Post from Hi, I'm Joe.:
Pelosi's New Intelligence Committee Head fails Terrorism 101 - But maybe we can do something about it...
Bad? Brilliant?
You can rate this post.
Register or login now and
tell us what you think.
Seriously - WTF?

I can't say for certain I would have gotten that question right. I would have run through OBL's history, allies, and enemies in my head really quickly and probably had a 75% shot at the right answer.

I am not, however, in line to become head of the House Intelligence Committee.

Reyes should do the honorable thing and back down, and since Alcee Hastings is a one man billboard for the "culture of corruption", that probably means Harman is the best choice. This is not a gaffe, of the sort that you recover from.

This shows gross incompetence for a REALLY FUCKING IMPORTANT JOB.

This is not substantively different than the hiring of Michael "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie!" Brown at FEMA.

The difference is that if we work at it here, as progressives can perhaps bring enough pressure to bear to get Reyes out.

The pressure has to come from progressives, first and foremost. If conservatives are the only ones speaking out against Reyes' appointment, it'll just be "He said, she said" and we all know nothing will happen.

Anyone down for the cause?

Reader Comments

Comments are closed for this post.

  
crickets
By RaoulDelano Dec 12th 2006 at 11:21 pm EST
Hey I agree with you. But it sounds like all we are hearing is crickets on this one. As much as I would like to think that things have changed since the election, it certainly appears that ideology still trumps competence in the House of Representatives. Otherwise, Harman would have the job.
Re: crickets
By jr Dec 13th 2006 at 1:51 am EST
Yes, I'm sure having a person who thought invading Iraq was the key to hobbling al Qaeda chair that committee would be a great improvement.
Re: crickets
By Superduperficial Dec 13th 2006 at 8:50 am EST
Harman says she got it wrong. She's a thoughtful person, even when she disagrees with you or I.

And if you think Harman is a bad choice, come up with something better.

If you can't come up with something better than putting a guy who doesn't even know what religion Al-Qaeda or Hezbollah are in charge of our intelligence oversight...

...Isn't that a reason to be pretty fucking outraged at the Democrats on this, regardless of one's political ideology?
Re: crickets
By jr Dec 13th 2006 at 11:34 am EST
Rep. Rush Holt.

Gee, that was easy.
Re: crickets
By Superduperficial Dec 13th 2006 at 8:20 pm EST
Sounds good to me. (Perhaps I misread your first reply - I took it as support of Reyes for want of an alternative)

So, Holt good for all of us, then?
Re: crickets
By jr Dec 14th 2006 at 5:58 pm EST
No, it certainly was nothing more than an expression of disgust with Harman. I'm trying to be nice about Reyes since I have friends on his staff, but to think that he didn't know al Qaeda was a Sunni group after this much reporting on sectarian violence in Iraq is, well, very disturbing.

My main objection to Harman continues to be that, when the chips were down, she willfully supported an idiotic political calculation that has had monstrous long-term implications for this country and our intelligence agencies. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a purge of sorts, with those that supported the invasion passed over for top positions on all comittees related to the conduct of the war and our international anti-terrorism efforts (and yes, I include Jack Murtha in that list, laudable though his efforts of the past year and a half have been). Reyes voted against the war, but still had a duty to remain informed about it's finer points (not to mention its glaringly obvious points like al Qaeda's sectarian leanings!). Holt and Hastings also both voted "no," but Hastings presents a much easier target for the right wing.

I think Holt would have been the right Representative for the job.
Re: crickets
By timeforimpeachment Dec 13th 2006 at 5:35 pm EST
Harman has first and foremost demonstrated a submissive and uncritical attitude towards the Bush Administration and its policies. She has backed the war in Iraq in a Liebermanish way, and has endorsed the secret NSA domestic surveillance program. These positions do not represent Democratic values. It is vitally important that the incoming Intelligence chairperson vigorously combat Bush's war on civil liberties, conducting real oversight over potentially illegal activities. Harman just doesn't have these sort of credentials.
Re: crickets
By RaoulDelano Dec 13th 2006 at 5:51 pm EST
Yeah yeah yeah. I know the line on Harman. But we are talking about Reyes. How does bringing up Harman's partisan infidelity somehow give Reyes a pass for being a dummy?

What I'm hearing here from is that Harman's failure to faithfully tow the Democratic line is a more egregious sin than Reyes' failure to know basic facts about our nation's enemies. If that is not "ideology trumping competence," then what is?
Re: crickets
By jr Dec 14th 2006 at 12:58 pm EST
What was competent about invading Iraq? And how was it supposed to help us weaken al Qaeda and other terrorist groups? Has it succeeded in any way in reducing terrorism?

And how is illegal wiretapping keeping us any safer than legal wiretapping?

Harman's failures may not be as egregious as Reyes's, but they're certainly egregious enough for me to want to keep her from holding that gavel.

Again, I'd have rather seen Rush Holt take the reins.
  
Campus Progress

Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.

Campus Progress