Incoming House intelligence chief botches easy intel quiz

[DKW 86 7,431]

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politica...ence-chief.html

Monday, December 11, 2006

Incoming House intelligence chief botches easy intel quiz

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, who incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tapped to head the Intelligence Committee when the Democrats take over in January, failed a quiz of basic questions about al Qaeda and Hezbollah, two of the key terrorist organizations the intelligence community has focused on since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

When asked by CQ National Security Editor Jeff Stein whether al Qaeda is one or the other of the two major branches of Islam -- Sunni or Shiite -- Reyes answered "they are probably both," then ventured "Predominantly -- probably Shiite."

That is wrong. Al Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden as a Sunni organization and views Shiites as heretics.

Reyes could also not answer questions put by Stein about Hezbollah, a Shiite group on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations that is based in Southern Lebanon.

Stein's column about Reyes' answers was published on CQ's Web site Friday evening.

In an interview with CNN, Stein said he was "amazed" by Reyes' lack of what he considers basic information about two of the major terrorists organizations.

"If you're the baseball commissioner and you don't know the difference between the Yankees and the Red Sox, you don't know baseball," Stein said. "You're not going to have the respect of the people you work with."

While Stein said Reyes is "not a stupid guy," his lack of knowledge said it could hamper Reyes' ability to provide effective oversight of the intelligence community, Stein believes.

"If you don't have the basics, how do you effectively question the administration?" he asked. "You don't know who is on first."

Stein said Reyes is not the only member of the House Intelligence Committee that he has interviewed that lacked what he considered basic knowledge about terrorist organizations.

"It kind of disgusts you, because these guys are supposed to be tending your knitting," Stein said. "Most people are rightfully appalled."

Pelosi picked Reyes over fellow Californian Rep. Jane Harman, who had been the Intelligence Committee's ranking member, and Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida, who had been impeached as a federal judge after being accused of taking a bribe.

[otterinbham 0]

Yep. The Democrats are pretty incompetent. Why on earth they would put this nonentity into this position is beyond me. Which should tell you that the razor-thin Democratic majority in Congress won't last very long at all.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

Yep. The Democrats are pretty incompetent. Why on earth they would put this nonentity into this position is beyond me. Which should tell you that the razor-thin Democratic majority in Congress won't last very long at all.

Congress is a pretty unimpressive lot. The more gerrymandering, the safer the districts, the more idiots we get. Hopefully Reyes has been shamed enough to get educated before actually assuming the role. But given our limited choices between Republicans and Democrats, it is pretty disingenuous or uninformed to single out the Dems as incompetent. In comparison to what? Will the Republicans wow the electorate in 2 years with their record of "competence"? I'm not sure how the Dems will do-- God knows they're far from perfect-- but it is difficult to imagine more incompetence than we have seen in power in D.C. over the last several years. Reyes has yet to assume his role, but look at the Republicans in power for a period of years to see how we got to where we are:

Take Representative Terry Everett, a seven-term Alabama Republican who is vice chairman of the House intelligence subcommittee on technical and tactical intelligence.

“Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?” I asked him a few weeks ago.

Mr. Everett responded with a low chuckle. He thought for a moment: “One’s in one location, another’s in another location. No, to be honest with you, I don’t know. I thought it was differences in their religion, different families or something.”

To his credit, he asked me to explain the differences. I told him briefly about the schism that developed after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, and how Iraq and Iran are majority Shiite nations while the rest of the Muslim world is mostly Sunni. “Now that you’ve explained it to me,” he replied, “what occurs to me is that it makes what we’re doing over there extremely difficult, not only in Iraq but that whole area.”

Representative Jo Ann Davis, a Virginia Republican who heads a House intelligence subcommittee charged with overseeing the C.I.A.’s performance in recruiting Islamic spies and analyzing information, was similarly dumbfounded when I asked her if she knew the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.

