If the so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats, who are supposedly fiscal conservatives and deficit hawks, are really looking out for fiscal responsibility and the best interests of our US Treasury. . .
. . . then where do they get off voting to throw down another $100 billion into the Iraquagmire?
I have trouble understanding the logic. If I was styling myself as a fiscal conservative, the choice between supporting the war (that is, the President) and supporting fiscal sanity would be a no brainer. Iraq is a colossal, epic money suck, has been from day one, and the clearly responsible decision is to stop the bleeding, ASAP.
Has anyone who lives in one of these B'Dog's districts had occasion to ask one of their Reps how they square their profligate war spending with their supposed commitment to whittling the national debt?
http://www.bluedogdems.com/...
I'd love to understand a Blue Dog response the following logic:
If you vote to fund the war, then you're for the war.
If you're for the war, then you're for the rationale behind it.
If you're for the war, you don't really support the troops--you support the war.
On the other hand, if you really are for the troops, then you're for bringing them home.
If you're for the troops, you're for ending the war.
No matter what the Republican talking points say.
Ultimately, Americans are a logical people. We can see through the fog of neo-con fiction.
By starting this war, the Repug Administration locked us in, against our will, to the "Pottery Barn" axiom (since disavowed by Pottery Barn, but still true in china shops across the country): You break it, you buy it.
Well, the logical corollaries are:
You pay for it, you buy it.
You buy it, you own it.
If Democrats fund this war, it becomes theirs. Democrats who are considering voting for the Supplemental war budget, even as amended (porked, larded, whatever), would do well to consider the fallout first.