Are you in favor of ousting Silvestre Reyes?

I've seen a lot of threads on here about certain Democrats and how well the fit the "good Democrat" mold. However, I have long believed that the hallmark trait of a good Democrat was competency. And so I have to ask--do people here believe that Reyes is as incompetent as he came off in his CQ interview? Or was the interview just an ambush not reflective of his degree of competency? And finally, since I haven't seen much talk about it on DU, does it simply not matter how competent he is?

Edit, on the off-chance you have no idea what I'm talking about: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6171881.stm

Reyes is as good as it gets.

Besides the hawkish Congresswoman (Harman) and the ex-judge who was impeached for taking bribes (Hastings)? What about Tierney? I don't know him but he's a Dem from Mass, so I'm guessing he's liberal.

I want to support this guy. But I haven't seen any information that puts what he said in a better light. I know he served for six years on the committee, so he can't possibly simply be ignorant. Could someone tell me what's going on here?

How would we react if a Republican said Al Qaeda is predominantly Shiite?
We wouldn't stop laughing and called for his resignation.
Republicans are wrong 99% of the time. And I'm sure if Reyes were a Republican, they wouldn't have a problem with his ignorance.
But sometimes you have to be unbiased and think a little.
Being ignorant about the facts about one attack waged by Al Qaeda in say, 1998, is one thing, but ignoring the very essence and structure of our #1 enemy is unacceptable for a chair, no matter how well-intention he/she is.

But I'm simply having a hard time believing that Pelosi would knowingly throw her weight behind someone unqualified, and I'm have an equally hard time believing that someone could serve for six years on the Intelligence committee and not know that Hezbollah is Shi'a and Al-Qaida is Sunni.

Did you see the author on CNN?

Your own &%# president couldn't respond to the questions with any accuracy whatsoever.

than dead wrong?

First you ask us if he's completely incompetent .. or if it was an ambush..

Then you claim that he's just "DEAD WRONG"

Sounds to me like you had already come to your own conclusion before you drafted this silly little poll.

I know what the author said on Wolf Blitzer. Many THUGS, including Bush, faired even worse when asked the same questions.

I didn't say he was incompetent. I said he was dead wrong on two questions that were asked of him. He was. He was asked if al-Qaeda was Sunni or Shi'a. He said Shi'a. That is incorrect. He was asked if Hezbollah was Sunni or Shi'a. He didn't answer.

On these two questions, he was dead wrong. And that cannot be in doubt. That is totally uncontested. That isn't the question I'm asking.

I'm sure that many Republicans fared equally bad. (I'm not sure how you can do *worse* on two either/or questions than 0/2) But that isn't the question either. I have no doubt, as I've made clear, that he's *more* competent than Bush or your average Republican.

What the question is, is if his incorrect answer makes him unqualified, or if it was non-representitive of his abilities and knowledge.

..when asked the =SAME= questions, but that it didn't garner any media attention..

Reyes will do a great job.

But I get a bit nervous when we start comparing our guy's knowledge of the ME to Bush's. I'm sure he'll do an okay job; better than any Republican would. But I'm finding this business deeply disturbing.

"not qualified". This business about more troops is scary, of course he is from Texas and nowhere near the real world. I wonder what party he thinks is going to be in charge. I am not real happy about the appointment. To be honest, I missed the'test' he failed, but I hear to puke members didn't know the answer either.

As long as he will do what ever is necessary to get the troops out of Iraq, I don't care if he can't find his own ass with both hands.

Thanks.

National security will be one issue that we should dominate in 2008.
We have slowly gained momentum in this issue, and now we are probably viewed more competent than the GOP in this aspect.
Let's not give them ammunition by appointing someone who doesn't know what Al Qaeda is.

But it's actually a pretty uninspiring group of people on that committee anyway, which could partly explain why we're in this mess.

http://intelligence.house.gov/MemberList.aspx

is our best argument for him, I'll have to take it. I feel nervous about supporting him on pure pragmatism that way, but least-bad-option seems par for the course nowadays.

& choose someone who is 1) well versed on national security & 2)smart, who is able to get up to date quickly on necessary info.

I expect MORE from Democrats than repukes, so the argument that he 'scored higher' than some GOPers is ridiculous .... I think he is not qualified: period ....

Pelosi should be placing competency before loyalty ....

Surely there are Representatives who are more suitable for that job ....

They blew it .....

And I agree that competency should be placed above everything else. But are two bad questions enough to declare someone incompetent? Admittedly, they should have been softballs, but still, everyone can have a brain-freeze.

of knowledge about topics he should have known. But there are many, many others who have not chosen to inform themselves, despite their roles in govt. decision-making. Let's start at the top: What does * know about the M.E.? Not much.

We should be better.

because these are the people who are making decisions that destroy and end lives. They have a responsibility to learn about the basics. Why do we trust them to know anything about whether drilling for oil in the Gulf is a wise decision or whether changes should be made in social security? You could probably get a class of tenth graders who could come up with broader knowledge than people like * or Lott.

Obviously ....

B being worse than A doesn't necessarily make A good.
The poll is more about whether we could find a better "C" for the job.

Meaning we are in deep doo-doo.

on National Security?

This guy is NOT prepared to chair the intelligence committee.

I knew the answers to the questions, & I'm sure most everyone here did also.

Don't make excuses for inept Dems by comparing them to inept Republicans.

Reyes has been on this committee for 6 years, & he knows nothing.

Pelosi should get him out as quickly as possible, & limit the damage.

I'm also shocked that the guy who has lived here for how many years? has to think in Spanish?

As an American, I want him OFF that committee chair ...

And I am disappointed in Pelosi as well .... WTF is she doing ? ...

I adore the woman, but DAMNIT ! .... Get it RIGHT ! ....

Write a letter, e-mail to Pelosi.

It's pretty sad when U.K. papers are publishing this info.

Pelosi & Reyes look like idiots.

what I thought she was. While Murtha would have been a great choice for her deputy, she should have known that he was politically infeasible. Hastings was an embarrassing debacle. Reyes looks bad. And really, I can't believe she hasn't booted Jefferson from the entire Democratic caucus after her pledges to run the cleanest, most transparent Congress ever.

She isn't evil, or incompetent, or anything like that. But she isn't quite the breath of fresh air I was hoping she'd be. We're acting more like the Republicans than I'm comfortable with, and I worry that if we don't start coming down harder on our side, we'll fall into the same quicksand they did.

Thanks for posting!

I can't believe more people are not responding.

I guess they're too busy posting new polls for 2008.

asking pelosi to remove him, why? If he can't answer those questions, we are in trouble and walking into it

If anybody else wants to join me, here are her adresses

District Office - 450 Golden Gate Ave. - 14th Floor - San Francisco, CA 94102 - (415) 556-4862
Washington, D.C. Office - 235 Cannon HOB - Washington, DC 20515 - (202) 225-4965

Though if he's as good as you say, I have to wonder why he wasn't chosen.

my trust (as limited as it is) in Ms Nancy is not bolstered by this.

Washington business as usual, it seems. I wish I could support him, but I still haven't seen anything that points to him having a clue.

or perhaps she needed to appoint a minority. (cynical, sorry!)