>>.
How many Jews is not the point. It's the specific Jews mentioned and their 'known' activities in connection with AIPAC, JINSA and the Lukid in Israel that are the point. If the Jew under consideration for DHS or the CIA was someone like Jewish Russ Feingold it wouldn't be an issue.
But these kind of pro Israelis like Harman in our government are an issue.
I wouldn't care if a Jewish candidate for a national security position were pro-Israeli, if he or she could be trusted to put America first when the chips are down. The ugly, ugly, nasty reality is that such trust cannot simply be taken for granted anymore. As the neocommunists are so fond of saying: 9-11 changed everything. The ever-growing pile of rotting corpses from the wars engineered by Wolfowitz et al has undermined trust. How about Reagan's old adage 'Trust, but verify'? I'm cool with Representative Harman as CIA director if she'll let FBI counter-intelligence tap ALL of her communications. (not really, just making the point) This erosion of trust is a fundamental consequence of 'dual-loyalty' pushed too far, and benefit of the doubt will not be regained until the issue is resolved. Yes, this IS an ugly thing to say. It is even uglier because it true. No one WANTS it to be true. What can we do to make it not true anymore?