Flipping

The new head of the House intel committee, Silvestre Reyes, committed a major faux-pas by calling for a troop increase, but reversed his position the moment the President essentially took the same exact position.

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."

Then came President Bush's expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes' recommendation and argument word-for-word -- albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.

Wouldn't you know, hours 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.

The chairman's "double-talk" did not go unnoticed. Among others, Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says such blatant "hypocrisy" undermines both national security and the war on terrorism.

So, what's changed in the time frame other than Reyes assuming the chairmanship? Has he gained some new piece of information that clarifies his standing one way or the other, or is he simply playing politics - finding fault with the Administration regardless of the positions taken? In other words, is Reyes simply complaining about the Administration's Iraq policy out of politics or deeply held convictions. It would appear to be politics as usual. The issues surrounding the troop levels has been on the table for months, and Reyes originally thought a troop increase would get the job done.

My biggest problem over the whole debate on troop levels is that the politicians are the ones making the decisions or seeking to impose troop levels on the military which has a much better idea of what troop levels are necessary. Should the politicians hamstring the military by setting a limit on the number of troops? That's what some politicians on the Left (joined by Hagel) are calling for. They don't want to allow the President, as Commander in Chief, to prosecute the war with the troops he thinks are necessary to win the war. It also undermines the Pentagon's ability to fight the war in a manner that they think will lead to victory - and the conclusion of hostilities such that the troops can return home sooner. Using something less than overwhelming force to crush the insurgency is only going to lead to continuing problems - both in the inability to hold areas that were cleared of insurgents, and dealing with any crises that may arise. Meanwhile, Congress isn't taking a strong enough look at increasing the overall number of troops in the US Armed Forces, so that troop rotations can be evened out and that present and future commitments are addressed.

Meanwhile, Northwest Airlines has reversed its stance on a group of 40 Muslims who were denied boarding a return flight from Mecca during the hajj. They were denied boarding because they arrived at the gate too late according to the airline's rules, but the reversal is par for the course:

Reacting swiftly to allegations of discrimination, Northwest Airlines apologized to a group of 40 Muslims today for barring them from a plane in Germany on their return trip from the Hajj.

The airline said it will reimburse the pilgrims for the other flights they were forced to take on their return from the Hajj, the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia.

Moreover, a ranking official of the airline said the flight for which the passengers from Metro Detroit were ticketed could have been held at the gate until all were cleared for boarding, and she is looking into why that decision was not made.

Hot Air has more, including Debbie Schussel's predictive abilities to spot a cave-in. Note that the airline says that it didn't do anything wrong, but is still giving out apologies and reimbursing them for costs. Part of this sounds like good PR, but it also smacks of a shakedown. Considering CAIR's involvment in the matter, a shakedown is highly possible.