New Intelligence Chairman?
 

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/po...nce-chief.html

So our new Intelligence Chairman for Congress does not know sophomoric questions about our largest terrorist threats. I am quite honestly speachless at this point, I do not see a single redeaming quality he has over his competitors other than Hasting's bribary impeachment.

We heard the liberal talking points about a "culture of corruption," in which in Brown's case was justifyable. An ignorant Intelligence Chairman, however, holds the threat which could dwarf even his botched Katrina job.

I'm coming to the opinion that most of our elected officials are just the pretty face on a whole organization of aides and chiefs-of-staff who really run things. You can't elect a team, though, so one member of the team is the individual who you ostensibly vote for. That individual's main jobs are to look good, be electable, and speak to voice of their team.

Sounds like a reporter caught Rayes with his pants down here. I only hope his team is better informed.

what was the beef with Harman? i know there's a ton that goes on in distribution of these committee positions...i agree seaver, that is scary. not just for the committee chair, but anyone on the committee to have those kinds of blindspots. i'm sure rat's got a point about the men behind the man, but in the end this guy has to be able to make them pass the bullshit detector test. i mean, that's one of the biggest gripes i have with w...i don't think he knows if he's being told the truth by his handlers and backstage guys half the time, and i think it's gotten him into a bit of trouble here. i hope this guy does some homework over the holidays. this would be double worse if he has these same answers in february. when was he notified that he'd be taking over this committee? still seems non-ideal to tap someone who isn't already up to speed on an issue like this.

Reyes' lack of understanding of such a basic concept is appalling, but hardly unique to Democrats.

from the CQ article:
Would an American president who really understood the possible (or likely) outcome of our invasion have acted so precipitously?

Frankly, it worries me more that we have a Vice President who said as recently as two months ago..., “If you look at the general overall situation, they’re (Iraqis) doing remarkably well.”

Or a President who suggests (on Oct 25) that...."Absolutely, we're winning. Al Qaeda is on the run."

As long as Bush continues to define the quagmire in Iraq in terms of al Queda and the war on terrorism, he will never fully come to terms with the situation on the ground in Iraq and change the overalll strategy and tactics to something that really addresses the myriad of geopolitical problems our actions have created in Iraq and the broader Middle East.

Pelosi felt that Harmon should have been more aggressive in her role on the intelligence committee. Or so it is said. Who knows whether Pelosi had some other reason to replace her.

Harman was term-limited out. According to the rules of the House of Reps:

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
(4)(A) Except as permitted by subdivision (B), a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, other than the Speaker or the Minority Leader, may not serve as a member of the select committee during more than four Congresses in a period of six successive Congresses (disregarding for this purpose any service for less than a full session in a Congress).

Pelosi could orchestrate a change of the House rules in Jan but there was no overwhelming call for her to do so for Jane Harman.

There have been many Presidents who have lead this country into war when they knew the costs would be high and many would die. There have also been times when things took a turn for the worse but we perservered.

According to most media reports things in Iraq were better two month ago than they are today. However, I would rather suffer through the fight for freedom than live in oppression. The Iraqi people in the fight for freedom hopefully share Chaney's positive outlook, regardless how it looks from the outside.

I have a lot of respect for Winston Churchill because of his unwavering optimism and his ability to motivate and encourage people when things appeared to be at there worst. Cheney is not Churchill, but I appreciate Chaney providing postive feedback and encouragement to the Iraqi people fighting for freedom.

Al Qaeda is "on the run", the organization is weaker today than it was before the war. Your statement suggests that the fight against Al Qaeda and the war in Iraq are the same, is that what you think? There is no doubt that the war in Iraq has taken a turn for the worse, but I don't know anyone saying that happened because of Al Qaeda.

Bush has the Baker/Hamilton report on the table.
Bush accepted the resignation of Rumsfeld.
Bush nominated Gates who was approved 95-2 (or close to that), with the support of Democrats.
Bush accepted the resignation of Bolton.
Bush is seeking input from Iraqi leaders.

To say he is not willing to change course seems to be inaccurate in my view.

I agree complelely that we have put al Queda on the run and for that I applaud Bush....although they are re-emerging, along with the Talliban in parts of Afghanistan because we left the country in a vacuum with a weak central government.
I dont think the fight against al Queda and the war in Iraq are the same at all other than the fact that we opened Iraq up to al Queda where they previously had a marginal ineffective presence at best (in the no fly zone). I am sorry if my post confused you.

It is Bush who ties the two together and says that Iraq is at the center of the war on terrorism and the chaos in Iraq has worsened because of al Queda (read the press conference above) ..as he does in every speech.

I read the link you posted to Bush's intro comments and his answers. I think he clearly described what happend. Al Queda and other extremist groups did and are using Iraq as a battle ground. Those extrmists know what is at risk, so I agree with Bush that the war in Iraq has greater significance in the war on terror than simply being a war to free the Iraqi people from oppression. As is the case in most wars people fight for different reasons and are fighting for different causes. If Bush is at fault confusing the issues, it is with is communication ability. I understand what he is saying a lot easier than I understand the opposit point of view .