We won: Time to burn some heretics.
So Harman has a history of defending the administration’s illegal intelligence activities. She was among the most gullible and/or deceitful when it came to disseminating the administration’s most extreme (and most inaccurate) intelligence claims to “justify” the invasion of Iraq. She supports the administration’s efforts to criminally investigate, if not prosecute, journalists who reveal illegal intelligence activities on the part of the President (including illegal activities about which Harman knew but said nothing).
I don’t know about you, but I need to breathe into a paper bag after just reading that paragraph. I can’t imagine how Glen felt after writing it. And there’s much more such prose at the link, all of it equally electrifying. Meanwhile, feeding Jane Harman – the Democratic alternate to disgraced federal judge and current Congressman Alcee Hastings – into the wood chipper receives the grateful approbation from all around the left-hand side of the blogosphere.
I don’t really have a dog in this hunt. If Nancy Pelosi feels like the only way to satisfy a significant block within her party is to push Hastings in front of Harman, more power to her – he most likely won’t do any more damage to national security as Intelligence Committee chairman than he could have done if so inclined as a senior member in the minority. Not only is it traditionally a very bipartisan committee, there’s no compelling reason to believe that his Miami Vice-style venality will be any more dangerous in the new position.
Still, I find it interesting that a hard core “centrist” like Greenwald feels the need to go to the mattresses against Harman because she believed – like everyone else did all throughout the 90′s – that Saddam Hussein presented a threat, in favor of a man with serious moral baggage like Hastings.
It’s all about priorities, I guess.
Sometimes I wonder what these folks are going to write about, once W walks off into the sunset.