Incoming House intelligence chief botches easy intel quiz

Damocles said:
Intel gathering has nothing to do with "Stay the Course"... We limit ourselves to bumperstickers and close down the portions of the "big tent" to our own detriment. Jane Harman was qualified and intelligent, believe me she would have answered that test correctly. First they were going to pass her up for an impeached judge, now they have passed her for this guy...

Honestly, have we learned nothing from the past?
Click to expand...

Taking into account, her resume, which includes a huge intel 'gaffe' regarding the invasion of Iraq, I can see how she would be passed up. I guess hte bigger question is why is it that these three were the only ones in the running for the job? Was there no one else who was against the war and that has extensive knowledge of the region and terrorism? I find that hard to believe.
 
LadyT said:
Taking into account, her resume, which includes a huge intel 'gaffe' regarding the invasion of Iraq, I can see how she would be passed up. I guess hte bigger question is why is it that these three were the only ones in the running for the job? Was there no one else who was against the war and that has extensive knowledge of the region and terrorism? I find that hard to believe.
Click to expand...
They pretty much did it by rank. The impeached judge was number 2 on that committee for Ds, Harman was no. 1.

Personally, a person who has learned from a mistake has learned well... Harman was qualified, even if she wasn't when first on the committee. Did she know the difference between the two groups? I'd bet quite a bit that she did. Was she more qualified than this yahoo? It seems so. Mistakes of the past do count, but current qualifications count a bit more. The Dems lost a bit in my personal book. I was beginning to like them better with candidates like Webb... Now they show that their "big tent" is just a ruse.
 
Are Sunni terrorist better than Shia terrorist? Does it really make that much difference in who makes the bomb that kills you?
 
Damocles said:
Passing over a qualified candidate because of a past belief in a report seriously shows the "walk the line" attitude prevalent in the party.
Click to expand...

That's just it: she's not necessarily "qualified" given her position on Iraq intelligence previously. I can definitely see how someone would justifiably pass her over. Doing it for people that are less qualified is absurd, but passing her over is certainly understandable. yes, she has a lot to offer, but at the end of the day, she was wrong big time.
 
LadyT said:
That's just it: she's not necessarily "qualified" given her position on Iraq intelligence previously. I can definitely see how someone would justifiably pass her over. Doing it for people that are less qualified is absurd, but passing her over is certainly understandable. yes, she has a lot to offer, but at the end of the day, she was wrong big time.
Click to expand...
Many were wrong big time... Passing over somebody who had a grip on the different groups of terrorism for somebody that does not is clearly only beneficial because he "walks the line"...
 
LadyT said:
Taking into account, her resume, which includes a huge intel 'gaffe' regarding the invasion of Iraq, I can see how she would be passed up. I guess hte bigger question is why is it that these three were the only ones in the running for the job? Was there no one else who was against the war and that has extensive knowledge of the region and terrorism? I find that hard to believe.
Click to expand...

A very valid point. Judement has to count as much as competence. Reyes, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, and a host of others showed excellent judgement that a war with iraq was not neccessary.

Reyes should still know that al qaeda is a sunni militant organization. Not cool.
 
Damocles said:
Many were wrong big time... Passing over somebody who had a grip on the different groups of terrorism for somebody that does not is clearly only beneficial because he "walks the line"...
Click to expand...

lIf a manager runs my business into the ground, do I keep em on or fire em ?
 
uscitizen said:
lIf a manager runs my business into the ground, do I keep em on or fire em ?
Click to expand...
She didn't run the business into the ground, she was secondary to those who did... If you say that she was somehow responsible for the fact that those in this committee's leadership didn't go to the Intel people for their own information, as they have a right to do, and accepted a report from another branch of government, then really. I can't see how being in the majority made the Rs any stronger than the Ds...

Honestly. Putting in an obviously unqualified candidate makes it all the more clear that you must "walk the line" or you'll get ousted in that Party than anything I have seen in a long time.
 
Damocles said:
Honestly. Putting in an obviously unqualified candidate makes it all the more clear that you must "walk the line" or you'll get ousted in that Party than anything I have seen in a long time.
Click to expand...


Than ANYTHING you've seen in a long time? I beg to differ. Clarke? Powell? ringing a bell.

and more importantly she wasn't "ousted" she passed over for going along with one our nations biggest in recent history. I think the fact that she's allowed to remain speaks to the party's 'big tent'. I also think you're exhibiting false outrage here. The real issue is why weren't these three passed up for someone better and more qualified.


On another note: What about getting an ousider like a Clarke or someone very knowledgeable in things? As some sort of independent oversight.
 
LadyT said:
Than ANYTHING you've seen in a long time? I beg to differ. Clarke? Powell? ringing a bell.

and more importantly she wasn't "ousted" she passed over for going along with one our nations biggest in recent history. I think the fact that she's allowed to remain speaks to the party's 'big tent'. I also think you're exhibiting false outrage here. The real issue is why weren't these three passed up for someone better and more qualified.


On another note: What about getting an ousider like a Clarke or someone very knowledgeable in things? As some sort of independent oversight.
Click to expand...
I said this party. Not that party. Which party are you talking of now?

It was specifically just such actions that took that particular party out of power. The whole walk the line attitude is foolishness. Hence my original question, have we not learned from the recent past?
 
LadyT said:
maineman for one.
Click to expand...
He isn't a Congressman, he could not be on that committee.

It's all good, we know where they stand. Qualifications do not count, only that they walk that line... maineman has spent some time explaining how anybody who didn't know the difference was an imbecile and clearly unqualified for an intelligence position. I'm glad that we can see that the party disagrees as long as that imbecile is willing to walk that line.
 
Clearly Lady T is in a fools paradise. She doesn't even know how you get on a congressional comm. Tip>>>you have to be a member of congress.
 
toby said:
Clearly Lady T is in a fools paradise. She doesn't even know how you get on a congressional comm. Tip>>>you have to be a member of congress.
Click to expand...

Ladyt said:
On another note: What about getting an ousider like a Clarke or someone very knowledgeable in things? As some sort of independent oversight.
Click to expand...

Ahem, back to my original suggestion: What do you guys think of assigning an independent to help advise and run interference on the committe. I don't necessarily expect congress to be intelligence czars, but perhaps if they had an expert they had to run things by and persuade, they'd step up their game.
 
i'm reaaly impressed with the democrats on this one. you have provided us a moron instead of idiots...now that's REAL progress!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top