Pelosi's Next Big Problem

Having unsuccessfully supported Representative Jack Murtha for the No. 2 slot in the House of Representatives, Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi moves on to her next hard decision: whether to name Representative Alcee Hastings as chairman of the House intelligence committee.

This is a tough call for Pelosi. The current senior Democrat on the committee is Representative Jane Harman from California, and Pelosi wants her out. There has long been bad blood between Harman and Pelosi, who preceded Harman as the top Democrat on the panel. Pelosi, according to several Capitol Hill sources, has been upset with Harman's performance on the committee and has faulted Harman for not sufficiently confronting the Republicans and the White House. Next in line for the Democrats on the committee is Hastings. But he, too, poses a problem. In the late 1980s, Hastings, then a federal judge, was impeached by the Democratic-controlled House on bribery and perjury charges and removed from office by the Democratic-led Senate. He was later elected to the House and subsequently joined the intelligence committee.

Can Pelosi pick a fellow impeached and convicted on corruption charges to run a committee handling the most sensitive secrets of the government? But can she bypass Hastings, an African-American, and alienate the Congressional Black Caucus? Should she choose the third-ranking Democrat, Representative Silvestre Reyes of Texas? That would upset the CBC but win plaudits from the Hispanic Caucus. To duck the whole knotty issue, should she simply let Harman have the job for a short spell?

In a closer to perfect world than this one, the answer would be obvious: do none of above and name Representative Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat on the committee, to lead the panel. (More on Holt in a moment.) But since the House is far from perfect, this is not likely to happen.

Hastings has come a long way since being impeached by the House Democrats. He is currently the senior Democrat on the intelligence panel's subcommittee on terrorism and homeland security. He also serves ably as a Democratic whip. But now that he is close to taking over the intelligence committee, his past has become an item of renewed controversy. Prior to the congressional elections, conservatives and Republicans started raising the obvious question about Hastings: Should a person kicked off the federal bench for conspiring to receive a $150,000 bribe be placed in charge of the intelligence committee? The attack on Hastings was part of the GOP's campaign to frighten voters into not electing Democrats. (Charlie Rangel will be in charge of the tax-writing committee!) But it was a justifiable query; the Republicans had a point. History is not on the side of Hastings or his present-day supporters.

On August 3, 1988, the House voted to impeach Hastings by a vote of 413 to 4. The floor manager of the impeachment resolution was Representative John Conyers, a CBC stalwart to this day, who declared that there was "damning evidence" that Hastings had plotted with another lawyer to obtain a payoff in exchange for reducing the sentences of an undercover FBI agent posing as a convicted racketeer. Five years earlier, Hastings, appointed to the bench by President Jimmy Carter, had been acquitted of these charges by a Miami jury. But Conyers maintained that Hastings had lied at his trial. (A post-trial investigation conducted for the U.S. Court of Appeals had concluded that Hastings had sought the bribe and then faked evidence and testified falsely.)

During the impeachment, Conyers declared, "I looked for any scintilla of racism. I could not find any." He noted that "race should never insulate a person from the consequences of unlawful conduct." No House members defended Hastings during the impeachment proceedings. When the Senate tried Hastings in October 1989, Conyers, who was part of the House prosecution team, told the senators, "We argue that he must be removed from office so that he does not teach others that justice may be sold." The Senate voted 69 to 26 to oust Hastings from office. He became the sixth judge in U.S. history to be removed from the bench by the Senate. In an act of revenge, retribution, or redemption, Hastings three years later ran for a House seat and won.

Hastings has been scandal-free since he entered Congress. House Democratic staffers praise his leadership of the terrorism and homeland security subcommittee. "He's been a hardworking member of the committee," one Democratic aide notes. "For years, no one has raised any issues about him being on the committee." Still, how can Pelosi name to a sensitive position a man once denounced by his fellow Democrats as corrupt? Were he to become chairman, all his actions and statements would be tainted by his past. As the newly empowered Democrats challenge President Bush on such matters as the Iraq war and the so-called war on terrorism, the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees will assume lead roles in the various debates. (Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia is slated to become head of the Senate intelligence committee.) Hastings' past will hobble him as a spokesman for the Democrats on national security.

