Did Pelosi See Harman as a Female Joe Lieberman?

That was the gist of a sensational column published on April 19 in Congressional Quarterly, a once-staid Capitol Hill magazine. The piece has added fuel to the long unfinished national debate over the war in Iraq and "enhanced" interrogation techniques. It has roiled the anti-war left in Los Angeles, and pitted two powerful Washington women against one another in a battle for their reputations. It's a fight only one of them can win, and may end up harming them both.

And it comes on the eve of a criminal trial of two lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) who were caught in an FBI sting handing classified Pentagon documents to Israel's government.

Until now, official Washington never really knew why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had refused in 2007 to give Jane Harman the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee, a job that had been promised to her in writing by the House leadership. But according to the new CQ story, Pelosi had been briefed about Harman's appearance on the wiretap in 2006. Was this the answer to the riddle?

Nancy Pelosi, at 69 years of age, is a pretty woman and a sharp dresser. She's also unfailingly poised and well-mannered. Don't be fooled. She can also be a hard case and is not someone who can be bullied or buffaloed. She doesn't even like being asked for something more than once, let alone given the hard sell. And Jane Harman certainly lobbied Pelosi arduously for the Intel post. Harman probably knows Pelosi well enough to know that this wouldn't work, but she couldn't help herself: She'd been promised the job, she was the best qualified for it, and she wanted it badly. She was the ranking committee member to begin with, because Pelosi had stepped aside from the committee herself. So what was the hang-up?

Last summer, I sat with Nancy Pelosi, tape recorder running, taking the temperature of the first female Speaker of the House in U.S. history. A story had been making the rounds that blustery Hollywood producer-and big-time Democratic donor-Harvey Weinstein had essentially tried to extort Pelosi into seating disputed Florida and Michigan delegates at last summer's Democratic convention so that Hillary Clinton might be the party's nominee. Weinstein didn't just state his preference: He sought to intimidate Pelosi, vowing to withhold his sizable campaign contributions if she didn't do his bidding. The word was that Pelosi had told him off in no uncertain terms, that she had raised her voice and, before hanging up on him, said, "Don't ever threaten me again!"

I've known Pelosi since her San Francisco days, before she was a member of Congress, and it certainly sounded like her, which I mentioned in our interview. Confirming that the exchange had indeed taken place, she added, "I have said that to a number of people."

"I imagine Harvey Weinstein understands that now," I said.

"Poor baby," Pelosi replied with a laugh. "But seriously, you don't threaten. Would you call Tip O'Neill and say that?"

That's one Pelosi story. Here's another. In January 2003, eight members of Congress were briefed by the Central Intelligence Agency regarding harsh interrogation techniques being used against suspected foreign terrorists. Four of the eight members briefed were from the House of Representatives, four were from the Senate. Four were Democrat, four were Republican. (This so-called "gang of eight" consists of the ranking member of each body's Intelligence Committee, along with the leaders of each party in each chamber). Only one of the eight members objected to what she was hearing, and it wasn't Nancy Pelosi. It was Jane Harman.

And on Feb. 10, 2003, Harman wrote to CIA general counsel Scott Muller, questioning whether such practices "are consistent with the principles and policies of the United States." Clearly mistrustful of the Agency, she asked Muller point-blank whether the president had approved the techniques in question-we now know that they included waterboarding. She also flatly warned the CIA not to destroy videotapes of such sessions.

These two scenes have been on my mind during the past two weeks as I tried to unravel the strange saga that resulted in these one-time allies, Pelosi and Harman, becoming bitter adversaries. The news media and the blogosphere being what they are, the phrase "cat fight" has inevitably been tossed around. That is not merely sophomoric; it is missing the point. The Pelosi-Harman feud is a turf battle, all right, and at some level a petty power struggle. Most of all, it is a morality tale that reminds us of a couple of truisms. The first is the corrupting influence of craving power. The second is that war is a pernicious institution that does all kinds of collateral damage to friendships and families.

In 2002, nearly every Democrat in this city with ambitions for national office voted to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq. That number included the current Secretary of State and vice president, the Democratic leader in the Senate and the House and countless other senatorial wannabees. (It did not, of course, include a certain state senator from Illinois.) Jane Harman voted for it, Nancy Pelosi did not. Is that the issue that busted it for Pelosi?

One close friend of Harman's thinks so. "Pelosi didn't want the House version of Joe Lieberman running the Intelligence Committee," this source told me. "Bottom line, her vote for the war cost her the Intel chairmanship."

One member of the California congressional delegation who asked me not to reveal his name thinks it's more visceral than all that. "I can't say this on the record because it's sexist, but each of them wants to be the Queen Bee," this member said. "Guess which one it's going to be?"

Asked if he believed the allegation against Harman is true, this congressman shrugged and said, "Yeah, probably. Look, if you take Israel out of this story, it's the same old, same old. We're hard-wired around here to try and get what we want by making these kinds of deals. Jane is doing the standard political thing here, horse trading, except that she's doing it in an area she shouldn't be doing it in."

That's one explanation. Here's another: The accusation against Harman won't pan out. So many questions remain. Was it really a NSA wiretap? The NSA flatly denied it this week. Who is the "Israeli agent" Harman talked with? What's the actual evidence-as CQ's sources alleged-that former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales quashed an investigation into Harman's activities because he needed her as an ally on warrantless surveillance techniques?

Who are the leakers-and what is their angle? Are they former Republican aides from the Intelligence Committee, you know, the same ones that Harman accused of steering contracts to disgraced and imprisoned San Diego congressman Duke Cunningham?

While we're at it, who is the self-described "whistleblower" who ratted out Harman to former House Speaker Dennis Hastert. (Such a benign-sounding word, "whistleblower." Much nicer than "disgruntled, fired former CIA agent," for instance. Or "political hatchet man.")

Finally, what's the deal with running a blind quote, as CQ did, accusing Harman of "the deepest kind of corruption...ethical corruption." That seems a pretty harsh assessment to be able to make from behind a cloak of anonymity.

Harman has hired a spokesman, Lanny Davis, who declined to comment last night on these and other questions. Davis did remind me, however, that Harman has asked the Justice Department to release the tapes in question. I'm wondering if the surprising new Attorney General Eric Holder might do just that. Incidentally, various neutral third parties, including The Washington Post, have looked at the facts of the original case against the two AIPAC lobbyists and come to the conclusion that not much of a crime occurred-certainly not espionage-and that charges should never have been filed.

Unless Holder concurs and drops the case, the trial is supposed to begin on June 2, Meanwhile, out in Los Angeles, there are stirrings of a Democratic primary challenge to Jane Harman. Stay tuned.