Roger L. Simon: Silvestri the Dumb (What Nancy Knew)

Projection rules the world and those who have spent the last few years accusing Bush of stupidity were usually stupid themselves, but nothing prepared me for this. Silvestre Reyes - the man about to be installed as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee - repeat Intelligence Committee - does not have even the most basic rudimentary knowledge of Al Qaeda. This is not just embarrassing, this is humiliating and fairly close to nuts. Read this interchange between Jeff Stein and Silvestre:

Al Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shiite showed up at an al Qaeda club house, they'd slice off his head and use it for a soccer ball.

Silvestre, as I'm sure most readers of this blog know, is the candidate chosen by Nancy Pelosi to bypass Jane Harman. Harman undoubtedly knows full well that Bin Laden, being Saudi, is Sunni- as are the vast majority of Al Qaeda leaders from Zawahiri on down. The uneducated Reyes will now be charged with making judgments about Iran (does he know they are Shia?). Talk about history coming back as farce!

Now let me ask a question. How many of these rudimentary facts does Pelosi herself know? I would venture not many. And yet we are in her hands.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Pelosi... I'm sure she doesn't have a clue...(hasn't so far - and no hope involved)...

But... belonging to Al Quaeda does not seem to be either of your choices, but a matter of belief in the more "violent" scriptures contained in the Koran. May they all perish along with their beliefs.

Nancy Pelosi does not feel the need to possess any facts. She simply needs to embrace the left wing zeitgeist. Why let a few facts get in the way of the "higher truth?" This is another reason we should fear the Democrats. They simply cannot be trusted on matters of national security. We are in deep danger. Democrats are mostly a bunch of childish individuals who will never grow up. The Republicans admittedly have a number of fools running around like James Baker. Still, the core membership is comprised of sensible adults.

I agree that this ignorance of the basic facts is bad (on both sides of the aisle). But I'm at least as worried about trusting the "experts." Baker is a classic example of someone with lots of information and no imagination (and absolutely no moral foundation). Of course, the worst case is someone with a shallow surface knowledge who thinks he knows everything (cf. eg. Gore, A. and Kerry, J.F.)

I'm going to shoot the messenger. Silvestre doesn't know much about the situation, which seems unfortunately typical of most of our "elites", but Jeff Stein struck me as something of a conceited ass with far too high an opinion of himself. Another self anointed elite, I'm afraid. Where do we get these people, and more importantly, how do we get rid of them?

Now that we've shot the messenger, let's look at the message: "we is totally screwed".

It's hard to know who does worse damage at times, the ignorant, or the "experts" such as Baker. One thing is for sure: those who mocked Bush for his lack of specific knowledge (especially in some of his early pre-election interviews) have politicians on their side who are unaware of a lot of facts, as well.

As far as the Baker ISG itself goes, here's an in-depth look at the lack of qualifications of many on that supposedly August group, as well some information about who supervised the entire study. You might be surprised.

The Democratic Party has become a sick joke, but unfortunately only half of the country gets it. Their front runner for Commander In Chief in 2008, Hillary "why haven't we caught the largest man in Afghanistan" Clinton, probably knows as much about the military as Reyes does about Al Qaeda's religious makeup. Meanwhile, their second favorite is a junior senator that is fawned over by the MSM, which practically gurantees that he's an empty suit with no substance.

When he stated that a primary objective had to be our destruction of "these private armies" I sighed with relief, thinking that here was one Democrat in a position of power who actually got it. Oh, well.

I'm more worried that he's not an empty suit with no substance. As Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter have so well proved, just because he's elected doesn't mean a president has the foggiest notion what is good & right for the country--and that's the most positive interpretation of the two.

Jamie's link is a fast read, 5 minutes of brutal body blows--read it and weep--and send it to a friend.

According to the 9/11 report the house never considered intelligence all that important "prior to the joint inquiry into the attacks of September 11".

From the page 107 "... in the context of committees that each hold scores of hearings every year on issues in their jurisdiction, this list is not impressive. Terrorism was a second- or third-order priority within the committees of Congress responsible for national security."

BTW. Before Porter Goss's short stint a the Director of Central Intelligence, he had been Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Does this mean that Reyes may one day be the new DCI?

And don't forget these are Nancy's preliminary decisions; she's not even at the helm yet.

Off Topic, sort of. Now here is an interesting rope a dope theory for you all: somewhere today, I was reminded that Jim Baker was the guy who advised Bush I that it would be OK to rescind his "no new taxes" statement, because no one would notice.

Now, I also came across a gem, once, that Dubya was the one guy - when his dad was President - who could frighten people in the White House.

The reaction to this Baker ISG report has united the pro war/pro democratic Iraq bunch (Bush's supporters) into a fury at the thought of surrender. Also, Baker & Co. are being insulted right left and centre for their report. And now we hear comments that Baker has been in bed with the Saudis for decades.

OK. Suppose Dubya figured this. Maybe it is a move to (1) slap Baker down for his doing Bush I in; and (2) getting the pro war folk up and at 'em after the disastrous election.

I know, you have to factor in his not firing the top guys on Sept 12/2001; and hiring Gates (you have to admit though that the guy slid by the Kleagle rather well, and some people say the guy is at heart a follower and a bureaucrat..)

Baker formed the mother of coalitions to eject Saddam from Kuwait. He secured the votes at the UN, the votes the most distinguished American Colin Powell failed to do the second time around.

