Good gawd. They walk among us as Democrats.

I'm having a difficult time with this from the Blue Dog Democrats. I thought Joe was out of touch and he was all we had to worry about but these people are clueless and it's embarrassing that they have (D) after their name. And there are 44 of them! Amazing.

Here's what they're striving for - they don't want the occupation to stop. God knows why but like good politicians they say they want to make sure we know where all the money goes and who's spending it.

I'm beside myself with anger at this crap. Poll after poll after poll shows Americans want the troops out and while there's some quibbling over how long to take, a huge majority want us out of there. So, what are these idiots talking about? Spending the money efficiently and with accountability. Well, whoopdi freakin do; they sound like good Republicans to me. Kill some more people and watch more Americans die but spend the money wisely.

Follow me below for more detail.

Maybe I'm being too hard on these men and women but I thought the message from Nov 2006 was "get out now". How many people would've put managing the Iraq budget anywhere near the top of their list of what's important? Oh sure, they make a good point and fiscal responsibility is important but it's like saying "Let's paint the house blue" while it's burning down. Who in their right mind would care about the color of the house while it's burning? Apparently the Blue Dog Democrats would.

Here's a list of the members of this coalition. I'd like to hold them accountable for not having a clue.

Taking the lead on this is Rep. Jane Harman CA 32nd

In a press conference last Friday, Rep. Jane Harman, the California Democrat who was formerly the ranking minority member of the House Intelligence Committee, announced a bill she would sponsor this week on behalf of the Blue Dog Democrats: "Providing for Operation Iraqi Freedom Cost Accountability." The provisions of the bill focus on Congressional oversight of the funds used to pay for operations in Iraq.

In true gooblygook speak here's what Jon Nevin who's Mike Ross AR 4th' communications director says.

"They will not draft a resolution or course regarding the troops other than one of support for our soldiers in harm’s way".

And how would you support them other than with words? Incredible.

In case there's any doubt about what this group stands for

Niven's language is comparable to a bill introduced by House Republicans leaders which resolves "to pledge the faithful support of Congress to members of the United States Armed Forces serving in harm's way," and states that "Congress will not cut off or restrict funding" for US troops in Iraq.

I haven't studied this list much and can understand being to the right sometimes based on constituency but I'd be surprised if they can all use that defense with integrity. Perhaps this group that Markos wrote about will help with this.

And to strengthen the understanding of just who walks among us

President Bush invited Blue Dog representatives to the White House just before he formally addressed the nation about his "surge" plan, and portions of the Blue Dogs' bill echo the policy put forth in President George W. Bush's January 10th national address.

One head and many legs makes it look like a lot of people have their heads where the sun don't shine.

I'm running out of steam here; I'm not much of a ranter. That's why I chose my username but this set me off. I'll leave you with this. From Dennis Moore, 3rd KS

"This proposal will restore full, aggressive congressional oversight to ensure that taxpayer money going to the war effort is being spent efficiently and wisely."

That makes me feel so much better, Dennis.

Please visit their website and if your rep is among this group of dogs then let them know if they're not fairly representing you.