Blaming the “Blue Dogs” is kind of lame. Iraq is the #1 issue of our times. The stance of the Democrats in 2006 on the Iraq war was a huge factor in their success.

…
The war has been a disaster, yet the Repubs are able to control the message and keep discipline. Yet the Dems have no message and no disciple despite the war being a disaster.

I disagree. The message essentially is, “We’re going to wipe you off the political map if you don’t go along with us and the public and end the Iraq occupation.” And, I think they are getting the message loud and clear.

That it’s slow-going is frustrating, but that’s the fault of Dubya and his rubber stamps.

… You’ve got to outplay the enemy (R team) and out-TACTIC them. Sadly enough, I don’t see too much inspiring tactics coming from my beloved D team.

Right now it’s a ground game and that’s always slow going.

Clusterfuck says that if congress cuts off war funds, he’ll just take the money from somewhere else in the budget—that would produce and interesting conflict testing whether congress has any fuckin power at all to stop a war…

What will Clusterfuck’s supreme court say?

Should be interesting, eh?

I’m certainly not giving up on this issue- but I’m not very optimistic either…

The political calculus has not changed since the last time congress punted on this issue.

I wouldn’t be too sure about that. The political power balance is pretty fluid these days.

I’m disenheartened by how little we heard from the Dem leadership overall. It’s like they went into complete hiding. What gives?

Congress is in recess. It’s time for them to go out and play. :-)

Seriously, this is a time for them to go around their districts and speak to their constituents, or if they’re Republican, to hide.

A preview of coming attractions?

On the GOP side, Rep. Jerry Porter (R-NV3) reports back on his dog-and-pony show tour of Iraq, where he saw a slightly different show than the one the vet highlighted in this post has been on. From the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

Gasoline prices could rise to about $9 per gallon if the United States withdraws troops from Iraq prematurely, Rep. Jon Porter said he was told on a trip to Iraq that ended this week.

The Nevada Republican, who returned Tuesday from his fourth trip to Iraq, met with U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Iraqi Deputy President Tariq al-Hashimi and Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh.

“To a person, they said there would be genocide, gas prices in the U.S. would rise to eight or nine dollars a gallon, al-Qaida would continue its expansion, and Iran would take over that portion of the world if we leave,” Porter said Wednesday in a phone interview from Las Vegas.

Porter did not elaborate on the assessment that gasoline prices could spike.

To a person? It will be interesting to see what happens if Petraeus says this to the whole Congress, in public. Somehow, I don’t think folks in Congress will let an “assessment” like that slide without a little elaboration.

Iraq is exporting LESS oil now that it was in the period Saddam was in power…both the IED and the GAO report show this! And there is no way that the entire loss of Iraqi oil exports would have anywhere near this impact. In fact, it would be likely that Iran would ENCOURAGE the export of oil, particularly from Basra.

The only one that would interfere in this would be the United States. And if the US decided to attack the Iranian oil fields then prices would shoot up…so that is actually more likely under Bush. The whole Persian Gulf region would be destabilized with an attack on Iran. And such a military adventure would use hundreds of millions of gallons of fuel. Even higher gas prices. Allk that gas could be otherwise available to consumers.

A withdrawal would also reduce the egregious use of fuel by the occupying army, although there would be short term incraeses related to shipping forces and equipment elsewhere. But that would be a blip on the Iraq Occupation bubble. In the long run

But $8-9/gallon gas prices would likely be just what the Bush cabal and his energy company buddies desire.

I’ve been a Democrat longer than Hillary Rodham Clinton. And you, Ms. Clinton are a very poor substitute for a Democrat. And yes, I’ll hold my nose and vote for my party’s nominee (if it’s you). Raspberries, nonetheless to you… HRC.

My first vote was for LBJ in 1964. I’ve voted for every Democratic candidate since. They weren’t always my choice in the primaries, but I found a way to be enthusiastic in the general. Unfortunately, in many cases, other Democrats didn’t and we a whole slew of Republican presidents. I’m not going to badmouth any of the candidates now. Why increase animosity and differences when a unified party will be absolutely necessary in 2008?

That letter is chilling.

Brian Baird says soldiers have “earned more time” to keep fighting in Iraq. One wonders what they would have “earned” if they’d screwed it all up.

I guess that’s why he voted against the Webb Bill that would have required mandatory rest standards and limited tour lengths. “You guys EARNED the 17-month tours!”

I wonder since Baird asserts he really hasn’t changed his “Break It, You Fix It” philosophy why he never REVEALED that this was his view when he was running for office, instead cloaking himself as an anti-War candidate. Instead he ran under false pretenses, lying to his constituents. Now it seems he was really only “anti-Invasion” but is gung ho on the perpetual OCCUPATION.

Hard to see where he differs from the Bush Administrations agenda if he insists we are in it until the Iraqis are able to handle things on their own. That’s precisely Bush’s stated position.

Of course, Iraq is so badly broken as a result of our invasion and CONTINUED occupation that our presence is only ging to stretch out the chaos.

And Baird seems oblivious to how impossible it will be for the military to do this very much longer. Extend the tours longer and cut home leaves to 4 months???