[Sky Captain]

We're screwed no matter who's in charge.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

We're screwed no matter who's in charge.

That is just outrageous! It takes months of study to become adequately knowledgeable on this stuff. And lest anyone think it's not all that important, here's a test for you:

Match these with their predominant sect (Shiite or Sunni):

Iran
Iraq
Syria
Hamas
Hezbollah
Osama bin Laden
Moqtada al Sadr
Nouri al Maliki

With the correct answers to these you will have the necessary information to understand why it's better that the US try to negotiate with SYRIA and not Iran.

[Sky Captain]

You know what? I was in the Gulf for 4 months.
I had no clue to how many sects there were.
At 24, I wasn't exatly worried about learning about them.
All I cared about was not getting shot out of the sky with a payload of explosive stuff.

[Dork.]

I have to admit I'm a little disappointed in Pelosi here. The ranking democrat on the committee didn't get the nod because Pelosi thinks that she was too close to Bush during the past few years. (The next guy didn't get the nod because he's a crook who has already been impeached once.)

It's no secret that a lot of people elected the Anybody But Bush ticket last November, but can they at least pretend that they're willing to work with the other side?

[IceBreaker]

I don't think it is a big deal myself.

[Saetre]

This is cronyism. It's what makes politics, politics.

[Sherman Homan]

Howard Dean: "In three words, we can do better."
It will ring true over and over and over again....

[goMac]

Apparently no one is very eager to bring up Bush's foreign intelligence quiz...

[Spliffdaddy]

Pelosi is going to guarantee a Republican president in 2008.

I love that woman. She 100% reflects the Democratic ideology - and she's incapable of hiding it.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Sherman Homan 

Howard Dean: "In three words, we can do better."
It will ring true over and over and over again....

And the masses said, "Yes, Howard, you're right! We can do better with anyone else but you."

I miss Howard Dean being in the limelight more often. He's been quiet lately. The quote you provided reminded me of good times...
Howard

[BRussell]

That doesn't bode well, does it. This administration is going to be able to bamboozle him easily. Harman should have gotten it. At least Reyes was right on the Iraq war though.

[moodymonster]

why not get someone who knows what they're talking about?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Sherman Homan 

Howard Dean: "In three words, we can do better."
It will ring true over and over and over again....

It's funny. At first I read that to say,

Howard Dean - We can do better than him.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Apparently no one is very eager to bring up Bush's foreign intelligence quiz...

Reyes is a Congressman who is being promoted to leadership of an intelligence commitee. Bush was governor of Texas at the time, and he wasn't being promoted to a national intelligence leadsership position.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Reyes is a Congressman who is being promoted to leadership of an intelligence commitee. Bush was governor of Texas at the time, and he wasn't being promoted to a national intelligence leadsership position.

I know you feel you have to defend George W. Christ no matter what, but man that's lame. President of the United States isn't a national intelligence leadership position?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by marden 

That is just outrageous! It takes months of study to become adequately knowledgeable on this stuff. And lest anyone think it's not all that important, here's a test for you:

Match these with their predominant sect (Shiite or Sunni):

Iran
Iraq
Syria
Hamas
Hezbollah
Osama bin Laden
Moqtada al Sadr
Nouri al Maliki

With the correct answers to these you will have the necessary information to understand why it's better that the US try to negotiate with SYRIA and not Iran.

Ok ... I'll bite.

Iran - Shiite

Iraq - Majority Shiite, dominated by minority Sunni for centuries until US overthrow of Saddam Hussein

Syria - Majority Sunni

Hamas - Sunni

Hezbollah - Shiite

Osama Bin Laden - Sunni (Wahabi ... very radical sect within this branch)

Moqtada Al Sadr - Shiite

Nouri al Maliki - Shiite

Regarding who it will be better for the US to negotiate with, well I suppose that would depend on the aim of the negotiation. If it is to stabilize Iraq, then the US needs to negotiate with all of Iraq's neighbors to come to some sort of arrangement to make that happen. However, if the goal is to counter Iran, then the typical European "divide and conquer" approach would be the way to go. Negotiate with Syria and offer them a deal where they agree to cease support for Hezbollah and close the Iraqi border to Sunni insurgents. Syria already "broke ranks" with other Sunni nations by allying itself with Iran. Dividing this alliance will serve the purpose of weakening Hezbollah ... (the single most effective Arab military organization and nemesis of Israel) ... which indirectly weakens Iran it's primary Shiite sponsor. The downside is that it only addresses part (and the smaller part at that) of the problem in Iraq. The Sunni insurgency, the only thing Syria can directly influence, is not the main source of the violence in Iraq. To get a handle on that you have to address the sectarian violence. And to do that you have to deal with Iran. Like it or not.

OAW

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I know you feel you have to defend George W. Christ no matter what, but man that's lame. President of the United States isn't a national intelligence leadership position?

Bush was not President when he had trouble naming some world leaders. Look it up. He wasn't "promoted" to leadership of intelligence, either.

