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."
Here's the whole harrowing interview. Remember how the Democrats ran on the competence issue?
IN THE COMMENTS: Our dear Reader_Iam says:
When I first heard this story, it instantly struck me that the only thing absolutely shocking about it, to me, was how profoundly unsurprising it is.
पोस्ट्स
५१ टिप्पण्या:
This is horrifying. Nice link!
For chrissakes.
Pretty disheartening. :(
How silly, we all know Al Quaea is mostly Crips.
good door gunner and good Border agent, a better choice than Hastings, but a distant second to Harman.
In a more general criticism, how the hell can we have confidence in a Congress that can't understand the various groups and positions represented in the ME.
OT. There was a nasty WSJ piece on how the Democratic replacement for previous senior Dem (Mollohan) on the House Ethics Committee (whose wealth went from $300k to as much as $25,000K in 6 years) is the the largest junket junkie (Stephanie Tubbs Jones) in the congress with 74 lobbyist junkets since 2000.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009370
So much for good government and changing the "culture of corruption"
"And I agree with you — we ought to expend some effort into understanding them. But speaking only for myself, it’s hard to keep things in perspective and in the categories."
And I suppose he thinks only Bush is incompetent, too...
When I first heard this story, it instantly struck me that the only thing absolutely shocking about it, to me, was how profoundly unsurprising it is.
Give me a break. Nobody knows this stuff. Shameful? Sure, but how do you think Bush does on a quiz like this?
People who continue to support Bush's foreign policy (and/or voted for him in 2004) really should think hard before they make fun of anyone's ignorance of the Middle East. Yes, even the incoming Intel Chair.
"Give me a break. Nobody knows this stuff."
Ummm – Doyle? I know this stuff. My spouse knows this stuff. Hell, I think my kid knows this stuff.
Doyle: "Nobody knows this stuff."
You have got to be kidding. You are forever banned from saying Bush is an idiot.
God help us! Where are the adults?
To be fair to Doyle if my "nobody" he meant "US policymakers"... he's right.
It just goes to show that Congress really, really represents the American people -- like the ones Jay Leno used to interview on the street who didn't know who Joseph Stalin was or whether Iowa was west of Oregon. (But they knew every contestant on American Idol, and probably when Paris Hilton gets her period.)
"Nobody knows this stuff."
Bull shit!
Anybody who has been paying the slightest attention to the war knows this stuff.
I won't challenge Congressman Reyes' intelligence, but I will challenge his priorities and his qualifications to lead the Intelligence Committee.
I disagree with Reader_Iam. I'm as cynical as most, but I find this shocking and unacceptable, and non partisan.
I expect those lazy louts who represent us in Congress to know the basics, God Damnit.
Perhaps, he had a bad day. I really don't care.
Worse yet, we just had an election. We need to look in the mirror. We elected these dopes--on both sides of the aisle.
A question for you business owners. What would be your response to a key manager's inability to even recognize the name of a key competitor?
Shame on us all.
Thank you, Jacob.
it's not just Democrats. The piece has a nice little line or three from Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, too. Point being, none of these arrogant yahoos care enough to learn about the issues
Well, Lott's an idiot, but he isn't (and wasn't, when he made those remarks) the head of the intelligence committee. The guy in charge back then was Porter Goss, who was ex-CIA (and later replaced Tenet as head of the agency). He knew his stuff.
Harman is another person who knows the issues involved in Middle Eastern terrorism. It is a damned shame she didn't get the job.
So nobody was bothered by the answers given by Robert Gates at his confirmation hearing today?, where he first justified the Iranians pursuing a nuclear weapon by saying they were only looking for a defense against other nuclear powers in the region, and then named those powers:
Gates said that some Iranians
"are interested in nuclear ability as a power of deterrence against nuclear countries surrounding them – Pakistan in the east, Russia in the north, Israel in the west, and the United States in the Persian Gulf".
I thought he was being confirmed as Defense Secretary of the U.S., which has an announced policy of opposing the construction of nuclear weapons by Iran. What is he doing justifying the same as a defense against the U.S.?
Being very liberal, I even think Iran may have a case about feeling threatened by George Bush, but I think by saying this in his confirmation hearings Gates has committed at least two serious strategic blunders, 1) Giving Iran the political ammunition they need to build the nukes by suggesting they may have a right to build them for defense, and 2) Openly acknowleging that Israel even has nukes, which may be true but also helps justify Iran and make it difficult for us to get sanctions on them (unless of course we are willing to also put the same sanctions on Israel.)
"...Sure, but how do you think Bush does on a quiz like this?"
Better than Reyes and Pelosi, and probably as well if not better than Reid and Clinton.
And certainly better than most posting on this and other blogging sites.
Really.
