Winograd Campaign activity

I was glad to see the Winograd campaign website and a Facebook page are now up and decently fleshed out. It's a good sign.

What Jane Harman Could Have Done

What could Jane have done to blow the whistle on the illegal torture program she was told about by the Bush administration?

It looks like she could have done quite a lot more than simply write the weak letter that she did.

"Off Budget" War Spending: Harman vs. Harman

Jane Harman explained quite clearly in 2007 how wrong it was to be budgeting quite predictable war funds outside of the normal budget process. In a post titled simply enough "Put the Iraq War on Budget", Jane Harman was clear on her thinking:

We have already spent at least $400 billion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But only about 9 percent of those funds were approved through the normal appropriations process.

The rest was passed in "Emergency Supplemental" appropriation bills not subject to budget caps or the normal congressional oversight process. These supplementals - because their numbers do not appear on the budgetary bottom line - allow the White House to pretend it is maintaining a semblance of fiscal discipline. But our deficits are already spiraling out of control and there is no way to bring the budget into balance without taking the staggering war costs into account.

The Bush Administration has claimed emergency spending is necessary because the costs of a protracted war on terror are not known. Nonsense. Both the Korean and the Vietnam Wars were almost entirely financed through the regular appropriations process - not emergency supplementals.

The White House will soon ask for over $100 billion in new emergency war spending, Adjusted for inflation, that is more than we spent in 1968, the most expensive year of the war in Vietnam. And the lion's share of that funding was done through the regular process.

There must be no more blank checks for this President, and I predict this will be the last "emergency" supplemental in the new Democrat-controlled Congress.

This week we saw a repeat of almost the exact same situation: The administration asking for just shy of $100 billion for war spending, without any restrictions (aka a blank check).

Given her clear statement she'd never again approve non-emergency war spending outside of the normal budget process, you'd think it would be easy to predict what Jane Harman would follow her own admonition and vote No when faced with the exact same situation this week. It turns out, she voted Yes.

So, simply using Harman's own criteria about "off budget" war funding, her consistent votes in favor of it show that she supports:
- purposely mischaracterizing war funding to avoid having to budget for it;
- making our deficits which are already "spiraling out of control" get even worse;
- making the Federal budget impossible to balance by refusing to take the staggering war costs into account.

That means that it's not just Marcy Winograd who's criticizing Harman over her support of irresponsible and progligate war spending - the person that Harman sees when she looks in the mirror is too!

War Funding in Supplemental - Will Harman Support It?

She said no more blank checks before, yet here we go again.

What's Harman going to do?

Changing the 2/3 Rules

On the Secretary of State website, info about initiative petitions that are currently circulating show 2 that deal with the 2/3 rule. Or, to be clear, one (08-0022) deals with reducing the 2/3 rule to 55% for passing budgets, and one (08-0023) deals with reducing the 2/3 rule to 55% for both passing budgets and for increasing taxes (except property taxes).

It seems pointless to deal with the 2/3 budget rule without the 2/3 taxes rule. Here's why: We are staring at a structural deficit of $20 billion, so even if we had the ability to pass a budget with 55% (or even 50%), it wouldn't matter if we couldn't pass the revenue increases necessary to fund it. If Republicans retain their legislative veto over tax increases, then they control the budget - even if a budget can pass with 50% of votes. They will ensure that it's not funded.

As to the politics of what to put in the initiative: Anti-government forces are going to purposely conflate the two issues so that there may be little benefit to only dealing with the "less controversial" 2/3 budget rule. (In fact, I hear they are already doing this.) Why go running scared from these guys? No matter what you do to appease them, it will never stop them from unleashing their worst on you. Nothing to be gained.

As to the right threshold - 50%, 55% or something else, I say base it on principle and change it to majority rule. Picking some arbitrary number between 50% and 67% (such as 55% in this case) makes the change explicitly political (eliminating the Republican veto). This would seem to undermine efforts to make these changes be about budget reform, instead of partisan warfare. Also, trying to establish a different (albeit lower) supermajority for these votes would acknowledge that there should be some supermajority bar to raising taxes (without a corresponding requirement for lowering them I might add). These types of votes need to be taken off the pedestal that Republican anti-government types have put them on.

