There's been much hoopla about the non binding resolutions Congress is working on. But what good are they? They force no action. They restrict no action. *LOL* Sound a lot like all those UN resolutions. Were they non binding as well?
2007-02-03 06:00:30 · 12 answers · asked by namsaev 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The only purpose of a non-binding resolution is to position yourself politically for another run for elected office in the future. It's nothing more than political posturing.
2007-02-03 06:06:02 · answer #1 · answered by VoodooPunk 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The non binding resolution doesn't do squat except protect those who sign it. ALL of our "Representatives" are bought and paid for by corporations and the Israeli lobby who what to control the Middle East. The war will continue. Either America or Israel will launch a nuclear attack on Iran's NONEXISTENT nuclear weapons. The next "elected" President will attack Syria. Thousands more American troops will die. MILLIONS of Innocent Middle Eastern Civilians will die. The Middle East will be radio active for a hundred years. The world will experience the greatest depression EVER. MILLIONS world wide will die of starvation and disease. AND, the elite will get exponentially richer.
If Congress really wanted to stop our psychotic President, they would either cut off funding or impeach the bastard. But our "Representatives" are a bunch of spineless sniveling self-interested leeches. So they will do nothing.
2007-02-03 06:18:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Democrats pushing hardest for this resolution are the same ones who voted to authorize military action in Iraq.
The resolution is their dsingenuous way of try to spin things that they had nothing to do with sending the troops there even though their vote is a matter of public record.
It is part of the DNP agenda of pathological hatred of Bush and doing whatever they can to undermine the President's agenda of winning the war. We know Clinton and the DNC took over 500,000 thousand dollars to sell missle technology to China, the questoin now is how much did they take from Al-Qaeda and/or Iran to sell out our troops in Iraq.
2007-02-03 06:26:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Non binding resolutions set precedents and show respect for the independence of each power that administer the State. It could and should be embarrassing if the addressee doesn't take the non binding resolution into account. Take note, Georgie.
2007-02-03 06:07:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Exactly. But there is a purpose. It supposedly puts pressure on those who will be up for re-election in 2008 - particularly Republicans. Now, it the Republicans back down (and that is the indication now), it will also destroy the "bi-partison" effect of this effort. If that happens, and the new strategy in Iraq is successful, the Dems will look stupid, so hold on, this may not happen in the Senate.
2007-02-03 06:07:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree it's not enough. But, I believe Congress would like to have a discussion about the huge amount of money we're paying for this war-even though the administration and GW Bush hold all the cards. To cut off funding for the war makes congress look like "they don't support our troops". Make no mistake, this president is ultra powerful and he knows it.
I wonder if Congress will ever support another President after this one was lied to so blatantly.
2007-02-03 06:08:22 · answer #6 · answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
the yankee human beings had a binding decision very last November, and that is a red slip to you neo-cons. unlike in 2004, even as your side claimed to have a (2%) mandate, we truly do have a mandate now. And that mandate says down with regressive regulations and warmongering!
2016-11-24 21:18:27 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They let Mr Bush know that the war is 100% his. If the war fails, so do he and the Republicans in '08. It is a political move. Bush is the decider. Better hope he decides correct, or you'll be talking about President Clinton again..LOL
2007-02-03 06:06:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I agree with you. However, at best it will force senators to come out of the closet on where they stand before their constituency. It creates a written record which can be considered in future elections.
2007-02-03 06:06:32 · answer #9 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It is a good way for congress to waste time grandstanding while letting America's enemies know they have won because the nation is hopelessly divided politically.
2007-02-03 06:09:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