Be sure to check out
this piece from MSNBC/Newsweek with the next chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Silvestre Reyes:
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. One widely cited reason that Harman, a moderate Democrat who supported the war, didn't get the nod from Pelosi is that the Speaker-designate wanted somebody who would be more aggressive in standing up to the Bush White House-which Reyes promises to be on other issues like domestic wiretapping and CIA secret prisons.
This issue is going to be very divisive on both sides of the aisle. If there is a significant reason to increase troop levels in Iraq, I think we should do so; but I don't think we should pour more resources in to it unless there is a real reason to do so. I'm a believer in the idea that we need to go back on the offensive and kill the enemy instead of playing games with a "new and enhanced diplomacy" (whatever that is)...if it takes more troops to do that, then I'm all for it. Otherwise, what is the point?