I won't let perfect be the enemy of the good, so if 55% is going to be what we have to get behind, I suspect I can deal with it. However, I think not addressing the 2/3 tax increase rule is counterproductive, and I just can't see myself supporting such an effort.

CA-36 News: Winograd Challenging Harman; John Amato Might Too

[cross-posted at Calitics]

Via the website Activist Los Angeles comes the announcement that Marcy Winograd will be challenging Jane Harman for the Democratic nomination in the 36th District.

Winograd Challenges Harman – Campaign Kick-Off in Venice
May 7, 2009 by Admin1
Mon., May 11, 4 pm

Join Marcy Winograd and supporters at the Venice Pier as they kick off the Winograd for Congress 2010 campaign to unseat incumbent Jane Harman in the 36th congressional district.

Assembled at the Venice Pier, near the northern end of the district, Winograd for Congress will launch a year-long campaign involving listening tours and grassroots precinct organizing.

“I am challenging Jane Harman because the 36th district deserves a representative who stands for integrity, commitment, and leadership,” says Winograd. “Jane Harman got caught with her hand in the cookie jar – trading favors with a foreign lobby group in order to advance her own political agenda. That’s not leadership; that’s corruption,” says Winograd, adding, “Harman’s apparent willingness to campaign for warrantless wiretapping in order to avoid an FBI investigation reflects a disregard for the Constitution and Americans’ right to privacy.”

Winograd is founder of the Los Angeles chapter of Progressive Democrats of America. In 2006, in less than three months of campaigning, Winograd garnered almost 38% of the vote in the June primary challenge to Harman. Daniel Ellsberg, Gore Vidal, Dolores Huerta, and Susan Sarandon all supported Winograd’s challenge.

Winograd’s 2010 campaign has received early endorsements from 36th district notables, such as Mitch Ward, Mayor Pro Tem of Manhattan Beach; Carl Clark, Vice-President of the Redondo Beach School Board; David Greene, President of the San Pedro Democratic Club; Julian Burger, President of Progressive Democrats – Wilmington/Harbor Area; Mickey Oskey, Pres of Westside Progressives and Nativo Lopez, President of the Mexican American Political Association (MAPA), which has thousands of members in the harbor area.

Winograd’s platform calls for redirecting expenditures on war and occupation to address human needs for jobs, Medicare for All, education and housing. “We need a massive green jobs program, a new New Deal,” says Winograd, “and incentives for cities to mediate foreclosure disputes in order to allow homeowners to modify their loans. It is a time of crisis but also of opportunity as we look at ways to strengthen local economies and reinvest in our communities.”

Winograd teaches English at Crenshaw High School in South Los Angeles.

The 36th congressional district includes: parts of West LA, Venice, Westchester, El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, Wilmington, Harbor
City and San Pedro.

If she can afford to get a professional campaign in place, then she can probably go far. Even without a really polished campaign, she got 38% with a campaign that was only 3 months long. With a well-coordinated and planned campaign, she could probably do a lot better. The initial signs, though, are that we're not there yet.

Winograd's website is currently not much more than an appeal for donations, and her recent diary on Daily Kos about Harman was to impulsive. Just check out the comments - it's really bad optics to have the candidate's spouse be the one doing most of the push back against the critics. If you aren't saying things that are going to have others defend you when you get criticized, maybe it's best not to be posting diaries like that...

Not to mention, if you're having a kick off for your campaign, it would be a good idea to get the word out - and not leave it to other folks to spread the word who might not be 100% supportive (Such as myself. I supported Winograd in 2006, but at this point I'm not picking a candidate and will call things as I see them.) The campaign kick off event is on Monday afternoon, and as far as I can tell from Google, there have been no postings elsewhere on the web (news articles or blog posts) aside from the one I posted above. That sounds strange.

There was an article yesterday in Politico about the possible challenge in which Winograd got a good quote though:

“I think what’s important is that Jane Harman’s charade of being a protector of the Constitution should be challenged and exposed,” said Winograd, who received 38 percent of the vote to Harman’s 62 percent in 2006.

