Republican or democrat, don't we elect are officials to make policy, not commentate on it? By saying it's non-binding isn't that pretty much saying nothing more than "we don't approve". That's what Washington needs more of... empty words and no action.
2007-02-13 14:21:13 · 16 answers · asked by Scott B 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
You betcha. But what would they do if they did not do that? How would they grab publicity for their uncoordinated attempts to be something.
2007-02-13 14:24:47 · answer #1 · answered by Jim R 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes. A total waste of time and resources. It really pisses me off that millions of the tax dollars we all worked hard for and then forked over to Uncle Sam probably went into this. It's not like we don't know what the democratic party thinks of the war already, we're headed into an election year after all.
Do you think they actually care about our troops? This is purely campaign strategy. If any of them publicly agreed with what our Republican president is doing, the American public would have no reason to vote for a Democrat. Wake up, people. This isn't about right or wrong, it's about who gets to move into a nice big WHITE house for four years. They spent your money so they could officially say "Bush Sucks." It's the congressional equivalent to sending an angry e-mail that's just going to get deleted as spam.
2007-02-14 19:11:06 · answer #2 · answered by Hamlette 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thats what the republicans want you to believe.
BUT understand this vote is very pivotable, where republicans have to go on record as whether or not being for a against a surge.
It establishes accountability, is what it does most.
And it serves as a warning to the president about his current course of action.
Its very important -- which is why republicans are efforting so much to avoid it -- but it makes people take a stand.
If politicians cant even make a yes or no answer on one problem, then how can anythign be done in this government.
This is a warning ,message of democrats flexing its power and not tellign the president but showing him its gotta stop.
Its also a feeling out point for the democrats.
they want to see how many republicans wil VOICE THEIR DISAPPROVAL.
Remember, for 6 years nothing has been able to pass the floor of senate or house of reps, because republicans owned both parts.
Well for the first time, on record, this sends a clear message to the president -- since hes not listening to 70% of the population -- that hes got to change his actions.
I just love the tactics the republicans use totry killing a vote.
Heck it worked in the senate.
But this is exactly why we have a system of checks and balances in the government.
So one idiot doesnt have all the power.
Republicans, argue with me if you want, but the fact remains the democrats rule the house, after 6 years of being silence, and this is the first of many BINDING votes to come
2007-02-13 14:38:20 · answer #3 · answered by writersbIock2006 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Getting a congressional debate on the news is all that matters. Debate can show the American people exactly what is wrong with the war in clear details and make supporters of the war look like idiots and that is political gold. So a vote and action aren't necessarily needed to make a big difference especially in US public opinion. Why do you think republican senators worked so hard to stop the debate in the Senate? They didn't want to look like fools trying to defend the war.
2007-02-13 14:28:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Exactly...then the republicans shut it down at one point an MSNBC was all mad over it. I'm confused...if it didn't matter, then why should you care if it never took place? Anyways, I agree with what are government is trying to do in Iraq. I fear the day we leave Iraq without having a stable government. It's not like leaving Veitnam...
2007-02-13 14:26:53 · answer #5 · answered by Squawkers 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They are basically stating that while they support the troops in Iraq, they do not approve sending more over there. GW has the control over the deployment of troops. Congress has the purse strings.
I think that it will basically put the president on the limb all alone, and make sure the country knows that whatever is done is GW's decision alone. I don't see it as "empty" - I see it as putting the blame where the blame is due.
2007-02-13 14:31:40 · answer #6 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes.
And Republican or Democrat, they're all politicians. Sad that these people are making decisions that cost lives. They're not endangering themselves every day.
The president has made a lot of decisions that meant the sacrificing of lives, but you don't see his daughters doing anything at all in Iraq.
War-supporting politicians have got to be the worst. All arrogant about how we must expect casualties, yet no casualty to themselves or their families. Just words.
2007-02-13 14:32:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's all just a horse and pony show. They are protecting only themselves form Political fallout.
If the Democrats really wanted to stop those crazy men in the White House, they would cut off funding to this Bullsh!t war for ISRAEL and impeach that Zio-c0ck sucker.
2007-02-13 14:38:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
yes especially considering the debate was only allowed to be one-sided, even after the dems said they would be fair and open (liars)
2007-02-13 14:35:55 · answer #9 · answered by JJ 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
1) Yes it is a waste of time.
2) Given what Congress does when they are NOT wasting time, that might not be such a bad thing.
2007-02-13 14:26:36 · answer #10 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I'm not sure where they are going with this... but, we've given Bush a ton of leeway with the war, I'm willing to grant the dems a little to see where they are going...
2007-02-13 14:50:43 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