What does the passing of Non-Binding Resolution Iraq War really mean?

Question

The House passed the Non-Binding Resolution for the Iraq war. Since it is 'non-binding', whats the point? It support troops because we dont want them to get killed in this stupid war anymore, but we can only pass 'non-binding' resolutions to help them?

The answer from "Tangy" suggests the war is alot like a football game - should i list an Iraq war question under sports and entertainment instead, then maybe Americans can undertand it better?

Lets also not confuse the "War on Terror" with the "War on Iraq" - Saudi's were on that plane that hit New York and Washington, there were no Iraqi's onboard.

Answer 1

Very good question that I will explain the purpose of.

The reason Congress went with a resolution and not a binding-bill is that a resolution can not be vetoed... a bill can be rejected/vetoed.

By passing this resolution that doesn't give the president the option of vetoing it, it goes on the record that Congress does not approve of his military actions. A vetoed bill would not go on record but rather, get sent back to Congress for an additional vote.

Answer 2

It means absolutely nothing. It is nothing more than a political ploy by the new majority to call out both sides of the aisle and to make them state for the record where they stand on the war in Iraq. While this might be a good political move, it does nothing for the troops in Iraq. If anything, it actually sends a mixed message to them. It tells them that Congress does support them, but does not support what they are doing. It also tells the troops that Congress, while not supporting the troops' mission, is not willing to actually do anything concrete to better the situation. The last four days could have been spend debating what the new majority really wants to do; cut funding of the war as a way to end it. Instead, they wasted three days on a nonbinding, worthless, and insignificant resolution.

Answer 3

It means a waste of our tax payer dollars. For a week, our govt spent time on something that has no positive impact on our nation. Instead they could have been voting on something that would make a difference.

According to polls, the majority of Americans already don't like the war. And according to numerous press conferences and elections, we know which politicians don't like the war.

But today is a sad day for America. Now our enemies know that the majority of our government doesn't think our military is strong enough to fight them. The terrorists just got a major half-time locker room pep talk from the coaches of the opposing team. Doesn't make much sense does it.

Whether you're for the war or not. Quit whining about how things are going. Come up with a better plan, put it to a binding vote and make a difference. It's easy to complain about how badly your team is playing from the sidelines...like a traitor cheerleader. But if you're truly for Team America, you will NEVER doubt our capabilities. You will learn our team's weaknesses, capitalize on our strengths and help bring our team to victory.

Our Congress needs to try putting on the coach's hat and see if they can do any better! But not by quitting the game...by winning it! You don't go to the Super Bowl and throw in the towel at half time.

Answer 4

Democrats may not be able to get support from Republicans in Congress to pass binding legislation tying the President's hands. The advantage of a non-binding resolution is that representatives have to vote on it - that forces them to take sides on record and weeds out all the ones who would rather conveniently keep their mouth shut and play the politics. With anti-surge votes on record among members of Congress, it will make it harder for them to oppose later, binding resolutions.

Another thing is that the money doesn't flow automatically - it has to be approved periodically. Democrats are now contemplating making the additional war funding contigent on assurance that all units in war zones are adequately equipped and trained. Since many units are not, that type of legislation may also force a pullout.

Answer 5

It is a farce. It only serves to embolden the enemy.

If the President did what the Dems wanted and "redeployed the troops" (i.e. Cut and Run) and Iraq slips into total civil war, they (and their Hollywood experts) will be crying about the horrors and how could the US turn a blind eye?

This resolution is nothing but a cowardly act by a cowardly liberal Congress. Leadership is about doing the right thing, not the most popular.

Answer 6

It shows Mr. Bush that his agenda to escalate the war in Iraq, and start a war with Iran, is not supported by Congress.

It serves as a warning that any bills concerning war he tries to get approved by the House or Senate will be rejected by the bi-partisan effort in Congress.

Answer 7

Hey, they as "posing" for political gain via the Media Outlets in a desperate bid to enhance their political campaigns at this time. That is why there is this thing called the 'non-binding' resolution.

The worst part of this is that our own politicians, who were placed in office, have now thrown a great 'cheer' squad performance to the Terrorists -- and yes, this is EXACTLY what Terror Organizations wanted. Unfortunately, this 'resolution' is going to result in endangering our own troops out in the battlefield ... because our 'politicos' in all their 'posing' have just told them that they do not think we have a strong enough national defense to protect our nation. THAT is the real outcome of this 'posing'. (besides the fact that these politicos have just wasted a WHOLE LOT of our tax paying monies to try to make themselves 'marketable' to the Media).

Answer 8

Article one million section 8 of the form reads as follows: "To characterize Tribunals no longer so good through fact the splendid courtroom; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies dedicated on the severe Seas, and Offenses a criminal offense of countries; To declare conflict, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make policies on the subject of Captures on Land and Water; to develop and help Armies, yet no Appropriation of money to that Use would be for an prolonged term than 2 Years; to grant and shield a army; To make policies for the government and regulation of the land and naval Forces. . ." in basic terms Congress can create tribunals. . . Has this occurred? in basic terms Congress can come to a determination the thank you to handle those captured on land or water. . . Has this occurred? in basic terms Congress can develop money for conflict, even though that's going to no longer exceed 2 years. . . Has this occurred? Article 2 subsection of the form reads, in part, as follows: "The President would be Commander in chief of the army and army of the US, and of the protection tension of the a number of States, while stated as into the certainly provider of the US. . ." This has occurred, however the President nevertheless ought to hunt for suggestion from Congress over how the conflict is to be performed.

Answer 9

You're right, it's meaningless. Congress must vote to cut the funds.

There are a number of good proposals out there. Hopefully, we'll see some real leadership in Congress for a change, as people actually decide to do what is right instead of what is politically expedient.

Answer 10

IT IS WANTING TO LOOK LIKE THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING , WHEN IN ACTUALITY NOTHING SINCE THEY TOOK OVER HAS REACHED THE PRESIDENTS DESK,BECAUSE THEY ARE IDIOT DEMOCRATS THAT HAVE NO PLANS, BUT HAVE A WONDERFUL MEDIA TO SELL THEM!
OH I THINK TANGY HAS THE BEST ANSWER HERE!
LETS WIN NO MATTER WHAT IT TAKES! ONLY ONE DEMOCRAT IN HISTORY HAD IT RIGHT, ::::: Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. JOHN F. KENNEDY, HE SOUNDED LIKE A REPUBLICAN , NOT OUR WEAK DEMS. OF TODAY!!!