ALL THAT EFFORT WASTED

That’s what I thought after seeing this 8-page Newsweek article on Harold Ford’s campaign for the U.S. Senate. After all the writing, after all the platitudes about Harold Ford being a new type of Democrat, he had a meltdown when he angrily confronted Bob Corker when Corker was about to hold a press conference on lobbying reform.

We’ve all seen the video by now. It isn’t pretty. I suspect that Corker will spend this week talking about what he’ll do when he’s elected as the next senator from Tennessee. I suspect that he’ll slip questions about what to make of Ford’s behavior. The longer he says nothing about Ford’s meltdown, the better off he’ll be. There’s no reason for him to say anything about it because that’ll only give Ford the opportunity to change the subject. That’s the last thing that Corker wants at this point. I’m betting that each day that meltdown image of Ford lingers in Tennessee voters’ minds, another point comes off of Ford’s already-shrinking popularity.

The article is mostly about how untraditional a Democrat Ford is, how he’s a man of faith, that he isn’t an extremist ideologue, etc. Unfortunately, it doesn’t say anything about what a spoiled brat he is and how prone he is to temper tantrums. Thanks to the internet, though, we’ve seen his ’spoiled brat’ side, too.

When Corker described Ford’s stunt as the actions of a desparate man, Ford’s reply that “every poll in the nation shows me leading” rang hollow. If he wasn’t trailing, why pull such a stunt. There’s only two explanations: Either he’s just that much of a spoiled brat who can’t take the heat or he knows that his chance is slipping away and he had to do something. Neither presents a flattering image of Ford.

Barring Corker being caught in a major scandal, this race is essentially over.

DEM LEAK SUSPECT IDENTIFIED AND HARMAN'S IN HOT WATER

By Michelle Malkin

Fox News and the Los Angeles Times report on the identity of the Democrat leak suspect--a staffer in the office of House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.). LA Times:

The aide was identified by other congressional officials as Larry Hanauer. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of a pending investigation into the leak, said Hanauer had held positions with the departments of Defense and Homeland Security before joining the professional staff of Democrats on the House intelligence panel about two years ago.

A spokesman for Harman said Hanauer was not available to comment. His attorney, Jonathan Turley, expressed anger that Hanauer was named in news reports Friday and said there was no evidence the aide leaked the intelligence report.

Turley wrote to committee leaders, "When a staffer can become fodder for politics in this way, it discourages qualified people from seeking to join public service."

Other Democratic aides said Hanauer was familiar with rules surrounding classified materials and said they were skeptical he would leak information.

The document he requested — on behalf of committee member John F. Tierney (D-Mass.), according to Turley — was a National Intelligence Estimate on global terrorism trends that suggested the Iraq war had exacerbated terrorism. Disclosure of the analysis last month was a political embarrassment to the Bush administration.

Clarice Feldman's gathering info on Hanauer.

Wondering what the New York Times has to say? Here:

Representative John F. Tierney, Democrat of Massachusetts, said in an interview that he requested a copy of the National Intelligence Estimate last month after The Times had called his office. When a committee security officer could not immediately locate it, Mr. Hanauer requested the document from the office of the director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, and a copy was delivered.

“I didn’t talk to The New York Times, and I don’t think he did either,” Mr. Tierney said of Mr. Hanauer. “I want the committee to clear his name as soon as possible.”

Mr. Hanauer’s lawyer, Jonathan Turley, said his client had nothing to do with any leak of the intelligence estimate and would offer a sworn statement to that effect. Mr. Turley said Mr. Hanauer was collateral damage in a pre-election squabble.

“He simply got the document and gave it to a member,” the lawyer said.

Mr. Hanauer, who joined the committee staff last year after working for the Defense Department and the Booz Allen Hamilton, the consulting firm, remains on the panel payroll and retains his security clearance.

The estimate on terrorism had a relatively low-level classification, “secret,” and was made available in May to hundreds of people in multiple agencies and Congressional committees. The Times has previously reported that its article about the estimate was based on interviews with more than 10 officials and outside experts.

As I wrote yesterday:

The Dem staffer's suspension doesn't preclude the possibility that the Times received the NIE summary findings from more than one source or the possibility that CIA insiders constituted some of those sources.

