I applaud the democratic process, but I am never inspired by people who reject one idea without having a better one of their own.
2007-02-16 08:05:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by Super Ruper 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
It's a good start towards bringing Bush's hobby war to an end.
It amazes me that people think the Dems are expected to provide an alternative. Congress passes laws and budgets, they don't set policy.
If Bush wants Dems to sit in on all the meetings of State, Defense, Intel,etc. so the Dems have access to every shred of info that he has, then maybe the Dems can offer a plan. Until then, the criticism of Dems for not having a plan is just a hate radio talking point to inflame the ignorant.
2007-02-16 08:16:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by bettysdad 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Alternative plan? Without control of the Executive Branch--the only place where the absolute command of our military resides, any Democratic plan would be a futile effort. Plans to get out of Iraq from the Dems are out there--Bush is not willing to listen to his own advisors, generals, the vast majority of Americans or a group of his daddy's best buds--
What makes you think that anyones idea's would be take seriously by he or his Master Cheney?
They want to procure Iraq's Oil infastructure for their the Big Oil conglomerates and they will stop at nothing to ensure such a goal. Period.
The passage of this resolution exposes the Republicans who did not vote for the measure to their constituents making them that much more vulnerable come 08'. The ones that did vote for it, will have a benchmark vote on their record in case they decide to vote against similar legislation. No longer can Republicans hide behind the party line.
2007-02-16 08:14:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by scottyurb 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
A non-binding resolution serves no practical purpose whatsoever. This resolution is a way for the Dems and some Republicans to fool the anti-war crowd into believing politicians are doing something for them. It's political posturing at its finest. What a bunch of spineless cowards.
2007-02-16 08:09:13
·
answer #4
·
answered by VoodooPunk 4
·
4⤊
1⤋
It is "non-binding". It is a pointless, absurd, futile, fruitless, unecessary, unproductive, and meaningless exercise in political posturing.
It serves no puropse other than to be able to tell voters, "hey, look how I voted on this... aren't I awesome?!?!"
On the other side of the coin, it tells the people actively seeking the death of Americans in Iraq that they are winning, and that even those people in Congress don't support the American mission.
So if it serves no purpose, and helps the enemy (with recruiting, etc.), WHY in the world did they go through with it???
2007-02-16 08:10:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by theearlybirdy 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
The House is not the Commander in Chief, and the troops are already there and already winning.
(Doh!)
You know, it's funny. Dennis Hastert set a precedent of the same kind while he was the speaker. There was a similar vote on a non-binding resolution, and the vote was something like 490-23 in SUPPORT of the war in Iraq!
What does that say about politicians?
2007-02-16 08:07:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
It is an empty gesture fueled by the left's irrational and pathological hatred of President Bush. They didn't take any substantiative measure, such as setting a time line, bench marks or defunding the war.
Last week they unanimously approved a new General and this week they vote against the plan he worked on prior to taking the job. They are hypocrites and nothing more.
2007-02-16 08:08:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
I think President Bush is laughing so hard he probably fell out of his chair. The military hating dems know absolutely nothing about national security or war so why should anyone take them seriously.
2007-02-16 08:26:16
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
A non-binding resolution is a joke.
2007-02-16 08:08:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by bradcymru 4
·
4⤊
0⤋
Impeach the entire Congress and Georgie and deport them all... then start with a new bunch and make it clear to them that if they do not start acting like the Public Servants they are supposed to be they will receive even worse treatment than their predecessors.
2007-02-16 08:07:59
·
answer #10
·
answered by idahomike2 6
·
1⤊
2⤋