Jane Harman Joins Nutroots Gang?
I used to think that Jane Harman was serious about fighting the GWOT, but,
based on these quotes, it's apparent that she's been co-opted, too:
How can anyone read the NIE and say that it bolsters the Democrats' claims without saying that it bolsters the President's claims much more? Harman's position is indistinguishable from the Democratic Party's position, something I find quite telling. Harman says that the President's Iraq strategy has made "the terrorist threat more dangerous." For Harman's statement to be true, we'd need evidence of that. Considering our going 5 years without another terrorist attack after 9/11, it's impossible for Ms. Harman to offer proof that she's right.
In fact, since this is an either/or question, not a multiple choice question, her inability to offer proof proves that she's wrong.
Let's see if she's foolish enough to peddle that opinion when she appears on FNS tomorrow with Mr. Newt. If she does, look for Mr. Newt to hit it out of the ballpark.
Posted Saturday, September 30, 2006 1:37 PM
August 2006 Posts
No comments.
In his criticism, Mr. Bush also singled out members of the Democratic leadership. Referring to "a senior Democrat in Congress" without mentioning her by name, he recalled a recent comment in which Representative Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said: "The president says that fighting them there makes it less likely we'll have to fight them here. The opposite is true." The president pointed to Ms. Harman's remark as an example of how "some in Washington, some decent people, patriotic people," think that "we should not be on the offensive in this war on terror." "History," he said, "tells us that logic is false."I used to be impressed with Jane Harman but that changed when I saw her on Fox News Sunday with Newt Gingrich. Harman did her best John Murtha impression and Newt nailed her on it. Since then, Harman's just gotten less trustworthy, less serious.
Through a spokesman, Ms. Harman said Thursday evening, "If the president reads his own intelligence, he will see that his failed strategy in Iraq is making the terrorist threat more dangerous."
How can anyone read the NIE and say that it bolsters the Democrats' claims without saying that it bolsters the President's claims much more? Harman's position is indistinguishable from the Democratic Party's position, something I find quite telling. Harman says that the President's Iraq strategy has made "the terrorist threat more dangerous." For Harman's statement to be true, we'd need evidence of that. Considering our going 5 years without another terrorist attack after 9/11, it's impossible for Ms. Harman to offer proof that she's right.
In fact, since this is an either/or question, not a multiple choice question, her inability to offer proof proves that she's wrong.
Let's see if she's foolish enough to peddle that opinion when she appears on FNS tomorrow with Mr. Newt. If she does, look for Mr. Newt to hit it out of the ballpark.
Posted Saturday, September 30, 2006 1:37 PM
August 2006 Posts
No comments.
