After 5 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) has been selected as the new Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. This man bravely served in Vietnam as a helicopter crew chief, and has sat on the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees. Yet despite these credentials, this man, like most of his colleagues on the House Intelligence Committee, has no grasp of even the basic beliefs and motivations of the various sects warring with each other in Iraq.
During a recent interview with Jeff Stein of Congressional Quarterly, Reyes did not know whether Al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite, nor did he understand the difference between the two factions. Reyes likewise demonstrated an equally appalling lack of knowledge when asked about Hezbollah. Stein’s descriptions of the interview and his conversations with other members of the Intelligence Committee (Democrats and Republicans) serve as an expected, yet still chilling, illustration of the consequences of the American penchant for selecting shallow, ambitious leaders lacking judgment and character, which I wrote about recently. Ambition is time-consuming. Having been closely involved in a professional capacity with a few campaign cycles, one thing has been obvious to me: our elected officials spend far more time working to get elected and remain in office than they do conducting the business of our government.
It should surprise no one that members of a House Intelligence Committee have not studied any of the issues before the Committee. Sadly, that is what staffers are for. Congressman and Senators simply do not have time to become educated on such trivial matters as Al Qaeda, Sunnis, Shiites, and Hezbollah, because studying issues interferes with fundraising and campaigning. Our elected officials, at best, receive briefings which consist of sound-bite length snippets spoon fed by staffers who are not experts in military, terrorism, or intelligence matters. There is no more potentially dangerous example of “the blind leading the blind” than how the House and Senate handle intelligence.
Of course, it would be helpful if candidates could be found who bring some level of experience (military, intelligence, counter-terrorism, etc) into office, but this should not be a requirement. Rather, it should be required that once elected and selected for any committee, the Representative or Senator must become conversant in the topics of that committee. Yet this is all too often how government committees are formed, not by qualification but instead by name recognition and/or seniority. The Iraq Study Group is a perfect illustration. Sandra Day O’Connor, Vernon Jordan, and Leon Panetta had no background in military or intelligence matters, yet they were selected to analyze the situation in Iraq and determine what military and intelligence tactics and strategies should be implemented to improve the situation. Jordan and Panetta were Adviser and Chief of Staff to Former President Clinton, with no known credibility within the military or intelligence communities.
Not surprisingly, in the anti-war hysteria of the 2006 mid-term elections, the ISG was forced to conclude the only solution was a 79 point plan to pull out of Iraq and let the new democratic Iraqi government be crushed in a sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. How narcissistically ironic that a group consisting of 7 former attorneys came to the conclusion that talking (to Iran and Syria, both of which are funding and training, and arming our enemies in Iraq) was the best way to handle terrorists. Lawyers seem convinced they can talk their way into or out of anything including radical Islam’s hatred for infidels. They could find no strategy for victory because they know nothing about military strategy or the situation in Iraq.
Stein’s interview with Reyes should alarm every American. If our “intelligence” committees do not understand the root causes of conflict and who the various players are on the stage of world terrorism, how will they make decisions about funding our intelligence agencies and what tactics or technologies should or should not be utilized? We should not be blinded or awed by office holders with extensive credentials on government committees. Committees meet infrequently, and that merely makes running for office the only full time job that has our leaders’ full attention. Perhaps our televised debates should include questions that actually test a candidate’s knowledge rather than his skill for eloquently stating nothing of substance.
Would Reyes be serving a 5th term in the House if he had been asked in a debate, “is Al Qaeda Sunni or Shiite, and what’s the difference”? Unfortunately our elections and debates are not a screening process for qualified applicants; they are pathetic pageants for shallow contestants. In Reyes’s case, he appears to have been a potentially valuable addition to Congress when first elected, but chose instead to remain shallow, at least in his knowledge of the most important issue of our time: protecting America from those who want to destroy it and its allies. We should and must demand better.
elections Al Qaeda Silvestre Reyes Iraq Study Group House Intelligence Committee Sunni Shiite
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Monday, December 11, 2006
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Many Tom Paines, Few Mr. Smiths Going to Washington
Last month’s election results, as important as they surely will be for the future direction of the Iraq Conflict and the War on Terror, are less troubling than the increasingly noticeable paucity of honorable, selfless, and humble candidates for public office. Federal elections have devolved into a deplorable version of “Star Search” in which the only qualifications a potential office holder needs are name recognition (the more controversial the better) and access to wealth.
