But Why?

All else being equal, Alcee Hastings isn't reallly the dovish congressman I want to go to interfactional war with. That said, Josh Marshall's quick conclusion that "it's not about Jane Harman. It's about Alcee Hastings" and "I just think it's a bad idea to have someone chair the intel committee who has previously been impeached and convicted by Congress for corrupt acts" seems far too simplistic for me.

Let's just set these things aside. Based on TPM Muckraker roundups, the case against Hastings is that, on the one hand, he "and a friend tried to shake down a defendant facing trial in Hastings' courtroom for $150,000. In exchange, the two promised a reduced jail sentence and the return of over $800,000 in confiscated property." What's more "in 1985, he leaked secret government information that ruined three FBI probes." Now, the US Senate rejected those leak charges during the Hastings impeachment process, and though Hastings was removed from office over the bribe matter, he was also found not guilty in a criminal trial.

But let's assume it's true. Hastings shook some dudes down for $150,000 and ruined three FBI investigations. Jane Harman, by contrast, supported an invasion of Iraq based on bogus intelligence that's costs hundreds of billions of dollars and killed hundreds of thousands of people. Who do I have more doubts about? Rush Holt, the new potential compromise figure, seems like a far better choice than either. No bribery allegations and, what's more, he "voted against the Congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq, primarily because there was no evidence of an Iraq connection to 9/11, because there was no evidence that Saddam posed an immediate threat to us with WMD, and because I believed the President's new-found enthusiasm for a "preemptive war" doctrine was both unconstitutional and dangerous."

That sounds like the kind of thing I'm looking for in an Intel Chair. I think people should take the fact that Harman was sitting on that committee and didn't reach Holt's conclusion more seriously. What was she doing? What intelligence was she looking at? I was looking in part at the fact that all these Democratic leaders -- people like Harman -- were for the war, and assumed they wouldn't be doing so without good reason. But, obviously, they were. So why were they? Why was she?

Comments

Ezra: "I think people should take the fact that Harman was sitting on that committee and didn't reach Holt's conclusion more seriously. What was she doing? What intelligence was she looking at?"

Offhand, I'd say AIPAC's.

Posted by Firebug | November 26, 2006 5:41 PM

Oops, I meant to quote Matt, not Ezra. Wrong blog.

Posted by Firebug | November 26, 2006 5:41 PM

Really? You have more doubts about Jane Harmon than about Alcee Hastings? Even if what he did was a long time ago, do we really need to give the Republican talking heads something so obvious to carp about for the next 2 years? Alcee Hastings in a no-no.

Rush Holt would be a fine choice if Pelosi can't bring herself to appoint Harmon. Frankly, and this is very superficial, I like Harmon because she is good on TV. Pelosi stinks on TV. We need a few people in the House who can go head to head with Republicans. Harmon can. But Holt would be a good compromise.

Posted by Susan | November 26, 2006 5:51 PM

Harmon's positions have been pretty much the same as those of the most likely nominee for president of the Democratic party. Is she, too, disqualified? And John Edwards? And Al Gore*? And Evan Bayh?

*"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

Posted by rainsborough | November 26, 2006 5:58 PM

I have this to say: Fuck Jane Harman. As for Hastings, who cares what he did 20-25 years ago? The evidence of the bribe is, well, it's compelling but not beyond a reasonable doubt.

But who cares? Who cares about what happened 20 years ago? The fact is, Harman is so close with AIPAC that she tried to get them to illegally lobby on her behalf, and this is an organization who's members have been busted for actual, real spying against the US. Not to mention her support for the war and all that.

Hastings seems like a colorful character, and pretty standard as far as congressmen go, and people can mature over 20 years.

Anyway, Holt or Hastings, I don't care. I don't want to see Harman get it (plus, how odd is it that all three of these people's names start with H?)

Really? You have more doubts about Jane Harmon than about Alcee Hastings? Even if what he did was a long time ago, do we really need to give the Republican talking heads something so obvious to carp about for the next 2 years? Alcee Hastings in a no-no.

This is a cowards' argument. The republicans are going to be harping about something for the next two years, and they'll just make shit up if they need to (see boating, swift). I say we do whatever we want and stop worrying about the republican boogyman.

Posted by Chad Okere | November 26, 2006 6:00 PM

rainsborough: Don't be an idiot. Gore may have said some nasty things about Saddam, but he didn't support the war when it started.

Posted by chad okere | November 26, 2006 6:02 PM

Josh Marshall has chosen a side.

