Why can't they make it a binding resolution and cut the funding if the hate the war so much?
2007-02-08 01:46:14 · 9 answers · asked by Mail J 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I couldn't agree more. I support the war, and I think the resolution shows our political class at their worst. Democrats, and some Republicans, posturing and positioning themselves for the next election with their votes, while our troops are putting their lives on the line. Seems like these pols have no problem stabbing our troops in the back, just to see their poll numbers rise a point or two. It accomplishes NOTHING.
I say this to every senator: If you're against the war, have the guts to vote to de-fund it. If you're for the war, support our troops for God's sake. There is a whole world outside your little Senate bubble, and we all think you're totally out of touch!!!
Not a backbone, conscience, or statesmanly instinct in the lot of them. Really, they are beneath contempt. Have we really sunk this low?
2007-02-08 01:50:16 · answer #1 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I believe a non-binding resolution is a cowards way out. If you are willing to sign a resolution then you should believe whole heartedly in that resolution. A non-binding resolution is actually a way to be heard on the issue at hand. A binding resolution is a method to resolve the problem. The politicians are running on the fence so they can go one way or the other to get votes.
2007-02-12 15:53:35 · answer #2 · answered by andyt 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The point is to present the administration with the obvious fact that there is virtually NO SUPPORT for his policy, it's the first step in a longer battle to try to end the fiasco in Iraq, by passing a non-binding resolution first the congress indicates the prevailing will of the country to the White House. If they fail to take heed then the congress moves to the next step in the process, They can't be accused of arbitrarily cutting support, they have to move in steps to show the public they are acting in a methodical fashion to attempt to end 1st the escalation then the war itself. In the current political climate it is hard to frame the debate on realistic terms when the administration assails it's critics as being either partisan or emboldening the enemy, I know it may seem silly but there is a genuine methodology being employed to move on to the more substantive acts that can end this conflict
2007-02-08 02:20:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It skill actual not something. it isn't something better than a political ploy via the recent majority to call out both part of the aisle and to lead them to state for the record the position they stand on the conflict in Iraq. at the same time as this can be a stunning good political flow, it does not something for the troops in Iraq. If something, it quite sends a mixed message to them. It tells them that Congress does help them, yet does not help what they're doing. It also tells the troops that Congress, at the same time as not helping the troops' project, isn't prepared to quite do something concrete to larger effective the region. The very last 4 days ought to were spend debating what the recent majority extremely needs to do; reduce funding of the conflict with the point to end it. extremely, they wasted 3 days on a nonbinding, valueless, and insignificant decision.
2016-12-03 21:44:30 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's pure political posturing. A binding resolution would mean they had to actually commit to something. And then they would have to accept the responsibility for the consequences. Politicians today don't want the responsibility they just want to be re-elected.
2007-02-08 01:54:06 · answer #5 · answered by namsaev 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Those that support the nonbinding resolution don't have the guts to stop the funding. This is simple politics designed to make Bush look bad, gain support from the anti-war left, and provide cover to those who voted for it in case things get worse. Those who votes for this are political cowards not fit to lead our country
2007-02-08 01:52:24 · answer #6 · answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Jockeying for Position for the Upcoming Election. That's all it is. I want them Clowns to Vote on De-funding the War. And let America see who's with us. And who wants to sell-out Our Brave Soldiers. But they (both sides) don't wanna show their true colors!
2007-02-08 01:56:19 · answer #7 · answered by Goggles 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because it makes a statement and puts it on the record, and also on the record are a list of names that do / do not support the statement. It has little power beyond just showing one's resolve concerning the situation.
2007-02-08 01:51:29 · answer #8 · answered by Pfo 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Liberals showing the world just how stupid they are. Liberals showing the enemy hope.
2007-02-08 01:50:23 · answer #9 · answered by 007 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