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.
Alberto Gonzalez is a pathetic excuse for an Attorney General, and once again Bush demonstrates that personal friendship means more than political results. Gonzalez has had more than three years to investigate leaks damaging to the the US and has come up with nothing. Zip. Nada. It matters not what they come up with in the future because their lack of initiative has been as damaging as the leaks themselves.
Good idea...I'm leaving here now to check out "contact" on Mary Bono's site. I'll be sure and spell 'demand resignation from committee' correctly.
I have to agree. So many missed opportunities by the absentee president & staff.
If we had a non-partisan media, this would be all over the news.
Don't you wonder why a fellow who has a Master's Degree and who has worked as a consultant would walk away from that and take a job as a House staffer making under 30K per year? His wife is a Magistrate, but that doesn't pay big bucks. His agenda seems to be to change policy. He's another one of these Democrats who think they are the smartest person in the room.
You are misreading the numbers. Hanauer made that amount in one quarter.
LOL. Me or the libs?
Oops. Nevermind. :)
The libs who leak our secrets to the enemy should hang.
Pinch, Hanauer, Harmon...
not you.
8-)
The Slimes and other MSM outlets have probably lost one of their main sources and won't cover the story but will be out in full force to slander and libel every Republican they can if they weren't already.
Not all classified information is the same. The NIE isn't just classified, like say the number of spare jeep carburetors available to Battalion X deep in the Hurtgen Forest. It is one of the most highly classified document our intelligence agencies produce and its distribution is restricted to a small number of senior folks with a clear need to know. It is highly classified because of the fact that it represents the official intelligence communities assessment of intentions and capabilities of our enemies. Knowing where it is right and where it is wrong is of enormous value to the enemy.
Leaking it isn't like leaking a fact that everyone knows, such as the wife of x, who daily drives through the gates of the CIA, is, surprise, surprise, an employee of the CIA. This is a clear resounding unauthorized disclosure of highly sensitive information with the clear intent to damage national security.
I'd say there's a lot of digging to be done here. Hope someone's doing it.
Don't look for a MSM bombshell anytime soon.
Thanks for the ping!
I think Bret Baer said he is going to interview Congressman Hoekstra on Fox. It would have to be between now and 2:00pm (Eastern).
Hoekstra's main points:
Hanauer's access to classified data has been suspended pending investigation.
Leaking classified information will not be tolerated. Confirming/commenting to media about leaked classified information obtained from another source will not be tolerated.
That said, Congress' intelligence committees have oversight responsibility yet even committee members do not have automatic clearance; they, and to a lesser extent designated staff, must have the clearance, be on the access list for the information, and have a need to know. Because the records holder honored his request for the NIE, Larry Hanauer must have met all three tests. It is not that he requested the NIE that caused the suspicion; it is when he recieved the NIE (2 days before the NY and LA Times published their story).
Stay with me; there is a point to this.
The original NY Times report was published late evening on 10/23/06 yet by late evening on 10/24/06 the NY Times had already added several reports and an editorial. One 10/24 report was entitled Citing Spy Agencies’ Study, Democrats Seek Iraq Changes and they wrote this:
Representative Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that while she could not discuss details of the classified National Intelligence Estimate, “Every intelligence analyst I speak to confirms that” the Iraq war had contributed to the increased terrorist threat. “Even capturing the remaining top Al Qaeda leadership isn’t going to prevent copycat cells, and it isn’t going to change a failed policy in Iraq,” Ms. Harman said on CNN’s “Late Edition.” “This administration is trying to change the subject. I don’t think voters are going to buy that.”
That makes the timing of Hanauer receiving the NIE interesting, even if he did not leak it to the NY Times. Several other Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, said on 10/24 they were only commenting based upon the news reports as they had not read the NIE. Yet Larry Hanauer had received a copy two days before the Times' original story and Jane Harman did not say she had not read it. What Hanauer getting the NIE when he did and Harman's comments on 10/24 indcates (to me) is they were at least tipped that the Times' was publishing a story about that particular NIE.
bttt
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.