The Rahm/Hoyer/Harman/DLC/Rubin Establishment and Reaction and "Competent" Hawkish Side over the Change and Democracy and Peace Side. I am not surprised.

Posted by bob mcmanus | November 26, 2006 6:43 PM

MY, Harman went along with the crowd, you went along with the crowd. What's the difference? Taking bribes as a federal judge is worse.

Posted by James B. Shearer | November 26, 2006 6:54 PM

The Rahm/Hoyer/Harman/DLC/Rubin Establishment and Reaction and "Competent" Hawkish Side over the Change and Democracy and Peace Side.

I don't think he's ever not been on that side, has he? Anyway, he's got a kid now, and--to borrow Maitlin's explanation of Chris Matthew's public drift right--at some point he has to grow up and worry about the mortgage. And your side might want to invest in some naming advice, bob. And maybe a haircut.

Posted by somecallmetim | November 26, 2006 6:57 PM

Taking bribes as a federal judge is worse.

Getting caught might be worse. As I understand it, the underlying charge against Harman is that she's owned by a special interest group with a special interest in the subject matter of the intelligence committee. That seems pretty troubling. Anyway, I vote for Holt: he's got a nice background for this, and he seems like not a moron.

Posted by somecallmetim | November 26, 2006 7:07 PM

My big problem with Harman, which I see others share, is that she's way too close with AIPAC. That alone is a good reason to not want her chairing this committee. As for Hastings, his record of corruption would be a hugely useful target for the Republicans, one that they could use to discredit the whole committee (especially since it plays to the racist meme that black politicians are just in it for the money). Comparisons to the Iraq war are useless here; Hastings' corruption will resonate unpleasantly with (white) voters far more than Harman's backing of the war will. The Dems absolutely need to settle on one of the other candidates; both of these are potential disasters, though for wildly different reasons.

Posted by Rebecca Allen, PhD, ARNP | November 26, 2006 7:10 PM

Does anyone think Harman wants to reexamine the pre-war intelligence? If the evidence was so manipulated that Holt didn't vote for the use of force, Harman certainly wouldn't want that to come out. Also, I thought you were limited to 8 years on a select committee (Harman has served 8) - the idea being you wouldn't become beholden to either the intelligence community or other entities.

PS - what kind of wanker post myname, PhD on a blog comment?

Posted by ghost of RFK | November 26, 2006 7:20 PM

Hastings shook some dudes down for $150,000 and ruined three FBI investigations. Jane Harman, by contrast, supported an invasion of Iraq based on bogus intelligence that's costs hundreds of billions of dollars and killed hundreds of thousands of people.

I agree that it's quite obvious that in terms of a real, honest ethical accounting, Jane Harman's fuckups are far more substantial than Alcee Hastings'. On the merits, I'd rather give honor and such to Hastings.

However, the game is the game. It's all in the game.

That is, we live in a quasi-parliamentary democracy now. Individuals are not what matter, but the party. The party gains from putting a unified front against domestic corruption, and then using this wildly popular position as a wedge against corruption in the occupation, and thus as a wedge against the occupation itself. Alcee Hastings as a committee chair totally fucks the party. Is it right that Jane Harman's ethical lapses are not a big deal, while Hastings' are? Of course not. But the game is the game.

I'd rather have Rush Holt as committee chair. But, again, the game is the game. You put Rush Holt in charge, and you piss off the centrists, you piss off the CBC, and you trouble every hard-working congressperson trying to gain seniority and work her way up the ladder. I'd love it if Pelosi could make it work, but it seems dangerous. And if it isn't Holt, as much as Harman deeply troubles me, I recognize that we have to play the game.

Posted by DivGuy | November 26, 2006 7:33 PM

"PS - what kind of wanker post myname, PhD on a blog comment?"

The long respected and admired kind, likely with experience of sexist ad hominems in conversation and comment threads.

Posted by bob mcmanus | November 26, 2006 7:38 PM

you trouble every hard-working congressperson trying to gain seniority and work her way up the ladder

On the other hand, it's good to show that one way of working your way up the ladder is to think things through carefully and be right about major policy issues. Which Holt (and Hastings and Reyes) did, and Harman didn't.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | November 26, 2006 7:38 PM

I really really hate (maybe fear) to bring it up especially on MY's site, but is Josh influenced too much by pro-Israel-no-matter-what feeling that he perhaps doesn't realize affect him as strongly as they do?

Posted by MNPundit | November 26, 2006 8:00 PM

There will be many times that moderates in Congress will be asked to do what is in the party's interest rather than what's in their own personal interest.

