Ok, let’s put the whole article on here instead of HH’s normal “New York Post” style of fear-mongering, sensationalistic idiocy.
[i]Choice for Intelligence Panel Poses Early Test for Pelosi
By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: November 10, 2006
WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 - Her boss may want her gone, but Representative Jane Harman happens to think she is good at her job. And she has no intention of leaving it without a fight.
Ms. Harman argues that her role as the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee makes her the logical candidate to become chairman when the new Congress begins in January.
Representative Nancy Pelosi, the party’s leader and presumptive House speaker in the next Congress, has indicated she has other plans.
The two women, both from California, have long had a frosty relationship, and Ms. Pelosi has been angry with Ms. Harman for not using her position on the Intelligence Committee to attack the Bush administration aggressively.
But Ms. Harman said that making her chairman would be good politics, citing Tuesday’s victories as proof that Democrats will thrive by taking a centrist stance on issues of war and terrorism - as she has done for the past four years.
“The new crowd coming into the House are mostly moderates and conservatives who were in substantial part elected on a security message,” Ms. Harman said in an interview on Thursday. “To keep our majority, we need to keep a tough and smart message on security.”
Ms. Pelosi has told colleagues she plans to replace Ms. Harman on the Intelligence Committee, possibly with Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida, although she has given no public indication of her choice for the post since the election.
Many Democrats are closely watching the decision for signs of two things: how the speaker-in-waiting will chart her party’s course on national security issues and how she will handle her first postelection test in dealing with the often fractious Democratic caucus.
“This is the battle that nobody wanted,” one senior Democratic strategist said. “For Nancy to start off her speakership with a fight is a great shame.”
In addition to pointing to her record over the past four years, Ms Harman said she was once made a promise by senior Democrats that she would assume control of the Intelligence Committee if her party regained power in the House.
“My view of this has to do with what is fair in terms of the commitments that were made to me,” she said.
The promise came in the form of a letter in 1999, when Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, who was then the House Democratic leader, recruited her to try to regain her Congressional seat in 2000 after she relinquished it in 1998 to run for governor of California.
But allies of Ms. Pelosi said that when she appointed Ms. Harman as ranking member of the Intelligence Committee in 2003, her intention was always to have Ms. Harman serve only two terms.
The selection of Mr. Hastings, a black member of the committee, would win Ms. Pelosi support from the powerful Congressional Black Caucus. But his past could provide ammunition for Republicans: Mr. Hastings was impeached and removed by the Senate from a federal judgeship in 1989 on a bribery charge. (He was acquitted in the related criminal case.)
Some leading Democrats said that choosing Mr. Hastings over Ms. Harman would send exactly the wrong message at a time when Democrats were struggling to prove their bona fides on national security.
“A lot of people would be astonished,” said Leslie H. Gelb, a former president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a State Department official in the Carter administration. “I think it would send a signal that Democrats are not going to be as serious about national security as they need to be.”
Representative Silvestre Reyes. Democrat of Texas and also a committee member, has emerged as a possible compromise candidate. But Ms. Pelosi has also told colleagues that she could select someone who is not currently on the committee.
Appearing Wednesday on CNN, Ms. Pelosi said that it was her prerogative to select an entirely new Intelligence Committee at the beginning of each Congress, and that it is the one committee on which seniority rules are not recognized.[/i]
Nowhere in this article does it state that the CBC is angry with Pelosi nor does it state that the CBC is pressuring her. That is more of HH’s typical bullshit. In addition, HH forgets to mention that Hastings was acquitted of the charges in a criminal court. It means that he was found NOT GUILTY! If he was not guilty, then why should it be held against him? Because HH believes that when democrats are accused of something, that’s it, they are automatically guilty. Whether it can be proven in a court of law (not in a senate hearing that didn’t include ALL of the senate - another point HH left out) has nothing to do with it. However, if they are a republican, then there is no need for a trial because they are not guilty and too morally upright to do anything wrong. In other words, the sky in his world is rose-colored with republican red.
Headhunter, stop posting this sensationalistic crap. You are just making yourself look even more insane than we already know you are.