While I certainly condemn any American who could be registered to vote but is not, and subsequently does not participate in elections (see my previous post http://o-be-wise.blogspot.com/2006/11/iraqis-point-purple-fingers-at.html), the lack of enthusiasm for most candidates of either party in this year’s election was understandable. Credit Obi-Wan Kenobi for coining the phrase “hive of scum and villainy,” which applies more readily to the House and Senate than it did to any creatures on the fictional planet Tatooine. My experiences with and in Washington, DC have only solidified my disdain for the fog of ego that drapes this city like no other on earth. The very air reeks of selfishness and moral drift. Unfortunately, long gone are the days when a character such as Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra’s wonderful film (www.amazon.com/Smith-Goes-Washington-Frank-Capra/dp/B00003L9CJ) could come to Washington for the sole purpose of serving his constituents, and through his integrity convince corrupt politicians to confess their graft and resign from office. For that matter, long gone are the days when politicians could agree that corruption was actually an undesirable trait, both personally and in their colleagues. In today’s Washington, one can wield power for decades despite the following unethical conduct:
1. Accept bribes from parties involved in cases presented to you as a federal judge and be impeached by Congress for that action (Alcee Hastings, D-FL, until this week a strong candidate for Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee).
2. Abandon the scene of a fatal vehicle accident (single car) and make no effort to rescue the passenger (Ted Kennedy, D-MA).
3. “Earn” three Purple Hearts in four months service in Vietnam for “injuries” that required no hospitalization or missed time on duty. Then when confronted about this issue, refuse to allow access to personal military service record despite the fact that a campaign opponent allowed full access to his own record and honorable military service in Vietnam became a cornerstone of the presidential campaign (John Kerry, D-MA).
4. Fail a law school course because of plagiarism, then instead of learning from the mistake, get caught plagiarizing speeches from Robert F. Kennedy. Be forced to withdraw from a presidential bid because of these issues (Joseph Biden, D-DE, Chairman-elect of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee).
5. Accept bribes from individuals, and then deny the bribery despite $90,000 in cash found in the home freezer and the guilty pleas of those who paid the bribes (William Jefferson, D-LA).
6. Unlawfully obtain and improperly peruse FBI files on 900+ Republicans from the Bush and Reagan administrations. Although other scandals are attributable in some way to this person, this one is the most egregious (Hillary Clinton, D-NY).
7. Be an active member and recruiter of the KKK. Write letters to a U.S. Senator stating “With a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds...” (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=10792#footnote19). Filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Make speeches in the Senate in which the idea of a superiority of white intellect is espoused. Despite this blatant racism, be selected as Senate Majority Leader by a party which ironically captures the black vote in every election (Robert Byrd, D-WV).
Of course Republicans have been involved in several scandals and lapses of moral behavior as well, but it seems Republicans have a much better record of purging corruption once discovered and encouraging their colleagues in question to resign. The Democrats, on the other hand, reward politicians who weather these “vast right wing conspiracies.”
My point is not to castigate any one party. A look at the potential candidates for the presidency in 2008 gives little hope that integrity and substance are on the horizon for either party. Nearly every candidate has a skeleton in the proverbial closet, or more commonly, most of them have been career politicians, whether long in office (McCain), long wielding power behind the scenes (Hillary) or long in preparing a political record taking no positions at all (Obama). Giuliani can be tough on crime and terrorism, but is a social liberal. Romney has succeeded as a businessman, 2002 Olympic savior, and Governor (MA), and certainly is charismatic, but he is a member of a rapidly growing but often maliciously misrepresented (by the media and other religions) faith (http://www.lds.org/). He seems the most likely Frank Capra-worthy character in the group, but like Mr. Smith, champion of Boy Rangers and all things wholesome, stands little chance of getting a fair hearing in today’s scandal-thirsty press. We will never see improvement in our nation until we demand improvement in the character and humility of those we select to lead us.
We are getting what we deserve out of our political leaders, national and local, because our expectations have been set too low. George Washington set the perfect example of what we should seek from a president. He had to be persuaded to accept the presidency, and did so with hesitation and only because it was apparent everything he had fought for would crumble without a president of integrity. After serving as president (and yes it is a service, not a celebrity star tour ala Clinton), though he could have stayed in power indefinitely, he humbly stepped aside and yielded up his enormous power precisely because he viewed that power as a danger to the nation and himself. Perhaps we should focus our searches for political candidates on finding those who must be persuaded to hold office rather than those who feel it a birthright or a career stepping stone. Above all we must avoid those who seek office, particularly the presidency, because of the power it represents.