Under House rules, seniority--which usually dictates which legislator becomes chair of a committee--does not apply to the intelligence committee. Pelosi is not obligated to hand the gavel to Hastings should she bounce Harman from the top Democratic spot on the committee. But Pelosi, according to several senior House Democratic staffers, has already promised Hastings the position. And the Congressional Black Caucus has indicated it would be quite displeased if Pelosi shoved him aside. The CBC was angry at Pelosi last June for forcing Representative William Jefferson, who's under investigation for accepting bribes, to quit the powerful Ways and Means Committee.

Pelosi has not named Hastings yet. Some Hill Democrats have floated the option of giving the job to Reyes. Such talk is partly motivated by racial considerations: trade a Hispanic for a black, and it's a wash. Meanwhile, Harman, according to a senior Democratic consultant, has made an offer to Pelosi: let me remain the top Democrat on the panel, and I'll only chair the committee for two years. Granting Harman this wish would relieve Pelosi--at least, temporarily--of making a decision about Hastings. But House Democratic staffers say that Pelosi's antipathy for Harman is so pronounced that no one expects her to take this easy way out. "Other members, too, are not enamored of Harman," says an aide to a Democrat on the intelligence committee. "She has not been nearly aggressive enough in pushing back on the Republicans--though she has improved a bit on this in recent months."

Which brings us to Rush Holt. He is a former Princeton University physicist and past intelligence analyst at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. He specialized in nuclear matters. He knows much about the intelligence bureaucracy and about weapons proliferation and loose nukes, critical national security priorities. First elected in 1998, Holt has not been shy about confronting the administration and the intelligence agencies. He voted against granting George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq. He has challenged the administration's policies on the detention and questioning of suspected terrorists, arguing the White House has not been mindful enough of civil liberties. He also was one of the few Democrats to charge on to the House floor to oppose the Republicans when they sought to intervene in the Terri Schiavo affair. The Courier News of Bridgewater, New Jersey, endorsed Holt's reelection this year and noted, "Holt offers the kind of intelligence, reasonable and decisive voice that has been all too lacking inside the Beltway during the partisan wars of recent years. But Holt's value in Congress goes beyond that; he has developed a reputation as a thinking man's congressman, a scientist by trade who provides more thoughtful analysis on issues than most lawmakers." Holt calls for beginning a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. He has warned the administration not to hype the intelligence on Iran's nuclear weapon program, noting the "intelligence on Iran is poor, contradictory, or both."

Tapping Holt, the seventh-ranking of the committee's nine Democrats, would be an unconventional move. The CBC would be agitated--even though its members are already claiming three major chairmanships: Conyers at the judiciary committee, Rangel at the tax-writing committee, and Representative Bennie Thompson at the homeland security committee. The Hispanic caucus could be peeved, too. Other House Democrats might be uneasy about such a sharp slap at the seniority principle (though younger members would be heartened). But this would be a chance for Pelosi to send a signal: the Democrats do regard national security seriously and are willing to put aside political concerns to do the right thing. She would be saying, merit matters most when it comes to protecting the United States. Yet if she sticks with Hastings, she is going to have to defend the quasi-indefensible. It will appear--rightly or wrongly--that she cannot shake free of racial politics and institutional imperatives. She ought to instead adopt a radical stance and give this most important job to the most qualified person.

UPDATE: On November 28, 2006, Pelosi released a statement:

Congressman Alcee Hastings and I have had extensive consultations, and today I advised him that I would select someone else as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Alcee Hastings has always placed national security as his highest priority. He has served our country well, and I have full confidence that he will continue to do so.

