Here are the Blue Dogs keeping requirements out of the Iraq bill.

[madfloridian]

I am going to call some more tomorrow. I had called Jim Cooper's office and one other last week. I asked them almost these words from Murtha's bill.

Does the Congressman (or woman) support requiring that all troops are properly rested, trained and equipped before being sent to Iraq?

I could not get a definite answer.

Daily Kos offers the same suggestion, with some added.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/13/181450/628

Earlier today, BarbinMD explained exactly what's wrong with the Iraq supplemental spending bill being proposed in the House. A provision of that bill allows Bush to set aside the limits that the bill would otherwise place on his ability to send untrained, unequipped, or wounded soldiers into battle.

Here's the list from MyDD of the ones who will not support the bill. I will be calling some tomorrow. Links to their sites at MyDD.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/13/164013/285

From a source close to the House Democratic caucus, here's a list of Blue Dogs that don't want to vote for this bill because it has a certain date for withdrawal.

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)

Contact info at the site.

All this is aside from the part that requires Bush to get permission on attacking Iran. That was taken out.

I see many of the comments at both sites are saying they are in red districts. I am getting to the point where I feel like saying well, if your red district wants to attack Iran will you say yes??

This red district stuff excuse is being pushed to the limit.

We will just stay in Iraq, Bush will attack Iran with impunity.

This is exactly how we went to Iraq. Our congress was too afraid to say this is wrong. They are now too afraid to say this can not go on. And so it goes on.

[wryter2000]

1. Frankly,

I think these conditions are more important than not invading Iran. Let me explain. :) I think they could say, "okay, okay, we won't invade Iran" and do it on the sly, anyway. However, the facts that they're sending under-trained, under-equipped, and under-rested troops is out in the open. I really think these conditions could shut the surge down and could shut the whole war down. To vote against the restrictions, the R's have to vote against the funding. Similarly, with a filibuster in the Senate. Their choices are accepting the restrictions or getting no money at all.

[madfloridian]

2. Nothing will be done in either instance.

I think it is all smoke and mirrors and spin. They are all playing politics with the lives of the military and the lives of the Iraqis...both sides of the aisle.

This is one of the most shameful times in our nation's history, and they are going to give Bush power to do whatever he wants.....again. Just like they did in 2002. The votes may not have been there then, but the voices were. Bill Clinton and Hillary had to have known Iraq was not an immediate threat, yet they both supported the invasion.

The voices of our Democrats who were unafraid could have stopped Iraq. And now we are going to be at war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and probably Iran. And the draft will be coming.

They have no intention of leaving Iraq. No intention of stopping Bush from attacking Iran, or even trying to do so. They have no intention of reminding our nation what happens to countries who try to tame Afghanistan.

[madfloridian]

3. Here's a list of the new Blue Dogs and the new New Dems.

I don't see Sestak there with the Blue Dogs, just the New Dems. I do know he doesn't seem to be taking firm stands about Iraq though.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/701

[Peace Patriot]

4. Just remember that Gary Condit was a "Blue Dog" Democrats. "Blue Dog" Dems

are the kind with at least three mistresses who propose placing the "Ten Commandments" in all public buildings.

The kind who meet with Dick Cheney on the very day--and during the very hours--of the permanent disappearance of one of his mistresses, and then, three days later, votes for the first Bush Junta tax cut for the super-rich, one of only ten Democrats who do so, in a very close vote.

Hypocrites. Traitors. Colluders with the enemy. They want the costs of the Junta's tax cuts for the rich, and their heinous war, to come out of the hides of the poor. They are anti-spending fanatics at a time when government spending on education, on the poor, on job training, on job creation, on innovative ideas, on conversion to alternative energy, on medical care, and on a host of progressive and economy-stimulating programs will be essential to our recovery from the Bush Junta's massive looting and destruction of our economy and our country. We are looking at disaster and we need visionary ideas, and government activism, as FDR realized during the Great Depression. We don't need "Blue Dogs" at this time, or ever. Small-minded servants of the rich and powerful.

And I would ask every one of them about the vote counting system in their districts. Whose "trade secret," proprietary code is it run on? And what do they think of vote counting methods that the citizens of this country are not permitted to see? And can they prove that they were really elected?

Put them on the defensive. Don't buy into their "Blue Dog" crap. And if you feel as I do, tell them you think their "Blue Doggyism" is disgraceful. "Blue Dog" = lapdog of the rich.

[madfloridian]

6. I wonder it they used the same "constituents" excuse for the bankruptcy bill?

I wonder how many of their constituents begged and begged for that bill?

Funny about Condit, I had forgotten.

:hi:

[thethinker]

5. Thanks

for this list. I will start calling tomorrow.

[madfloridian]

7. Found this page with all the phone numbers

http://www.bluedogdems.com/members.html