There's also some sounds coming from local musician and blogger John Amato of Crooks and Liars that he might run as well. He says:

But back home in her Southern California-based district, liberal activists who have never truly embraced Harman are just getting started. Several of them, most notably Marcy Winograd, who heads up Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, and John Amato, who writes for the popular Crooks and Liars blog, are now making moves to challenge Harman in the Democratic primary, and the recent controversy will be at the heart of their message.

The wiretapping story “has been very, very damaging to her because it highlights what people most distrust about politicians in general: personal gain taking precedence over the voters they are supposed to be representing,” Amato told POLITICO in an e-mail.

Politico also checked in with another local to get the lay of the land:

David Dayen, a California activist who writes for the liberal blog Calitics, said he expects progressive organizations to ramp up their efforts against Harman in the weeks ahead.

“I don’t get the sense that in May, the year before this primary is happening, there is going to be a lot of clamoring over Harman, but I do think you’re starting to see progressive groups get involved,” said Dayen.

I agree with Dave's assessment. We have a lot more time this cycle, and thanks to Winograd in 2006, it's been proven that there's a real constituency among 36th CD Democrats for a real Democrat.

Hypocrite, Thy Name is Jane Harman

Hypocrite.

And in this case, the wiretap wasn't even illegal.

One quote from the Washington Post article:

"I will not quit on this until I am absolutely sure this can never happen to anyone else," Harman told the AIPAC audience

Apparently, the "this" she refers to is the outrage that the government didn't warn her that she was being caught on a legal wiretap before she engaged in unethical (and perhaps illegal) behavior. How could they do such a thing!?

Talk of a Primary Challenge of Harman Heats Up

Marcy Winograd, the 2006 primary challenger, opens up an exploratory committee and John Amato, proprietor of Crooks and Liars.com and professional musician, indicates interest.

Good post from David Dayen (dday) about the news.

Atheists Starting to "Come Out"

It's great to see it. I imagine I'm not alone in wanting to self-identify in a positive way (not just in reaction against religious bigots trying to impose their views onto the public), and it's great folks are doing this.

What those AIPAC Spies Were Really Doing

Most coverage isn't very clear what those AIPAC officials that Jane Harman offered to help were doing and now some are rushing into this void to minimize this treasonous spyng against the US which took place over years.

Another thing to watch: the identity of the person was quid pro quo'ing with -- it may be someone who the FBI had the goods on but who got out of dodge (AKA returned to Israel) before being arrested: Naor Gilon.

Lot's more to find out. So far, Jane's getting an a for Brazenness.

Jane Harman - Civil Liberties Defender Extraordinaire

She is if you let her tell it.

In reality, not so much. Glenn Greenwald, in response to Harman's righteous indignation at being caught on a wire tap, observes:

So if I understand this correctly -- and I'm pretty sure I do -- when the U.S. Government eavesdropped for years on American citizens with no warrants and in violation of the law, that was "both legal and necessary" as well as "essential to U.S. national security," and it was the "despicable" whistle-blowers (such as Thomas Tamm) who disclosed that crime and the newspapers which reported it who should have been criminally investigated, but not the lawbreaking government officials. But when the U.S. Government legally and with warrants eavesdrops on Jane Harman, that is an outrageous invasion of privacy and a violent assault on her rights as an American citizen, and full-scale investigations must be commenced immediately to get to the bottom of this abuse of power. Behold Jane Harman's overnight transformation from Very Serious Champion of the Lawless Surveillance State to shrill civil liberties extremist.

Supporting links documenting her statements are available in the original. I'm sure Jane would love to make everyone forget what she's done, but unfortunately this is not going to go down the memory hole.

Jane Harman - Did She Throw the 2004 Election to Bush?

Surely Harman would have known she was saving Bush's butt by doing this:

The New York Times confirmed late Monday that a top Democratic congresswoman called the paper in 2004 and tried to keep it from publishing an article exposing the Bush Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program -- possibly helping to sway the balance in the 2004 presidential election.

The New York Times exposed the warrantless wiretapping program in 2005, revealing that the National Security Agency had engaged in the interception of thousands of American and foreign calls without a warrant as part of a program intended to disrupt terrorist plots. Upon running the story, they also admitted that they had withheld the article for a year at the urging of Bush Administration officials.