Well, Lott's an idiot, but he isn't (and wasn't, when he made those remarks) the head of the intelligence committee.
No, but see my last post. Gates is George Bush's personal choice to be Defense Secretary.
Eli,
Yes, as a conservative, I am bothered terribly by Gates' testimony to the Senate last week; but reading the election returns as well as anyone, this answer was necessary to secure the votes of the appeasement/surrender caucus, which will to soon be the majority.
No one should be surprised by this. Why are you?
Eli Blake said...
"Gates is George Bush's personal choice to be Defense Secretary.
That's assuredly true, but the question is which George Bush's personal choice is he - 41 or 43. ;)
Joe said...
"How silly, we all know Al Quaea is mostly Crips."
Worse yet - they could be crits!
Its inexcusable and embarassing, but I think this example speaks to why U.S. politicians should not be overseeing military construction of democracies in far away lands. Whatever good intentions they may have, there is never going to be a significant enough cadre of American politicians who can competently deal with Middle East politics, Islam, interethnic disputes, etc. The American political system isn't built for attracting people with this kind of competence. Surely, we should be able to do better than this, but even the Bush Admininstration is in denial that the problem in Iraq now is interethnic civil war, which was a fully predictable consequence of our invasion.
I notice you, like Glenn Reynolds, left this key passage out, Ann.
"To his credit, Reyes, a kindly, thoughtful man who also sits on the Armed Service Committee, does see the undertows drawing the region into chaos.
For example, he knows that the 1,400- year-old split in Islam between Sunnis and Shiites not only fuels the militias and death squads in Iraq, it drives the competition for supremacy across the Middle East between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia.
That’s more than two key Republicans on the Intelligence Committee knew when I interviewed them last summer."
Not only that, it's also more than President Bush knew, 2 months before he invaded Iraq.
But don't let these inconvenient truths get in the way of a nice non-partisan rant against Democrats! Well done, as always.
Tim:
Retreat? Surrender? How about reversing a stupid strategic decision that should never have been made in the first place? (yeah, Jacques Chirac was right!)
A lot of Democrats ran on the Murtha PLAN to redeploy out of Iraq. As the ISG report this week made plain, the idea that we can 'win' in Iraq is ridiculous. But then I suppose that there are some on the right who will argue that we should still be fighting in Vietnam ('for as long as it takes.')
Iraq was George Bush's war, he fought it his way, with little or no opposition by Congress for almost four years, and he failed. It's time to get OUT NOW.
We should have kept the focus on Afghanistan (hint: that's where the people who actually attacked us were) and the sooner we can get out of Iraq, the sooner we can get back to making the real war on terror our main focus.
And incidentally, I am a liberal blogger and even I know that what Gates said was stupid. You seem to have trouble seeing beyond the blinders, my friend.
derve:
You miss the point. Of course everyone knows that Israel has nukes. However, there has never been specific proof of that fact. By Mr. Gates' saying it, that will be cited by Iran as an argument against sanctions. And much of the world won't draw a distinction and insist on sanctions against 'both' or 'neither'. In that way, Mr. Gates' statement strengthens the hand of Iran.
Old Dad:
Disagree? What's there to disagree with? I was expressing my reaction with regard to whether I was shocked or surprised, not saying that I think it's "Ok" or "excusable." We're talking reaction here, not stance.
Sorry, but I'm not shocked that there's ignorance at this level and to this degree. I'm also not shocked that the Doyles of the world--left, right, center, blended, ricocheting, confused, designedly, whatever--could say "Give me a break. Nobody knows this stuff" when it serves their interests. (Even though that statement is patently untrue.)
Sorry, not shocked!!!!
I'd explain why, but based on what you wrote, I can only assume that there's no point to it.
Here's the other thing: Poor staff work, which doesn't auger well for Reyes' tenure. Jeff Stein wrote an article about Republican cluelessness on this exact issue that only appeared about a month ago in the NY Times. He has had a little franchise on catching leaders unawares on the basic facts about the Middle East. And Reyes sat down with him, unprepared? Inexcusable. Not even the lapdogs on this site could defend it. (I guess I'll find out.)
reader_iam,
I suspect that we are in violent agreement.
see my last post. Gates is George Bush's personal choice to be Defense Secretary.
I'm not clear on what Gates is guilty of, besides stating the obvious.
Oh, shit: I just this very minute, when I refreshed the face page of the Althouse blog for the first time in many hours (quite necessary for those viewing blogs in Firefox --those who know, know what I mean), that a comment of mine had been raised into the main post.
That'd explain why anyone, especially someone who's not a regular commenter here (though I recognize Old Dad from Dr. Helen's blog) could have picked, of all comments, mine to respond to here.