It was slightly curious that she announced her decision not to choose Hastings without saying who would get the position. Holt is not lobbying for the post, according to Democratic Hill sources. But he certainly would like to get it. The betting, though, has to be on Representative Silvestre Reyes. With such a pick, Pelosi could please the Hispanic caucus as she peeves the Congressional Black Caucus. If merit ruled--yeah, right--Holt would get the nod. But that's not how business is done in Congress.

******

DON"T FORGET ABOUT HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR, the best-selling book by David Corn and Michael Isikoff. Click here for information on the book. The New York Times calls Hubris "the most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations" and "fascinating reading." The Washington Post says, "There have been many books about the Iraq war....This one, however, pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." Tom Brokaw notes Hubris "is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here.

Comments (46)

1. Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi moves on to her next hard decision: whether to name Representative Alcee Hastings as chairman of the House intelligence committee.

   This is tough call for Pelosi.

   Can Pelosi pick a fellow impeached and convicted on corruption charges to run a committee handling the most sensitive secrets of the government? But can she bypass Hastings, an African-American, and alienate the Congressional Black Caucus?

   This is a tough call for Pelosi??????????? Are you freaking kidding???? This is what we can expect from DEMS???????

   My goodness it worse than i thought.

   If Pelosi is having a hard time making THIS decision, then it is going to be a long two years.

   Posted by CPT at 11/21/2006 @ 4:21pm

2. ZERO

   Exactly when was Negropante impeached and removed from any office???????? i am not fully aware of if he was...or for that matter when was any Bush official CONVICTED of this kind of wrogn doing???

   Posted by CPT at 11/21/2006 @ 4:23pm

3. at least this criticism has balance and reason to it.....i mostly agree.

   Posted by darladoon at 11/21/2006 @ 4:27pm

4. presenting the context as "problem", as opposed to a "mistake to-be-made" is far more sensible...

   Posted by darladoon at 11/21/2006 @ 4:28pm

5. Here's how Pelosi can obtain a 'get out of jail free card.' She can put Holt in as Chair, and Hastings in as Vice Chair. She should explain to CBCers and Harmon supporters the practical aspects of this: Harmon is good, but Democrats need someone tougher on Bush & Co. to chair the Committee; Hastings is qualified, and has kept his nose clean for years, but his past may come back to haunt the party down the line if he is made Chair. Holt is qualified, has fought Bush & Co. on critical issues, and he doesn't have the spectre of past corruption charges hanging over him. Hastings can act as Vice Chair, filling in should Holt be unable to carry out his duties as Chair. It would also have the benefit of alleviating the grumbling of the Congressional Black Caucus.

   Posted by ArchangelM at 11/21/2006 @ 5:09pm

6. If we can assume that Pelosi got where she is because she's very politically savvy, we might also assume that she will make choices based on what's politically savvy. This business of second or third guessing the why's and wherefore's of why anything happens as it does in Congress is much like jousting with windmills.

   At the same time, it would be refreshing to appoint people to senior positions even if they hold junior positions in the House. But, what do I know? Next to nothing when it comes to the miasma that are American politics.

   Posted by felicity at 11/21/2006 @ 5:11pm

7. Rush Holt is my congressman, and I believe he is superbly qualified for this job. This is a post that should be held by the most intelligent, qualified person, and not by the person with the most seniority. I doubt that Pelosi will actually choose Rush Holt, but it she does, she certainly won't regret it.

   Posted by darneveryone at 11/21/2006 @ 5:22pm

8. If we can assume that Pelosi got where she is because she's very politically savvy, we might also assume that she will make choices based on what's politically savvy

   but as you may know, felicity, being a woman means that you can't make "savvy" decisions. women are inferior, stupid, weak, ineffectual, emotional, and fragile beings. because of that, everything they do must be held under a microscope.

   men, on the other hand, they're clearly in control and always make sound decisions. i mean, just look at the last 5,000 years: men have always been in control, save a few minor exceptions, and we've had nothing but peace, love and prosperity. (not).

