Harman & Blue Dogs Plan and the Murtha Resolution

Sadly, the more I learn, the more stupid I feel for not being more skeptical of this Blue Dog proposal. It was made just a couple days after John Murtha reintroduced his resolution that plainly shows the failure that has already occurred in Iraq and terminates deployment of US forces in Iraq. While not setting a timetable for the redeployment, it's quite definitive that Congress is stopping the authorization to make war.

Here's the full text:

To redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq.

Whereas Congress and the American people have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to `promote the emergence of a democratic government';

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U.S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U.S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas more than $471 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 3,026 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency;

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 91 percent of Sunni Iraqis and 74 percent of Shiite Iraqis want the U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 61 percent of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified; and

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Sec. 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Sec. 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

Now here's some coverage on what the Blue Dogs are doing:

A group of forty-four "fiscally conservative" Democrats will not call for an end to America's military involvement in Iraq, RAW STORY has learned. Instead, the Blue Dog Coalition of House Democrats will introduce legislation this week focusing on accountability for money the White House wants to spend on the nearly four year long Iraq War.

In a press conference last Friday, Rep. Jane Harman, the California Democrat who was formerly the ranking minority member of the House Intelligence Committee, announced a bill she would sponsor this week on behalf of the Blue Dog Democrats: "Providing for Operation Iraqi Freedom Cost Accountability." The provisions of the bill focus on Congressional oversight of the funds used to pay for operations in Iraq.
[.........]

The Blue Dogs will not speak out as a group on whether or not to call for an end to the Iraq war. "They will not draft a resolution or course regarding the troops other than one of support for our soldiers in harm's way," said Jon Niven, Communications Director for Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR), who co-chairs the caucus.

OK, so they won't as a group draft a resolution on ending the war themselves - but will they as a group oppose one submitted by somebody else, like Murtha? Will Dems voters in their districts set them straight so they won't block it

No matter the case, if Harman fights against this reasonable resolution to end the Iraq war, then she'll be in real trouble in this district. I doubt people will be fooled by her proposals for long...