We do not need any more “sound bite” presidents, congressman, senators, or candidates. We need leaders who take positions, advocate rather than pontificate, and work in session longer than they relax in recess. Who will be our Mr. Smith in 2008?
Alcee Hastings Hillary Clinton Mr. Smith Goes to Washington Robert Byrd War On Terror Ted Kennedy voting
While I certainly condemn any American who could be registered to vote but is not, and subsequently does not participate in elections (see my previous post http://o-be-wise.blogspot.com/2006/11/iraqis-point-purple-fingers-at.html), the lack of enthusiasm for most candidates of either party in this year’s election was understandable. Credit Obi-Wan Kenobi for coining the phrase “hive of scum and villainy,” which applies more readily to the House and Senate than it did to any creatures on the fictional planet Tatooine. My experiences with and in Washington, DC have only solidified my disdain for the fog of ego that drapes this city like no other on earth. The very air reeks of selfishness and moral drift. Unfortunately, long gone are the days when a character such as Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra’s wonderful film (www.amazon.com/Smith-Goes-Washington-Frank-Capra/dp/B00003L9CJ) could come to Washington for the sole purpose of serving his constituents, and through his integrity convince corrupt politicians to confess their graft and resign from office. For that matter, long gone are the days when politicians could agree that corruption was actually an undesirable trait, both personally and in their colleagues. In today’s Washington, one can wield power for decades despite the following unethical conduct:
1. Accept bribes from parties involved in cases presented to you as a federal judge and be impeached by Congress for that action (Alcee Hastings, D-FL, until this week a strong candidate for Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee).
2. Abandon the scene of a fatal vehicle accident (single car) and make no effort to rescue the passenger (Ted Kennedy, D-MA).
3. “Earn” three Purple Hearts in four months service in Vietnam for “injuries” that required no hospitalization or missed time on duty. Then when confronted about this issue, refuse to allow access to personal military service record despite the fact that a campaign opponent allowed full access to his own record and honorable military service in Vietnam became a cornerstone of the presidential campaign (John Kerry, D-MA).
4. Fail a law school course because of plagiarism, then instead of learning from the mistake, get caught plagiarizing speeches from Robert F. Kennedy. Be forced to withdraw from a presidential bid because of these issues (Joseph Biden, D-DE, Chairman-elect of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee).
5. Accept bribes from individuals, and then deny the bribery despite $90,000 in cash found in the home freezer and the guilty pleas of those who paid the bribes (William Jefferson, D-LA).
6. Unlawfully obtain and improperly peruse FBI files on 900+ Republicans from the Bush and Reagan administrations. Although other scandals are attributable in some way to this person, this one is the most egregious (Hillary Clinton, D-NY).
7. Be an active member and recruiter of the KKK. Write letters to a U.S. Senator stating “With a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds...” (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=10792#footnote19). Filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Make speeches in the Senate in which the idea of a superiority of white intellect is espoused. Despite this blatant racism, be selected as Senate Majority Leader by a party which ironically captures the black vote in every election (Robert Byrd, D-WV).
Of course Republicans have been involved in several scandals and lapses of moral behavior as well, but it seems Republicans have a much better record of purging corruption once discovered and encouraging their colleagues in question to resign. The Democrats, on the other hand, reward politicians who weather these “vast right wing conspiracies.”
My point is not to castigate any one party. A look at the potential candidates for the presidency in 2008 gives little hope that integrity and substance are on the horizon for either party. Nearly every candidate has a skeleton in the proverbial closet, or more commonly, most of them have been career politicians, whether long in office (McCain), long wielding power behind the scenes (Hillary) or long in preparing a political record taking no positions at all (Obama). Giuliani can be tough on crime and terrorism, but is a social liberal. Romney has succeeded as a businessman, 2002 Olympic savior, and Governor (MA), and certainly is charismatic, but he is a member of a rapidly growing but often maliciously misrepresented (by the media and other religions) faith (http://www.lds.org/). He seems the most likely Frank Capra-worthy character in the group, but like Mr. Smith, champion of Boy Rangers and all things wholesome, stands little chance of getting a fair hearing in today’s scandal-thirsty press. We will never see improvement in our nation until we demand improvement in the character and humility of those we select to lead us.