   Posted by darladoon at 11/21/2006 @ 5:23pm

9. " Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi moves on to her next hard decision: whether to name Representative Alcee Hastings as chairman of the House intelligence committee. "

   Hard call? With the culture of corruption and the stain of it now , ah, removed? She should be saying, "Hastings who?" at all press conferences..

   If this is a tough decision, then maybe she is not qualified to be in a posotion to make decisions...she should not even be entertaining a thought of working with this crook...on intelligence? Please..

   coffin nail # 4.

   Posted by john maasch at 11/21/2006 @ 6:33pm

10. Tapping Holt... would be a chance for Pelosi to send a signal: the Democrats do regard national security seriously and are willing to put aside political concerns to do the right thing. She would be saying, merit matters most when it comes to protecting the United States.

    Holt is sharp as a tack. He is Pelosi's way out of a choice between a Harmen and Hastings, both of whom have history which clearly makes them poor choices. Pelosi hdd better have acceptable deals for the losers and thier caucus'

    Posted by NeilSagan at 11/21/2006 @ 9:12pm

11. Rio, your guys and gals still lost, and the dems will still control congress, suck it up you lost. the American people have turned their backs on you, and rightly so.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/21/2006 @ 10:12pm

12. If Pelosi picks Hastings...it means she's an idiot, period.

    If she thinks that if she disses Alcee, the CBC is going to "go AWOL", she's nuts. They know Hastings is tainted goods and maybe they (and the Progressive C) don't want Harman...but if they think that MILES and MILES can be made about ...

    "They want to impeach Bush on 'phoney intell'...from a commitee run by a guy...THAT WAS IMPEACHED...by Democrats!"...

    on every Limbaugh, Hannity, and Fox show for the next two years AND...make it stick and provide CYA for Bush....

    they're idiots too!

    Posted by Mask at 11/21/2006 @ 10:26pm

13. Posted by MASK 11/21/2006 @ 10:26pm |

    correction...."MILES and MILES CAN'T be made..."

    Posted by Mask at 11/21/2006 @ 10:27pm

14. CPT,

    Are you kidding me? Prominent Iran Contra Figures Robert Gates is about to become Secretary of Defense and Elliot Abrahms is Deputy National Security Advisor. Abrahms pled guilty to withholding evidence in the scandal and Gates, Deputy CIA director, knew what was going on but escaped prosecution. Don't feign foolish after all the Republican corruption in the preceeding election to think that corruption belongs soley to the Democrats.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/21/2006 @ 10:51pm

15. ZERO, MASK, CPT, FELICITY, RIO BRAVO, JOHANNESROLF,

    The much larger question that has never been asked is how in the world does an impeached and removed from the bench Federal Judge gets into the Congress much less onto the Intelligence Committee in the first place? There are two points of view to be had here:

    1. The obvious that everyone clings to here and that is because he was impeached and removed from the bench he is not qualified to lead the committee. 2. If Hastings is good enough to be elected to Congress and be selected to serve on the committee in the first place, why can he not lead the committee? Last time I looked, usually all members of the intelligence committee get briefed on sensitive programs and information with some limitations of course.

    I am quite sure that his impeachment and removal from the bench has come up in campaigns. People, face the facts, the American voters to a certain extent are corrupt in their mindset. A sitting judge who was impeached and removed from the bench is someone I could not vote for. Were it my selection for Chairman of the intelligence committee I would definitely find someone else who is not ethically challenged and who does not carry other baggage such as Jane Harman. Out of 224 Democrats (minus the four leaders, Hastings and Harman) surely a suitable leader for the committee can be named............

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/21/2006 @ 11:02pm

16. "The much larger question that has never been asked is how in the world does an impeached and removed from the bench Federal Judge gets into the Congress much less onto the Intelligence Committee in the first place?"

    The answer is simple and is the same answer to the question regarding how OJ was found not guilty by a jury despite the evidence.....either the jury didn't know the difference between DNA and PTA, or it didn't care, since they were showing the "whitey" power structure..

