Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
That was then...
Posted by: Bryan Pick on Saturday, January 20, 2007

Remember this? All of six and a half weeks ago?

John McCaslin of the Washington Times did.
On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an "exclusive." And for good reason.

"In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq," the story began, Mr. Reyes "said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a 'stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.' "

"We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq," the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, "I would say 20,000 to 30,000."
So when Bush made his proposal to send 21,500 troops—600 of whom would be from Fort Bliss, which is local to Reyes's 16th District—for the express purpose of taking on the militias and stabilizing Iraq, you might think this would be one of those moments when a ranking Democrat and President Bush could see eye to eye.

But you would be wrong. Shortly after President Bush briefed Reyes on the "surge" plan on December 9, Reyes changed his tune:
It is "premature" to consider an increase until the plan is fully revealed, Reyes said. "The (United States) must insist that the Iraqi government be more aggressive and timely in taking responsibility for security and stability in their own nation," he added.
It's all well and good to call for more Iraqi government action, but Reyes had considered and recommended a troop increase over a month earlier.

And as McCaslin reports,
[H]ours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.

"We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level," he said.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but why call for a troop increase of up to 30,000 troops if you don't believe we have 21,500 available?

According to the same El Paso Times article:
Reyes, who met with Bush on Tuesday to review the plan, said sending more troops removes any incentive the Iraqi government had to take responsibility for the safety of its own citizens. He added that Bush was continuing his "go-it-alone" approach, rather than trying to find diplomatic solutions.
Need I even point out the hypocrisy on this one?

The next day, Reyes said,
"We are sending brigades on a very thin promise from al-Maliki, who's got a very bad track record."
Of course, when Reyes made his recommendation a month and a half earlier, the U.S. didn't even have that.

All of which begs the question: what's changed?

McQ mused in early December when Reyes made his initial recommendation, "This ought to go over well in the Dem cloakroom [...] We await, with bated breath, the Speaker-elect's reaction."

Perhaps we're seeing it now.

** 3:21 a.m.: Edited for clarification and more material. **
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Look it’s easy, WHATEVER the Administration does is wrong...I don’t know why you bother posting this stuff.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Agreement with Joe.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider