Reply With QuoteGood thing it's a non-binding resolution! I was nervous that this was just a waste of time and for nothing more than show...
Don't they have anything else less important to do?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Democratic leaders circulated a nonbinding resolution Monday saying that Congress "disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush ... to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq."
The measure, expected to come to a vote by Friday, also says that "Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States armed forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq."
Debate on the resolution is scheduled to begin on Tuesday, with each of the 435 House members allotted five minutes to speak. It will mark the first debate in Congress on the war since Democrats won control of the House and Senate in last November's elections. Opposition to the war figured heavily in the outcome of the election.
Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have vowed to force an end to U.S. participation in the war, and made debate over a nonbinding resolution a symbolic first step.
The House measure was drafted in simple, unadorned terms, an attempt by Democrats to maximize the number of Republicans who would support it and also to emphasize support for the troops. Republican leaders have said they expect at least a few dozen defections when the vote is taken later in the week.
House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, has said the GOP will have an alternative, but it is not clear that majority Democrats will allow it to be offered on the House floor.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...02-12-13-17-09
People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.
Good thing it's a non-binding resolution! I was nervous that this was just a waste of time and for nothing more than show...
Don't they have anything else less important to do?
Yeah...they could discuss the fate of wild horses.
I don't think this is as pointless as you do. I think it's important to have the representatives discuss the important issues (can you think of one more important?). I think it's also important that, as our representatives, they send a message to our President when it is so warranted. Even if they can't directly affect decisions, a formal presentation of the wishes of the people is never improper, in my opinion.
~WnyresidentBut your being a dick
The dems are going about this all wrong, again. They are playing right into the hands of the right. Instead of ripping apart why the latest Iranian connection is being thrown out there now and not three to fours years ago, why U.S. strategy never took into account Iranian networks in Iraq that were there since the Iranian/Iraq war(over twenty years of networks!!!), why the Iraqi borders were never sealed on their way to and after the U.S. toppled Saddam, or the very fact that Iranian involvement might even include weapons that Reagan gave to Iran, the dems want to have a meaningless debate that will end up labeling them 'against the troops', 'weak on security', 'no plan', etc...
In other words, they should be seriously attacking over four years of failure that ignored everything mentioned above. They won't though.
The Iraqi borders should be sealed by U.S. forces while the Iraqis patrol their own cities with whoever is left from the 'coalition of the willing' guiding the Iraqi security forces as observers and trainers.
Also, this actually is for any politician, get out there and ask the muslim world why they are killing their own muslim brethren and why this OK to do.
Last edited by DR_GONZO; February 12th, 2007 at 07:20 PM.
How is a non-binding resolution important? We already know who is against the war, they tell us at every opportunity, yet they have no answers as to how to make things better. It's the same empty heads spewing the same empty rhetoric.
If we can't seal our own borders how are we going to seal Iraqs? Don't get me wrong, I like your idea, but I don't think it's actually plausible.
These mongrels are nothing more than murdering scum. All those years of being repressed and instead of finding ways to move forward they are obsessed with killing eachother. The whole region is a cess pool.
Can't seal the border or won't seal the border?
The most powerful military in the world controls the land, sea, and air in a country the size of Texas. They have the means to seal off Iraq if they really wanted to. Drones, jets, helicopters, satellites, ship radar, ground troop presence, the most advanced technology in the world, etc... I would be willing to give this concept a try. At least we'd know what those blank checks Congress hands over were being spent on.
Choking off the lifeblood of those fighting would bring a timely death to their actions. No need for U.S. forces to be target practice for two separate factions bent on killing the other while sharpening their skills on U.S. troops. Make the Iraqis patrol their own cities. If they don't have enough bodies for one region, seal it off until they do have enough.
If any troop increases were worth merit, this should be the only reason(sealing the Iraqi border). Using them for training security forces and nation rebuilding is utterly asinine.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Breaking ranks, a small band of House Republicans declared their opposition to a troop buildup in Iraq on Wednesday, and President Bush appeared resigned to passage of a nonbinding measure disapproving of his decision.
"I'm going to make it very clear to the members of Congress, starting now, that they need to fund our troops," the president said, looking past this week's debate toward congressional action next month on his request for nearly $100 billion for the military.
Bush spoke at a White House news conference timed - coincidentally or not - for the hour that Republican critics of his war policies took their turn in a marathon debate on the House floor.
"I am personally very high on President Bush, but on the matter of troop escalation, I am not in agreement," said Republican Rep. Howard Coble of North Carolina.
"I insist that we do not maintain an eternal presence in Iraq, if for no other reason than the cost to the taxpayers, which has been astronomically unbelievable," he said. He also noted the war has cost more than 3,100 U.S. troops their lives.
Coble was one of fewer than a dozen Republicans to swing behind the measure. It declares that Congress "disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush ... to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...E&SECTION=HOME
People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Democratic-controlled House issued a symbolic rejection of President Bush's decision to deploy more troops to Iraq on Friday, opening an epic confrontation between Congress and commander in chief over an unpopular war that has taken the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.
The vote on the nonbinding measure was 246-182, and within minutes, Democrats said their next move would be to challenge Bush's request for $93 billion in new funds for the Pentagon.
"The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, leader of Democrats who gained power last fall in elections framed by public opposition to the war.
"The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home," she vowed after the vote, in which 17 Republicans joined 229 Democrats in a wartime rebuke to the president.
Citing recent comments by Democrats, Bush's Republican allies said repeatedly the measure would lead to attempts to cut off funds for the troops. Outnumbered, they turned to GOP Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas to close their case - and the former Vietnam prisoner of war stepped to the microphone as lawmakers in both parties rose to applaud his heroism.
"Now it's time to stand up for my friends who did not make it home, and for those who fought and died in Iraq already," he said. "We must not cut funding for our troops. We must stick by them," he added, snapping off a salute as he completed his remarks to yet another ovation.
Moving quickly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., set a test vote for Saturday on an identical measure, and several presidential contenders in both parties rearranged their weekend campaign schedules to be present.
Republican senators said in advance they would deny Democrats the 60 votes needed to advance the resolution, adding they would insist on equal treatment for a GOP-drafted alternative that opposes any reduction in funds for the troops.
Even so there were signs of Republican restlessness on the issue. Only two members of the GOP rank and file sided with Democrats on an earlier procedural vote; the total figured to be higher this time.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...E&SECTION=HOME
People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions