New Perspective, New Unity Among Hill Democrats on Iraq

[bigtree]

By Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 31, 2007; Page A06

President Bush continues to warn that Democratic demands for U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq are reckless, even dangerous. But for the first time since the conflict began four years ago, Democrats are not flinching in their opposition.

Every time Congress has voted on Iraq this year, Democrats have picked up a little more support to set timelines for bringing troops home. The momentum culminated this week when the 48 Democrats present in the Senate, joined by two Republicans, voted for a target date for troop withdrawals.

Much of the gain for the Democrats came from their most conservative members. Many of them had refused to support a withdrawal date less than a year ago . . .

"Last summer, I didn't want to do anything to hurt the morale of our troops," said Rep. Dennis Cardoza (Calif.), a conservative Blue Dog Democrat who voted last June for the House Republican resolution but who sided with his party this month. "At this point, we're beyond morale. We're in serious jeopardy, and the president seems to have no clue how to get us out of this."

Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), a Blue Dog leader who also voted with the GOP last June, said he has come to the realization that U.S. troops will never be able to win in Iraq because Bush's definition of victory keeps changing. Voters in Arkansas are tired of the shifting justifications, Ross said. "It's our job to reflect our constituencies, and my constituents have moved a lot in the past year," he said.

Even Democrats who question the policies enshrined in the two war-spending bills said they were compelled to make a statement. Rep. Howard L. Berman (Calif.), another Democrat who voted with the Republicans last June, said he found plenty to grouse about in the House bill. For one, the legislation would lay down benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet but would require U.S. troops to leave even if the goals are reached.

But, he added, "there comes a point in time, and we might be at that point, when this might well be a futile effort, and it's the more sensible approach to make a tactical retreat and fight again at another date in another place." And that was why he voted for the House bill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/30/AR2007033002011_pf.html

[bryant69]

1. I do find myself wondering how much of this is the bandwagon effect

As well as the very clear message Bush is trying to send i.e. that the Congress is irrelevant. But, still, whatever gets you to the right table.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[bigtree]

2. to me. it looks like the natural progression of the will of the new majority

there are many ways to move the debate (and Bush too)

[DCKit]

3. Nah, they see the bags of mail being delivered to Waxman, Leahy , Pelosi

and others and want in on the action.

[bigtree]

4. I'll bet they're getting their own mail

demanding action