But buried in a Times article published Tuesday is the revelation that the top Democratic congresswoman on the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman (D-CA), called the paper’s Washington, D.C. editor in “October or November” of 2004 in an effort to quash the story.

“Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, said in a statement Monday that Ms. Harman called Philip Taubman, then the Washington bureau chief of The Times, in October or November of 2004,” the Times writes. “Mr. Keller said she spoke to Mr. Taubman -- apparently at the request of Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then the N.S.A. director -- and urged that The Times not publish the article.”

I haven't taken a look yet, but I seem to recall that the administration at the time before the election was still in full on denial mode about the fact they were spying on everyone, 4th amendment be damned.

If this attempt by Harman was from before the election, she would have to have known that she was trying to influence the election in Bush's favor just to protect the illegal spying program.

Aside from the fact that she may be a target of baddies in the CIA or Bush administration now, her trying to quash this revelation by the Times is not forgivable.

CIA Using Harman to Intimidate Other Dems? Interesting theory

Interesting theory. Why the CIA was running the show on domestic wiretapping is pretty much a mystery.

If the real aim is to let Dems know that the CIA has them on tape doing the same thing as Harman, then they could discourage them from moving forward on investigations of the CIA. Given the power of big money and the friendliness that many Dems have toward (and the fear they have of) AIPAC, I think such a theory is not to be dismissed.

Great Harman AIPAC Coverage

From the Orange Satan.

Harman AIPAC Wiretap Timeline

I'm pretty sure this is going to be source of the best information on the Harman quid pro quo AIPAC timeline.
.....

It's kind of hard to fathom it possible that my U.S. congressional representative got caught redhanded offering to use her influence to come to the rescue of spies against our country.

Of course, that's next to all the Bush lawbreaking she let happen without blowing the whistle, so this isn't totally out of the blue, but defending spies against America? Really?

I'd think Congresswoman Harman would want an investigation to clear her name, if, as she says, "hese claims are an outrageous and recycled canard, and have no basis in fact".

Harman Caught on Wiretap Promising to Intervene for AIPAC Officials Accused of Spying?

It's not looking good for Jane Harman

Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.

Harman was recorded saying she would “waddle into” the AIPAC case “if you think it’ll make a difference,” according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.

In exchange for Harman’s help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.

Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, “This conversation doesn’t exist.”

I'd recommend reading the whole thing, but here are the highlights:

Justice Department attorneys in the intelligence and public corruption units who read the transcripts decided that Harman had committed a “completed crime,” a legal term meaning that there was evidence that she had attempted to complete it, three former officials said.

And they were prepared to open a case on her, which would include electronic surveillance approved by the so-called FISA Court, the secret panel established by the 1979 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to hear government wiretap requests.

What happened? According to the article, the Bush administration protected her because she was so useful in facilitating their lawbreaking.

According to two officials privy to the events, Gonzales said he “needed Jane” to help support the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to be exposed by the New York Times.

Harman, he told Goss, had helped persuade the newspaper to hold the wiretap story before, on the eve of the 2004 elections. And although it was too late to stop the Times from publishing now, she could be counted on again to help defend the program

He was right.

On Dec. 21, 2005, in the midst of a firestorm of criticism about the wiretaps, Harman issued a statement defending the operation and slamming the Times, saying, “I believe it essential to U.S. national security, and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.”

Pelosi and Hastert never did get the briefing.

And thanks to grateful Bush administration officials, the investigation of Harman was effectively dead.

So the investigation did not get terminated for lack of evidence - far from it. It was squashed.

If this bears out, Jane Harman must resign immediately.

Jane Harman is on the Side of the Banksters

Jane Harman is once again proving she's on the side of the rich and powerful, not you. From Jane Hamsher:

Melissa Bean proved she's a worthy successor to Ellen Tauscher as head of the Wall Street-friendly New Democrat Coalition when she led the effort to insert a huge loophole in a bill that would have forced TARP recipients to stop paying "retention bonuses" as long as they were being supported by taxpayer dollars.

The bill, called the Pay Performance Act, passed the House on Wednesday. In its original form, it required all TARP recipients to make all bonuses performance based, and sought to put an end to the $1 billion in retention bonuses still to be paid out in July and September this year by AIG per an agreement they reached with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. In other words, AIG could only pay out bonuses if the company actually did well, and couldn't be doling them out while the company was losing money and on taxpayer life support.

[...]

It looked like it was going to be smooth sailing, but then Melissa Bean decided to give the Republicans a hand. Her New Democrat Coalition has an Executive Director, Adam Pase, who is a former bank lobbyist for predatory lenders and their members brag about their Wall Street backgrounds and their close ties to the banks. The banks didn't want the bill to pass, and it looked like the Republicans wouldn't be able to stop it. So, Bean offered up an amendment which allowed TARP recipients to get out from under the bill's limitations if they had started paying their loans back.

Brad Sherman, known for being a genuinely fiscally responsible member of the House, objected (see YouTube). He said "it would allow a large number of companies to escape the effect of the bill without doing much more than making a few monthly payments of a very small amount." (His own bill, which would have capped executive compensation for TARP recipients at a million dollars, was never allowed on the floor.)

Bean's amendment initially failed on a voice vote, but she called for a roll call vote -- which allowed bank lobbyists to see exactly who did and didn't vote for the bill. This time, the New Democrats and the Blue Dogs made good on their threats to join with Republicans to pass legislation. Sixty-three Democrats joined with 165 Republicans to pass the Bean amendment.

Score one for the banks

Jane Harman was one of those 63 Democrats voting to eviscerate the bill. Disgusting.

By the way, you noticed I said Jane Harman was proving once again that she's proving she's on the side of the rich and powerful, and not you.

One prime example is how she voted in favor of aristocracy in 2001 when she voted to eliminate the estate tax. Howie Klein recalls:

One glaring example was how Bush and the Republicans-- with help from reactionary Blue Dogs-- put so much of their early energy into skewering the tax system against the middle class. One of Bush's first initiatives after stealing the election bore fruit on April 4, 2001 when the House passed a bill to eliminate the inheritance tax on multimillionaire estates. All but three Republicans-- moderates Mike Castle (DE), Amo Houghton (NY) and Connie Morella (MD)-- voted for it. That is hardly surprising. What is more noteworthy is that of 208 Democrats voting, 58 crossed the aisle to vote for plutocracy and aristocracy instead of for their own constituents' interests.

Jane Harman - Against the Mortgage Modification ("Cramdown") Bill?

The bill is H.R. 1106 - Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 (Rep. Conyers/Frank – Judiciary/Financial Services).

More about the bill from Chris Bowers at OpenLeft:

One of the key policies needed to solve the housing crisis will be mortgage "cram down" legislation. "Cram down," which is probably poorly named, will allow bankruptcy judges to reduce mortgage payments to match current home values, rather than the inflated values of the housing bubble era (read more on "cram down" here). This legislation, introduced by Representative John Conyers (D-MI) in the House (HR 200), and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) in the Senate (S 61), will allow hundreds of thousands of people to stay in their homes at this critical juncture in our economy. It is supported by President Obama, andincluded as a principle in the administration's housing plan (see page 4).

If you want to get a feel for why judges should have the ability to write down the principal and interest of mortgages of homeowners in bankruptcy court, you need to remember that the home buyer who took that mortgage was at a distinct disadvantage when taking out their loans -- it is very easy for brokers to pretend to be on your side while working with the banks to give you the worst loan possible, because that generated higher upfront fees for them. Pretty ugly. And it's led to people being kicked out of their homes. Check out this video:



So where's Jane Harman on this bill? You'd think this would be a no-brainer, but she's no where to be found. This is unfortunately another instance where the Congresswoman doesn't feel obliged to let her constituents know where she stands on this issue. No public statements, announcements on her website and nothing coming from the folks who answer her phones.

However, it's advisable to assume that she's working on the wrong side of this bill (e.g. trying to weaken it). Here's why:

Yes, of course there's the fact that she's a member of both of the groups that are fighting to weaken this bill and make it more mortgage-industry friendly. Those groups are the Blue Dogs and a New Democrats (Harman proudly announces her membership on her website. That's not to say she is necessarily participating, though.