    The same could be said of the voters in his district as was said about the jury for OJ..

    Posted by john maasch at 11/21/2006 @ 11:37pm

17. Pelosi before officially becoming Speaker:

    0-2.

    Good start Nancy.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/22/2006 @ 12:26am

18. I am quite sure that his impeachment and removal from the bench has come up in campaigns. People, face the facts, the American voters to a certain extent are corrupt in their mindset.

    Posted by POSEIDON 11/21/2006 @ 11:02pm

    Well, heck, POSEIDON, if that's your "standard"...then I guess Dubya can run for US Senate after his Presidency and if he wins and Repubs are the majority again...he can get appointed to the Chairmanship of the Senate Intell Committee, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 11/22/2006 @ 07:32am

19. .

    THIS IS A MOSSAD HIT.

    Go here:

    http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Lieberman_hires_former_Christian_Coali tion_spokesman_1121.html#comments

    and read through the last half of the comments.

    View all the links and see this game in context.

    The US media KNOWS this was a Mossad hit - designed specifically to destabilize Lebanon as Phase 2 on Israel's march into Syria - while simultaneously taking out Iran - ALL of which is coming RIGHT NOW.

    The interview with Bolton yesterday was the tell...it's "Game On."

    The Armageddonists are not going to wait for the Dems to take power.

    WW III is upon us, and you have Israel and their AGENTS inside the US Government to thank (or hang) for it.

    READ THESE COMMENTS:

    http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Lieberman_hires_former_Christian_Coali tion_spokesman_1121.html#comments

    .

    Posted by plunger at 11/22/2006 @ 08:42am

20. BTW...the Right is chomping at the bit for Pelosi to name Hastings as Chair....

    www.nationalreview.com----Byron York

    "...The Harman-Hastings flap is part of The Great Slackening. That is what happens to a reform party sooner or later after it takes control of Congress. In this case, it looks like sooner. Pelosi had barely uttered her pledge to conduct the most ethical Congress ever, before endorsing the Abscam-tainted, earmark-greedy John Murtha for majority leader. Now she might choose an impeached federal judge as her personal pick to run the intelligence committee.

    It is still early, and all of this might be forgotten by January. But first impressions can be lasting. Ned Lamont slayed incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut in August, and had all but lost the general election race a few days later when he appeared too left wing and unserious to voters.

    If Pelosi picks Hastings, she will be a step closer to stamping her Democrats with the mark of Lamont."

    Posted by Mask at 11/22/2006 @ 09:53am

21. POSIDEN

    Has GATES ever been impeached from any office? has he ever been remeoved from that office?????

    Now i know you like to THINK that he has...because it seems an unproven accusations(as long as the accusation supports some ultra-liberal objective), is equal to trial which is what an impeachment essentially is.

    Posted by CPT at 11/22/2006 @ 10:05am

22. Posted by DARNEVERYONE 11/21/2006 @ 5:22pm

    Rush Holt is my congressman, and I believe he is superbly qualified for this job. This is a post that should be held by the most intelligent, qualified person, and not by the person with the most seniority. I doubt that Pelosi will actually choose Rush Holt, but it she does, she certainly won't regret it.

    So write Pelosi a letter, an email, something. You're a constituent of Dr. Holt, make your voice heard where it counts. If Pelosi hears this enough, maybe she'll actually get the idea and we'll get an effective head of the Intelligence Committee. ARCHANGELM has the right plan and rational laid out above. So if you think this is a good idea, do something about it.

    Posted by Stwriley at 11/22/2006 @ 10:57am

23. I agree this is a thorny decision for Pelosi. As a repub (I hope that doesn't automatically make me a reprobate!) it seems to me the worst decision would be to put Hastings in the leadership position, from a political standpoint. There's no doubt the Republican leadership will be happy to beat the Dems over the head with that club. Supporting Murtha and Hastings won't help the Dems from a public relations point of view.

