The Democrats now look like complete idiots in the British press.
Regards, Ivan
Posted on 12/12/2006 10:48:57 PM PST by Mrs Ivan
The new Democratic chairman of a US congressional intelligence committee did not know what Hizbollah was and incorrectly described al-Qa'eda as deriving from the Shia rather than Sunni sect of Islam.
Representative Silvestre Reyes was flummoxed when a journalist rounded off a 40-minute interview by asking him two basic questions about the Islamic groups that are the principal targets of America's intelligence agencies.
"Al-Qa'eda is what – Sunni or Shia?" Jeff Stein, the Congressional Quarterly magazine's national security editor, asked Mr Reyes. "Al-Qa'eda, they have both," came the reply. "You're talking about predominately?" the congressman then asked, before venturing: "Predominantly – probably Shi'ite."
As Mr Stein noted in his subsequent column: "He couldn't have been more wrong. Al-Qa'eda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shi'ite showed up at an al-Qa'eda club house, they'd slice off his head and use it for a soccer ball."
He then asked the congressman about the terrorist group Hizbollah. "Hizbollah. Uh, Hizbollah..." he said, laughing. "Why do you ask me these questions at five o'clock? Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?"
The holes in his knowledge are a fresh embarrassment to Nancy Pelosi, the incoming Speaker of the House of Representatives, whose leadership was undermined when her chosen deputy was rejected by Democrats.
She selected Mr Reyes to chair the House intelligence committee over the head of Jane Harman, who is widely respected as having a firm grasp of the nuances of the Middle East. Miss Pelosi is said to harbour a long-time personal grudge against Miss Harman.
Mr Stein has been quizzing senior intelligence officials and politicians with similar questions for the past 18 months. In a similar gaffe-laden session, Willie Hulon, chief of the FBI's national security branch, did not know the difference between Sunnis and Shia either. "The basics goes back to their beliefs and who they were following," he said. "And the conflicts between the Sunnis and the Shia and the difference between who they were following."
So which were Iran and Hizbollah? With a 50 per cent chance of getting it right, Mr Hulon flunked by plumping for Sunni.
Congressman Terry Everett, a Republican and vice-chairman of the House intelligence sub-committee on technical and tactical intelligence, chuckled when he was asked the same question.
"One's in one location, another's in another location," he said. "No, to be honest with you, I don't know. I thought it was differences in their religion, different families or something."
When Mr Stein outlined the difference, which dates back to the death of the Prophet Mohammed in AD632, Mr Everett said: "Now that you've explained it to me, what occurs to me is that it makes what we're doing over there extremely difficult, not only in Iraq but that whole area."
Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis, a Republican who oversees the CIA's recruiting of Islamic spies, was also stumped when asked if she knew the difference between Sunnis and Shia. "Do I? You know, I should. 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."
Mr Stein said: "This is basic stuff. We are not talking branches of Sunni. Congress's role is to oversee the intelligence agencies and make sure taxpayers' dollars are well spent but they don't know how to ask the right questions."
Islam split into Shia and Sunni sects after the death of the Prophet in AD632. What became the Sunni sect supported Mohammed's most trusted lieutenants as his successors, while the Shia believed that only his direct descendents should rule the Islamic world. Over the centuries the sects have divided further in areas such as prayer and Koranic interpretation, and who is the true leader of Muslims.
"Miss Pelosi is said to harbour a long-time personal grudge against Miss Harman."
Harman is just about as smart as they come, on intelligence matters, from what I have observed watching committee hearings on Cspan.
A committee leader needs skills besides technical expertise, but it doesn't hurt.
As for Reyes miscues, I recall Bush had his weaknesses on foreign topics exposed back around 2000 election time.
Don't any of these guys read books? I guess they are so busy stroking contributors they don't have time to learn anything.
Old lady catfight here. They should appear on WWF!
Now that I would tune into. Happily! I am just so disgusted by all of this. I remember the 1st time I voted and I thought how great it was. Now I vote and I pray things will get better. Kind of sad to have that outlook.
The ten or twenty percent of "middle of the road" moderates who actually decide elections are about as intelligent and engaged as these dim bulbs. That is how they manage to get elected, and that is why the people who elect them don't notice how profoundly ignorant they are.
Journalists don't notice how ignorant they are because they share all the same prejudices, and because being educated isn't required of a journalism major, it isn't part of the curriculum.
..."They are so busy stroking contributors they don't have time to learn anything."
Yes, you are right. This story doesn't shock me. In general, many of our elected officials don't know much about the middle east or world history. Their aides do all the homework. Apparently, his didn't prep him well. LOL
I can hardly wait for this report to run on NBC, ABC and See BS....pffft!
Sorry, the cluelessness in Washington, D.C. is nearly universal.
http://public.cq.com/public/20061211_homeland.html
The best argument for needing to understand who’s what in the Middle East is probably the mistaken invasion itself, despite the preponderance of expert opinion that it was a terrible idea — including that of Bush’s father and his advisers. On the day in 2003 when Iraqi mobs toppled the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, Bush was said to be unaware of the possibility that a Sunni-Shia civil war could fill the power vacuum, according to a reliable source with good White House connections.
If President Bush and some of his closest associates, not to mention top counterterrorism officials, have demonstrated their own ignorance about who the players are in the Middle East, why should we expect the leaders of the House Intelligence Committee to get it right?
Trent Lott, the veteran Republican senator from Mississippi, said only last September that “It’s hard for Americans, all of us, including me, to understand what’s wrong with these people.”
“Why do they kill people of other religions because of religion?” wondered Lott, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, after a meeting with Bush.
“Why do they hate the Israelis and despise their right to exist? Why do they hate each other? Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference?
“They all look the same to me,” Lott said.
Committee Heads are chosen based on seniority, or based on influence, or as part of a previous deal, but not based on their knowledge of the underlying subject of that committee. For many Committees, that can physically and economically harm us little peeples.
"Um, have the members of the Baker commission been quizzed?"
Ten of them spent three days in Iraq in the Green Zone. One of their party actually ventured out of the fortified area. The next stop was Riyadh so they could pick up a copy of the ISG report and Baker could submit a bill for legal fees to the Saudi Royal Family.
Odd that the American media hasn't been running this on the front pages.
The Democrats now look like complete idiots in the British press.
Regards, Ivan
I would be surprised if he had said something intelligent. Since he didn't, nothing about my assessment of Democrat competence regarding the issue of national defense has changed.
You think you're in South America or are you just checking to see if anyone here would catch that?
As they should!
Leave it to a Republican to at least make the simple admission that he doesn't know, rather than try b*llsh*ting a journalist. My answer would have been, "Stand 'em on their heads, they all look the same to me." Much more quotable.
Not important. Why would Dems what to put a label on their freinds?
Wow, he gives us such confidence on national security. Yet another reason you can't trust Dems with foreign policy; its an afterthought to them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.