Wouldn't a nonbinding resolution about funding have more of a punch (if a nonbinding resolution can have any punch) than the one about the troop surge? I understand how the one they passed puts the members' votes on record of where they stand with the war, but wouldn't a resolution about funding do the same thing, while at the same time sending a message to the White House that they are going to stop this war with or without Bush?
2007-02-16 18:14:33 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Or is the new majority scared they would not have the same amount of support for such a resolution. They would rather be safe than show any actual fight.
2007-02-16 18:20:33 · update #1
linlyons - "dingbat," how cute. I can see that your reading comprehension is lacking. What the question actually implied was how a nonbinding resolution on funding would show where Congressional members stand just as much as one on the troop surge. Also, not everyone believes the war in Iraq is lost. If that were true, General Petraeus would not have been confident in taking on this revised surge plan. Even the Iraq Study Group believes a temporary troop surge in Baghdad could be a good thing to secure that city. Top of page 50: http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/iraq_study_group_report.pdf
2007-02-16 18:48:14 · update #2
I have no idea... personally, I think this is just the first shot in this battle... kind of a "feeler"... and they weren't very concerned about the wording, since it is non-binding... just seeing where everyone stands...
and there will be more action, with actual teeth, along the lines you discuss, the funding...
but maybe I'm wrong... it's just a guess...
I think it's a little early to call them "scared"... most would say only a fool rushes in... especially when he's not sure what he will find... (of course that's no refrence to Bush in Iraq or anything...)
2007-02-16 18:21:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Republicans are posturing to translate any cuts to funding as "they don't support our troops." So a resolution against the surge was a way to try to start handling things without giving the Republicans the ammunition they want.
2007-02-16 18:19:17 · answer #2 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Now that the house is controled by Democrats, they are checking their new power and making sure they don't lose it. If they publicly cut funding for the war, then the rest of the house and America will claim that by doing that, they are cutting the dollars that are spent for proper equipment like kevlar and other essentials, thus dangering the lives of our soldiers. This would not look good for either side, but especially the democrats.
2007-02-16 18:26:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not that many Dems want to cut funding for the war. Maybe the surge, but not the war as a whole. It would be too far out there.
2007-02-16 18:20:24 · answer #4 · answered by I'll Take That One! 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
they cant vote against funding because it would look like they are not supporting the troops. it is easier to say "we do not support the surge" vs saying "we will not fund the troops."plus a vote on funding probably wouldn't pass in either body of congress
2007-02-16 18:36:51 · answer #5 · answered by roland5000_7 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Republicans would filibuster such a motion. They don't want an "up and down" vote on such a thing.
2007-02-16 18:43:14 · answer #6 · answered by barringtonbreathesagain 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