***

Looks like Harman may be in a lot of hot water. Via Dan Riehl and Bryan Preston, Time magazine exclusively reports that the Department of Justice is investigating whether she and AIPAC worked together to get her reappointed as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. The reported probe is looking into whether Harman and AIPAC arranged for wealthy supporters to lobby House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Harman's behalf:

A spokesman for AIPAC, a powerful Washington-based organization with more than 100,000 members across the U.S., denied any wrongdoing by the group and stressed that it is not taking sides in regards to the committee assignment. Spokespersons for Justice and the FBI declined to comment. The case is a spin-off of a probe that has already led to charges under the Espionage Act against two AIPAC lobbyists, whose case is still pending, and to a 12-and-a-half-year prison sentence for former Defense Intelligence Agency official Lawrence A. Franklin. Franklin pleaded guilty a year ago to three felony counts involving improper disclosure and handling of classified information about the Middle East and terrorism to the two lobbyists, who in turn are accused of passing it on to a journalist and a foreign government, widely believed to be Israel. The two lobbyists, who have denied any wrongdoing but were dismissed by AIPAC in April of 2005, were indicted on felony counts of conspiring with government officials to receive classified information they were not authorized to have access to and providing national defense information to people not entitled to receive it.

Around mid-2005, the investigation expanded to cover aspects of Harman's quiet but aggressive campaign to persuade House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to reappoint her to the prestigious position on the House intel panel. The alleged campaign to support Harman for the leadership post came amid media reports that Pelosi had soured on her California colleague and might name Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida, himself a major supporter of Israel, to succeed Harman.

The sources say the probe also involves whether, in exchange for the help from AIPAC, Harman agreed to help try to persuade the Administration to go lighter on the AIPAC officials caught up in the ongoing investigation. If that happened, it might be construed as an illegal quid pro quo, depending on the context of the situation. But the sources caution that there has been no decision to charge anyone and that it is unclear whether Harman and AIPAC acted on the idea.

As longtime readers of this blog now, I have wondered repeatedly why so many in Washington on both sides of the aisle kept quiet about the AIPAC illegal leak case. (See The National Security Scandal No One's Talking About, for example. More background below.)

Time's report helps shed some light on Democrat reticence.

Stay tuned.

***

Tom Maguire says "right now, this is not scoring that high on my Wilson-Fitzgerald Meter."

The Squiggler has a massive round-up of info.

***
Previous on NIE leak:

Democrat leak freak-out
Bombshell: Democratic staff dripper?
9/25/06 About that National Intelligence Estimate
9/26/06 The NIE
9/27/07 Who is Paul Pillar?

Previous on AIPAC/Franklin case:

1/20/06 Larry Franklin sentenced
10/6/06 Larry Franklin: guilty
8/5/05 Two former AIPAC officials indicted
5/24/05 Larry Franklin update
5/19/05 AIPAC update
5/18/05 A partial defense of the MSM's Larry Franklin coverage
5/14/05 FBI questions journalists about Franklin
5/11/05 Report: Former AIPAC official expects to be indicted
5/5/05 The National Security Scandal No One's Talking About
5/5/05 The Larry Franklin scandal continued
5/4/05 Charged: Larry Franklin
4/21/05 AIPAC fires two

DEMOCRAT LEAK FREAK-OUT

By Michelle Malkin ·

Well, well. The Dems are "appalled" and outraged. Not by the possibility that one of their own may have leaked classified info about the war to damage President Bush, of course. But by the suspension of an unnamed Dem staffer over concerns that he/she may have leaked National Intelligence Estimate summary findings to the NYTimes last month:

Democrats say the Republican head of the House Intelligence Committee had no grounds to suspend a staff member who's come under scrutiny for the leak of a secret intelligence assessment.

The unidentified staff member, a Democrat, was suspended this week by Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., and is being denied access to classified information pending the outcome of a review, Hoekstra's spokesman, Jamal Ware, said Thursday.

The Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, Jane Harman of California, wrote to Hoekstra that she was "appalled" by his action, which was "without basis."

... In her letter, Harman demanded that Hoekstra "immediately reinstate the staffer's access to classified information."

A conference call to the committee's nine Democrats on Wednesday to inform them of the aide's suspension prompted outrage, said two congressional officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal committee business.

