Senate passes non binding resolution denouncing Bush Iraq plan

[pilferk]

 The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has approved a nonbinding measure saying President Bush's plan to increase troops in Iraq is "not in the national interest of the United States."

All the major news sites are listing it as breaking news.  More details should be coming up soon.

Interesting......

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/24/us.iraq.ap/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16785663/

[SLCPUNK]

Aw C'mon! Give it a chance!

[pilferk]

Aw C'mon! Give it a chance!

I think the dems have basically just responded to THAT request....and I doubt GW is going to like the response.

[AxlsMainMan]

Im personally shocked by this.

I thought George would get his troops, and in a few months when this war has still gone nowhere, we could see what his next "big plan" is..

[SLCPUNK]

It is odd to see zero bush backing on this board anymore.
(Tumble weeds)

[AxlsMainMan]

Im a proud Canadian

[pilferk]

Im personally shocked by this.

I thought George would get his troops, and in a few months when this war has still gone nowhere, we could see what his next "big plan" is..

Remember, the measure is NON-BINDING.

That means Bush still gets his troops....this is more like a "sanction" than anything with teeth.

I was shocked one Senator even MENTIONED withholding funds.....that'll never get backing.

[pilferk]

It is odd to see zero bush backing on this board anymore.
(Tumble weeds)

I suppose I could pretend and whip some response up that would be appropriately galling....

It would be non-sensical without much factual backing, possibly playing up sympathies and calling into question the patriotism of anyone who "doesn't support our troops" by going along with ole GW and his hunting budies, and finally quoting some awful Ann Coulter drivel....

but it would be galling!

[Gordon Gekko]

It is odd to see zero bush backing on this board anymore.
(Tumble weeds)

Common sense hasn't been much in fashion as of late, but some of us have been keeping the torch lit for its eventual return.


I'm a commie-pinko, and I endorse this message.

[Axlfreek]

Im a proud Canadian

You guys are next when were done with Iraq 

[SLCPUNK]

Im a proud Canadian

You guys are next when were done with Iraq 

LOL, in other words, you have nothing to worry about.

[Vicious Wishes]

Senate passes non binding resolution... 

 tax dollars hard at work

[Dr. Blutarsky]

If it was a binding resolution, then they'd have to take responsibility on giving an alternative course of action. 

[Bill 213]

It is odd to see zero bush backing on this board anymore.
(Tumble weeds)

I agree, I sort of miss the great debates put forth by the former Republicans on this board.  They brought so many interesting things to the table like um...well...um....eh at least they posted something to laugh about!

So, without further adeiu....I'll officially play devil's advocate on here from now on........Just call me Bill Brasky (R) PA

First order of business and the most serious problem facing the US right now.....gays shouldn't be married!!!

[-Jack-]

Im a proud Canadian

You guys are next when were done with Iraq 

LOL, in other words, you have nothing to worry about.

  That was pretty funny.

[pilferk]

If it was a binding resolution, then they'd have to take responsibility on giving an alternative course of action. 

 

They CAN'T pass a binding resolution when it comes to the president's deployment of the military.  That control lies with the executive branch, and the executive branch, alone.  About the only thing they can do is cut off funding....and no one is going to do that because we're already deployed, and doing so puts the troops lives at risk.

It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with "taking responsibility".  They CAN'T do that...it's not within their power to do so.  All they can realistically do is exactly what they did: Voice their displeasure. 

[Booker Floyd]

They CAN'T pass a binding resolution when it comes to the president's deployment of the military.  That control lies with the executive branch, and the executive branch, alone.  About the only thing they can do is cut off funding....and no one is going to do that because we're already deployed, and doing so puts the troops lives at risk.

It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with "taking responsibility".  They CAN'T do that...it's not within their power to do so.  All they can realistically do is exactly what they did: Voice their displeasure. 

Well, first of all, if GnRFLs implication is that the war opponents have no alternative, hes wrong again.

Secondly, a measure by Chris Dodd requiring Congressional authorization before escalating troop levels failed to pass committee.  Dodd said this:

"[My bill] says that, prior to sending any more troops ? the 20,000 the president wants to put into Iraq, 17,000 of them into Baghdad, a city of 6 million people ? it would require a prior authorization by the Congress.

And why do I do that? The authorization which allowed the troops to go in in the first place was based on two conditions. One is because there were weapons of mass destruction, which we now know is false; and that Saddam Hussein was a terrorist and causing serious problems. Obviously, he?s gone.

Today we?re faced with the civil war in Iraq ? a very different fact situation than we were even told existed five years ago."

[pilferk]

Well, first of all, if GnRFLs implication is that the war opponents have no alternative, hes wrong again.

Secondly, a measure by Chris Dodd requiring Congressional authorization before escalating troop levels failed to pass committee.  Dodd said this:

"[My bill] says that, prior to sending any more troops ? the 20,000 the president wants to put into Iraq, 17,000 of them into Baghdad, a city of 6 million people ? it would require a prior authorization by the Congress.

And why do I do that? The authorization which allowed the troops to go in in the first place was based on two conditions. One is because there were weapons of mass destruction, which we now know is false; and that Saddam Hussein was a terrorist and causing serious problems. Obviously, he?s gone.

Today we?re faced with the civil war in Iraq ? a very different fact situation than we were even told existed five years ago."

I saw the measure by Dodd (of course, being from CT, it was all over the news).  It's an interesting strategy but one, ultimately, I don't think will work.  Congress previously authorized the deployment.  That was their one shot at intervening.  I don't think they can argue this is a "different war" and thus, should have to "reauthorize" deployment.  There's no precedent that changing conditions, after deployment, should require reauthorization. It's just not going to stand up to scrutiny, I think, and it looks like what it is: A desperate attempt to intervene.  It didn't pass for pretty much those reasons:  The rest of the legislature didn't think the resolution would pass muster.

[LeftToDecay]

It is odd to see zero bush backing on this board anymore.
(Tumble weeds)

All of them have been banned?
It's freaky how most eager right wingers seem to  have the greatest issues in obeying teh rules in the internet world:=)

[Bodhi]

this is the most pointless resolution ever...it doesnt DO anything..all it does is EXPRESS how the Dems dont agree with it....further showing all of our enemies that we are a divided nation...and thus encouraging all of them....thank god dems dont run our country...we would be invaded and conquered within an hour...