“Do I?” she asked me. A look of concentration came over her face. “You know, I should.” She took a stab at it: “It’s a difference in their fundamental religious beliefs. The Sunni are more radical than the Shia. Or vice versa. But I think it’s the Sunnis who’re more radical than the Shia.”

Did she know which branch Al Qaeda’s leaders follow?

“Al Qaeda is the one that’s most radical, so I think they’re Sunni,” she replied. “I may be wrong, but I think that’s right.”

Did she think that it was important, I asked, for members of Congress charged with oversight of the intelligence agencies, to know the answer to such questions, so they can cut through officials’ puffery when they came up to the Hill?

“Oh, I think it’s very important,” said Ms. Davis, “because Al Qaeda’s whole reason for being is based on their beliefs. And you’ve got to understand, and to know your enemy.”

It’s not all so grimly humorous. Some agency officials and members of Congress have easily handled my “gotcha” question. But as I keep asking it around Capitol Hill and the agencies, I get more and more blank stares. Too many officials in charge of the war on terrorism just don’t care to learn much, if anything, about the enemy we’re fighting. And that’s enough to keep anybody up at night.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/opinion/...;pagewanted=all

Yes, I'm sure the American people will clamor for a reprise of the "competence" the Republicans have displayed for the last several years. And look how long those bozos lasted...

[DKW 86 7,431]

Tex, I FULLY agree with what you wrote. You see most of us realize that while Bush is no Mensa member, he is probably no worse than Gore, and more than likely better than Kerry who got even worse grades than Bush did.

[otterinbham 0]

"Hopefully Reyes has been shamed enough to get educated before actually assuming the role. But given our limited choices between Republicans and Democrats, it is pretty disingenuous or uninformed to single out the Dems as incompetent. In comparison to what? Will the Republicans wow the electorate in 2 years with their record of "competence"?"

Interesting comment. Fair, and a trifle revealing, too. Let's dissect it.

"Hopefully Reyes has been shamed enough to get educated before actually assuming the role." The intelligence committee is traditionally the committee chair that goes to the most seasoned, trustworthy senior congressman available. Putting in an absolute novice demonstrates how little Democrats value national security.

"...it is pretty disingenuous or uninformed to single out the Dems as incompetent. In comparison to what?"

You obviously don't read my posts, do you? I am an equal-opportunity scold, blasting both the current Republican and Democratic leadership. In fact, I have as many arguments with the Far-Right people on this board as the Far-Left. Call me a centrist Republican who puts a great deal of emphasis on individual rights.

"Will the Republicans wow the electorate in 2 years with their record of "competence"?

Actually, I'm fairly certain that the Republican party will learn from its mistakes--Seemingly far more than the Democrats have learned from theirs. And gerrymandering has worked both ways in our recent history. Sure, it allows us to re-elect some God-awful Republicans to office. It also allows us to keep returning the likes of Cynthia McKinney as well (At least her district finally had enough and wrenched power from her hands).

While gerrymandering is certainly a factor in this election, I believe strongly that it was the Democrats who kept themselves from racking up more impressive gains. Ask a broad cross section of Americans, and you'll find most are deeply worried about the international situation, especially in a time when unemplyment is under 5%. Yet the Democratic Party simply keeps looking back with nostalgia to the glory days of LBJ and his Great Society Program, which was a wholesale, demonstrable failure.

But the American public really doesn't want the Democratic agenda. In fact, many Democratic pollsters (Caddell, etc.) have stated that the American public has gotten more conservative over the years when it comes to social programs, especially among younger Americans.

Instead, the mid-terms were really a referendum on one issue and one issue only: The grotesque incompetence of the Bush administration in its foreign policy and its utter inability to guide a Republican congress.

So what will happen in 2008? After the fun and games of Congress under Pelosi, the country will hand Congress back to a chastened Republican party. And, if we're very, very lucky, Giuliani will occupy the oval office.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

"...it is pretty disingenuous or uninformed to single out the Dems as incompetent. In comparison to what?"

You obviously don't read my posts, do you?

