A Survey of the Blue Dogs on Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:48:44 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

At daily kos, BarbinMD writes a must read post on Blue Dogs and Iraq. The heart of the matter:

I called all 43 of the Blue Dog Dems and asked:
Does the Congressman support requiring that all troops are properly rested, trained and equipped before being sent to Iraq?

A simple yes or no question. And some of the answers I received?

I'll have to get back to you on that.
Well I'm sure she does in principle...let me get back to you.

I'm pretty sure he does...let me get back to you.

Ummm, that's a sensitive issue. I'll get back to you
I'd like to run that by him. I haven't heard that question before. . . .

As Barb says, the question is simple, the answer seems obvious. But no tying Bush's hands is the Blue Dog Motto.

I think this is somewhat off topic to what the issue really is, ending the funding for the Debacle, but it is indicative of what is now acceptable in some circles of the Democratic Party.

Not in my circle.

< Lanny Davis Kisses O'Reilly's Ring | Ethics Group Calls for Special Prosecutor to Investigate U.S. Attorney Firings >

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.

A Survey of the Blue Dogs on Iraq | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

On the campuses... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:56:25 PM EST

The Students are Stirring:
A Campus Antiwar Movement Begins to Make Its Mark

"I'm As Mad As Hell, And I'm Not Going To Take This Anymore"

Time to act (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Andreas on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:52:20 PM EST

It is not enough to protest.

It is time to act:

The International Students for Social Equality (ISSE) and the Socialist Equality Party (SEP) announce an emergency conference against the US occupation of Iraq and preparations for a military assault on Iran. The conference will be held on March 31 and April 1, at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

The (none / 0) (#11)
by Wile ECoyote on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 02:10:42 PM EST

socialists are having a conference. That counts as action?


: Question (none / 0) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 05:48:55 PM EST

Didn't you smell it??
;-)

In Other Words.... (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by kdog on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:59:19 PM EST

Our congresspeople don't go the restroom without clearing it with their handlers and media gurus.

What I said two weeks ago (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:02:09 PM EST

and maintain now is that the only way we can get close to defunding is if we brutalize the blue dogs.

: To the Blue Dogs (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:08:11 PM EST

If you want to end the war in Iraq, then find a way that works to do it.
And if you don't try find a way, a REAL way, if you continue to try to bullsh*t people, you must have forgotten how fast and how deep and how wide the disapproval of the rethugs grew.
Defund now. Get the message. Don't worry about cowardly labelling and sloganeering from the rethugs. Go on the offensive, and turn it around on them when they do it, by calling them out for what they are: cowardly, murderous psychopaths.
Or else... You saw last November what will happen to you if you don't.

Sign and pass on (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Dadler on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 05:03:17 PM EST

Fillibuster for Peace petition, calling on the Senate to end the war.

Big Tent (1.00 / 1) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 06:00:48 PM EST

Do you still beat your wife?

BTW - Do you really think those people are that stupid??

Are you crazy? (none / 0) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:43:01 PM EST

Do you want this comment deleted?

I can't imagine what you think you are about.


Nope. (1.00 / 1) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:30:02 PM EST

Big Tent - The comment is simple. There is no correct answer. And if you think these staffers can't figure that out, then you must have a low opinion of their intelligence.

BTW - Don't threaten me. If you can delete the comment, do it.


: Are you really equating the questions? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:56:25 PM EST

My gawd you really are not very smart are you?

Tsk, Tsk (none / 0) (#26)
by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 06:13:32 AM EST

sinking to Sailors level.


More accurately. . . (none / 0) (#5)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:33:47 PM EST

it sounds like a survey of low-level Blue Dog staffers who, when confronted with detailed and obviously fraught language, are unable to answer.

If I got a call like that and unless there had been a directive covering that specific language, I'd answer the same way.

No (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by BarbinMD on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 02:04:46 PM EST

I called their Communications Directors/Press Secretaries.


I beg your pardon. . . (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 02:08:01 PM EST

I'm only going on the diary here (I can't see dKos today because of filters at my location). Clearly, the Press Secretary is not "a low-level staffer". That's the power of front page dKos status, I guess!

In any event, the responses quoted in this diary make it sound like the respondenents were confused by the specificity of the question you asked. Was that your impression? Or do you think they knew what you were asking about but were trying to dodge?


: Sure sure (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 04:18:25 PM EST

Silly questions get silly answers (none / 0) (#6)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:48:33 PM EST

To paraphrase Billy Clinton it all depends on what you mean by "properly rested, trained, and equipped."