    Of course, with the Republicans electing Lott again, it would seem shooting oneself in the foot is becoming quite the fashion on Capital Hill. . .

    Posted by Stemmers at 11/22/2006 @ 11:03am

24. A respected scientist with intelligence credentials and a track record that progressives can get behind?

    That's what REFORM looks like, Nancy.

    Posted by drhammer at 11/22/2006 @ 11:15am

25. Posted by POSEIDON 11/21/2006 @ 11:02pm

    In general I agree, Poseidon, and I'd never vote for anyone who'd been impeached and removed from any office on simple trust grounds. That doesn't mean he can't be perfectly qualified for office and eligible to run. Since Hastings (and currently Jefferson too, though not for much longer) was never convicted in court (Hastings was, in fact, acquitted) there is no legal bar to running for elective office. If the voters know (and as you point out, how could they not know in Hastings' case) and choose to elect then anyway, then they have to be treated as other holders of that office. It's the nature of our system, as designed, and both parties have benefitted from it (and suffered by it) over the years.

    That said, I think Mask, of all people, has it right. The appointment of Hastings with any potential for impeachment (of any official) involving his committee is too dangerous a political weapon and would undermine the work the committee needs to do. Rush Holt has superior qualifications and the investigative drive to do what needs to be done. I've met him (briefly) at conferences and have always been impressed with his work on nuclear proliferation (see his National Academy of Sciences speech [armscontrolcenter.org] for a good example of his thought on this.) Holt is a first-rate mind and a serious student of intelligence matters, if anyone can unravel the Gordian Knot that our intelligence services have become under BushCo, it is Rush Holt.

    Posted by Stwriley at 11/22/2006 @ 11:20am

26. Speaker Pelosi is a very fetching woman, and I've heard a great many sexist comments concerning her, uh, attributes.

    Myself, I'd love to catch a glimpse of spine.

    Posted by drhammer at 11/22/2006 @ 11:21am

27. That was a very funny post Hammer - made me chuckle aloud. Doesn't happen often when I'm reading comments on TN.

    There are many unfortunate things about politics, but one of the most unfortunate is the reluctance of the public in general to allow for the possibility that people really can undergo genuine change. Hastings may have done something wrong in the past - it doesn't mean he should forever be judged by that mistake. The political calculus may indicate it would be a mistake to appoint him, but maybe on a human level it wouldn't be a mistake at all.

    We all live and learn. . . or at least most of us do. I would be willing to bet being impeached and convicted might tend to bring about a little soul-searching.

    Of course, it would still be a mistake to appoint him. Shame though.

    Posted by Stemmers at 11/22/2006 @ 11:34am

28. "If this is a tough decision, then maybe she is not qualified to be in a posotion to make decisions...she should not even be entertaining a thought of working with this crook...on intelligence? Please..

    coffin nail # 4." From Maasch. But, she'll be trying for 'bi-partisan cooperation' so she'll have to learn to work with crooks soon.

    Posted by brantl at 11/22/2006 @ 12:53pm

29. Just did a little research on Rush Holt. Aside from his scientific credentials and his push for a "paper trail" voting system, nothing much remarkable.

    His father, Rush Sr., interestingly was the youngest person EVER elected to the US Senate, so young in fact (29) that he had to WAIT until eight months AFTER his election, before he could be sworn in.

    He also ran on a platform supporting Roosevelt and the New Deal, but turned away from the New Deal and was also a staunch isolationist before Pearl Harbor.

    Posted by Mask at 11/22/2006 @ 1:19pm

30. 71% of Iraqis Want U.S. Troops Out Within a Year, 37% within six months

    Say U.S. Presence Provoking More Conflict Than it is Preventing

    Approval of Attacks on U.S.-led Forces Rises to 6 in 10

    Q11. Which of the following would you like the Iraqi government to ask the US-led forces to do?

