I thought she was passed over for being too willing to roll over for the Bush administration. I guess I got the wrong blogosphere meme.

I thought the deal was that Jane was "passed over" because of some long term personal squabbles with Pelosi.

We may have to wait until tomorrow to see if Reyes does a 360 on his comments.

Two words: ugh!

Kevin: aside from the matters you discuss, there's much to like about "Si" Reyes. He's a proud Democrat with a distinguished network of Silvestre Reyessupporters. And, no matter what happens he's always got your back.

Like Chomsky said: we're a one-party state, with two factions. Reyes remarks should make Chomsky's maxim abundantly clear to all who still cleave to the idealistic notion that Democrats resemble anything approximating an "opposition party."

what planet do these people come from?

I warned you. It is public knowledge that Reyes hung around with "Crazy" Curt Weldon alot. They made a few "fact finding" trips together. If you can't heed the warnings, I don't know what to tell you.

Maybe I'm falling into a trap here by even responding to those comments, but what's the deal with the two comments above regarding Israel? Even if the notion of a great Jewish conspiracy *weren't* completely ridiculous, how exactly would Pelosi's choice of Reyes be seen as evidence of it?

oops, nevermind. Looks like the comments in question have already been moderated into oblivion. All for the best.

I believe the reason one was picked over the other was that Harmon was willing to let oversight slight and pretend that nothing was wrong when things were, in fact, wrong.

Like, for instance, the supplemental budgets which have become the actual, expected budget - but they pretend they aren't going to spend this money until the end of the year, when it's already spent and 'you're against the troops' if you don't approve their armor budgets...

...Even though the money never actually gets to the armor or the troops.

Yeah, I think she was due to be cut loose.

Which is better: someone who got it right in the beginning but has since lost his way, or someone who originally made a mistake but seems to have learned something since then?

How do we know that's the actual choice? Do we know Harman would have opposed a troop increase? What about bombing Iran/Syria? Maybe Reyes thinks that would be ridiculous, while Harmon would have been more amenable to the idea....she is a hawk.

I opposed (protested) the war, but don't necessarily think a troop increase is a priori a bad idea.

Reyes wants MORE troops?!?!?!?!

I thought Kevin Drum and his Merry Band of Ned Lamontites have been insisting on WITHDRAWAL!!!

Maybe Reyes didn't get the memo from KOS/Drum/Murtha/Michael Moore/Teddy.

Nancy just wanted to make sure California wasn't overrepresented in the House leadership.

I love how all these conspiracies get ascribed to such a tiny minority, and we can't even get together on what to have for brunch.

Harman was also at the traditional term limit for Intelligence Committee.

Is it possible that Rep Reyes' personal feelings about Iraq will not color his professional duties?

Chill out, Kevin.

I'll suspend my feelings of disappointment and dismay until I see more. This proposal is going nowhere in any case.

I'm with FreakyBeaky. I am going to wait and see on Reyes.

Sending in more troops makes no sense and is not going to happen. Reyes, like McCain, knows this.

When McCain says he wants to send in more troops, I know he is setting up his Iraq argument for the 2008 campaign. When Reyes or anyone else not running for president says it, I have no idea what they are up to.

Kevin, you're lying. Harman didn't get another term because she had reached her term limit.

But we can all play the cute "OK, let me get this straight" game. OK, let me get this straight. Pelosi is *bad* for not picking the hawk Harman for another term, and *bad* for picking the hawk Reyes instead?

Exactly what is your point, other than to spread the Republican "Pelosi is *bad*" gossip when she hasn't even been sworn in as Speaker yet?

The problem with Iraq is there are no good solutions, and McCain supports the worst of the bad solutions. It's a quagmire. As I saw a general say on CNN, we can't fight the insurgency ourselves *and* train the Iraqi forces - we have to choose one. If we send in more troops, we just delay the inevitable, because the Iraqi soldiers will always be dependent on us as long as our soldiers are doing the fighting. The only real solution is to remove our forces, and leave "advisors" to concentrate solely on training the Iraqi forces right. We can't do the fighting for the Iraqis - they must learn to deal with the insurgency themselves. It's not the best solution, but given that this was an ill-conceived, poorly-planned and poorly-executed war, it's the only rational thing to do, for the Iraqi's and our sake.

As far as I can see, the policies of the Bush administration have left us (democrat, republican, libertarian, green party, socialist, and independent) with NO easy or clear choices in Iraq. What we can hope for, from Mr. Reyes, is an openess to new ideas and facts as they emerge. That would be a great change from the way business was conducted in the past.