The real reason to be suspicious is her past history of siding with lenders over the people's interests: Jane Harman voted for the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill
And given the changed circumstance with House control since then, it's not like we would expect Harman to come out and announce her opposition to this legislation. Rather, it would most likely be to work behind the scenes.

Circumstances have obviously changed some since the 2005 vote. For one thing, Democrats have regained the majority in both houses of Congress, and now hold the White House. In 2005, under Republican control, this bill was destined to pass pretty much regardless of what Democrats did (in the House, anyway). Now, with considerably more control over outcomes, front line responsibility for actual governance, and a mortgage foreclosure crisis that's hitting constituencies all over the country, positions have changed and votes will follow. Even among those who might otherwise have openly opposed this bill, the politics are such that outright opposition is a dangerous prospect, and the play instead is to fight a rearguard action, tinkering at the margins of the bill in the House, while hoping for a far weaker measure in the Senate, and throwing one's support behind that instead. That's what to look for from any opponents among House Democrats today, there being no real opportunity to stop the bill or make major changes today.

The fact that the bill is coming to the floor is an indication that they've done their vote counting, and there's no major threat on the horizon. Forty or so defections could actually kill the bill, assuming united Republican opposition, and it's not entirely clear that that's to be expected. Seventy-three Democrats voted for the bankruptcy bill in 2005, nine of whom are no longer in the House. Two Progressive Caucus members joined them, but might not be likely to do so again if they had the opportunity.

I have no doubt that the mortgage and banking industry is pushing hard to defeat or at least weaken this legislation, and that they're pushing Jane Harman to do their bidding.

If Jane Harman doesn't take a stand ahead of the vote, then we really have no way to tell whether she's fighting for our interests, or those of Countrywide's.

Something that bears watching.

Amazing Video

Watch it.

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

Marriage rights for all. Invalidate Prop 8.

Obama Appoints Head of OLC and CIA Not Tainted by Bush Torture/Illegal Spying Policies

Very positive development. One can hope this is a signal that there will not be tolerance of torture and illegal spying on Americans committed in America's name.

As you recall, Harman's name was floated for the CIA head. The NY Times had this to say about Obama not picking her:

Members of Mr. Obama’s transition also raised concerns about other candidates, even some Democratic lawmakers with intelligence experience. Representative Jane Harman of California, formerly the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, was considered for the job, but she was ruled out as a candidate in part because of her early support for some Bush administration programs like the domestic eavesdropping program.

It's pretty simple - you can't have people enforce accountability for such illegalities that they themselves have let happen, voiced support for, or are implicated in. It was true for Brennan, and it's true for Harman. We'll have to see how this progresses.

Harman Recommended for CIA Director - by a Republican

Who would have guessed it? On national security/foreign policy/war, there are so many similarities between her and Republican neocons, this isn't very much of a surprise:

Days after he became the first Republican House Member to announce his exit in 2010, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee revealed to HUMAN EVENTS that he had his own choice to be CIA director: Democratic Rep. Jane Harman of California.

Despite obvious differences on issues, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R.-Mi) told us, “Jane is excellent on intelligence issues and you’ll recall that she was removed from the Intelligence Committee because she refused to dance to Nancy Pelosi’s tune.” Hoekstra added that he made the recommendation of Harman in a telephone call to incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel.

Harman (lifetime American Conservative Union rating: 28%) has compiled a liberal record after seven terms in the House. But when it comes to national security, she has said “I live and breathe security 24-7.” The Californian supported giving authority to the national intelligence director and unifying intelligence resources. She also has been a consistent supporter of the U.S. action in Iraq.

The Republicans can tolerate her liberal record on non-defense matters because they get one of their own on defense/national security matters. Remember Harman was ahead of even Republican legislators in calling for eviscerating 4th amendment protections that Americans used to enjoy under the Constitution.

Obama would be very smart not to let her near intelligence/national security matters if he values American's constitutional rights and if he actually wants to hold the Bush administration lawbreakers accountable for their violations. She's too complicit.