Blue Dogs Split Dems on Iraq -- Don't Favor Disengagement

[AtomicKitten]

TWO STEPS FORWARD AND ONE STEP BACK ...

House Democrats likely to split over Iraq strategy

Michael Roston
Published: Friday January 19, 2007

Moderate 'Blue Dogs' not likely to embrace disengagement

Amid the fanfare of a 100-hour legislative agenda completed in just 42 hours, House Democratic unity will likely face its first test today: The fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats' launch of an alternative approach to the foundering war effort in Iraq.

Seeking to capitalize on Democratic discord, House Republicans declared their readiness to "rally" together on Iraq, hoping to bring some Democrats over to their side.

The generally unified Democratic position on Iraq has reached a crossroads: two sizable groups of congressmen are set to diverge on whether or not to call on the Bush administration to redeploy American troops from Iraq.

* snip *

But another sizable group of House Democrats is set to propose a different course today. The Democrats' Blue Dog Coalition -- comprised of more conservative Democrats -- will hold a press conference on the war at 11:30 am. Their proposal appears likely to include important differences from Murtha's legislation.

Currently including 44 members, the group describes itself as primarily "dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics, including a deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States."

Some Blue Dog leaders have criticized President George W. Bush's escalation plans for Iraq. Arkansas' Mike Ross, the Blue Dogs' Communications Co-Chair, has said that "sending 21,000 new troops is not a new direction, it’s simply more of the same." Kansas's Dennis Moore, the Caucus's Co-Chair for Policy, added earlier this month that "instead of the same open-ended strategy to stay in Iraq, we need to consider options put forth by the Iraq Study Group."

RAW STORY spoke to a variety of Blue Dog Democratic staff on Thursday about their pending proposal on the Iraq war. More than one noted that deliberations on the final bill would not be concluded until late in the evening.

But one aide was able to say that "the Blue Dogs are not calling for troop withdrawal tomorrow, and they're not cutting off funding, but they do want accountability and responsibility."

more at http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Fissures_emerge_in_House_Democratic_unity_0118.html

[ShortnFiery]

1. I guess they wish to have us stay until we are kicked out?

Just like in good ole' Vietnam. :eyes:

[More Than A Feeling]

2. And they plan to compel responsibility and accountability how?

It will be fascinating to hear how they plan to do that in the face of an out-of-control president. He is not going to stop because a few congresspeople are mouthing platitudes at him.

[Mojambo]

3. Sometimes you get screwed by the "big tent" pole. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

4. if there ever was an illustration of that -- it is this

and on these matters of life and death, it matters, and that is a conundrum. I believe that coalition delivers red states but when it comes to crunch time, we've taken two steps forward and one step back.

[lvx35]

5. There are so many conservative arguments against this war...

Why don't they just use those to please their constiuency? The first one I can think of is taking the money spent on the war, and dividing it by the population. If the cost per Iraq will make conservative eyes pop out. Try it.

[AtomicKitten]

6. the problem is nobody wants to be the one to pull the plug

Neither side wants the stigma of that going into 2008 not realizing, of course, that that is bullshit.

[lvx35]

7. See, that's why they need to make the argument that its not moral in the first place.

Once we are talking about stopping an immoral act, the stigma of causing "us to lose" is gone...Its more like we stopped a crime in progress.