Via Greg Sargent, one of the best reporters around BTW, Move On privately grumbling to House Dems:

MoveOn is privately demanding that House Dem leaders make key changes to their legislation on Iraq -- a move that could seriously complicate the leadership's efforts to build consensus behind an approach to ending the Iraq war, Election Central has confirmed. MoveOn's Washington director, Tom Matzzie, confirmed in an interview that the group told people in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office this afternoon that they were unhappy with two major components of the bill. He said that the bill lacks tough enough enforcement language -- meaning that the bill doesn't contain strong enough provisions to compel withdrawal after the deadlines set forth in the legislation.

How about a little PUBLIC grumbling Move On?

Via my "mortal enemies" (this is a joke) at MYDD, an analysis of the latest version of the travesty that is the House Leadership/Blue Dog Iraq Supplemental Bill.

What this analysis and all analysis I have seen seems not to understand is once Bush gets the money, he need not comply with provisions that violate the separation of powers. You can agree with that view or not, but practically speaking THAT is what will happen.

You want to stop the Iraq Debacle you can not fund Bush's war. To pretend that there is another way is an insult to the intelligence of the American People. That is why I (And I speak ONLY for me) urge opposition to the House Dem Leadership/Blue Dog proposal, as it is a travesty that does nothing to end the Debacle.

Unlike MYDD, and as always, I speak only for me, I strongly oppose the Dem Leadership/Blue Dog bill that does absolutely nothing to stop the Iraq Debacle. It makes no sense whatsoever to support this Blue Dog bill that gives Bush everything he could want while at the same time giving the GOP the opportunity to demonize the Democratic Party.

For reasons only MYDD can explain, they are whipping Dem members to get them to support this travesty. I strongly oppose their efforts and urge just the opposite.

The Out of Iraq Caucus membership is provided on the flip. Since the GOP will oppose this bill, the Out of Iraq Caucus can stop this bill, a terrible bill, from becoming law. If you agree with me, contact your Congressperson and let them know.

Chris and Matt begin to understand. I had to chuckle a bit at this one, though I totally agree, and did a week ago:

[P]rogressives get whipped into voting for a compromise, and Blue Dogs get to "vote their conscience." Progressives are expected to compromise their beliefs, but then the leadership won't even stand up and fight for a compromise they wrangled out of the progressives. If the leadership is suddenly giving up on whipping votes after spending so long working on whipping votes, it can only mean one of two things. On the one hand, it means that they now have 218 votes, and are letting everyone else go. On the other hand, it means they have given up on trying to reach 218 altogether. . . .

Uh, yeeeepp. That's why I urge the Out of Iraq Caucus to vote NO on this bill.

My nemesis (not really) Matt Stoller says these are the Congresspersons who betrayed Dems on the Iraq withdrawal legislation:

Michael Arcuri (NY-24)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Melissa Bean (IL-08)
Dan Boren (OK-02)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Bud Cramer (AL-02)
Brad Ellsworth (IN-08)
Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20)
Baron Hill (IN-09)
Tim Mahoney (FL-16)
Jim Marshall (GA-08)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
John Peterson (PA-05)
John Salazar (CO-03)
Joe Sestak (PA-07)
Heath Shuler (NC-11)
Gene Taylor (MS-04)

Some of these folks do not care what we think. Some should. All are making a big mistake, policy-wise and politically. But because the Republicans will provide no more than 8 to 10 votes for this Dem legislation, this bill can go down to defeat and should. Who can be those heroes?

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. . . .

Maybe not all the Netroots, but certainly this man:

. . . This bill makes the war illegal, which is just as unenforceable as defunding the war (which Bush can easily bypass with Enron-style accounting). There is $800B in that pot, and you know the money can be moved around.

Where does this man come up with this? How in heavens does it make it illegal? By saying so? Does it repeal the Iraq AUMF? No. This is pure and simple, ignorant arrant nonsense.

