Jacko or IMST, Interested in a Job on the Hill?

[PlayadelSoul]

Because you guys definitely know more about whats going on then the new head of the Intelligence Committee. Jane Harmon got the questions right, but this guy and a few others (including Republicans, to be fair) failed miserably.

http://public.cq.com/public/20061211_homeland.html

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Because you guys definitely know more about whats going on then the new head of the Intelligence Committee. Jane Harmon got the questions right, but this guy and a few others (including Republicans, to be fair) failed miserably.

http://public.cq.com/public/20061211_homeland.html

Not on your life...I have my hands full here!

[itsmysecondtime]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Because you guys definitely know more about whats going on then the new head of the Intelligence Committee. Jane Harmon got the questions right, but this guy and a few others (including Republicans, to be fair) failed miserably.

http://public.cq.com/public/20061211_homeland.html

It is terrifying to realize how deep the knowledge gap really is among officials assigned to head committees and subcommittees that were specifically designed to address the most intricate and ominous issues affecting the security of our country.

However, I'm most terrified at the reporter's assertion that top counter-terrorism officials at the FBI fared no better regarding such elementary yet vital bits of knowledge about the sources and nature of the threats afflicting our society. These are the very bureaucrats that were supposed to have accumulated the complex and extensive knowledge-base of terrorism and its multiple manifestations, in the course of their long and ascending careers. These are the experts our public officials rely upon, along with other similarly situated analysts' perspectives, to guide their policy decisions.

I'm reminded of a pathetic theatrical passage whereby a chaotic group of blind soldiers carry on with absurd regularity such pre-conditioned tasks as shooting these enormous artillery guns in any and every possible direction, at the auditory stimulus of a war movie strategically projected onto a canvas a few yards from the dreadful cannons.


As for the article in question, I do have a few qualms with the author of the report. I have always paid significant deference to the folks running CQ. Overall these folks are generally well informed and strategically positioned to derive the most insightful and enticing morsels of information on the peculiar dynamics of the Congressional universe. However there were some significant evidentiary hiccups here that need to be addressed.

I would like to know exactly what sources this fellow Stein relied upon to assert that the Hezbollah was responsible for the 1983 Beirut suicide bombing massacres. Apart from mere circumstantial conjecture, to this day there is no evidence to validate this dubious contention.

In fact, Caspar Weinberger, the Sec. Def. at the time of the massacre, stressed in a 2001 Frontline interview that "we still do not have the actual knowledge of who did the bombing of the Marine barracks at the Beirut Airport, and we certainly didn't then."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...einberger.html

In fact Stein completely omitted the 2003 legal action taken by the families of the 241 servicemen who were killed in the massacre which included intelligence intercepts indicating that Iranian officials had instructed the leader of the terrorist group Islamic Amal "to take a spectacular action against the United States Marines."

And while the presiding judge actually pointed to Hezbollah as a conspiring participant in this process, the evidence actually suggests Islamic Amal.

Furthermore, while a few groups claimed responsibility to the attack, Hezbollah was not one of them.

For this cite, check out the following case: Anne Dammarell et al. v. The Islamic Republic of Iran et al.

http://www.fedsmith.com/articles/ref...arell%20IV.pdf

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a


Anyway, we need informed officials, we need informed politicians, we need adequately informed bureaucrats lest we face more devastating tragedies. Unfortunately we're electing folks for their money and connections, their looks and charisma. Go figure.

[PlayadelSoul]

When the head of the Intelligence Committee doesn't even know the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni, we have problems. That is a sad commentary on political life. When Jane Harmon was given the same questions, she knew all of the answers yet she is pushed aside because Nancy Pelosi doesn't like women in power (other than herself, that is).

I see that he is now vowing to bone up on his knowledge. Maybe he is going to buy a copy of this

[horizon200]

From the article;

Rare is the military unit with an American soldier who can read a captured document or interrogate a prisoner, my own sources tell me.

It was that way in Vietnam, too, Reyes says, which “haunts us.”

Well the reason is that we have not learned since Viet Nam to stop all the cuts in the military and then put them into untennable situations!

Additionally, IMHO, it shouldn't be the military that has to make the effort to insert a new government or to play police man. We have some brilliant young men and women in the service, but I always hear that the military can't even do this or that...It's because we (Read Congress and the Administration) put them into situations they are not equipped nor trained for!

I am watching right now, as we cut 40,000 people, some very sharp officers being put out on their ear. (Unfortunately we are keeping some real knuckle heads but that's another story all together.) yet at the same time I hear this rhetoric about not having Arabic speaking individuals or people that can do this or that. Well, what do we want? A smaller less expensive force? Or someone that can do myriad tasks? Can't have both....that costs too much!

[itsmysecondtime]

Originally Posted by horizon200

...Well, what do we want? A smaller less expensive force? Or someone that can do myriad tasks? Can't have both....that costs too much!

Compelling questions indeed. These issues will no doubt dominate the agenda of both the incoming and future Sec. Defs.

It is clear that the old approach is not the answer. We don't need 2 or 6 million active duty servicemen. It is clear that we need to drastically modernize and reform our military institutions.
The new weapons systems already in the pipeline to replace old and obsolete materiel are but one minor aspect of this modernization imperative.

[itsmysecondtime]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

... When Jane Harmon was given the same questions, she knew all of the answers yet she is pushed aside because Nancy Pelosi doesn't like women in power (other than herself, that is)...

I wouldn't be so sure about that dubious statement. Care to share some insider know how with the rest of us?

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by itsmysecondtime

I wouldn't be so sure about that dubious statement. Care to share some insider know how with the rest of us?

Its pretty common knowledge. Jane Harmon is the ranking Democrat (and by far, the most qualified), but has been passed over for the job. She tends to be a little moderate, so that is probably another reason Pelosi doesn't want her in that position. Here's a clue: Anytime the ranking member of the committee is passed over, there is a problem with the leadership. You have to put two and two together, and come to a conclusion. Do you see any other women in Pelosi's positions of power? I am not talking about the committee for homeless aboriginies, but real positions of power.