(So did Joe Klein actually get it right (kinda sorta)? Did Jane Harman plan to vote “Yea” before doing a “Nay”? I really don’t know, but Pete has an interesting theory. – promoted by atdleft)

crossposted at Daily Kos

OK, more than a week has passed since the Iraq supplemental vote, and I’m pretty dumbstruck that the incongruity of Jane Harman’s vote against the bill and her statements to Joe Klein of Time magazine about the vote hasn’t gotten more attention. 

Here’s the deal —

According to Harman, as told to Klein*:

1. Voting against the supplemental bill was voting against providing troops the equipment and the armor they need.

2. Voting No was not something she could bring herself to do because of her view noted above.

3. She voted against the bill in the end not because she changed her view noted above in 1., but because she says she felt it was her responsibility to vote how her anti-war constituents wanted her to vote.

Well, so what does all this mean?

1.  Harman was aware that the bill would pass at the time she switched from a Yes vote to a No vote. 

There’s a second source on this one: Politico says she changed her mind “shortly before it came to the floor”.  As far as Klein and Harman, I’m guessing she authorized Klein to say she’d already voted, which suggests the vote was very imminent.

2.  Her press statement criticizes an argument as false that she believes to be true. 

Namely, the “you’re endangering our troops if you vote no” argument.  The same day her press release was put out calling such an argument “manipulation” and “rubbish, she  made that exact argument to defend a “Yes” vote and she still stands behind that argument today(despite voting No on the bill).

3.  Based on 1. and 2. above, it’s reasonable to assume she reconciled herself to voting No on the bill and switched because by that time she knew it was going to pass and her vote wasn’t needed. 

Surely the fact that it would also help protect her from the wrath of constituents reeling from multiple military deaths was a motivating factor too. 

Sadly, this evening, the front page of the local South Bay newspaper website had four main stories on its front page – every single one of them about a local soldier’s death.

Friends, fellow Americans line Torrance streets to mourn a passing warrior
Wilmington soldier killed in Iraq by a roadside bomb
Death of Spc. Alexandre Alexeev is third from South Bay in two weeks.
Everyone came to pay their respects to a South Bay son
Services Sunday for Pfc. Daniel Cagle of Del Aire

The whole screen has no other articles in view.  They are all about local soldiers dying. 

Digby is right when he suggests that this dynamic must have played a part with Harman switching, but he gives credit to Harman where I think it very well could be a Lieberman-esque effort at “window dressing”.  Harman knew by that time what the outcome would be, and this dynamic isn’t getting her to change her thinking, only how she’s voting when it doesn’t make a difference. 

4.  If her vote would have actually made a difference in the outcome, there’s no way in hell that she would have voted against the supplemental because she  believed (and believes) to do so would lead to soldiers’ deaths. 

She  contrasts herself with all the anti-war folks who wanted a No vote on this blank-check bill: She is concerned in soldiers’ welfare; they are not.

I had those kids on the C-130 [deploying to Iraq] in my mind, but I also had to consider the overwhelming opposition to this war in my district–and, in the end, my responsibility was to the people I represent.

5.  Harman played absolutely no beneficial role in getting this blank-check supplemental defeated because she was for it until the very last minute, and even then personally disagrees with how she felt she had to vote.  For all we know, she was working behind the scenes to get people to vote for it.

‘* A note about relying on Harman’s statements as reported by Joe Klein on his Time magazine blog:  Klein gets things wrong.  A lot. And what Harman is reported as saying is pretty outlandish – I mean, Klein’s got her saying that she voted for a bill that she voted against, and implying that her very own vote is going to lead to the death of some American troops.  Couldn’t be possible, could it?

But consider: Klein posted a followup a day later and transcribed a voice mail he says he received from Harman in which she vouches for the accuracy of their conversation as Klein reported it. 

[…]
Your account of our conversation was accurate and I stand by what I said to you.
[…]

Also, consider how damaging these statements are to her credibility and the fact that her press office made no effort to clarify the record. (How many days has it been since the vote?)  And I personally talked to Harman’s press secretary and made sure he was aware of what Klein had quoted Harman as saying.  He was very aware and yet declined the opportunity to dispute any of it or point me to anywhere where they had previously disputed it.

Isn’t it reasonable to assume that the only reason Harman is not doing anything to correct the record about what Klein reported her as saying – is because she actually said it?

I think I’m bending over a little backwards to be fair to Harman — it’s not like I’m pretending to read nefarious thoughts into her mind.  These are things she said on the record which got published by Time magazine.  The onus is really on her to correct the record if anything is wrong, and nothing suggests she’s done that.  But if there’s something out there that’s not available online that for some reason Harman’s office is not sharing on this, please share in the comments.

Frankly, I’d be happy to find out that Klein did in fact get it wrong but Harman is protecting his errors until and unless she starts paying a price for what he wrote.  But it’s got to be one or the other:  Either Klein is simply making up things Harman said or Harman is being super-disingenuous on her Iraq war vote.