Stopping George Bush’s War –updated below–

Lieberman is
crying fire!
Meanwhile, his boy Dan
Gerstein
proves why bloggers (and progressive radio hosts) have the floor.
Joe and Dan continue to think and act like this is a top down political world. Talk
about obtuse. Gerstein also gets it wrong on the Edwards brouhaha. But they really don’t get why Democrats were elected in November. It
wasn’t on Joe Lieberman’s stand on Iraq, that’s for sure.

Because if you think Republicans have trouble pimping Mr. Bush’s plan for escalation,
you haven’t seen anything if the Democrats sit around and do nothing about it. It’s called leadership. There are risks, especially when principles
are driving your actions, instead of hoping for political cover behind a president.

Democrats face a host of risks as they move toward more substantive steps
to tie President Bush’s hands with funding restrictions on the Iraq war.
Leaders are wary of allowing the more intense anti-war activists define the
party’s image.

Simmering divisions within the ranks over how soon to move _ and how far
to go _ could quickly diminish a tactical victory this week on a resolution
criticizing Bush’s conduct of the war.

“There are those in our caucus who would rather we not do anything,
and there will be people who want to see us extricate ourselves overnight.
We’ll have to balance those interests,” said Rep. James Clyburn of South
Carolina, House Democrats’ chief vote-counter. “We’re not going to sit
anybody out, but we will have to decide how to weigh those things.”

Senior House Democrats will huddle next week during a congressional break
to plot strategy on their next move, which will be seeking to restrict some
of Bush’s Iraq war spending by establishing high readiness and equipment targets
for troops and requiring those targets be met first.

Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, tasked by Democrats to direct the next
step, says his approach “stops the surge, for all intents and purposes,”
and would “force a redeployment _ not by taking money away, by redirecting
money.”

Former Rep. Martin Frost, D-Texas, said Democrats have made a “very
clear point” this week by putting the House on record against Bush’s
troop buildup and now must be careful not to overplay their hand by seeking
to cut off funding or limit deployments right away.

“They don’t want to be a scapegoat for the Bush administration’s failures,”
Frost said. “This is Bush’s war, and there should be no confusion about
who’s war it is, and Democrats should not set themselves up to have that done
to them.”

Frost said he did not want to “prejudge” Murtha’s effort to restrict
funds, but cautioned that Democrats should not yield to intense pressure by
outside anti-war groups for swift action to end the conflict. … ..

Dems Risk
Image Woes Over Iraq War Moves

This is indeed Bush’s war, but the Democrats were elected in November to do
something to stop it. If we don’t we will pay the price.

UPDATE (4:00 p.m.): Dems don’t have the votes in the Senate, according to ElectionCentral.