The Harman Case: Another Attack on Jewish Influence, Revenge Against Harman, Or A Slap At Obama? (Updated)

Those who thought there would be fewer attacks on the Israel Lobby with Bush and the "neo-cons" out of office now find that there is one more carryover from the Bush years.

We now read in CQ Politics from Jeff Stein, "CQ SpyTalk Columnist":

Sources: Wiretap Recorded Rep. Harman Promising to Intervene for AIPAC

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.

You can check out the transcript of an online Stein had about his article here.

Where to begin? Is this simply part of the Pelosi-Harman feud?

Most focus instead on the implications of Israeli influence.

Israel Matzav, wonders whether the timing has to do with AIPAC spy case--in an attempt to bolster the weak and questionable case.

Legal Insurrection differs and writes:

As others have pointed out, the story is replete with open questions, such as who was the "suspected Israeli agent," and whether such person was Israeli or American or other. Others question the timing, coming soon before the trial of the AIPAC officials is to take place (after the DOJ suffered serious legal setbacks on the case)..

...The leak of the Harman wiretap cannot be divorced from the looming Iran issue. What else could explain the timing of a leak of a conversation which took place years ago? Leaking such a conversation would have little or no effect on the upcoming trial, but would affect the ability of supporters of Israel on Capital Hill from being heard in support of Israel's right of self-defense.

Legal Insurrection also notes the reference to a "suspected" Israeli agent--"which means there likely is no hard evidence that the person was actually acting on behalf of the government of Israel, as opposed to merely being a supporter of Israel".

The Strata-Sphere raises questions about the story--not the least of which is the denial by The New York Times that Harman ever asked the Times to hold back on its warrantless wiretapping story, as is alleged in the original CQ story.

Foreign Policy points out a second discourdant note in the CQ article, noting a difference of opinion of whether the NSA or the FBI was actually behind the wiretap--claiming that "Hill intelligence committee sources cast doubt Monday on whether the NSA was the relevant agency here"--as Stein has claimed.

So besides questions about who this leak is directed against, there are questions about whether the leak itself is accurate. Keep in mind that according to Stein in his online discussion of his article:

The fact is, there is no "timing" to any "leak."

No sources "came forward," so to speak.

I learned about this quite a while ago and was just recently able to turn my full attention to it. Total coincidence.

...The story was not "planted" on me to influence any other events -- in particular the looming AIPAC trial or things related to the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. I've known about it for some time but just not been able to pull it together until now for various reasons.

But this continues to be view as just that--a leak.

Under Bush, these sorts of 'leaks' were said to be undercutting his administration.

What about now, under Obama?

According to the Foreign Policy article mentioned above, the leak is actually a push back against Obama:

As U.S. President Barack Obama appeared at the CIA Monday, a conflagration sparked by his administration's decision last week to release Bush-era memos describing harsh interrogation techniques was having gasoline poured on it.

Though Obama pointedly said he would decline to pursue any legal action against the intelligence officers involved, his decision seems to have left the intelligence community, and in particular its Bush-era leadership, feeling targeted. Even as Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel reiterated the White House's desire to move forward, several former intelligence directors and former attorney general Michael Mukasey took to the talk shows and oped pages to argue against the Obama administration's decision to release the memos.

The memos' release coincided with a report in the New York Times last week alleging that the NSA had captured the communications of an unidentified congress-member without a warrant and committed other recent abuses as part of the controversial domestic surveillance program.

So it's perhaps not surprising that Bush-era intelligence officials might want to push back against a Democratic congresswoman and, by extension, the Democratic Congress as well. After all, even as the Obama administration insists it opposes any legal action against those involved, Democrats on the Hill might feel pressured to step up their investigations and even pursue legal actions. The message of the pushback is loud and clear: Congress and the Democrats weren't innocent in these activities either.

Maybe this whole case is nothing more than giving Mr. Obama a proper welcome to Washington.

[Hat tip: Soccer Dad]

UPDATE: In his new blog, RubinReports, Barry Rubin points out a number of incongruencies in the CQ story:

o The CQ story fails to take into account the way the NSA operates
o Due to FBI intimidation, AIPAC has already completely disassociated itself from the 2 AIPAC employees and has let them go

Read the whole thing.

Technorati Tag: Jane Harman and AIPAC.