Who thinks the "non-binding" resolution will backfire on those who supported it?

Question

Won't the American people see this as political hot air? If the politicians in Washington want to do something about the war they should pull funding. How dense do they think we are? What a bunch of whiney cowards! I want a new congress of adults- is it too much to ask?

Answer 1

They are cowards, you can say that again. Since it is non-binding it can do no good to the troops, it can only demoralize them so who are they really trying to help besides themselves.

Answer 2

All non-binding resolutions are nothing but hot air. I'm sure they have some effect on how our elected officials vote simply because they think it's the 'right thing to do'. I'll say this: I am and was a supporter of our involvement in Iraq. I am pissed that we were lied to about the reasoning for invading Iraq however, believe that we need to finish what we've started and not leave the country in a shambles. As well, since we have sent troops to the fight the fight has not come back to the US. The problem is that we have gutless whimps who bow down to the liberal minded idiots who really believe that we should all sit around a camp fire, roast marshmallows, sing and everythign will be ok. Until these leaders realize that these terrorists will not rest until we or they are dead we will continue with the political nonsense!

Answer 3

How?

They can't deny him sending troops over - that is a call the pres can make without the approval of congress. And denying the money would be worse because that would endanger the lives of the troops. At least with this resolution, they are saying they are supporting the troops over in Iraq, and they will not let them die in vain (like Bush is willing to do), but they don't agree with this, and would rather search for another solution because right now, sending more troops over is like beating a dead horse.

And if you want something done, then why not tell Bush that he should have left the warring to the military and stuck to being a politician. THAT is why the war has gone the way it has. Not because of anything but.

Answer 4

You are right, to an extent. The problem is the non-existent majority in the Senate. If the Dems had won three or four more seats, it would be much easier. And if the traitorous Liebermann had bowed out of the election when his local state party rejected him, we'd be in a far stronger position. Lieberman is for all intents and purposes, a Republican, so on any issue that endangers Bush's war policy, the actual decision will lie with Cheney.

Yes, they should at least TRY to pull funding - that's what congress has done in other wars. No backbone in the Senate is the problem.

Answer 5

The Democrats are trying to back the Republicans into the same corner they were backed into with the Iraq resolution. A month before an election, Democrats were asked to vote up or down on "defending America from terrorists". Now they are asking Republicans to vote up or down on whether Bush is right in his war policies/strategies or wrong. If they vote for the resolution, they risk alienating their Conservative base. If they vote against the resolution, they risk appearing to say, "Bush is fighting this war correctly". It's a lose/lose scenario for Republicans, which is why they are trying so hard to block any vote at all, and invoking the tried and true rhetoric about 'emboldening the enemy' and 'demoralizing the troops'.

Answer 6

This "non-blinding" resolution does nothing about Pres. Bush's troop "surge". Actually it is political "chess" at its best by the Democrats. If the "surge" does work, Democrats will lose some of the "political capital" gained. However if the surge fails, Democrats will use the vote to haunt those Republicans who voted for the surge and tie them to Bush during the 2008 Presidential race and future Congressional races. The Democrats and Republicans are not going to pull funding from the military during US tenure in Iraq and Afghanistan, that would be political suicide.

Answer 7

They can't pull funding because troops will be sent anyway. Then those deaths will be put on the people who worked to pass it. Making them the bad guys in the whole situation, and scapegoats for the mess that's already going on in Iraq.

The non-binding resolution will set the groundwork for a case against Bush, and his hardheadedness when it comes to the war. It's got majority support. It's not just the Dems who support it. It's got it's fair share of Republicans behind it as well. And the citizens of the nation spoke out about it in the elections last Novemeber.

If Bush goes ahead with his decision, he taking one step closer to impeachment.

Answer 8

E-Z killer, the resolution is just a tool to show the people who supports what. Those that voted for it will be held accountable down the road when tougher legislation is put in front of them. The only backfire will be done onto those Republicans who voted for it now and vote against similar legislation down the road. There are no safe havens for them to hide in 08'.

Gerrymandered redistricting aside--the majority just said no to Bush and his policies on Nov. 7th and they liked it!!. The only cowards out there are the ones who just won't say no to the Resident in Chief.

Answer 9

It was a way to show the president the congress is not going to lay down and watch Bush destroy this country!

No One gave him carte Blanche to do what he is doing forever, and he wants to go into Iran, no matter what his rhetoric is!

They are going to put limits on the funding, and how it is used!

2/3 of America is against the war! If you like war so much, go join and pull about 4 tours in Iraq! The 82nd Airborne is on their 4th tour!You whine but you do squat!

The congress is not going to leave our troops hanging, nor are they going to let Bush continue to rotate those in without adequate breaks from combat, those who are ill trained, like he did with the National Guard, or adequate weapons. Over 44% of the Humvee's have not been armored and this has been going on for over 4 years!

No the resolution won't backfire! The people are tired of body bags coming home daily for 4 years with no end in sight! I think they spoke pretty clearly the past election, and it is just too bad that those who don't go to war, have never had there arms or legs missing from an IED (We have had 1,199 deaths from IED's), or suffered the psychological trauma from what they have seen are always the ones that want to go to war...with someone else's kids!

What you want are more rubber stamps like we have gotten for 12 years!

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorist or 9/11. I do not have a clue, other than oil, as to why our troops are being killed there!

And don't say Democracy as we put Saddam in power in the Republic of Iraq, and we overthrew (the CIA and staged terrorist attacks- just like they are doing now) an elected government in Iran and put in the Shaw of Iran! You think it's over democracy? Hell, we aren't even a democracy!

Answer 10

cut the funding and soldiers death rate goes up do not be a dummy....no the resolution wont back fire it means the idiots that were elected had to waste over forty hours on the taxpayers watch,to take a vote to say they were against sending more troops ..even though the troops are already there.....they had to vote to say they are against something ....H*ll people already knew they were not for this that is what got them elected.....this resolution means nothing except they are doing what democrats do ...waist time,and money,.... figure up the number of politicians times weekly pay plus benefits and contributions and the food,drinks, electricity for the office , plus their transportation to and from and you will see how many hundreds of thousands of dollars of our money was waisted for them to vote on the fact they are against something ,when everyone already knew it ......big govt. spending ...so much for the ..uh..accountabilty on wasteful spending of tax dollars ...I think Hillary got an applause for that one ??????? on her campain speech ..........