In the comment section of this post, one of the commenters took exception to this quote:

“BTW, it is a political ploy to embarrass the president”

And stated that I was “being intellectually dishonest here” but what else do you call it when the same people who have been for troop build up are suddenly against it when Bush proposes it. Case in point:

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.

And he is not the only one, other Democrats have been for troop buildup and now when Bush proposes it, they are against it.
BTW, this is the same Congressman who didn’t know whether al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite.