Thursday, March 08, 2007

More on Blue Dogs and Iraq

The Blue Dogs are proud of their actions and are taking credit for scuttling the Murtha plan, which would actually have forced a change with the war and ensured proper troop readiness and equipment.

While the progressives continue their effort at concrete, binding legislation on Iraq, they continue to face obstacles. At MyDD, Bowers pins much of the Democratic impasse on the Blue Dogs.
While gleefully using Republican talking points, Alan Boyd just bragged that the Blue Dogs killed Murtha's plan to do anything substantive about Iraq. If you brag that prevented Democrats from doing anything substantial about the war, then enjoy owning the Iraq war as well.

When you hear a Blue Dog say something like this:
"The war is the issue, but it's the president's issue, not ours...."

from Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK), you realize Chris is right. What a weasly, despicable approach to governing on the most important issue facing us today. No, Mr. Boren--Iraq is your issue. Your party was elected to the majority to lead, and to lead on Iraq, not to pass it off in some cynical game of hot potato. While obstructing real, concrete action on changing course on Iraq, the Blue Dogs are taking on ownership of this war. And the House leadership that lets the Blue Dogs call the shots on this one endangers taking it on as well.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

If it is the will of the American people to get out of Iraq, why do our representatives keep calling it a "redeployment" rather than a withdrawal? Are we saying we want to send them somewhere else, or bring them home?

Dixiecrat

8:16 PM  
Blogger PeterB said...

Good point, Dixiecrat. Depends on who you ask, I'd say. Some representatives want to move the troops (or just some of the troops) to another area of the region (Kuwait, for example); some sensible representatives probably would rather have some of them sent to Afghanistan, where they are badly needed; some mean actual full withdrawal but don't want to use that word.

In all cases, though, they're talking about taking military personnel out of Iraq - that means withdrawal as far as I'm concerned. Let them use whatever euphemism they want, for all I care.

10:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Problems like the oil of Iraq falling into either; Iran's religious control (theocracy controls to a large degree the political sphere in Iran) or into fanatical radical Islamic control who are ready to screw with oil supply because they don't like anyone else, especially us western types, keep the outright withdrawal from happening. Iraq's reserves are the second largest in the entire middleastern region.
If all this was happening in Pakistan or India etc (no oil reserves) we'd be so long gone.
The pre-emptive strike thing doesn't seem as bad any more as John Kerry just proposed that in Afganistan. Where are we going and who is going to lead us.

Dixiecrat

10:50 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home