BTW, what is "properly rested" anyway?

Should a unit that does not have 100% of its required equipment be barred from deployment even if it is something so trivial as one soldier missing one spare shoe lace?

This is not a silly matter (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by annefrank on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 02:02:25 PM EST

By the standards that are determined (none / 0) (#13)
by prairiefire on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 02:33:46 PM EST

by each branch of the military to be necessary for optimal military readiness. All branches have these types of standards as a routine matter for as long as I can recall and they are what the Murtha proposal requires.


Sweet (none / 0) (#14)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 03:00:23 PM EST

Well, if the military sets these standards it is a simple matter for the military to always be in compliance. Just adjust the standard as necessary to allow deployment.

BTW, the submarine service at one time required 20/20 uncorrected vision. When I applied in the mid-70's they waived my 20/400+ eye sight (this means you can't see the big E without glasses)because they were short bodies due to too many druggies.

Deployment standards are the same as the level will be set to meet requirements/


: Murtha's approach sets current standards in stone (none / 0) (#17)
by prairiefire on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 04:53:53 PM EST

requiring presidential certification for violating them. Bush would do this in a heartbeat although it would at least focus a public spotlight on the readiness and broken military issue. It remains to be seen, however, if there will be much public revulsion at the idea of using poorly qualified, trained and equipped troops as cannon fodder. It didn't seem to bother most people much during Vietnam and doesn't seem to be doing so now although I don't think most people realize how bad things truly are.
Most of the uniformed military command structure seem to be strongly opposed to returning to the days of post-Vietnam readiness requirements but they have a duty to implement civilian policy as best they can. It is a civilian responsibility to ensure that standards are kept high.

Sure it is-- very silly (none / 0) (#12)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 02:11:06 PM EST

Now if none of them follow-up and get back to her with an answet, then maybe she might have something worth saying.

As it is, she spoke to people who said they wanted a chance to ask their bosses (the people about you presumably are interested) before putting word in the bosses' mouths.

Actually, "silly" is being nice. i'd call it being completely unfair and exposing a motive differen than the one claimed which seems dishonest to me.

WSWS on war funding resolution (none / 0) (#16)
by Andreas on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 04:27:01 PM EST

The Democratic Congressional caucus is engaged in its own internal debate, with the House leadership seeking, apparently with considerable success, to quash attempts by a minority to push for de-funding the war and legislation mandating a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by the end of this year. ...
The "best" the Democrats can get--just four months after midterm elections in which massive popular antiwar sentiment handed them a stunning victory over the Republicans--is legislation that provides more than $100 billion to continue and escalate the war.
The claims that this measure will somehow compel Bush to end the war are entirely spurious. None of the conditions that are being attached to the supplemental bill would tie the administration's hands in the slightest. Supposed withdrawal "deadlines" contained in the draft being circulated in Congress are as nonbinding as the symbolic resolution "disapproving" of Bush's 21,500-troop "surge" passed by the House last month, the same surge that the Democratic leadership now proposes to fully fund. ...
In the end, all of the attempts to explain away the Democrats' position as a matter of pragmatic politics or an incremental strategy aimed at pressuring the White House begs the real explanation: the Democratic Party, like the Republicans, represents a ruling aristocracy in America that continues to support the original aims of the Iraq war--seizing control of the oil wealth of the Persian Gulf. ...
The Democratic-controlled Congress is going to grant the administration well over $100 billion to finance the escalation of the war in Iraq, all of its hollow antiwar rhetoric notwithstanding. A debate and vote on the funding could come in the House as early as next week.
What this money will pay for is a savage intensification of the repression of the Iraqi people.

Demands additional 8,200 troops, $3.2 billion
Bush calls Democrats bluff on war funding resolution
By Bill Van Auken, 13 March 2007

The supplemental bill (none / 0) (#25)
by Che's Lounge on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 01:52:42 AM EST

also includes money for NOLA reconstruction, farm subsidies and other non Iraq programs.

Want to help NOLA? Then you have to vote to fund the war in Iraq.

Andreas,
Excellent excerpt.

: Che (none / 0) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 07:21:07 AM EST

All Bush has to do is point out that it is the Demos causing him to reject it....
Remember when the Repubs shut the government down??

Yeah (none / 0) (#28)
by Che's Lounge on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 08:48:00 AM EST

the Devil made him do it. Seems George gets around.

And the rubes will buy his BS. Hook, line and sinker.

: Well, it worked for the Demos.... (none / 0) (#29)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 09:38:32 AM EST