Exclusive: House Intel Chairman Reyes Declares Opposition To Bush Troop Increase
Exclusive: House Intel Chairman Reyes Declares Opposition To Bush Troop Increase
In a new statement, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) tells ThinkProgress, “I don’t support the President’s plan to send an additional number of troops to Iraq,” arguing that Bush’s plan is “not tied to a specific strategy and will only needlessly endanger more soldiers.”
Reyes was an early opponent of the Iraq war and voted against the October 2002 Iraq resolution. But in a Newsweek interview earlier this year, Reyes said he would support sending some additional U.S. forces to Iraq.
Reyes explained his thinking at the time. “In late summer to early fall of 2006, military leaders were of the opinion that if given the mission to neutralize these militias, they could do so with a temporary increase of 20,000 to 30,000 troops. My position then was that this would be a worthwhile investment that would result in a more secure environment for our troops, and would provide the Iraqi government a better chance to establish itself.”
However, Reyes notes, as the year progressed, the security situation deteriorated further, and CentCom commander John Abizaid testified that sending additional troops was not advisable.
Yet President Bush has pushed ahead with troop increases anyway, a plan “supposedly initiated by Prime Minister Maliki.” Given Maliki’s “past performance and inability to command the Iraqi military or order the disarming of the militias,” Reyes argues, “the President’s support of this plan without specific benchmarks of accountability is unacceptable.” Moreover, he says, “When I met with the President before his announcement of the plan, I asked him if he intended to take the advice of the military leadership and use the troops for dealing with the militias; the President confirmed that his plan was not the same.”
Now, Reyes says, the solution “is to make the Iraqi government accountable for both their own security, with U.S. support, and to find a political solution to the sectarian differences and subsequent violence, not to put additional U.S. troops in danger.”
[ThinkProgress is keeping track of where every member of Congress stands on escalation. Using media reports, press releases, and submissions from hundreds of readers, we've compiled an interactive tally showing every member’s position. (Check it out HERE.)
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
When did the U.S. become a monarchy?
Was it in 2000? Or 2001? Or was it in 2003?
Just how far does this have to go before the American public storms the White House?
January 25th, 2007 at 12:00 pmAbsolutely brilliant! Wonderful work!
January 25th, 2007 at 12:03 pmIt’s about time he takes a stand against more troops being sent to Iraq!
January 25th, 2007 at 12:04 pmWhere the hell has this guy been for the last three years?
…and why is he Chairman of the Intel Committee…
…when he apparently doesn’t grasp (quickly enough) that this war is a disaster?
January 25th, 2007 at 12:11 pmThis wasn’t Maliki’s idea.
It’s emabarassing that Reyes heads the Intel. committee.
January 25th, 2007 at 12:21 pmGee, Bush- Wha’cha gonna do, now? This whole scenario just keeps getting better and better. Pretty soon, Congress is going to have to pull Bush OUT of the White House, kicking and screaming. There is nothing even remotely rational with this man who apparently has the mind of a mere child. I’m glad that Reyes is speaking out now, but wonder why it took so long for him to realize the strength of his conviction. Could it have anything to do with overwhelming and very vocal opposition from the majority- like say, over 70%- of the American public?
January 25th, 2007 at 12:22 pmThe only caveat in trumpting Reyes’ decision is that neither he nor President Bush seem particularly clear on the distinction between Sunni and Shiite extremists in Iraq.
For the background, see:
- “Top 10 State of the Union Highlights”
January 25th, 2007 at 12:48 pm- “Reyes Joins Bush in Failing Foreign Affairs 101″
Good job Sylvester.
Now we need more R’s coming out against this.
January 25th, 2007 at 12:53 pmLet them sell shoes!!!!
January 25th, 2007 at 1:08 pmEvery Congress must be forced to stand up and take a position on Iraq!! And if they don’t let them sell shoes. We don’t need ambivilance, triangulation, word smithing, or nuanced politicking..We need to know where are representative stand and if we want to support them anymore.. If not they should Sell Shoes!