We are getting what we deserve out of our political leaders, national and local, because our expectations have been set too low. George Washington set the perfect example of what we should seek from a president. He had to be persuaded to accept the presidency, and did so with hesitation and only because it was apparent everything he had fought for would crumble without a president of integrity. After serving as president (and yes it is a service, not a celebrity star tour ala Clinton), though he could have stayed in power indefinitely, he humbly stepped aside and yielded up his enormous power precisely because he viewed that power as a danger to the nation and himself. Perhaps we should focus our searches for political candidates on finding those who must be persuaded to hold office rather than those who feel it a birthright or a career stepping stone. Above all we must avoid those who seek office, particularly the presidency, because of the power it represents.
We do not need any more “sound bite” presidents, congressman, senators, or candidates. We need leaders who take positions, advocate rather than pontificate, and work in session longer than they relax in recess. Who will be our Mr. Smith in 2008?
Alcee Hastings Hillary Clinton Mr. Smith Goes to Washington Robert Byrd War On Terror Ted Kennedy voting
Friday, November 10, 2006
Iraqis Point Purple Fingers at American Voter Apathy
While I am displeased with this week's election results in the House and Senate, I sense that the greatest setback for America was the continued apathy the vast majority of Americans have toward choosing their leaders. Election statistics indicate that only 40% of registered voters took the time to cast a ballot in an election held while our nation is waging a war in the Middle East, working to disrupt terrorist planning, and crossing its fingers that the strong economy continues its record growth. The direction of a war. That seems like a serious issue for voters, right? Eight state ballots included marriage amendments, and every state ballot contained local bond and tax initiatives that directly impact the pocketbook of each resident. Yet only 40% of registered voters bothered to voice their opinions through voting. Ironically, 100% of American citizens exercise their right to complain when their elected officials pass harmful legislation or make decisions the citizens oppose. Everyone has an opinion on the War on Terror and the Iraq Conflict, yet more energy and time are spent calling talk shows or writing emails to newspapers and news networks than the brief expenditure of time required for voting.
It is no wonder much of the world is skeptical of America's attempt to instill democratic principles in Iraq (or anywhere else), given that the Iraqi elections (remember the symbolic purple-tipped fingers?) were an inspiring display of courage and participation despite the threat of death each Iraqi voter faced simply for voting to establish an elected government. Americans in some voting precincts cry about "voter suppression" or "voter intimidation." While the validity of those claims is unconfirmed, one wonders how much these complainers really value their freedom to vote. Iraqis stood in long lines for hours while armed militants, snipers, and bombers lurked nearby. Car bombs and other improvised explosives detonated; snipers hit several innocent targets, and yet in the face of potential death 63% of these brave newcomers to democracy cast their ballots. When was the last time voters in American cities braved car bombs and snipers to vote for their leaders and tax/bond initiatives? That is real "voter intimidation" and "voter suppression," and if the Iraqis could overcome it, what is our excuse as a nation for failing to overcome the perceived "inconveniences" of going to the polls to vote? It is disturbing to consider the apathy and mindset of the 60% of registered voters who failed to participate in this election.
The Iraqis are wagging their purple index fingers at us and are wondering: in which country does democracy have greater need to be planted and nurtured, Iraq or America?
voter apathy purple fingers Iraq elections
It is no wonder much of the world is skeptical of America's attempt to instill democratic principles in Iraq (or anywhere else), given that the Iraqi elections (remember the symbolic purple-tipped fingers?) were an inspiring display of courage and participation despite the threat of death each Iraqi voter faced simply for voting to establish an elected government. Americans in some voting precincts cry about "voter suppression" or "voter intimidation." While the validity of those claims is unconfirmed, one wonders how much these complainers really value their freedom to vote. Iraqis stood in long lines for hours while armed militants, snipers, and bombers lurked nearby. Car bombs and other improvised explosives detonated; snipers hit several innocent targets, and yet in the face of potential death 63% of these brave newcomers to democracy cast their ballots. When was the last time voters in American cities braved car bombs and snipers to vote for their leaders and tax/bond initiatives? That is real "voter intimidation" and "voter suppression," and if the Iraqis could overcome it, what is our excuse as a nation for failing to overcome the perceived "inconveniences" of going to the polls to vote? It is disturbing to consider the apathy and mindset of the 60% of registered voters who failed to participate in this election.
The Iraqis are wagging their purple index fingers at us and are wondering: in which country does democracy have greater need to be planted and nurtured, Iraq or America?
voter apathy purple fingers Iraq elections
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)