So, I was sort of a jerk in my response, in that I was thinking: Why pull that out (remember, this is with regard to just the comment, in a vacuum)? Like that's not the obvious thing that I would say, for someone in my situation and from my perspective, and pretty much what I'd think people here (a subgroup of whom have seen me elsewhere as well) would think I'd say. It's not like I thought anyone would actually pay attention to it, or seriously wonder why (or want to know why) I'd think or react that way.
Jeez. The next time I toss something like that out (even when I think it's just a toss-off), I'm going to have to remember to stay in touch.
And here's the fu--no,: freakin' irony for you. What I was doing when I wasn't paying attention here, tonight, was conferencing on the phone with my managing-editor boss (of an FP journal) out East, talkin' 'bout, in essence, our generation (and other generations), history, different axes and different grinding methods, and ... .
Don't know the internetese emoticon or catchphrase for that one.
"Retreat? Surrender? How about reversing a stupid strategic decision that should never have been made in the first place? (yeah, Jacques Chirac was right!)"
And here I was, thinking I was responding to your concerns about Gates' testimony regarding Iran and its nuclear weapons program. Sorry for making the mistake of assuming your words have the meaning as they do in English.
Regardless, the notion that the US can "redeploy out of Iraq" and have it not be retreat or surrender, or, to make it exceedingly clear, not be defeat, is absurd in the extreme. Even debating the semantics of the Democrats' preferred policy of defeat in Iraq is an utterly useless exercise for all but the most ignorant or mentally compromised.
As for the ISG, none (of whom I'm aware) charged with waging the war think it worth the paper on which it's printed. That US defeat in Iraq is good only for our enemies is abundantly clear to them; sadly, it is a simple fact beyond the grasp of too many Democrats and yes, unsurprisingly and not so coincidentally, liberal bloggers too.
And, speaking of "making the real war on terror our main focus," who do you think makes Iraq theirs once we leave? And, once al Qaeda makes Iraq theirs, who do you think will have to go back there yet again after al Qaeda use their new-found state and oil wealth to finish the job they started on 9/11?
Or do you really think once the US retreats from Iraq in defeat and surrenders it to the terrorists, other Iraqis stop them and something else altogether different happens? Or that al Qaeda simply becomes another government, no worse than, say, the US, fully entitled to membership in the family of nations at the UN...?
And yes, of course, I completely believe you are a liberal blogger. You are perfect for the job - it's obviously the most appropriate use of you talents.
Ann Althouse said...
God help us! Where are the adults?
Dwight Eisenhower, the last adult I can remember, died back in 1969.
We should have kept the focus on Afghanistan (hint: that's where the people who actually attacked us were)
Yeah. And, Taliban Afghanistan removed from the list, the next terrorist group could plan and organize the next major bloody attack on America from one of the other state sponsors of terrorism.
The lesson of 9/11 was not "we need to take out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan", it was "we need to get rid of the sanctuaries for terrorists". Once the sanctuaries are gone, then terrorism reduces to a difficult law enforcement problem; as long as the state sponsors exist, there are places law enforcement cannot reach.
Now, with Afghanistan knocked off the list as a sanctuary for terrorists in 2002, of the remaining sanctuaries the one that combined the maximum of threat with the easiest logistics to invade Iraq. We hoped that we'd have a Gulf War-like surrender, be able to set up a new government, and reduce to token forces. Fine, that didn't work, mostly because the other side planned an insurgency beforehand and we wasted months in the UN. Still, it took Iraq off the map as a place where terrorists could live in safety, and it intimidated the Libyans into reforming. From a War-on-Terror standpoint, that's an imperfect victory.
No, the real screwup was in 2004, when we didn't knock over another state sponsor of terrorism. That lost the momentum, and that turned the Global War on Terrorism into the War in Iraq, and that is what, for example, has allowed Syria to move from retreating in Lebanon to advancing.
Okay, with our forces deployed in Iraq, there was no plausible way to knock over Iran or Syria; similarly North Korea, which would be worse since Roh wouldn't let us launch from South Korea anyway. Sudan would be a poor choice because of the Chinese forces there, the AU force in Darfur was mildly promising in 2004 as a way to apply pressure there, it has shown at least some cooperation, and we'd probably need to divert some troops from Iraq.
Still, that left one country on the list, a county very easy to pressure with the US Navy and Air Force. A total blockade on Cuba, perhaps punctuated by air strikes on military targets, until it took the steps necessary to be removed from the list or had a coup, would have been a reasonable strategy.
Perhaps, being an election year, it would be a bad idea to start another confrontation, lest it be unfair to an incoming president of a different party. Fine.
Then, after the election, it should have been done, if just to drive the point home on the international stage that the U.S. really was fighting a war on terrorism (terrorist-sponsoring regimes), and that difficulties in one area would not stop us from prosecuting the war in other areas.
