Posted on 10/22/2006 3:55:41 AM PDT by Sergeant Tim
Yet that fact is not what the New York Times wants to tell you. They prefer you to believe that the big story is about, "retaliation." So who is Larry Hanauer?
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESPRESS RELEASE
H-405 U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC 20515
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: DAVID BUCKLEY
APRIL 4, 2005 202-225-7690
HARMAN ANNOUNCES MINORITY STAFF HIRES AT INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE- Larry Hanauer comes from Booz Allen Hamilton, where he consulted on a range of intelligence issues for CIA, DIA, NGA and DHS. Previously, Hanauer spent eight years in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, where he served as an advisor on U.S. security policy in the Middle East, eastern Europe, and Africa. In 2002, he spent a year on Capitol Hill as a Legislative Fellow.
Meaning, Larry Hanauer works for Congresswoman Jane Harman.
And doing the math from the press release, it appears that Mr. Hanauer worked at the Pentagon "on U.S. Security policy in the the Middle East" from 1993 to 2001. That is interesting.
Before looking at what the New York Times' wants you to take from their report, let us first look at what they buried after the slant:
In his response sent yesterday, Mr. Hoekstra said he felt obliged to investigate the question. “This is an issue of national security,” he wrote, inviting Ms. Harman to help decide how to conduct the inquiry... On Tuesday, acting at the suggestion of another panel member, Representative Ray LaHood, Republican of Illinois, Mr. Hoekstra banned Mr. Hanauer, the staff member, from the committee’s high-security offices and from access to classified documents.
Mr. LaHood said Mr. Hanauer had requested a copy of the National Intelligence Estimate and received it two days before the article in The Times appeared on the Web [all emphasis added here is ours].
The September 24, 2006, New York Times article Rep. LaHood mentioned was entitled Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat and, in part, it said:
The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.
The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.
...
The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.
Now that you know Mr. Hanauer works for Jane Harman and he requested a copy of the NIE two days before the Times' story broke, let see how the New York Times led off their report today:
The senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee yesterday sharply protested the chairman’s decision to suspend a Democratic staff member’s access to classified information in a leak inquiry.
The congresswoman, Jane Harman of California, called the action a groundless act of political retaliation.
Ms. Harman’s complaint to the chairman, Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, involved his internal investigation of the possible source of an article on Sept. 24 in The New York Times about a National Intelligence Estimate saying the Iraq war had become a cause célèbre for terrorists.
Ms. Harman said she was appalled by Mr. Hoekstra’s move against the staff member, Larry Hanauer.
“There is no evidence to suggest that the professional staff member in question did anything wrong,” she said in a statement.
Ms. Harman said Mr. Hoekstra had admitted to her that his action against Mr. Hanauer was payback for her release on Tuesday of a report on actions by former Representative Randy Cunningham while he was on the Intelligence Committee. Mr. Cunningham, a California Republican, is serving an eight-year prison sentence for taking bribes.
Both the NIE's leak six weeks before an election and Jane Harman now releasing a report of actions by former Congressman Randy Cunningham are obvious partisan political moves. Perhaps Congressman Hoekstra's move was retaliation yet what if it turns out that Mr. Hanauer did leak the NIE to the Times? The American electorate might appreciate knowing -- before going to the polls on November 7 -- that a political partisan exactly which political partisan deliberately endangered them by leaking a classified document to the press.
Jane Harman protesting instead of actively joining with Pete Hoekstra to investigate if one of her staff leaked the NIE makes us wonder why the Times is not asking her some tough questions. We know, we are talking about the New York Times here and they will not ask them.
So here is one question for the New York Times:
Why does the fact that Larry Hanauer works for ranking House Intelligence Committee member Jane Harman appear nowhere in your reporting so far?
Sort of adds some perspective to the whole 'he said / she said' of the story, don't you think? Surely, the New York Times' editors will soon add some more perspective in an editorial. We can hardly wait.
Perhaps, between now and then, the Times can have a reporter see if there is any connection between Larry Hanauer and Paul Pillar.
Update:Here is one more interesting tidbit. On January 12, 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations held a roundtable discussion the dubbedTransition 2005: U.S. Policy Toward Iran, in DC. Kenneth M. Pollack, Mark Palmer, and David Kay were the speakers. Afterwards, during the Q & A, Larry Hanauer with Booz, Allen, Hamilton, asked this question:
"There’s a lot of discussion about regime change, whether it’s something that we or some other outside force instigates, or whether regime change just comes about through ordinary demographic change over time. But I’m wondering if anyone has given thought to really what comes next. The regime change would change the whole political structure, as Ambassador Palmer has said; it would change the economic structure of the country. And I think we’re seeing now in Iraq what happens when we pursue regime change without adequately thinking about the aftermath. So I’m wondering what might come next, and who in the U.S. government is thinking about it?"
You gain more insight into a person's thinking from the unguarded things they say before they are under suspicion than from their lawyer's statements to the press while they are being investigated.
A good morning ping.
Saving.
jane harmon needs to resign...she is responsible for leaks while being on the house lack of intelligence committe ..so should rockefeller who is on the senate lack of intelligence committe...oh wiat...what am I thiking..they are lib/dems....leaking national security is not important....
its foley 24/7...yeah, that's what the msm/public should concentrate on pursuing!!!
Nailing these leaks would be a big boost to the administration. It would put a face on those who are working against our country's interest for political gain.
I say give this guy to Jack Bauer for a quick interview to roll up all of them.
UPDATE II: Seems that Mr. Hanauer might have a reason to resent the Bush Administration...
Scroll down to the Jane Harmon bit for more on Hanauer...
CALVERT ST., 1855, No. 403-Laurence Hanauer to Steven H. Schlein, $457,500.
Date was Oct. 2005. And more on a Schlein guy of the same name, not sure if it's the same guy, from this link. From the link:
His biographical note states he was press secretary to U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.).
Small world.
Well, now, looks like the plot thickens..............
Ping.
bttt
Don't count on a big blow over this in the MSM. They'd like a few more Larry Hanauers.
In the time-honored Democrat tradition, she immediately goes on the offensive like a she-bear defending her cub.
She also knows she'll have the liberal rags defending her flanks.
She also knows that Pubbies will fold like a deck of cards in the face of her furious assaults.
She also knows the Justice Department under Gonzales will look the other way.
She also knows that the Administration is not interested in small-potatoes treason.
I guess I'm just an overly-sensitive schmucky citizen who's sick and tired of so many serious incidents (Burger, etal) fizzling out like a liter of Pepsi sitting open on the counter all night after a party.
Leni
Ah yes, she ain't dumb yet me thinks Ms. Harman doust protest too much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.