[QUOTE=Ravenman]
And allow me to correct something: the report you are referencing is not a bipartisan product of the entire committee. The report referenced in the news article you linked to is here: the report consists only of the findings of the Republican members of the committee. Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the committee, said that the report was based on “outdated” information and that the committee “should not engage in a public discussion that creates fear and delivers misinformation.”
[/QUOTE]
I clicked on the link you gave there, and it says it’s for the Committee On Homeland Security, US House of Representatives. I don’t see where it says something like ‘For Republicans only’ in there. What you seem to be saying is this report was written strictly for the Republican members at their behest, but I don’t see anything in there about that in your link. What am I missing here?
As I explained, you suggested that “[Peter King] is really the guy that * think should be on prople’s required reading list”. I did not state that King’s personal statements should be, and you know it. There is a difference between saying that Peter King should be on people’s required reading lists, and that if the House Committee on Homeland Security releases a report which touches on Hezbollah in the US, that it is indeed required reading.
Irrelevant and just as obfuscatory as your attempt to claim that I want people to read King’s personal writings. I’ve already provided the link to the hearings and testimony given. I’ve provided another citation which confirms that the intelligence community in general supports the basic set of findings.
By the way, some of that “out of date” information is what I linked to in Swecker’s testmiony, which includes a case-study of how a Hezbollah cell operated, and Silber’s testimony about how Iran has roughly a decade of precedence worth of using its embassy/broadcasting staff to case soft targets in Manhattan.
Yes, people talking about Hezbollah and America should be aware of the report in question, the general consensus of the intelligence community, the specific testimony offered that made up the preliminary report, etc… The report’s general conclusions are in accord with the findings of the general intelligence community and what we’ve known for years.
You’ve endorsed a denial, made on a partisan basis, of the majority committee findings. Why you’re calling for me to not support the facts because one partisan accused another partisan of being partisan even though the facts stand up to scrutiny, is totally baffling to me.
Please, take a deep breath and calm down. Read what I have written. I have not denied anything, I said that citing a report done at King’s direction should be questioned. (Before you go on to protest that the report was not written by King, your own cite says that the report was “issued by investigators for King.”) If you were trying to prove that hypertension leads to heart disease and you cited a study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, I’d raise the same issue.
You are trying to split a hair here that cannot be sliced any thinner. The chairman of a congressional committee is responsible for the work product of the committee. Virtually nothing can get through a House committee without the support of the chairman, especially when the minority party is not a part of the committee’s work product. There’s just no question at all that this report reflects the views of the committee chairman, just like a partisan report from any other committee would overwhelmingly reflect the views of the chairman, whether he or she is a Democrat, Republican, or whatever.
Uh… perhaps you didn’t read your own cite, but it said that intelligence community and law enforcement officials “paint a more nuanced picture” of the report’s conclusions. That means that the report does NOT accurately reflect the consensus opinion of the intelligence community.
The title of the paper is, “Majority Preliminary Investigative Findings.” In this context, “majority” refers to the Republican leadership and staff of the committee. It is a common expression in Washington, for example see this memo,this report, this one too, and so on. The Democratic staff and members would be referred to as the Minority, like on this page, or this report.
Oh, I’m quite calm. But you’re obviously enraged and bouncing off the walls. Eh? Eh?
And I’ve already shown that the major claims it made are accepted by the intelligence community and/or backed up by credible expert testimony. You’ll also please note that “issued by investigators for…” is not the same thing as “written by”, even if the relevant issue wasn’t the accuracy of the report but King’s involvement in it.
Uh… perhaps your “lol u didn’t read ur own cite!” bullshit is also beneath you. Not only did I read the cite, one of several cites I provided, I pointed out in the hyperlink itself that it was a skeptical read of King’s report. That it “paints a more nuanced” picture was the point. :rolleyes: Just as the point was that I quoted text from that more nuanced picture which still supports the main claim made in the congressional report. In point of fact, I pulled a quote from the article, taking up a good bit of text, that elaborated on just what some of those points of major agreement were. Hard to miss that.
Yes, it does. The relevant facts have already been cited. Pretending that because one view is more “nuanced” that the general conclusions of another report must not reflect the consensus of the intelligence community is nonsensical. You’re now actually relying on the author’s gloss, not even the actual statements by the intelligence community, but the author of the article’s gloss on the intelligence community’s findings. And even then, you’re claiming that because his gloss was that the intelligence community made subtler distinctions and judgements than te congressional report that they didn’t agree with its substantive findings.
First, it’s not an ad hominem to point out that your posting history rarely includes such silly tactics as claiming that because a congressional report should be read, that its chairman’s personal writings should also all be required reading. Even if I had been insulting you rather than criticizing your post, I wasn’t claiming you were wrong because of your silly tactic but that you were wrong in addition to it. And as for how I could possibly be anything but calm if I’m calling you out for posting that’s less than optimal? If you think that someone needs to be angry to find fault with an argument in a post of yours, then I guess I can’t talk you out of it.
The credibility of the chairman of a congressional committee is OF COURSE directly relevant to the partisan products of the committee. Ron Paul is the chairman of a House committee that deals with the Federal Reserve; if that committee issued a report reflecting only the views of committee Republicans that the Fed is corrupt, it makes perfect sense to look at Ron Paul’s views on economic issues and question whether that’s a reliable report. If someone were to specifically call out Chairman Paul’s report on the Fed as a prerequisite on discussing some monetary issue, they would get called out on it because Ron Paul has a track record on the subject.
Same thing applies with Peter King. Some thing would apply if the late Ted Kennedy had his committee write a report on reforming the health care system.
If you want to vehemently disagree on these points, fine. But to the extent that you bring my character into this – saying that what I posted is beneath me – that’s not cricket.
Except as already stated, cited and quoted, the major findings of the majority are in accord with the consensus of the intelligence community as well as expert testimony. As such the credibility of the chairman becomes irrelevant.
You’re free to object to me saying that you’ve generally displayed a high standard of posting and you should be above the low standard of posting you’ve displayed. You’re certainly free to report my posts and claim that since I’ve criticized your posting and said that you normally don’t provide such low quality posts, I’m somehow personally insulting you. You might even get a mod to agree.
~shrugs~
If anyone wants to read an interesting article on how well Peter King’s Homeland Security Committee does in in assessing the threats to the country, check out this new article: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/dhs/all/
And if anybody wants to read the cites which verify the major conclusions of the cited report with the consensus of the intelligence community and expert testimony, cites that have to do with the report we’re actually talking about, then they should read this thread. Perhaps you can also find video of King kicking a puppy, Raven?
Indeed, that King is a Nazi Communist pedophile has great bearing on the central claims of the majority reports, claims I’ve shown are supported by the consensus of the intelligence community and expert testimony. Obviously, we should ignore those facts and focus on what an asshole King is.
I clicked on the link you gave there, and it says it’s for the Committee On Homeland Security, US House of Representatives. I don’t see where it says something like ‘For Republicans only’ in there. What you seem to be saying is this report was written strictly for the Republican members at their behest, but I don’t see anything in there about that in your link. What am I missing here?