Oh this AIPAC Jane saga just gets better and better, well, unless you're AIPAC Jane. Who knew she harbored hopes of an Ambassadorship? I'd send her to Lesotho in a heart beat in the hopes of you know getting a real Democrat to represent the California 36th Congressional District but what did Lesotho ever do to us to deserve such a shrill?

From the New York Times:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi acknowledged for the first time on Wednesday that she had been briefed by the Bush administration "maybe three years ago" that Representative Jane Harman, Democrat of California, had been picked up on a wiretapped phone conversation as part of a government investigation.

Ms. Pelosi said she had been barred from telling Ms. Harman about the recorded call.

She also said Ms. Harman was apparently not a target of the surveillance, and insisted that the incident did not factor in her decision to deny her colleague the top post on the House Intelligence Committee after Democrats won the majority in 2006.

That decision is still a source of friction between the two Californians, who are both powerful and wealthy women, and yet in other ways as different as the districts they represent. Ms. Pelosi's district covers most of San Francisco, while Ms. Harman represents parts of the West Side of Los Angeles and beach areas to the south.

Their tussle over the committee post was back in the spotlight this week after reports that Ms. Harman had been secretly recorded agreeing to intercede on behalf of pro-Israel lobbyists, who were under investigation for violations of the Espionage Act, in exchange for help in pressing Ms. Pelosi to give her the intelligence job.

While the two women do not display overt hostility, Ms. Harman seems to have never quite gotten over the slight. Colleagues say that since Ms. Pelosi, 69, thwarted her ambitions for a more prominent role on security issues, Ms. Harman, 63, has grown weary of Congress and has been eyeing a post in the Obama administration, perhaps as an ambassador.

Those hopes may be clouded by revelations about the taped call. Ms. Harman has forcefully denied the accusation that she offered to aid the operatives for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, known as Aipac.

While Speaker Pelosi suggests that AIPAC Jane wasn't the target of the surveillance but in 2005 the FBI was in fact investigating whether AIPAC Jane, an outspoken supporter of Israel, may have improperly influenced an ongoing Justice Department probe of AIPAC. In October 2006, AIPAC Jane dismissed the investigation as "laughable" yet here we are again and I am pretty sure no one is laughing even if the amusement factor is quite high.

Even more bizarre, if that's the right word, according to David Corn over at Mother Jones who finds that former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez isn't exactly denying the most recent allegations against him, that is that he killed the FBI inquiry because AIPAC Jane, then the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, could help the Bush administration defend its use of warrantless wiretaps. Quid quo pros galore. In Washington of all places.

I think it fair to note that Jane Harman is a player, a heavy hitter in Washington politics and even if I find her brand of blue dog politics less than savory, it doesn't bring much satisfaction asking whatever happened to AIPAC Jane. Or does it?

There's more...

There's more...

This article on an off beat news blog asks us to consider whether US foreign policy finally belongs to the US or does it still belong to Israel, that is, the Israel Lobby, and are our congresspersons still sucking up to a foreign government that is pulling our tail.

Jim Lobe wrote this yesterday: Iran Resolution Shelved in Rare Defeat for 'Israel Lobby'

Link HERE: http://ipsnorthamerica.net/news.php?idne ws=1716

Has the American news media carried the story? Don't know, but it is doubtful.

There's more...

The US has no prerogative to question Israel's decision to bomb Iran? That's what she said folks, even if the foreign policy and economic consequences for the US would be disastrous. It could have military consequences as well if the US got involved. Another war.

Philip Weiss at Mondoweiss published this comment yesterday stating that Chris Matthews Suggests AIPAC Scripted Palin's Rote Answer on Israel.

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/20 08/09/matthews-suggests-aipac-scripted-p alins-rote-answer-on-israel.html

This is what he said,

There's more...

After two days of occasionally dropping by, so to speak, to see what my old political party was up too, I find myself no more knowledgeable about what it is the Democrats stand for than I was before this convention. The only thing that I do know is that they don't want to see John McCain elected. The arguments that they raise about a possible McCain presidency and what it will mean are at the very least perfect examples of fear mongering. I'm not saying that they are not entirely wrong either. The problem I have with the Democrats is not how they view a McCain presidency; it is how they view an Obama presidency.

I believe that the key to winning this election, is winning it with a majority that cannot be tampered with. It is no longer safe to win an election with a close popular vote count, or an electoral vote count... close races have been turned by political operatives with the help of friendly State examiners and friendly courts. Voters have been disenfranchised with no real recourse. No, elections in this electronic age of Diebold machines and artificial time limits on voter recounts must rely on winning handily, close simply will not do. This is why the Democrats must represent a real choice to the voters. The simple strategy of being "the lesser of two evils" will not draw out people that otherwise would not vote. It is very tempting for many Americans to make arrangements to leave work or home, to not bother waiting in lines, and to generally not participate in the election process that can be truly annoying, if there is not a real desire to see your candidate win. This is much more a problem for Democrats than Republicans, as the Republican voters can usually be counted to make it to the polls. Why Congress, in this day and age, has not made it easier for people to vote is a mystery.

This is the primary reason that Obama must define himself, and do it soon. I see this as an almost impossible task, simply because of the people that are involved in his campaign. If I were to put myself in Obama's shoes, I would not be very comfortable. The American people want a different direction for America. I believe that this different direction doesn't consist of moving our primary zone of combat operations from Iraq to Afghanistan, or to continue to support Israel unconditionally, regardless of what they do. It also doesn't mean propping up the military in a former Soviet Republic and prodding them to attack Russian soldiers as we have done in Georgia. I believe that most Americans want a return to financial responsibility and get our national debt under control. They want access to health care and to see this disparity between the wealthy and the middle class reversed. They want their children to receive a world class education. They also want to stop the outsourcing of American industry. They want to see jobs created by rebuilding the infrastructure of this country, and they really don't care if it is done by the public or private sectors, they just want the jobs this will create and bridges that won't fall down.

There's more...