Blue Dogs - Barking Up The Wrong Tree

With yet another nod to David Sirota we are left to ask how much longer some Democrats are going to squander American and Iraqi lives while they continue to hide behind the words “Support the Troops?”

Sirota directs us to today’s Washington Post article entitled ”Murtha Stumbles on Iraq Funding Curbs.” The article’s authors, Jonathan Weisman and Lyndsey Layton, suggest that, without seeing the entire text of a proposal from Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), certain Democrats are falling all over themselves in declaring the proposed amendment to the upcoming Iraq supplemental spending bill, “…a non-starter, an absolute non-starter..."

What do we know about Murtha’s proposal? In a February 15th video interview on MoveCongress.org Murtha says he wants to craft language that would require that, ”To be sent to battle, troops would have to have had a year's rest between combat tours. Soldiers in Iraq could not have their tours extended beyond a year there. And the Pentagon's "stop-loss" policy, which prevents some officers from leaving the military when their service obligations are up, would end. Troops would have to be trained in counterinsurgency and urban warfare and be sent overseas with the equipment they used in training.” According to Congressman Murtha, this would have an immediate impact on the numbers of troops, George Bush could deploy to Iraq in support of his so-called surge. In fact, it would almost certainly stop it in its tracks. So where is this Democratic ‘non-starter’ talk coming from?

According to the Post,

”It (The release of Murtha’s web interview)came the day before the House voted on a nonbinding resolution opposing Bush's additional troop deployments that Democratic leaders had been touting as a major rebuke. Murtha dismissed that vote as he promoted his coming plans regarding the war spending bill. "This vote will be the most important vote in changing the direction on this war," he said of his proposal. "This vote will limit the options of the president and should stop the surge."
To many Democrats, that was not only impolitic, it was disloyal.
"He stepped all over Speaker Pelosi's message of support for the troops," said Rep. Jim Cooper (Tenn.). "That was not team play, to put it mildly."”

Excuse me? Murtha says you cannot send unrested, untrained, and ilequipped troops into battle and that somehow steps on a “Support the Troops Message?” While the article points out that Congress has been on recess since Murtha’s interview and the House vote and it suggests that much of what has been said has been as filler for the void in actual Democratic talking points, I can’t help but believe that Rep. Cooper and the rest of his friends over at the conservative “Blue Dog Democrats Coalition” just don’t have a clue about what true “team play” and “Support the Troops” look or sound like. According to the article,

”"While we're all for troop readiness, we're all for them having all the equipment they want," (Rep. Jim)Matheson, the Utah Democrat, said, "I'd be very concerned about doing anything that would hamstring resources and commanders on the ground."
Indeed, Matheson and other Blue Dogs said the Democrats should concentrate on oversight hearings on Iraq policy, while refraining from binding legislation on the war.”

So for all the talk about a 97 word non-binding resolution being a “first step” apparently the larger question is, do we have a shared destination in mind? For the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people, I hope so.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue