First, you said you that the intelligence sources didn’t state clearly that they were actually waterboarding, only that they were mentioning the methods theoretically. Over the weekend, you claimed that your aide who attended the meeting didn’t give you the full story. And now you’re saying, according to Politico, that you held back on criticism out of deference for “appropriate legislative channels” — whatever in the hell that means:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi learned in early 2003 that the Bush administration was waterboarding terror detainees but didn’t protest directly out of respect for “appropriate” legislative channels, a person familiar with the situation said Monday.

The Pelosi camp’s version of events is intended to answer two key questions posed by her critics: When, precisely, did she first learn about waterboarding? And why didn’t she do more to stop it? …

As Larry Johnson would say, if the hole is getting deeper, QUIT DIGGING! Perhaps you should have done what your “bitter rival,” Rep. Jane Harman had the guts to do:

Pelosi has disputed a CIA document, released last week, that shows she was briefed in September 2002 on the “particular” interrogation techniques the United States had used on Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah. Pelosi has said she was told then only that the Bush administration was considering using certain techniques in the future — and that it had the legal authority to do so.

But there’s no dispute that on Feb. 4, 2003 — five months after Pelosi’s September meeting — CIA officials briefed Pelosi aide Michael Sheehy and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), then the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, on the specific techniques that had been used on Zubaydah — including waterboarding.

Harman was so alarmed by what she had heard, she drafted a short letter to the CIA’s general counsel to express “profound” concerns with the tactic — going so far as to ask if waterboarding had been personally “approved by the president.”

According to the Pelosi confidant, Sheehy told Pelosi about the briefing — and later informed Pelosi, the newly elected minority leader, that Harman was drafting a protest letter. Pelosi told Sheehy to tell Harman that she agreed with the letter, the Pelosi insider said. But she did not ask to be listed as a signatory on the letter, the source said, and there is no reference to her in it. …

In other words, you had a great opportunity to TAKE A STAND against torture, but — for you — going along to get along always takes precedence over taking a moral stand.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra hits the nail on the head, per usual:

Republicans aren’t buying it.

“If Nancy was so concerned about the waterboarding, why did she let someone else write the letter?” asked Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the ranking Republican on the intelligence committee. “If she was so upset, why did she let someone else raise objections?”

Read all: “Pelosi: Torture protest improper in ’03.”

VIDEO UPDATE: In the last half of his commentary, Brit Hume picks up the Nancy Pelosi story and hits it out of the park:

And, about Wanda Sykes: You’re right, Brit. Please consider also that, if a conservative had said that about a black politician, Janeane Garofalo would call him a “racist.”

Jane Harman hits back with a sweeping, supple victim’s style in a star-turn appearance with Andrea Mitchell re the surprise smear of the California potentate as a Zionist tool.

Shrewdly, Jane Harman’s counter strike on TV is not about the dull facts of the Bush administration case against AIPAC ops, which is likely to be dropped by Obama Justice.

Instead the counter strike is about the NSA spying on a member of Congress.   Andrea Mitchell frames the story immediately –  “Are private Congressional phone calls being eavesdropped on by other government agencies?” – and what Jane Harman must then do is act surprised, disappointed, alarmed, inquiring, patriotic, doubtful, resilient, responsible, comprehensive, curious and patient.

This is a hypnotic coloratura soprano victim performance.  “I know what I read in the press, Andrea, the first time I had any clue…”  Every note precise and thrilling.  As for the mute NSA, it spies on all members of Congress when it must, when the key words come up on the recordings.

What is startling is that the NSA provided the transcript to Justice, and then Justice decided not to go ahead on the case, and then someone decided to leak the transcript.

Suspects of leakers?  Obama Justice is suspect No. 1.  Outgoing Bush politicos are also suspect, since they pursued AIPAC and lost, and this is a stink bomb tossed back inside the building.  Also suspect — let us be nimble — is Jane Harman and/or AIPAC.   Again, Jane Harman, bravissima!

"The official with access to the transcripts said someone seeking help for the employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, (AIPAC) a prominent pro-Israel lobbying group, was recorded asking Ms. Harman, a longtime supporter of its efforts, to intervene with the Justice Department. She responded, the official recounted, by saying she would have more influence with a White House official she did not identify.

In return, the caller promised her that a wealthy California donor — the media mogul Haim Saban — would threaten to withhold campaign contributions to Representative Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who was expected to become House speaker after the 2006 election, if she did not select Ms. Harman for the intelligence post."  NY Times

—————————————–

Well, god bless the NY Times.  I guess they remember the era of Judy Miller and Michael Gordon after all.

"someone?"  This NY Times story makes it clear that the NY Times believes that Haim Saban was not the caller with whom Representative Harman discussed a scheme to threaten the House Minority Leader with a withholding of campaign donations if Pelosi did not appoint Harman to the chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).  The Times states that Saban was merely the chosen instrument that the caller (someone) would launch at Pelosi to insure the desired appointment to this extremely sensitive US national security position.

Saban, himself is interesting as a person thought by (someone) to be available for such an errand.  An Israeli/American, he is prominent in Hollywood film production circles and has lots of money.  If I am not mistaken he is the benefactor of the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution.  The Saban Center employs, if memory serves me, both Martin Indyk and Kenneth Pollack as scholars.

The question remains – Who was "someone?"  It sounds to me as thought there is a good chance that "someone" was an official at the Israeli embassy in Washington.  Could he have been one of the officials at the embassy who left the United States when faced with FBI investigative pressure over the case of the AIPAC men and Larry Franklin?  One of those Israelis is now back in government as Natanyahu's national security adviser.  Alternatively, was "someone" connected with AIPAC?

If "someone" was a foreign diplomat, then the notion of a conversation like the one discussed is significant.  pl