Look – here’s the deal:
The biggest problem we face (a coup by a foreign power and treason within) cannot be openly discussed. The “special relationship” IS the problem. Dov Zakheim stole $7 trillion from the DOD and sent it to Israel. Want to know why Bush is unafraid of the supposed “power of the purse” and the threat by Congress not to fund his escalation? The money is not needed. They stole it in advance of 9/11 (witness Rumsfeld’s admission of $2.3 trillion missing on 9/10/2001). The entire campaign is ALREADY FUNDED.
Zakheim stole the money on behalf of the co-conspirators in the coup (the Bush Cabinet and Likud – in concert with The Crown). They looted the US Treasury IN ADVANCE OF 9/11.
They did it because it was all part of the master plan. Chaos in Iraq is PART OF THE PLAN. The funding for the escalation is NOT coming from any budget that Congress has ANY CONTROL OVER. The money was already sent to Israel in advance of PNAC’s “NEW PERLE HARBOR” and will now be tapped on an as needed basis – having lost the backing of the American people and congress.
This ALL planned for.
Ask Dov Zakheim about the $7 trillion.
He and Kobi Alexander (former CEO of Comverse) were co-conspirators in the implementation of 9/11. Zakheim’s “Sysplan” provided the fly-by-wire technology and Comverse / Ptech provided the software.
Why is Kobi Alexander (wanted on Federal Charges) under the cover of the Witness Protection Program in the United States?
Where is Kobi?
Where is Dov?
Expose That!
January 25th, 2007 at 1:08 pmMeanwhile, back at the Green Zone…
off the AP wire
BAGHDAD, Iraq – A suicide car bomber struck a mostly Shiite neighborhood Thursday in central Baghdad, killing 26 people, hours after the prime minister promised the coming U.S.-Iraq security sweep in the capital would pursue militants wherever they were hiding.
The blast occurred shortly after two rockets slammed into the heavily fortified Green Zone.
January 25th, 2007 at 1:35 pmYou can’t blame the guy for taking so long. This is the same Rep who didn’t know whether Al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite when he took over the House Intel Committee. SeeNYTimes article Dec. 2006
January 25th, 2007 at 4:26 pmWasn’t he the guy that didn’t know the difference between Sunni and Shiites? I think they could have picked some one better.
January 26th, 2007 at 12:09 amTime for everyone of us to stand up and end this madness. Our families are at stake here and our children’s future. We have a runnaway administration that lies, cheats and steals and breaks the laws of our land and putting America and its people in grave danger. All for private profit.
January 26th, 2007 at 2:28 am1) The Democrats need to be more vocal and assertive and should NOT be afraid to speak the TRUTH. The House Speaker should also function as a school teacher and spank these errant Democratic Representatives when yhey exhibit a lack of testicluar fortitude.
2) The US DoD has about $6 TRILLION in assets of which it CANNOT track $4 TRILLION. This info was communicated by the DoD’s then Chief Financial Officer to Congress sometime in 2002/2003. No wonder the CEOs who align themselves with or support the Republicans, NEVER have bettered their company. Most of the large scale financial scandals in the non-government sector in USA are by Republican supporting CEOs.
3) Unless Congress ties Iraq War appropriation to other Demorcatic agenda including withdrawl from Iraq (in the very near future) and a call for Draft, the Republicans will not support it. If the Republican members fail to support the Iraq War appropriation, then they (GOP member of congress) can be called/termed unpatriotic Americans.
4) Lastly every GOP member of congress should be consistently asked by the US Main Stream Media (MSM) (who do not have any testicular fortitude because they have been castrated), why their (GOP member of congress) children (who are 18 and over) not serving in Iraq.
Believe me this will expose the corrupt and the sleazy GOP.
As always,
Yours Truly,
Honest BArham lincoln
January 26th, 2007 at 2:51 amThe White House view:
Let’s see. If we show congruence with the prevailing political mood to decrease troop numbers in Iraq, it might look to the world that our presence in Iraq is temporary. We don’t want to convey that message, because it’s our intention to remain in Iraq to protect our oil interests, and to secure the control of the oil for petroleum corporations that have contributed to our rise to power.
If we present a “temporary” increase in troop strength, then we shift the debate to whether to increase numbers or maintain the same number. This position is much more pallatable and gives us a little breathing room, so if necessary, we can plan another set of circumstances in which maintaining a presence in Iraq has greater political importance.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:12 am