Here's a flashback to Harman's comments back in April in a debate with Rep. Hoekstra on Fox News Sunday regarding intelligence leaks (hat tip: reader Joe):

WALLACE: Congresswoman Harman, let's change subjects. I want to talk to you about leaks, because the CIA dismissed a senior officer this week, apparently reportedly a veteran named Mary McCarthy, for leaking classified information to reporters including material about secret U.S. prisons overseas for terror suspects.

Congresswoman, after it came out that the president had authorized the disclosure, partial disclosure, of the National Intelligence Estimate about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, you had the following to say, and let's put it up on the screen. "The president is revealed as the Leaker in Chief."

Congresswoman, do you really see any comparison between these two actions?

HARMAN: You bet I do. I don't know this woman, and I do not condone leaks of classified information. However, while leaks are wrong, I think it is totally wrong for our president, in secret, to selectively declassify certain information and empower people in his White House to leak it to favored reporters so that they can discredit political enemies.

That is wrong. That is unprecedented. I've never, ever heard about that happening in another administration, and it's a double standard.

WALLACE: But, Congresswoman Harman, isn't there a big difference? She was breaking the law. He wasn't.

HARMAN: Well, he wasn't breaking the law because the president claims to have power that no one else has. And he should be reminded that the Constitution starts with Article I, not Article II.

The inherent powers of the presidency are not unlimited. He's been ignoring Congress. He's been refusing to brief the full Intelligence Committees on the NSA program. I think that's a violation of law.

Presumably he's doing that because he's afraid we will leak, and yet he and his administration are the ones who leak selectively. And so I am not condoning what this woman allegedly did in the CIA. Of course, I'm not condoning that. But I think having a double standard is absolutely wrong.

WALLACE: Congressman Hoekstra?

HOEKSTRA: Well, it's clearly not a double standard. The president, the executive branch, but especially the Office of the President — the courts have clearly said they have the responsibility and the authority to decide what is classified and what is not classified.

This person in the CIA thought that they were above the law. They thought that the law did not apply to them. They have put America at risk. They have put our troops on the front lines at risk because they broke the law.

That is exactly — you know, you're exactly right. They broke the law. They're above the law. It's wrong. You know, and the country and our troops are at greater risk because of the decisions that this person made.

Thorough background on the McCarthy leak from Allah here. Read/re-read the whole thing.

***

Previous:

Bombshell: Democratic staff dripper?
9/25/06 About that National Intelligence Estimate
9/26/06 The NIE
9/27/07 Who is Paul Pillar?

THE NORKS' MEA CULPA

North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il now says he's sorry about his nation's first nuclear test. Why the sudden change of heart? Because North Korea's biggest neighbor, China, has turned up the heat. Essentially China sent a delegation to meet with The Gargoyle and told him to come back to the six-party talks and stop testing nuclear weapons. The result was Kim Jong-Il caved. China is his enabler. He had no real choice. So we probably won't see anymore nuclear tests north of the DMZ for awhile.

All of this proves one thing......the Bush administration's way of dealing with North Korea actually works, whereas the Clinton administration's policy of appeasement and bilateral negotiations does not. If Clinton had been in office --- or if the Democrat Appeasement Party had its way, we would have rushed in there with money and promises, and the Gargoyle would be sitting fat and happy, the toast of America-haters everywhere.

All The Gargoyle did with his agreement with the Clinton White House was violate it immediately. It wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. Requiring Kim Jong-Il to negotiate with his neighbors in the six-party talks is proving much more effective. What's The Gargoyle going to say to China? No? I don't think so...especially since China could squash North Korea like a bug.

Of course, the mainstream media won't report the story this way. They'll project Kim Jong-Il in a positive light for his reversal, and never mention that it is the result of the Bush policy and Bush administration diplomatic efforts with China, South Korea and Japan. And they won't go solicit comment from people like The Poodle, who think we should be negotiating with North Korea directly.

DEMOCRAT'S GOAL: REVERSE BUSH'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS

That’s the unmistakeable message that’s trumpeted in this Washington Times article. Here’s the opening paragraph:

The Democrats’ election-year agenda, which says what they will do if the voters put them back in charge of Congress, would seek to overturn or change just about everything President Bush and the Republicans have done since 2001. Key parts of their agenda call for repealing the bulk of the administration’s tax cuts, ending the ban on federal funding for new lines of stem-cell research and limiting some of the investigative, prosecutorial and surveillance methods in the counterterrorism USA Patriot Act.