I've read enough of them to know that you are certainly willing to critique Republicans. My statement wasn't intended to be so broad as to indicate you wouldn't do so, but rather focused on the particular issue at hand. For example, you state:

Putting in an absolute novice demonstrates how little Democrats value national security.

And yet, you did not respond to the article I posted which demonstrated that even after being on the job for a while, the Republicans in key leadership positions on the intelligence committee were totally clueless about what they were doing.

Idiot #1 (nice man, BTW, just utterly unimpressive):

Take Representative Terry Everett, a seven-term Alabama Republican who is vice chairman of the House intelligence subcommittee on technical and tactical intelligence.

“Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?” I asked him a few weeks ago.

Mr. Everett responded with a low chuckle. He thought for a moment: “One’s in one location, another’s in another location. No, to be honest with you, I don’t know. I thought it was differences in their religion, different families or something.”

To his credit, he asked me to explain the differences. I told him briefly about the schism that developed after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, and how Iraq and Iran are majority Shiite nations while the rest of the Muslim world is mostly Sunni. “Now that you’ve explained it to me,” he replied, “what occurs to me is that it makes what we’re doing over there extremely difficult, not only in Iraq but that whole area.”

Idiot #2

Representative Jo Ann Davis, a Virginia Republican who heads a House intelligence subcommittee charged with overseeing the C.I.A.’s performance in recruiting Islamic spies and analyzing information, was similarly dumbfounded when I asked her if she knew the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.

“Do I?” she asked me. A look of concentration came over her face. “You know, I should.” She took a stab at it: “It’s a difference in their fundamental religious beliefs. The Sunni are more radical than the Shia. Or vice versa. But I think it’s the Sunnis who’re more radical than the Shia.”

Did she know which branch Al Qaeda’s leaders follow?

“Al Qaeda is the one that’s most radical, so I think they’re Sunni,” she replied. “I may be wrong, but I think that’s right.”

Did she think that it was important, I asked, for members of Congress charged with oversight of the intelligence agencies, to know the answer to such questions, so they can cut through officials’ puffery when they came up to the Hill?

“Oh, I think it’s very important,” said Ms. Davis, “because Al Qaeda’s whole reason for being is based on their beliefs. And you’ve got to understand, and to know your enemy.”

Seems to me that there's not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties in this regard. Accordingly, I think it is either misinformed or disingenuous to claim that an uninformed Dem coming into that post demonstrates that Dems value national security less than the party that appointed and kept such uninformed people in key intelligence positions. So while I'm not claiming Dem superiority on this one issue, you seem to be claiming Republicans are notably better. I just don't see it.

Actually, I'm fairly certain that the Republican party will learn from its mistakes--Seemingly far more than the Democrats have learned from theirs.

Not sure of the set of facts on which you base this conclusion, but okay. There was certainly no evidence before their losses in November, but we'll see.

Instead, the mid-terms were really a referendum on one issue and one issue only: The grotesque incompetence of the Bush administration in its foreign policy and its utter inability to guide a Republican congress.

That was the biggest issue-- coupled with the total lack of oversight/accountability by the Republican Congress. There were more issues, though. As a libertarian, I can't imagine that you are that happy with the Republicans social agenda or the dominance of the Religous Right within the party. The Republicans kept their base, largely, but lost the independents, many of which have libertarian leanings. Which leads me to ask, how likely do you think it is that Guiliani can successfully navigate the Republican primary season?

[otterinbham 0]

I think Giuliani will do quite well, because the further we get from 9/11, the more apparent it is that he was the only politician of either party to exhibit actually grace and performance under fire...As evidenced by his sky-high ratings both among Republicans and Democrats.

After all, Presidential elections are not run by colorless technocrats (Witness Gore and Kerry), but by people who actually exhibit leadership ability (Witness Clinton and Reagan). So I'm fairly certain that Giuliani will get the nod, chiefly because he's a proven quantity to a nation that's desperate for actual competence in leadership. Plus that fact that he's NOT in the pocket of the fundies will help him, even n the primaries.