One of Matt Stoller's best qualities is his willingness to roll up his sleeves and wrestle over an issue with you. He does that in his response to my post on Iraq and the Netroots:

Respectfully, your pet solution is not THE ANSWER. There is no THE ANSWER. Strategy is actually putting out a set of parameters that actually map to reality, and the reality is that there is not the discipline in the party to do what you suggest . . .

Is Matt's view of the "reality" of the situation accurate? I don't think so but really that is irrelevant. Part of being an activist, part of what the Netroots is supposed to be about, is trying to CHANGE the unacceptable reality of today. Matt seems resigned to accepting what he views the "reality" to be and to just raise the white flag on the issue.

As always, I speak for me exclusively

I can not tell you how frustrating it is to me to read this post from Matt Stoller:

I've honestly been very confused about the debate over Iraq, and much of my time has also been taken up with the Fox News scuffle over the past three weeks. Fox News was a fun fight, fun because it was so clean-cut. The objectives were clear, and what victory meant was clear.

Iraq is different. It's huge. It's the problem. . . . [T]he progressives are being pretty unstrategic and obnoxious, though that doesn't really matter either. The Blue Dogs, as usual, suck, though that too doesn't really matter.

If you're looking at it from the inside, all you see i[s] bleakness. It's unlikely that we'll be able to get a bill through the House, and through a Senate filibuster, and through a White House veto, and past a constitutional crisis. Right? The votes aren't there. They just aren't.

Matt has not been paying attention and neither has Chris Bowers.

At daily kos, BarbinMd questions why Congressional Dems place any trust in Bush on Iraq:

As House Democrats continue to hammer out the details of a toothless supplemental funding bill for Iraq, where the enforcement of benchmarks is left in the hands of George Bush, perhaps they should think about what his word means.

Barb is obviously right, of course, but we are fast approaching a point where we need to ask why we should place any trust in the House Dems. They simply will not do what must be done to even put themselves in position to stop the Iraq Debacle sometime in the future. And yes, in the end, it will require not funding the Debacle after a date certain.

I can not let go of this statement:

Pelosi's political consigliere, Rep. George Miller (D-CA)'s pitch was blunt: If the liberals team up with Republicans to bring down the Iraq bill, Democratic leaders would have no choice but to come back with a spending bill that simply funds the war, without any policy restrictions. It would pass easily, with Republican votes and the support of many Democrats.

Forget querying the why the Dem leadership would have to do that, forget the fact that Mitch McConnell will filibuster Miller's "great Compromise bill" - Bush has said he will veto it. Pelosi, Miller, Emanuel and the rest of them are negotiatating against themeslves.

There are two possibilities here: the first seems the most likely - the Dem leadership in the House is truly not very good or very bright. If this is their plan for ending the Iraq Debacle, then it will never end.

The other possibility is chilling -- the Dems do not want to end the Iraq Debacle before 2008. They want to pretend that they want to, not do anything concrete to end the Debacle, and then run against the GOP on the war in 2008.

From the NYTimes:

Over the next few weeks, the new Democratic Congressional majority will try to translate public discontent with the war in Iraq into actual policy, with a series of votes on the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq — the party’s most consequential votes yet. But the Democrats face some extraordinary political and institutional hurdles, which explain why Congress wades so reluctantly — and at times so achingly incrementally — into matters of war, veteran lawmakers say.

Extraordinary political and institutional hurdles? Balderdash. Leadership is all that is required. Getting out of Iraq is an EASY political call. Too many in the activist base (see Move On) and in the blogs (see the A List Left Blogs) think that we should "take it easy" on thye Dem leadership because "the GOP is worse" as if that is the question.

The question my friends is what is going to HELP the Dem Leadership get us out of Iraq. Letting the Blue Dogs be the only source of pressure, insisting on being the Kumbaya Caucus is to sit the battle out. We would do Pelosi and Reid no favors if we did that. They need to feel pressure from us so they can resist the pressure from the Blue Dogs.