What arguements do republicans have against this vote?

Question

#1 this vote means nothing, its not binding?
It actually does. It forces republicans to take a vote, and make them accountable for either staying with this president or break off from their party.
Each vote will hold repercussions next election -- and thats what republicans are most afraid of.

#2 This non binding vote will send message of not supporting the troops
Has anyone read the words
Congress supports the troops, does not support an escalation

And if we want to talk about supporting troops,
why is this administration cutting funding in half To thedepartment of Veteran Affairs???
It drives up medication to twice its current price, and cuts many programs
Only someone that watched FOX all day would see how FOX made it seem that a new facility was opening up for injured troops.
YEAH THAT WAS PAID BY DONATIONS!!!!! PERSONAL DONATIONS!!!!

#3 why dont dems offer up another plan instead of voting against current one

They have. For 6 years, they tried and tried, but Republicans who wer in control shut them out.
Thats why the president could do whatever he wanted

#4 At least lets give this current plan a try

How many generals has thepresident replaced?

Lets give it the ol college try, and if it dont work, then lets get another general in here and try again

#5 It will cause unstability in the region

Whats causing instability is Bush's refusal to try diplomacy.
Negotiating is the backbone to peace, yet Bush has made it very clear he doesnt want to negotiate with IRAN

GREAT ANSWER PH..lets deter from the actual topic. minimum wage.
Spoken like a true republican

MAHAL -- how many of the 18 terrorist hijackers of 9/11 were IRAQI?
0
why didnt we use billions to hunt down Osama?
Because bush went after IRAQ. Why, they werent a threat?

AND WE ONLY strengthened Al Queda by not keeping an attack on them -- and by not taking Osama when Saudi Arabia offered them to Fliescher.
for 4 years while we focused on Saddam ..we should have focused on those responsible for the 9/11 attack.
why didnt we?

Answer 1

If I were a soldier, I would welcome any sign from home that the truth of this idiotic, bungled war, where I am caught between several murderous civil factions, is being told. The only way to save our soldiers is for Congress to take a stand, and end this nightmare. This is not the war on terror, this is a Bush family vendetta. How could we learn absolutely nothing from Vietnam. Look at the Veterans statistics, they are not given the healthcare they deserve, their psychological problems are brushed off, they have many times the unemployment rate, suicide, and homelessness. Support The Troops When They Come Home!

Answer 2

“If you think the Democratic leadership in Congress is above playing politics with our troops in the field, think again. Democrats are desperate to capitalize on the public’s dissatisfaction with the war by passing a purely political resolution (sponsored by Republican Sen. John Warner) opposing President Bush’s troop surge for Iraq. The nonbinding resolution would do two things. First, it would achieve its intended purpose of generating more bad press for Bush and the Republicans right as the 2008 Presidential campaign gets under way. Second, it would achieve the unintended consequence of undermining troop morale and boosting the spirits of the enemy. But hey, as long as it hurts Bush, right? Sen. Judd Gregg is not amused. He’s introduced his own resolution, which would oppose cutting off funds to our military personnel already serving in Iraq. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who claims to support the troops, saw Gregg’s resolution and refused to allow a vote on it. Reid on Monday characterized Gregg’s resolution as a ‘distraction’ from the important issue of opposing a troop increase, which everyone already knows the Democrats oppose. Only in Washington can a non-binding political statement be considered the ‘real’ issue and a promise to give troops the money and equipment they need for the duration of the war be considered a ‘distraction’

Answer 3

in regards to turn over, it is comon place to replace staff when they become ineffective. This happens in corporate life every day. Even Clinton went through this and during Reagans 2nd term over 2/3 rds left.
In regards to you lies about the VA, in fact this is on the VA website: VA Requests $87 Billion for Veterans in Landmark FY ’08 Budget
Continuing to honor the nation’s commitment to meet the needs of America’s veterans, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson announced on Feb. 5 that President Bush will seek a landmark budget of nearly $87 billion in fiscal year 2008 for the Department of Veterans Affairs, with health care and disability compensation for veterans receiving the majority of the spending. The budget proposal represents an increase of $37.8 billion, or 77 percent, from the budget in effect when the President took office.

I will research your lies and BS no further. I've seen enough.

Answer 4

THE DEMOCRATS ARE BREATHING HARD TO GET THIS NON BINDING RESOLUTION TO THE TABLE. WHY NOT PUT EFFORTS INTO SUPPORTING THE TROOPS WITH ANYTHING THEY NEED TO WIN THIS WAR AND COME HOME. IT IS WELL PAST THE 100 DAYS AND INSTEAD OF HELPING THEY ARE TRYING TO FIND WAYS OF TEARING DOWN EVERYTHING - DAMIT CANT THE DEMOCRATS SIT AT A TABLE AND SAY - HEY LETS WIN THIS ONE LETS GIVE THE TROOPS EVERYTHING THEY NEED LETS KICK SOME BUTT.

Answer 5

All their arguments are weak and they are scared. And they should be because their party is in it's last throes. As more facts come to light in the next two years about them, the more people will come to despise them.

Answer 6

I love it when liberals and fake conservatives show their colors.

Let them speak their mind. The next time we get hit by terrorists, they'll look like the idiots they are for daring to withdraw support from the war on terror.

Answer 7

What plan,The only plan I heard out of the defeatocrats is how they are gonna defund the troops.

Answer 8

if you want to get that technical then democrats voted against a minimum wage increase last year.

why? because it was in a bill that also cut the death tax.

therefore, they're responsible for there not being an increase in minimum wage.