    Polling was carried out September 1-4, 2006 in all provinces of Iraq.

    Withdraw all US-led forces within six months ............................37% Kurd.................................................................... .................11 Shia Arab.................................................................... .........36 Sunni Arab.................................................................... .......57

    Gradually withdraw US-led forces according to a one-year timeline................................................................ .....34% Kurd.................................................................... .....24 Shia Arab.................................................................38 Sunni Arab...............................................................34

    Gradually withdraw US-led forces according to a two-year timeline................................................................ ......20 Kurd.................................................................... .....34 Shia Arab.................................................................20 Sunni Arab................................................................7

    Only reduce US-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq. ........................................................................ .....9 Kurd.................................................................... .....31 Shia Arab..................................................................5 Sunni Arab................................................................2 Don't know/Refused (vol.)...............................................................* 1

    http://www.tinyurl.com/sdbok

    Expect the Democratic Party to much more closely accomodate Bush's pledge of no withdrawal while he is in office rather than come anywhere close to what Iraqis want. That's what "peck-around-the-edges" opposition parties are there for.

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/22/2006 @ 1:54pm

31. And I'll gladly eat my words if the US is out of Iraq by February 2008.

    Any formerly anti-Iraq occupation "liberals" want to explain why the US should still be in Iraq in February 2008?

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/22/2006 @ 2:34pm

32. Expect the Democratic Party to much more closely accomodate Bush's pledge of no withdrawal while he is in office rather than come anywhere close to what Iraqis want. That's what "peck-around-the-edges" opposition parties are there for.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/22/2006 @ 1:54pm

    I thought you WON and the "neo-cons" (oh, including me of course) LOST?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 11/22/2006 @ 2:44pm

33. On-topic again....

    See if you can guess who Rep. John Conyers is talking about in this quote?

    "In my mind, the facts that we have educed,(sic) the witnesses that we have heard, the voluminous records that we have read and re-examined, convince me that (he) has regrettably engaged in conduct constituting high crimes and misdemeanors and that therefore we should vote this resolution of impeachment"

    if you want to cheat [time.com]

    Posted by Mask at 11/22/2006 @ 2:51pm

34. Hastings, besides being a lawyer, is a long-time member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (president in '04), senior member of HPSConIntelligence, and ranking Dem member of the Subcommitte on Terrorism and Homeland Security.

    Holt, not a lawyer, a physicist and a Quaker (only one in the House)

    Harman, a lawyer, a conservative Dem, ranking member on Intelligence Committee, and under FBI investigation for allegedly trading favors to Israel in exchange for AIPAC's support for her chairmanship on the Intelligence Committee. According to Pelosi, Harman has not consistently opposed Bush policies.

    Who would you pick?

    Posted by felicity at 11/22/2006 @ 4:17pm

35. Who would you pick?

    Posted by FELICITY 11/22/2006 @ 4:17pm

    Not the question. "Who can you SELL?" to the public, that is. Hastings and his bribery charges, as well as that quote from Conyers, is a HAMMER waiting to fall on the Dems either early on...or later if they try (suicidally I think) to impeach Bush on "lying about WMDs", etc.

    Holt, for his relative unknownness...is a safe non-Harman choice for Pelosi.

    The Congressional Black Caucus will get over it...but the Dems would NEVER get over the continual tag-line "Chairman Hastings, an impeached judge, who fellow Chairman John Conyers said had engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors"...on every pronoucement he makes out of the House Intell Comm.

    Posted by Mask at 11/22/2006 @ 4:39pm

36. DRHAMMER<

    "I've heard a great many sexist comments concerning her, uh, attributes. "

    As an admitted sexist pig and admirer of the female body...what have I missed here?

    And a spine is one I don't expect to find given her history..

    Posted by john maasch at 11/22/2006 @ 9:38pm

37. ..." it doesn't mean he should forever be judged by that mistake."...

    Then Nixon, if he wanted, should have been allowed to run for a three year term and finish the job he was elected to...?

    Posted by john maasch at 11/22/2006 @ 9:40pm

38. And I'll gladly eat my words if the US is out of Iraq by February 2008.

    Any formerly anti-Iraq occupation "liberals" want to explain why the US should still be in Iraq in February 2008?

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/22/2006 @ 2:34pm

    A greater blood bath than they have now...for one.

    I would favor more US troops if it stops these idiots from killing each other in the market place...perhaps we should declare open season and open up a collesium and let the two sides who seem intent on killing each other off, have at it and sell tickets...

    I would guess 100% of Iraqis want the US out of their land...the question is under what circumstances...

    Nuts like Zero would leave wholesale yesterday and watch the slaughter from here and then sue Bush....this is inhuman,...we need to force the Iraqis to stand up on their own legs...most of the deaths are Iraqi against Iraqi and not against the US..they will tire of this or run pout of victums..I will admit, it is a mess, but we didn't create it, we enjoined it with the hope of changing it, and that will take time...many here will never agree to military use under any circumstances and any conditions..period..we should place these people on ignore list as one would total warriors all the time..

    Posted by john maasch at 11/22/2006 @ 9:49pm

39. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/22/2006 @ 1:54pm

    If you look at other data in that poll you will find that a majority of Iraqis believed that the US did not intend to leave Iraq (I guess until your mob had "stolen" every last drop of their oil. That probably equates to at least 50 years). Taking into account that Iraqi presupposition, the poll results you posted almost indicate a nascent love affair with the US military-in-Iaq scenario. It would be interesting to repeat the poll now on the basis that the US was certainly going to withdraw in 6 months.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 11/22/2006 @ 10:25pm

40. Note to Ms. Pelosi: Way to get off to a great start on getting rid of the republican culture of curruption, by starting a democratic one. With Alcee Hastings to chair the house intelligence committee, you're really hitting the ground running. Can't wait to see who else you're going to appoint to run the house committees.

    Posted by davebarlett at 11/23/2006 @ 12:22am

41. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/22/2006 @ 9:49pm

    .I will admit, it is a mess, but we didn't create it, we enjoined it with the hope of changing it, and that will take time..

    _________ _________ ________ __________ _________ __________ ____________

    The mind boggles!! Pandora, against all cautions, opened the box expecting treasure.....but she is not at fault for the disasters that resulted! Oh my!!

    Posted by Tiresias at 11/23/2006 @ 11:31am

42. pandora of course being bush, who pushed to open the iraq bush in the first place.

    Posted by pretzel at 11/23/2006 @ 9:49pm

43. The funny thing about making a mess is that you're also responsible for cleaning it up.

    Posted by Thrawn at 11/24/2006 @ 01:02am

44. The funny thing about making a mess is that you're also responsible for cleaning it up.

    Posted by THRAWN 11/24/2006 @ 01:02am

    Ummmmm......perhaps in your world but, sad to say, not the world of the POWH (Present Occupant of White House) nor his followers......

    Posted by Tiresias at 11/24/2006 @ 11:26am

45. What kind of pictures do Murtha and Hastings have of Pelosi? She goes all over the talking head shows blathering about corruption, then wants to play by the old rules. Mr. Corns analysis and recommendation are sound.

    Funny to see the apologists now whining about past deeds. Especially when there is no conviction. But lying to congress while under oath, about serving Iran tasty weapons, is just way cool with them. (Abrams, Negrodamus and clan) . I too would think they would be pleased with Hastings, seems like their kind of guy, flouts the law and gets elected.

    --The funny thing about making a mess is that you're also responsible for cleaning it up.

    Posted by THRAWN 11/24/2006 @ 01:02am

    That's what Poppy and family lawyers are for. It has worked for Him for 50 years, why stop now?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2006 @ 2:52pm

46. don't newly elected congressman have to put their spines into a blind trust? Administered by Patton Boggs.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2006 @ 2:54pm