That would have required the calculations in Damascus and Tehran to take into account the idea that the U.S. might hit them somehow even if our troops were bogged down in Iraq. It might not have changed their intransigence, but it certainly couldn't have made them less cooperative than they already are. And if it made even Syria just a little more cooperative, that could have had significant beneficial impact on Iraq.
Weeping Jesus! I'm converting to Islam while I'm still alive. How well I recall the flap over Bush not knowing some heads of state. This goes beyond apalling. This jackass is wondering why we can't just send a dozen FBI agents into the frontier region of Pakistan and arrest bin laden, isn't he?
JohnStodder – that’s an astute comment. Most work in D.C. is done at the staff level, and doing a poor job prepping the principle for a significant interview is a fairly major staff blunder. I would suspect Reyes’ staff are out of their league at the HSCI – not that it’s above their competence level but it’s outside their normal lane.
The irony here is Reyes understands a lot of Homeland Security issues – border security, trade and so forth. He is stronger on border security than most in the Dem caucus, and would have been a fair choice to chair House Homeland Security. Instead, House Homeland Security appears to be getting Bennie Thompson, whose office is known for shoddy staff work.
Staff work isn’t the end-all, be-all of inside-the-Beltway politics, but the staff is always a reflection of the boss, and it is the face that the boss presents to constituents, to other members, and to the executive branch.
Eli Blake said...
"How about reversing a stupid strategic decision that should never have been made in the first place?"
Great idea. While you're at it, I have some toothpaste I'd like you to put back in the tube and an egg you could unscramble if it isn't too much bother.
Perhaps he's simply of a mind to nuke 'em all, and let Allah sort 'em out.
"The irony here is Reyes understands a lot of Homeland Security issues ...and would have been a fair choice to chair House Homeland Security."
The irony here is that Jane Harman actually has long since mastered Intelligence issues but is persona non grata with Pelosi. It appears Harman won't even sit on the Intelligence Committee as a junior member, since Pelosi has exiled her to something like Agriculture or Fisheries to do penance.
What a sense of priorities. Maybe Pelosi is saving a seat for the newly-reelected William Jefferson on Ways and Means?
My favorite response is, “Why do you ask me these questions at five o’clock?" He's basically saying he's drunk.
Anybody who has been paying the slightest attention to the war knows this stuff.
Let the backpedaling begin!
Seems like if you knew you were up for this position at the very least you'd be doing some cramming to learn it. I agree with whoever commented that if you pay any attention, you know the answers to those questions.
And Ted Stevens doesn't know what the internet is, despite the fact that he was for so many years the chairman of the senate committee that regulates it. Isn't this country great? Articles like this make me shake my head every time I hear some anti-judiciary zealot rant on and on about how the courts are activist and don't show enough deference to the legislature.
So is Jon Stewart going to tell a 'Reyes is So Stupid' joke every night now?
Articles like this make me shake my head every time I hear some anti-judiciary zealot rant on and on about how the courts are activist and don't show enough deference to the legislature.
You're missing the rather obvious point that judges are every bit as ignorant -- and, at the higher levels of the appeals process, can't even be voted out of office.
Well, Silver DID go to El Paso Community College, and those of us who've lived in (he)el Paso know how difficult that institution is to get into.
For all the media sniping about Bush's intelligence and their insistence that ivy league schooling is better, it certainly didn't matter when dealing with a Yale undergrad or Harvard MBA.
Then again, it would be radioactive for the media to consider making an issue of Silver's intelligence...or lack thereof. Too many racial and class issues...and he's not a Republican.
He was a fine border patrol leader, but is out of his league here.
Well, I have to admit that if popped that quiz, I wouldn't have *known* but instead used my typical test-wise skills to pass anyway. Doesn't everyone have at least a vague awareness that OBL was/is Sunni? Heck, I'm strung out on painkillers (from a surgery last Thursday) and not in full grip of my faculties and I can get that one, using only fuzzy memory and good guessing strategies.
vw: ihliwtgq
("I a lightweight GQ")
I think some Democrats come to depend on the alleged "liberal media" to protect them from their own gaffes. Perhaps that's why Reyes and his staff took so little care in prepping for this reporter. They aren't used to "gotcha." It's going to be interesting to see if this is a sign that the capitol press corps plans on giving the Pelosi leadership a harder time than they're expecting. I tend to think yes.
Next up: Define the differences between Wahhabism, Sufism, and Qutbism. How do those relate to Osama Bin Laden, and why is it important to know this with regard to understanding Al Qaeda and its goals?
(Sunni vs. Shiite is surface stuff.)
Ah, the joy of sects!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा