Pelosi Names Reyes to Head Intelligence Committee

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2006
Posted on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 01:38:21 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

It's official. House speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi has named former Border Patrol agent and current Congressman Silvestre Reyes to head the House Intelligence Committee.

What's his background?

Known as "Silver" to friends, Reyes was drafted into the Army and served during 1966-68 as a helicopter crew chief and gunner. His service included 13 months in Vietnam.

He rose through the ranks during 26 years of service in the Border Patrol, leaving as a senior law enforcement official in Texas in 1995. He won his seat in Congress the next year.

What will the agenda be?

Under Democratic control, his committee is expected to increase public oversight of some of the most difficult issues facing the United States, including terrorism, Iraq and government surveillance. Given the committee's inherently secret nature, much of the work will have to be done behind closed doors.

....He also wants to look at the role of intelligence three years after the war in Iraq and the state of traditional spycraft, now referred to as "human intelligence."

"We haven't required or haven't had the administration give us the details, evaluation or plan of how these classic programs are functioning," said Reyes, who will be the first Hispanic chairman of the committee.

< What's Wrong With the Media: A Howler Example | Tag, You're It: For 40 Years >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Pelosi Names Reyes to Head Intelligence Committee | 12 comments (12 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by cpinva on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 06:11:02 PM EST

well, not to be a total smartass, but one hopes it will be, um..................intelligence?

: Which will be a welcome change from its ... (none / 0) (#5)
by Sailor on Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 10:15:44 AM EST

... current oxymoronic meaning.

This is why they have transferring... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Bill Arnett on Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 12:05:48 PM EST

...many intelligence operations to the Pentagon, where they hope to be able to cite "executive privilege" and deny congress access to vital information.

Afraid of hearings. That is why, IMO, that Rumsfeld, and now his top deputy, have resigned. They cannot refuse a congressional subpoena, but they can certainly say, "I don't recall and no longer have access to the records needed to answer your question."

You don't think bush fired him for any OTHER reason do you? CYA, baby, CYA.

Ah, but they DID, often and repeatedly... (5.00 / 0) (#12)
by Bill Arnett on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 12:05:15 PM EST

...state exactly that: If the democrats win they will try to impeach bush and keep him under constant assault with baseless investigations and the terrorists will win.

"A vote for a democrat is a vote for terrorists."

"If democrats win they will cut and run from Iraq and then we'll be fighting the terrorists here on the streets of America!"

"Everyone KNOWS that the terrorists will celebrate if the defeato-crats win."

And too many more idiotic, slanderous statements THAT THE PUBLIC DID NOT BUY BECAUSE THE AVERAGE AMERICAN IS TOO SMART TO BELIEVE ANYMORE RETHUGLICAN LIES.

Thank god bush has forever destroyed the myth that republicans can govern, and he may have completely destroyed any chance of rethugs retaining the presidency, much less attaining the neocon fantasy of "one-party rule forever."

intel committee (1.00 / 1) (#9)
by diogenes on Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 01:35:19 PM EST

I guess it wouldn't have been a big vote winner for the Dems to announce before the election that part of their platform if they got the House majority would be to not promote Harman and try to kick off Heyer. Or else they would have announced it.

The agenda is to torture Bush with years of intelligence committee hearings regardless of the merits; Harman wouldn't have put up with that, so she wasn't picked.

: And in just what manner did you... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Bill Arnett on Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 02:24:32 PM EST

...ascertain that:

The agenda is to torture Bush with years of intelligence committee hearings regardless of the merits; Harman wouldn't have put up with that, so she wasn't picked.
Physic divination? Tarot cards? Reading tea leaves? Casting bones? Flipping a coin? Slaughtering a chicken to read the entrails and blood splatters? Voodoo? That old black magic? A physic reading by a Gypsy? Biting the head off a bat? Channeling Nostradamus? Rock, paper, scissors? A game of jacks? Cutting cards? Throwing darts at a a selection of picture?
It is one thing to speculate, quite another to impugn another's motives and intentions based on a fantasy interpretation of events not remotely supported by your interpretation and divining the future intent of others based upon that fantasy.
The FACT is that they have, in congress, limitations as to how long a person serves on the Intelligence Committee without regard to seniority in the position.
Jane Harmon has passed that time limit and never had a legitimate claim to the Chair of that committee anyway, but, of course that doesn't conveniently fit in with neocon/rethug talking points, does it?

The Intel Fight (none / 0) (#1)
by skreddy on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 02:46:04 PM EST

It strikes me that Pelosi may have never considered Hastings or Harman for the Intel spot, and that we've just been watching this fight via shadows on the wall.

In any case, congrats to Silvestre, and thanks to Nancy for picking someone who was actually correct when it came to the flawed intel surrounding the Iraq war. Yes, being wrong on Iraq should disqualify you from running a core piece of our defense / foreign policy apparatus.

Skreddy (1.00 / 2) (#3)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 09:17:29 AM EST

you write:

Yes, being wrong on Iraq should disqualify you from running a core piece of our defense / foreign policy apparatus.

I was just wondering if you apply this philsophy to everything, including yourself.

If not, why not? It seems to me that those who demand perfection must themselves be perfect.


Perfection (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Repack Rider on Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 10:54:26 AM EST

It seems to me that those who demand perfection must themselves be perfect.

Being aware that the Iraq intel was cooked hardly required "perfection."

Adequacy is a reasonably attainable threshhold.


: Yeah, (4.00 / 1) (#7)
by aw on Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 11:08:28 AM EST

We knew. And we don't even get paid for it.

Sh*t happens (4.00 / 1) (#4)
by aw on Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 09:47:21 AM EST

This is PPJ's way of saying IOKIYAR, because he's never been this forgiving of Democrats (except those who have collaborated with Bush/Republicans).


hahahahahaha (none / 0) (#13)
by squeaky on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 01:03:54 PM EST

....those who demand perfection.....

You are right ppj. Everyone makes mistakes. Too bad the murderous criminals who lied cheated and stole made the mistake of getting caught.....

Since we tend to forget that 'nobody's perfect', I recommend that you send a note to the prosecutor at the war crimes trial to remind him of your little truism.