Additionally, terror groups, Islamic radicalism, and Middle Eastern policies have been at the forefront of US politics for over 5 years now. Bush knows who's who, and has for 5+ years. Reyes had no clue. When asked what he knew about Hezbollah, he stuttered a few times and asked why he had to be asked such a tough question after 5pm.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Bush was not President when he had trouble naming some world leaders. Look it up.

No kidding. And Reyes has is not yet in the leadership of the intelligence committee either.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

No kidding. And Reyes has is not yet in the leadership of the intelligence committee either.

Bush was not even President-elect. Reyes is officially the "Incoming Chairman of the House of Representatives’ Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence". How do you like them apples?

Pathetic Democrats promoted Reyes to leadership despite the fact that he cannot describe a thing about Hezbollah. Even more pathetic are the turds who have become Reyes apologists.

Do you know what else? I can't wait to see someone on this forum address Bill Clinton's using of the NSA to eavesdrop and peep on Princess Diana? All of the left's bitching and complaining about Bush's eavedropping on terror suspects, but the moment a true abuse of power by a leftist is made public, we hear nothing but silence from the left. It's disgusting how transparent whiny liberals are.

[tie]

Am I the only one who had no idea what this thread was about?
1. Who's Pilosi?
2. Who follows links without any context?

[Spliffdaddy]

The world will know who Pelosi is soon enough.

The acknowledgement will come in the form of universal laughter.

She's the Republican's secret weapon, in a nutshell.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Bush was not even President-elect. Reyes is officially the "Incoming Chairman of the House of Representatives’ Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence". How do you like them apples?

Pathetic Democrats promoted Reyes to leadership despite the fact that he cannot describe a thing about Hezbollah. Even more pathetic are the turds who have become Reyes apologists.

Do you know what else? I can't wait to see someone on this forum address Bill Clinton's using of the NSA to eavesdrop and peep on Princess Diana? All of the left's bitching and complaining about Bush's eavedropping on terror suspects, but the moment a true abuse of power by a leftist is made public, we hear nothing but silence from the left. It's disgusting how transparent whiny liberals are.

You made the following statement:

Reyes is a Congressman who is being promoted to leadership of an intelligence commitee. Bush was governor of Texas at the time, and he wasn't being promoted to a national intelligence leadsership position.

Sorry but that's a truly asinine statement that only someone lacking any intellectual abilities except for pure dumb partisanship could generate. Bush was running for the President of the United States at the time. This Reyes is going to be chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Both important jobs, but really no contest. And yet you try to claim the House job is more important than President? It's absurd. You really must have blinders on to be able to make a post like that.

As for liberals who are silent about Clinton? This is what I said in another thread. "If true, despicable and stupid. What in the world could be so important about Princess Di? Did we bug the teletubbies too, while we were over there? Maybe we should have been following bin Laden around rather than frickin Princess Barbie. Maybe?" Yet you defend Bush for spying on Americans, not to mention torturing and detaining American citizens without trial and without charge. Partisanship is one thing, losing your ability to discern truth and morality is another.

[Sherman Homan]

Originally Posted by tie 

Am I the only one who had no idea what this thread was about?
1. Who's Pilosi?
2. Who follows links without any context?

Tie, "Pilosi" is really Nancy Pelosi, D-California. She is a tool of the Left Liberals, the House Speaker, and as such she seems to be so incompetent that she must be a creation of Carl Rove to deliver the House back to where it should be, to the Republicans, in 2008.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by marden 

....

Iran
Iraq
Syria
Hamas
Hezbollah
Osama bin Laden
Moqtada al Sadr
Nouri al Maliki

With the correct answers to these you will have the necessary information to understand why it's better that the US try to negotiate with SYRIA and not Iran.

Because they are both ruled by Shia Muslims?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Because they are both ruled by Shia Muslims?

Indeed. While Syria is majority Sunni as I mentioned above, the ruling family are Alawites which is a sect of Shia Islam. Still waiting to see why Marden thinks it is better for the US to negotiate with Syria instead of Iran.

OAW

[goMac]

Apparently the outgoing Republican intelligence committee didn't score so hot either:

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2006/10...shiites/?fta=y

[tie]

Originally Posted by Sherman Homan 

Tie, "Pilosi" is really Nancy Pelosi, D-California. She is a tool of the Left Liberals, the House Speaker, and as such she seems to be so incompetent that she must be a creation of Carl Rove to deliver the House back to where it should be, to the Republicans, in 2008.

I know who Pelosi is, I was just wondering how one could turn that into Pilosi. The keys aren't close together, they don't sound the same, the very first sentence of the linked article has the correct spelling, etc. Anyway, I think she'll be fine. The Republican leadership is corrupt beyond belief.

[Spliffdaddy]

If I were to post some of Pelosi's infamous quotes, you wouldn't "think she'll be fine".

There's no way to avoid the embarrassment Pelosi will bring to the Democratic party.

I smile everytime I think about it.

[Sky Captain]

And more embarrasment to this country.
Somehow we keep electing idiots. From both parties.

[subego]

Jon Stewart is finally going to get to do some equal time.

With the question about Al Qaeda that Reyes botched, Stewart said:

"The answer we will also accept...

...is your resignation."