.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

The Asylum

Welcome to the Asylum. This is a site devoted to politics and current events in America, and around the globe. The THREE lunatics posting here are unabashed conservatives that go after the liberal lies and deceit prevalent in the debate of the day. We'd like to add that the views expressed here do not reflect the views of other inmates, nor were any inmates harmed in the creation of this site.

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Reyes Supports More Troops In Iraq

I am not happy that my husband jumped on the ISG story first, but such is life when you are doing homework, and he has access to the computer. (And no, this is not jealousy from the fact that he was on Hugh Hewitt's show; he has been a caller several times, and that is his thing. I would be too nervous to call into a talk show.)

But what I would like to address (maybe I will touch on the ISG report tomorrow, after I have read it) is that Silvestre Reyes, the man that Nancy Pelosi picked to be the new House Intelligence Committee chairman, has stated that we need more troops in Iraq/li> and less talk of withdrawal. I suppose he has not spoken with James Baker, yet.

Hat-Tip: Allah @ Hot-Air.

“We’re not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies,” Reyes said. “We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … We certainly can’t leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes [like] Afghanistan” was before the 2001 invasion by the United States…

When asked how many additional troops he envisioned sending to Iraq, Reyes replied: “I would say 20,000 to 30,000—for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military…

When a reporter suggested that was not a position that was likely to be popular with many House Democrats, Reyes replied: “Well again, I differ in that I don’t want Iraq to become the next Afghanistan. We could not allow Iraq to become a safe haven for Al Qaeda, for Hamas, for Hizbullah, or anybody else. We cannot allow Iran or Syria to have a free hand in there to further destabilize the Middle East.” ...

... Reyes added that he was “very clear” about his position to Pelosi when she chose him over two rivals—Rep. Jane Harman of California and Rep. Alcee Hastings—to head the critical intelligence post…

[W]hen asked what he told Pelosi about his thinking on Iraq, Reyes replied: “What I said was, we can’t afford to leave there. And anybody who says, we are going pull out our troops immediately, is being dishonest … We’re all interested in getting out of Iraq. That’s a common goal. How we do it, I think, is the tough part. There are those that say, they don’t care what Iraq looks like once we leave there. Let’s just leave there. And I argue against that. I don’t think that’s responsible. And I think it plays right into the hands of Syria and Iran.”

Has anyone contacted Ms. Pelosi yet? She has another Democrat running off of the reservation. Or was this a put-up; he says she was aware of his thoughts regarding Iraq. Was Mr. Reyes the olive branch that Ms. Pelosi will point to when the nutroots start throwing a tantrum. In other words, will she explain to the Michael Moore's and Kos-Kiddies that they need to work together?

Will the nutroots even buy it?

Mr. Reyes is doing his job buy stating that the solution is not retreating from the battle. He believes as many do, that there need to be more troops there. To win, we have to have an increase in troop strength, and we must be prepared to actually win. He sounds similar to Zell Miller, but I am not holding my breath that his statement will match the rhetoric after Congress reconvenes--with Democrats in power--in January.



Post a Comment

<< Home

weight loss product