For Pelosi to personalize things so often this early in the game sets a really bad precedent.

Posted by Consumatopia | November 26, 2006 8:19 PM

All concerns about Harman's AIPAC and pro-war views aside: Don't place an impeached former judge as head of the most important intel committee.
I know we're Democrats, but shit, this one's rather obvious: BAD POLITICS. Stay away. Go with Reyes, go with Holt, go with Harman (and if we're going to nail every congressional Dem who voted for war authorization we're in trouble). Just don't go with Hastings. Yglesias's cutesy contrarian tendencies run aground on this one. Hastings is the tone-deaf political choice. Man up.

Posted by Colin | November 26, 2006 8:41 PM

I'm not for nailing every Congressional Dem who voted for war authorization. But I am for making sure the Intelligence Committee, in particular, is chaired by somebody who got it right.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | November 26, 2006 8:54 PM

Re: As for Hastings, who cares what he did 20-25 years. The evidence of the bribe is, well, it's compelling but not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hmm, sounds like something Tom Delay would say.
You know a major reason the Democrats are goinbg to control teh nerxt Congress is that the voters were disgusted by GOP corruption. Good grief, the last thing you want to do is give the impression that the Democrats are going to keep the payola flowing and K Street fat, dumb and happy!

Posted by Jonf | November 26, 2006 9:20 PM

Nobody blinked at the criminal records of Elliot Abrams, Otto Reich, John Negroponte and John Poindexter. They certainly had no problem getting security clearances.

Posted by Bob | November 26, 2006 9:32 PM

I think Josh's opinions don't reflect any pro-Israel no-matter-what-feeling. He's quite capable of being critical of Israel, and he doesn't label everyone who disagrees with him on it antisemetic. He seems fairly pro-Israel but rational, and I doubt that his position on Israel explains this.

Now, Josh clearly does have some pro-Israel feelings, and he has sided with Harman on this (in a way), but these are symptoms of a bigger characteristic - Josh, at the end of the day, is a good-governance, not too radical thinking, Left-of-the-DLC-but-not-too-willing-to-really-buck-the-common-wisdom type. Now, he's significantly better than most of those "centrist" types because at the end of the day, he is capable of reality based thinking and he mostly can resist the most problematic DC common wisdom. But, he still fell for the all the pre-War build-up, and his big leftist issues are social security and corruption - not exactly radical. He also took a LOT longer to see Lieberman's true self than most rational viewers took.

I think Josh is a good and smart and useful guy, clearly someone who strengthens the Democratic tent, but he's not exactly free of the DC establishment common wisdom, and honestly - it sometimes takes the man awhile to catch on. Hence his support for Harman. Certainly most of the people in DC don't see her ties to AIPAC as a problem - if anything, they would LOVE for Democrats to reject her over it.

Posted by MDtoMN | November 26, 2006 9:39 PM

Nobody blinked at the criminal records of Elliot Abrams, Otto Reich, John Negroponte and John Poindexter

Look carefully at that group, then Hastings. See if you can pick out the difference. It really can't be Hastings; as someone above said, the game is what it is. There is no way the media is taking a fair look at Hastings; it won't even occur to them to compare his history to that of the above group or any of the Nixon folk that have, I'm sure, flowed back in.

A vote for Holt is a vote for America!

Posted by somecallmetim | November 26, 2006 9:42 PM

MNPundit wrote: "I really really hate (maybe fear) to bring it up especially on MY's site, but is Josh influenced too much by pro-Israel-no-matter-what feeling that he perhaps doesn't realize affect him as strongly as they do?"

Then why do it? If you want to say that Josh Marshall's thinking is clouded, in a way you can detect and he cannot, by being a J-E-W, then either do it or don't. I happen to disagree with you - in my experience he's pretty upfront about just what kind of Zionist he is and isn't - but whatever. Just don't go all hinting around the bushes at these things - "...especially on MY's site..."; "...influenced too much..." - and just say what you mean and mean what you say.

Note: not calling you a bigot, here, and I get that that's the "fear" you reference. But especially on this issue, I think it's important we be as direct as possible, and not start whispering about secret/unknown loyalties and all.

Also: very much yes to Rush Holt. Beyond AIPAC, Harman is also in the pocket of the defense contractors, which is a rather unfortunate (and far too common) habit among senior Dems, and one we should look to be breaking.

Posted by jkd | November 26, 2006 10:09 PM

Not that I think this factor should be overriding, but I'm surprised that I've hardly seen anyone point out that Alcee Hastings was elected to Congress in 1992, three years after he was impeached. So Congress kicked him out of his judgeship; he was criminally acquitted; and the people elected him. Assuming he had or has ever had an opponent, the whole bribery/impeachment business must have been an issue at some point. Shouldn't it be considered settled by now?

Posted by Christopher M | November 26, 2006 10:12 PM

If you are going to sit around and worry about who is in AIPAC's pocket you can pretty much throw in the towel when it comes to leadership positions. Read the Syrian Accountability Act some time, it's a laundry list that reads exactly like what would be churned out by an Arab political body about Israel regarding Palestine: They have an occupying force that disrupts democracy, they make weapons of mass destruction, they arm bad people, blah, blah, blah. It's about Syria. When you look the mile or so around the border it can't help but feel just like a big "fuck you" to the region and an inside joke. It passed almost unanimously with 4 nays divided between democrats and republicans. We have problems electing the democrats isn't going to solve in the short term.

Posted by ed marshall | November 26, 2006 10:43 PM

rainsborough, that one sentence of Gore's you quote comes from his famous speech to the Commonwealth Club opposing launching the Iraq War. Somehow, you forgot to mention that while arguing that Jane Harman and Al Gore had "pretty much the same views" on the subject.

I like Rush Holt too. But I can remember in 2000, when then-first-termer Holt was reelected after a recount with a Green Party candidate who took 2% of the vote. When Ralph Nader, who was speaking at a college in New Jersey in 2001, was asked about this, he said that Holt "deserved to lose" because he was willing to support an expansion of nuclear power plant construction as one avenue of cutting down on fossil fuels. And anyone who doesn't agree with St. Ralph 100% is a very evil person. Just ask him. He'll tell you.

Posted by Chris | November 26, 2006 11:10 PM

"Yglesias's cutesy contrarian tendencies"

...are perhaps, all things considered, not that bad. The Andrea Mitchells of the world want us to focus on the supposed reality that it's either Hastings or Harmon. So perhaps the best way of saying that we really, really don't want Harmon is to say hey, maybe Hastings is not so bad. If it's a wide open choice between several people, then let's throw out these two and settle on someone non-controversial. But if we're going to have the Harmon-Hastings choice shoved down our throats (so that we'll be forced to choose Harmon without talking about all her worse qualities), let's pick sides. If Hastings is a kind of poison pill pumped up by certain quarters in order to get people running to Harmon, I'm not opposed to considerations about why we may actually have to eat it.

Posted by Jeremiah J. | November 27, 2006 12:59 AM

Wow, the wrongness of these pro-Hastings comments is just so entirely...wrong. The difference between Harman's misdeeds and Hastings' misdeeds are differences of a kind, and Marshall is entirely right to say that it doesn't much matter who the other people in contention for the position are -- Hastings is very clearly not the right choice.

Corruption of Hastings' kind is just very, very bad, and the fact that he was elected three years after the fact is extremely irrelevant (my opinion on this matter is certainly shaped by once having lived in DC under Marion Barry...after his comeback).

It's fine for commenters to highmindedly say that that Holt would be a better choice. But Marshall is quite clear that he's not offering an opinion on Holt vs. Harman vs. Hastings. Hastings is just a bad choice. Chalking this up to Marshall's views on Israel is just silly.

Posted by Rex | November 27, 2006 2:34 AM

Truly you are the most convincing of persuaders, Rex. The pro-Hasting comments are just so wrong, Hastings is clearly not the right choice, corruption of Hastings' kind is just very very bad, etc.

How can I reply? Pro-Harman comments are just so wrong, Harman is clearly not the right choice, corruption of Harman's kind is just very very bad, etc.

You stand refuted.

Posted by otto | November 27, 2006 8:40 AM

I stand corrected--Gore opposed the war, and good for him--all that better that he did so despite his mistaken views on Iraqi WMD.

Still, when it comes to assessing intelligence, Gore made the same mistake Harman did. Yglesias is now erecting a standard of acceptability that Harman is scarcely alone in failing to meet.

Either Holt or Harman is acceptable. Hastings would be a disastrous choice, both on the merits and on the politics.

Posted by rainsborough | November 27, 2006 10:12 AM

Either Holt or Harman is acceptable. Hastings would be a disastrous choice, both on the merits and on the politics

Justify "on the merits," Red.