Would the Dems really pay a political price for passively, reluctantly going along with a stupid GOP plan (="stay the course" in Iraq) that cannot be easily stopped as long as "Shrub" is President...?
---
The way see it, Pelosi & co. should play the high-minded bipartisanship card on this touchy issue ('We don't think this will work, but we are willing to give the President [& McCain] what he wants for one final year'). Some useful concessions could be extracted from this as well, e.g. the White House would have to raise taxes for the wealthiest 5% of the US population to pay for additional troops. This would really infuriate the GOP base.
---
The war is mainly a drag on *Republicans* who started the whole thing. Why stop McCain -- the leading GOP candidate for 2008 -- if he wants to commit political harakiri...? The loss of US and Iraqi lives is of course unfortunate, but there is little Dems can do about it. The most important thing, though, is to make absolutely sure American voters learn the right lesson from this fiasco. To do that, we have to let the McCainiacs and Bushies self-destruct for another year, by which time a very large majority of Democrats *and* Republicans will be open to a new and better strategy in the Middle East.

MARCU$

Makes you wonder if Pelosi spoke to Reyes before appointing him committee chair.

Harman was, by her own admission years ago, Republican-lite. She has never strongly opposed Bush's Iraq or intelligence policies. She is reminiscent of Daschle, who when lawn-mowered over by the Republican Senate leadership, would quaintly state his disappointment with the process.

Harman is very qualified for the job but she has never demonstrated the backbone to staunchly stand up to Bush. The Dems won the leadership because the public wants a new direction in Iraq which translates - get out of Iraq. And Harman will lead on this issue?

Harman's credentials are impressive but she lacks one essential qualification - a backbone.

Jane Harman was passed over for the committee chairmanship because she had supported the war and was just generally a little too hawkish on national security matters.

Ah, a "little too hawkish on national security matters." Is that what the kids are calling "Oh, yes, Mr. President, tap our phones! Please, sir! I know you want to protect us!" these days?

I never stop being amazed at Drum's infinite ability to write sentences that carry GOP water.

Was "hawkishness" ever a consideration?
As I saw it, the flap over the Intel chair was a test of Pelosi's skill at navigating between the Scylla of angering the Congressional Black Caucus and the Charybdis of her beef with Harman.

reyes just called mccain's bluff.

Oh, my goodness, the religious right will be up in arms over Pelosi being guided by Thetis.

Now, if only Straight Talk could become Odysseus.

Rumsfeld leaves, Director Military Intelligence leaves, Bolton leaves, and a guy on the Intelligence Committee can't figure we're going home?

He wants to send more troops for political reasons when we've decided to make our last political effort and leave.

I think he's made a deal with Dion and the Liberals that Dean, Clinton, and Carvelle came to see while the Canadians voted to end the passport
requirement and stop the US/Canada fence. I think this is what he's already dealt and now he wants the same type deals with Iraq?

Who does he work for?

The country is still hawkish on iraq - they still want to win. And the Dems don't want to be politically crippled as the party that "lost Iraq" for the next 25 years. Everybody wanted to get out of Iraq, the dems pulled the plug and they've been blamed for losing vietnam.

Kevin, I think you mentioned it (or maybe somebody else) the power the Dems have is they can control the hearings.

The Dems are going to have the Generals come up to congress and say "We need this ... And in six months we'll accomplish this..."
In six months, there will be another hearing. The Generals will be held accountable.

The Generals will have to get us out of this war.

Now, if only Straight Talk could become Odysseus.

I see him more as one of Bush's--er, Penelope's--ardent suitors.

I think Reyes looked at McCain, and thought: Everybody in Washington pays attention to McCain, takes him seriously, and considers him an "independent". It's a pretty sweet gig. How can I get in on that action too?

I know! I'll just say what McCain says!

Actually, Digby at Hullabaloo thinks this is just Reyes cannily forcing McCain's hand:

McCain's the big tough guy who's been saying 20,000 more troops is the answer. What happens if he gets them? Does he flip flop and say it was too late after all when things don't go well? Does he blame the troops for not being able to get the job done? It's quite the dilemma for the man who thought he had a fool proof way to run as the only one in Washington who knew how to fight and win the war like a man.

If McCain kept saying that we need 20,000 more troops, and we never got them, he'd have his excuse for the 2008 campaign: "oh, if only they'd listen to me this would all have turned out well!" He doesn't, however, actually want anyone to really listen to him -- he just wants the excuse that they didn't. If Democrats, however, take McCain up on his offer and say "yeah, you know what, 20,000 more troops sounds like a great plan! Let's do it!" then he's screwed.

Hormonal Citizen:

I love how all these conspiracies get ascribed to such a tiny minority, and we can't even get together on what to have for brunch.

Brunch? I refuse to attend brunch. Let's have afternoon tea and discuss how all of you are going to do what your uncle Norman tells you to do, yes?

And I'm shocked at you liberals:

In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, 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."

There's a man who wants to win!

Of course he would come under fire from a liberal constituency that wants to lose the war in Iraq! You're all beating the drums of defeat and you're all marching in step to the music being played out of Speaker Pelosi's office!

Have you drawn up the articles of surrender so that you can turn our freedoms over to Osama bin Laden for safekeeping? I want all of you chickie-babes to wear burkas to the ceremony and remember--show an ankle, and it's curtains for you, toots.

The Democrats have been saying for years that we need more troops in Iraq. One question: Where do we get them from?

I never stop being amazed at Drum's infinite ability to write sentences that carry GOP water.
Shortstop

Kevin is a good man in denial. Denial at how low we have sunk under this administration...I think he'll eventually come around.

The Democrats have been saying for years that we need more troops in Iraq. One question: Where do we get them from?

Have George Bush look for them in the Oval Office, same place he was looking for those WsMD in that hi-la-rious! video....

Hey Norman,
Go take a look at Steve Gilliard's place.
Find the posts with maps of Iraq, and read what he has to say.
Then get back to us on the wisdom of trying to stop the tide from coming in.
Then go try it in the Bay of Fundy.

Since troop strength in Iraq isn't particularly within the policy turf of the Intelligence Committee, I'm not really all that concerned. The relevant question, it would seem to me, is whether Reyes, misguided as his ideas on policy in Iraq may be, is as willing to roll over for the Bush Administration on matters of intelligence as was Harman.

Has anybody stopped to notice that Reyes is essentially going along with Zinni's recommendation? After all, Reyes is former military and he would give a lot of weight to Zinni, who was firmly against invading Iraq from the beginning.

Come on'. give these people a break. It isn't even January yet and you're whining (yes, you too Kevin) about what the Dems have or have not done and what they're saying or not saying about they're going to do. Can't you friggin' wait until the Dems actually are in control before a wholesale trashing of every move they make?

Harman: "I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities."

Isn't that a bit more relevant to a candidate's fitness as the senior person in charge of intelligence oversight than what you think about troop levels in Iraq?

Harmon was a tool of Aipac and a war booster. Despite the overwhelming opposition to the war among her constituents, she supported the war with enthusiasm. Any u-turn on the war is her attempt to save her sorry ass career.

Norman - excellent comment! These liberals want desperately for America to lose in Iraq and they know the only way for this to happen is for us to withdraw, so they are pushing for that.

Americans learned their lesson regarding this in Vietnam and the subsequent genocide, the blame for which falls squarely on the Left. We are not leaving Iraq for some time, probably at least a decade. Get used to it.

PSD - why wait until the Demo-dummies are sworn in before trashing them? Let the fun begin now, and continue for the next two years until the Republicans retain the presidency and retake both houses of Congress in 2008.

An uncaring person might say, go ahead and let the Democruds lose the War on Terror and destroy the booming economy - it's what the American people deserve for voting for them. But conservatives care too much about this country and its people for that; so we're going to put the Democruds under a microscope, point out their every defect and bash them relentlessly for the next two years until, yes and even after, the American people realize their mistake in electing them. It's going to be fun!

point out their every defect and bash them relentlessly for the next two years

By all means, in the next two years keep reminding the electorate why they voted you out in the first place. And keep defending Bush while you're at it - it'll be fun!

On C-span on a Pelosi special, it said Pelosi did not like Harmon because of her yes to the Bush administration needs. Harmon aggravated Peolosi even further when Harmon tried to put pressure on Pelosi thru a Jewish group, which ended up creating a greater spanse between the two, just irritated Pelosi further. They will find a back door (draft) or some other way to expand the corp. interests, to expand the war or presence and control of the ME, no matter who she apppoints. No matter what was said the last election. Cheney already said they will go around any opposition the Dems put out in 07? Wee'll see. We need a REAL oposseing party in this country if nothing else to keep the fear in them, and corps from buying them out, cleaner if thats possible? Any thing closer to socialism, should do it.

Basically as No Name statement says. On C-span on a Pelosi special, it said Pelosi did not like Harmon because of her yes to the Bush administration needs. Harmon aggravated Peolosi even further when Harmon, for reasons I can't remember tried to put pressure on Pelosi thru a Jewish group,(APIC?), which ended up creating a greater spanse between the two, just irritated Pelosi further. They will find a back door (draft) or some other way to expand the corp. interests, to expand the war or presence and control of the ME, no matter who she apppoints. No matter what was said the last election. Cheney already said they will go around any opposition that the Dems put out in 07? Wee'll see. We need a REAL oposseing party in this country if nothing else to keep the fear in them, and corps from buying them out, cleaner if thats possible? Any thing closer to socialism, should do it.

Awesome. I love it. Shoot, move, communicate.

>By all means, in the next two years keep reminding
>the electorate why they voted you out in the first
>place. And keep defending Bush while you're at it -
>it'll be fun!

Indeed...

TB is a fool if he does not understand what "staying the course" will do to his own party. But let's not give the Republicans a convenient excuse now, by cutting troop levels in Iraq... Instead, let's give them what they want while making sure GOP voters really "feel the pain" by e.g. tax increases to pay for the additional military spending.

MARCU$