"Bush Dogs" and the 200 billion for Iran/Iraq...post from Open Left.

[madfloridian]

There has to be a stopping place somewhere. Note that the post links to Fire Dog Lake and Glenn Greenwald who are jumping all over this possible vote by some of the Blue Dogs.

Bush Dogs and the $200 Billion for Iran/Iraq

FDL and Glenn Greenwald are both noting something very significant - the $200B that Bush is asking for will probably be doing to initiate a new war with Iran. Blue America, which raised a little over a half a million last cycle, will be pulling off of their Actblue page any candidate who votes for this money. That's very significant, a line in the sand.

The Iran link is another reason WA-03 Brian Baird's support of the surge, and his support of the $50B, is so pernicious. Even if he only wants to support the surge, the money will probably be diverted to military operations in Iran. Hopefully, we can recruit state Senator Craig Pridemore to challenge Baird in a primary. Pridemore is a veteran, has won in the district, is well-respected and liberal, and can beat incumbents.

Matt then adds this link about how to know a "Bush Dog" when you see one.

What is a Bush Dog Democrat? A FAQ...

He lists the ones he considers as being a part of that group.

One astute comment from the FAQ:

Gee, there's a lot of white people on there, aren't there?

Yes.

Gee, there's a lot of dudes on there, aren't there?

Yes.

Gee, there's a lot of Southerners on there, aren't it?

Yup.

Southern white dudes. What a surprise. Political scientist Tom Schaller can explain why Bush Dogs concentrate in this demographic.

The Blue Dogs as a group feel they represent the majority, which they really don't. They feel they should not block Bush's war. That puts them in the minority.

Blue Dogs say they represent the majority, but they don't want to "play general" with the war.

Some comments from Allen Boyd, A Florida Blue Dog and designated possible Bush Dog.

"We think this is the group that represents where the greatest bloc of Americans are -- toward that big middle. Not far left, not far right, but that big middle, that's going to be able to get things done," he added. "And it's going to have to be done on a bipartisan basis."

...""Iraq is a good example," Boyd said. "The majority of the caucus would say, 'Let's be really strong in forcing the president out of here.' Well, some of us are really uncomfortable playing general, and you're going to see that reflected in what we vote on."

Yes vote coming up on the new billions, thank to way too many of our Democrats.

[madfloridian]

1. From Glenn Greenwald: The president's escalating war rhetoric on Iran

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/29/iran/index.html

"They want a war not only with Iran, but also with Syria -- as do their ideological comrades such as Joe Lieberman, the only person whom Bush quoted yesterday in his speech.

The real tough Max Boot, in responding to Greg Djerejian's arguments that war cries against Syria are based on pure "hysteria," made sure to note yesterday that Djerejian is merely a "a lawyer who works at a financial services company," while Boot's pro-new-wars position is supported not only by Lieberman but also by what he calls "my current colleague at the Council on Foreign Relations, Mike Gerson." Many of our Serious Foreign Policy experts -- and certainly the ones with the greatest influence within the administration -- are fully on board with these new wars.

The groundwork for an attack on Iran is so plainly being laid in the same systematic way as the attack on Iraq was and by the same people. Last week, Djerejian read and then dissected the full "trip report" issued by Pollack and O'Hanlon following their return from Iraq. In addition to including even more propaganda-bolstering claims about Iraq than was found in their Op-Ed, Djerejian noted that the report also recites the most mendacious aspects of the administration's case for war against Iran, including the truly idiotic accusation regarding "Iran's ability to supply al-Qa'ida" -- an accusation so absurd that nobody other than Joe Lieberman has been willing to voice it until now. Yet now it issues from our most Serious Democratic, "liberal" foreign policy "scholars": Iran is arming Al Qaeda.

The true danger here is that even if there would be marginally more political opposition to an attack on Iran than there was for an attack on Iraq -- and surely there would be, perhaps considerably more opposition those who favor an attack are still politically strong within the administration. And there simply are no factions which would oppose such an attack that are anywhere near strong enough to stop one. Who and where are they? What are the political factions which have sufficient political strength and who are willing to risk political capital to stop such a confrontation?"

[madfloridian]

2. Another blank check on the way to Bush most likely.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1074

"Democrats have no intention of denying funding for Iraq. Instead, they want to use funding to end the war. However, as long as Bush remains in office, and the Bush Dogs remain unmoved, the working conservative majority has the votes to do this indefinitely. If Congress is ever going to engage in a real showdown with Bush over Iraq, then we need 218 members who would rather that the war not be funded at all than for the war to be funded without any conditions attached to it. Right now, we are nowhere near 218 votes on that front. Back in May, fully 86 Democrats voted against even going for a second round against Bush, with only two Republicans defecting to the anti-war side. That means we need to swing at least 70 votes to prolong the fight this time. Note that I said "prolong" the fight, rather than win it. Even if we get 70 votes to force Bush into a third round this time, there is still no guarantee any conditions will be applied to the funding."

And surprised at this from Durbin:

"Even opponents of the war, as Durbin calls himself, find themselves likely to vote for the extra money, he said. "When it comes to the budget, I face a dilemma that some of my colleagues do," he said.

He voted against the war "but felt that I should always provide the resources for the troops in the field," Durbin said. "But it's now reached a point where we have got to change the way we appropriate this money."

Though he said he is likely to approve the increased request -- it would accompany a pending request for an additional $147 billion in war funding -- Durbin said he would work to attach conditions to it that would require troops to begin coming home in the spring."

Doesn't sound that enthusiastic.

[madfloridian]

3. More "Bush Dogs" offer support on attacking Iran

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1102

Bush Dog Zack Space on Iran

"As for Iran, I believe this nation is one of the most threatening entities of our day," Space wrote."

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1076

Bush Dog Jason Altmire (PA-04) Will Offer Another Blank Check to Bush

"The president has made the decision to continue the mission at its current level, and I am never going to vote to withhold funding to our brave men and women when they are out in the field of battle serving in harm's way."