Posted by somecallmetim | November 27, 2006 10:19 AM

Note that even the neocon New Republic is starting to evince some doubts about Harman:

In the debate over which Democrat should lead the House Intelligence Committe, Alcee Hastings has endured a lot of well-deserved scrutiny lately. But it's only fair to note that Jane Harman wasn't exactly a lantern in the darkness in the runup to the Iraq war:

"There's a strong intelligence case that Iraq has not destroyed its weapons of mass destruction and is building the capability to use them," said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House intelligence committee. "There's a growing al Qaeda presence in Iraq, and I think the case can be made that there is a growing affiliation" between Baghdad and terrorist groups.

Growing al Qaeda presence? I knew that Harman supported the war. I hadn't realized quite how much bad intel she swallowed whole.

It's hard to believe TNR has concerns about AIPAC's influence, so it appears to be a straightforward worry that she might not be up to the job.

Posted by somecallmetim | November 27, 2006 10:39 AM

I'm hesitant to do it mostly because of the massive dust up at TPM cafe over Rosenberg's comments during the Israel-Lebannon War. But also because it's more difficult to respond to comments here than at TPM Cafe but jkd you are right and I wish I could edit that post to be more clear. So let me rephrase:

"I worry that Josh Marshall's Jewish ties make him see Harman in a more positive light than she deserves and that he doesn't realize that--and that leads Muckraker to focus on Hastings's Muck as opposed to Harman's."

Posted by MNPundit | November 27, 2006 10:49 AM

There certainly has been little discussion of Harman's muck by JMM. There's still time for him to address it.

Posted by otto | November 27, 2006 10:57 AM

JMM's not obligated to thresh out every issue. Other people are doing it. Everyone has their own biases, after all; Yglesias thinks the Wizards will make the playoffs.

Posted by somecallmetim | November 27, 2006 11:06 AM

Nobody's obligated to do anything in the wonderful world of the interwebs. But if JMM is an equal opportunity muckraker, as he claims, he should be looking at Harman's muck too, or getting criticism for not doing so.

Posted by otto | November 27, 2006 11:27 AM

"Growing al Qaeda presence? I knew that Harman supported the war. I hadn't realized quite how much bad intel she swallowed whole."

Her history is the biggest strike against her. She will probably not have the inclination or the credibility to go up against the kind of thing she was a big part of before the war. I can't believe that she really loves to think about how wrong she was about everything, or that she wants to go after those like-minded people who spun the intelligence before the war. So for me it's not primarily about her Israel stance or even her general war stance. It's her basic inclinations and historical relation to the most pressing intelligence problems now in front of the country.

And when a reporter like Andrea Mitchell uses the first few minutes of TV time after the Dem victory on the night of the election to pump up a candidate for intel chair, with talking points at the ready, something stinks. Whoever it was, AIPAC or whoever, Harman was being pumped up in a coordinated campaign in the runup to the election--with talking points carefully crafted to direct attention away from her hawkish views. I don't like Hastings, but the Black Congressional Caucus must feel like they're the one big Dem constituency that it's okay to snub again and again.

Posted by Jeremiah J. | November 27, 2006 11:36 AM

Josh Marshall's claims that his extensive negative coverage of Alcee Hastings impeachment (an event that happened over 20 years ago) is not advocacy for Jane Harman.

But look at the Kenneth Baer article cheerleading for Harman's appointment that was published on Talking Points Memo on Nov 14: http://coffeehouse.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/nov/14/intelligent_design

Plus Josh is ignoring the major negatives that Jane Harman has --i.e., her responsibility for events that have happened in the past 4 years. Events that resulted in the death of almost 3000 US soldiers.

Posted by Don Williams | November 27, 2006 1:40 PM

Let's see, arguing against a candidate impeached for taking bribes as a federal judge is "simplistic." And there is some sort of statute of limitations for leaking materials about three FBI probe? Does Yglesias really pretend to be serious.

Harman made an honest judgment that turned out to be misguided. The hysterics by the commenters remind me why I am no longer a liberal. Even Mickey Kaus's dumber brother is against the Hastings nomination.

Posted by daveinboca | November 27, 2006 2:30 PM

Harman is a bad choice, but Hastings is a worse choice.

Posted by 'roots | November 27, 2006 3:01 PM

1) The most damaging aspect of Jane Harman's ties to the Israel lobby is not her dealings with AIPAC -- it is her ties to an Israeli billionaire named Haim Saban.

2) Haim Saban used part of his immense fortune to create the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institute. In 2002, the Director of Research at the Saban Center, Kenneth Pollack, was scaring the hell out of US voters by warning that Saddam Hussein was mounting a major effort to acquire the nuclear bomb. In his best-selling book "The Threatening Storm" , Kenneth Pollack
said:
--------

Posted by Don Williams | November 27, 2006 3:05 PM