Rush is calling conservatives who plan on sitting this election out to send a message to President Bush ‘Cut & Run Conservatives’. By not voting, Cut and Run Republicans are voting for the following agenda:

• economy-wrecking tax increases;
• weakened national and homeland security;
• endless investigations, including impeachment hearings, that ‘criminalize’ policy disagreements;
• gutting of the Patriot Act;
• elimination of the NSA intercept program; and finally
• the repeal of the Military Commissions Act, which also includes the codification and clarification of coerced interrogation techniques.

If the Senate flips, it’d eliminate any chance of a Justice Janice Rogers-Brown to replace John Paul Stevens. Instead, we’d have to accept some mushy watered-down justice in the mold of a Souter or O’Connor.

Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York, who likely would become chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee if the Democrats win the House back, has said that he could not think of a single Bush tax cut that he supported and suggested that all of them should be repealed. But Mrs. Pelosi, who would be in line to become speaker, said last week that the tax-cut rollback would only affect people earning $250,000 a year or more.

President Bush would veto that legislation in a heartbeat but I still tremble that we’d be wasting time on such crippling legislation when we should be attempting to find a solution to the impending crises to Social Security and Medicare.

One last thing for Cut and Run Conservatives to ponder: What’s the chances that Ted Kennedy and John McCain would write ‘immigration reform’ legislation that wouldn’t undo the work we’ve done in building the border wall?

If we’re gonna send a message, let’s send it AFTER this election by funding primary challengers to the RINO’s that are troubling us. Let’s not self destruct and ruin life for a decade.

BORDER FENCE MAY DISAPPEAR

The U.S. Senate is about to scrap the 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexican border and thumb its nose at the majority of Americans who are demanding border security?

That's the buzz in Washington, DC.

But hold on! Didn't Congress pass the Secure Fences Act of 2006 authorizing funds for that fence? And didn't the President sign it into law?

No... Not exactly.

Yes, Republican leaders passed the Secure Fences Act of 2006 almost three weeks ago, and went before television cameras, strutting and crowing... proclaiming that they had finally heard and heeded the demands of the American people!

And three weeks later, that fence bill -- which passed both houses of Congress -- is sitting in limbo... no one has bothered to put it on the President's desk!

But what about the bill the President signed? Wasn't that the Secure Fences Act of 2006?

The answer is NO.

The legislation the President signed was an appropriations bill that allocates $1.2 billion in funding to the Department of Homeland Security. And, you and your fellow Americans were led to believe that the $1.2 billion was earmarked for the construction of the fence!

But guess what! If you read that bill, you will find that the lion's share of the $1.2 billion in that appropriations bill DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SPENT ON THE FENCE!

Just in case your head is spinning... Let's recap!

At the eleventh hour -- right before they recessed to campaign for your vote -- our elected leaders passed legislation to build a 700-mile fence. But they know full well that it cannot become law until someone actually puts it on the President's desk and he signs it.

They appropriated $1.2 billion in funds on a totally different bill, which you and I were told would go toward the building of the fence -- but in actuality doesn't have to be used to build that fence.

Then they went home to campaign hoping you didn't notice the shell game before going to the polls on Election Day!

Our next action as patriotic Americans is clear... we MUST make it abundantly clear that we have not been fooled and we must DEMAND that the Secure Fences Act of 2006 be sent to the President and be signed into law IMMEDIATELY.

The election is coming upon us quickly. Our elected leaders really don't have a second to lose... not if they know what's good for them!

Use the hyperlink below to send your time sensitive and personalized Blast Fax messages to President George Bush and the Republican leaders of the House and Senate.

Warn them that no trickery will be forgiven; no pocket vetoes will be tolerated. Demand that they put the Secure Fences Act of 2006 on the President's desk and demand that the President sign it into law IMMEDIATELY -- before Election Day -- or the American people will take appropriate action at the polls.

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/amnestyxxivhe.html

AOL Members Use This Hyperlink

If the above hyperlink does not function, please copy and paste it into the address bar of your browser.