Well... that was for his father, some may say. I argue that if it hadn't been for Baker Al Gore would have been president in 9/11. Baker handled Florida 2000 masterfully. While Gore had lawyers speaking unintelligible legalese, Baker was the only authorized spokesperson for W, and when he spoke he was plain and deliberate.

The Florida Supremes were going to give the election to Gore, but Baker bypassed them and went to the DC Supremes and the rest is history.

It's a hall of mirrors, for sure, ain't it, heather. Things aren't going well, but is it our side dropping the ball, or the other side not dropping the ball? There are still ways of looking at OIF as an overall success, but when one says so, one's voice comes out small and squeaky. Still, we all gotta say something positive if we can, as we have this forced-choice between a wounded leader and no leader at all.

However, I was very surprised. When it comes to defense, it looks like his head is screwed on right.

Perhaps all the craziness is focussed on his religious beliefs. But I can't really hold that singularly against him because when it comes to religious apologists and their favorite rationalizations, there's enough craziness to go around and then some. However, he believes in the Ten Commandments, and I'm cool with that.

A couple of years ago I would have been upset at his pro-choice stance, but after reading an article about how the demographics were beginning to favor conservatives because of the overwhelming number of liberals getting abortions vice conservatives, I'm not really anti-abortion anymore (except in my own family). Liberals can abort the hell out of their progency, for all I care.

Anyway, it's going to be interesting to watch how Hillary plays this. I think she's going to get a hell of a fight.

I read the link on "religious beliefs" and have to say, it's pretty honest-sounding.

Well, honestly, my question would be how many of our leader's know the difference or the details.

I suspect not many. Though I venture GWB does. At least I would hope so. At the least, due to the daily briefings.

Reyes, like many, I suspect, has not the focus to look beyond his next election.

Buddy. Again, honestly, this non-believer has problems with our determining the fate of our country, based on one individuals acceptance of or denial of any particular religious belief. Or lack thereof. We have no religious test, ostensibly, but yet, we lack a non-religious test. Are we that grown up yet?

And then to test my above comment. Am I prepared for a Muslim to be President? Answer, to illustrate my hypocrisy, NO.

To those of us who have followed the GWOT since 9/11, the ignorance of our political leaders is not only outrageous, it is astonishing. However, stepping back a bit, think about how politicians make it through the world: they are extroverts who do not read; who need facts for today, not tomorrow or yesterday; and they want those facts boiled down to one sentence, in one syllable words. Especially in the US Congress, they are extremely busy (PJ O'Rourke mentions this in his "Parliament of Whores." )

I would say that there are only 2 readers among contemporary American politicians: Gingrich and Dubya.

The blogosphere can be of service here: whenever you interview one of these people, ASK THEM simple questions, like, what tribe runs Syria? What is the difference between Wahabis and regular Sunnis? Have they read or listened to Steyn's America Alone, or Wright's The Looming Tower???

You see, I believe that both Republican and Democratic members of Congress think that by quoting the NYTimes or the Washington Post, they are quoting the most respectable sources available; furthermore, they fix their international priorities according to the front pages of those "treacherous rags." (to quote Jules Crittendon)

We are so afraid of Hillary we want somebody, anybody to beat her for the nomination, so we don't have to in the general election. Do I hear anybody but Hilary tonight?

It will be very interesting to see how the Clintons handle the Obama avalanche. Like for example the funny way Microsoft's spell check suggests Osama when you type Obama.

There goes that red zigzag underline again,.. oh I'm supposed to click Ignore once or Ignore all.

Luther--we're all hypocrites, just some face it and work against it, and others just deny it. As Aeschylus has Agamemnon say,

He who learns must suffer
And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget
Falls drop by drop upon the heart,
And in our own despair, against our will,
Comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.

Kind of you, Luther--as you can see I'm desperately seeking the good side to all those calendar sheets ripping loose and flying off into the breeze--

"I read the link on religious beliefs and have to say, it's pretty honest-sounding."

Yes, I admit that it is, which is going to make him a pretty formidable opponent for Hillary. I have no problems with his religious beliefs. In fact, in comparison with some Christian belief systems his on the surface seem quite accomodating and reasonable, with a distinct lack of hellfire and brimstone in his rhetoric.

If you snoop around (do a search on Obama and "religion", you get the feeling that he is quite open about his faith, and not abashed to admit it.

I wouldn't be surprised if that 10-point gap that Hillary enjoys disappears before long.

Regarding Baker, he somes from the "school of stability". Change is risky and therefore it is better to deal with the devil you know versus the deveil you don't know. That is the very philosophy that had the US supporting the Shah of Iran - a brutal fellow in his own right.

The difference here is that this group of lunatics want chaos and will use the bomb if they get it. They may even choose to strike the US first and then Israel.

Regarding Obama and his honest sounding religious speak on his website, I would ask this. Does he live by his convictions and his a moral framework? I have deep reservations. I don't want to start an abortion debate, but he has voted for unrestricted partial birth abortions, which I find abhorent. Most folks (even non-religious people who support abortion rights) with a Judeo/Christian moral foundation are troubled by things like this.

He is slick and media friendly and a favorite of the MSM. That is the first sign of danger.

It's not just ignorant Donkeys. Stein has been asking the question for quite a while now. The Republicans are just as clueless. Yeah, the same ones who have been making policy all these years. The same ones I've been calling stupid (or worse) for quite a while now.

December 9, 2006: Silvestri the Dumb (What Nancy Knew)

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post