Kind of puts his saber-rattling in the Gulf in perspective, right? No more war for YOU, Bushie!
2007-02-16 19:19:27 · 7 answers · asked by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes, it is, what it shows is that the American form of government was formed to have checks and balance so that one branch does not become stronger then another. It is more about that they the actual resolution that passed. The right to dissent must never be compromised again.
Edit: I think many of your answers miss the point of a non binding resolution, it is a shot accross the bow, a warning that congress is no longer a rubber stamp for Bush and that he had better learn to compromise as the democrats hold the purse strings. It is not a bluff as Bush may find out if he tries to go to war with Iran.
2007-02-16 22:54:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lets look at the facts. Congress passed a amendment that meant nothing other than they did not agree. majority Democrat did not agree with a Republican president. Nothing special there.
They know when they try to cut the funding of the troops that their victory dance will not be so easy. Who looks stupid ? A group in congress that waste two weeks of taxpayers money passing a resolution that is non binding on something that has already happened ?
2007-02-17 06:19:22 · answer #2 · answered by meathead 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yeah WOW - it could have been worst and they could have gave him a time out in the corner. Our Democratic party needs to stop playing games with the voters, after we got them in. I thought they would have at least have another resolution to help our troops and the Iraq scenario. But, nothing - a non-binding resolution, they should have added gradual troop withdraw benchmarks, to move the Iraqis quicker towards being
self-sustained. Don't that make any sense, by them playing all of us. Well we all continue to pay for this at 260 million a day, do the math that is nuts. Not all of that are for troops, its for the Iraqi government.
2007-02-17 03:43:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree with the first part of Mr.neznicr45's answer. Nevertheless, the second part about the name "Al-Qa'idah" is a total nonsense.
"Al-Qa'idah" is a noun "Qa'idah" preceded by definite article "Al". Qa'idah is a form derived from the Arabic tri-lateral Verb "K-A-D", meaning to sit down or to base oneself, therefore the noun does not mean TOILET, not even in any Middle Eastern Country, but the BASE which has a military connotation.
Mr.neznicr45 do not kiss Asses!
2007-02-17 03:49:18 · answer #4 · answered by Aadel 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Pentagon has said that war with Iran isn't feasible anyways. The terrain is too rugged and undeveloped outside of the major cities. It would be logistical hell there.
2007-02-17 03:42:52 · answer #5 · answered by Mr. Pibb 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am not sure if this is going to deter a conflict with Iran. The Federal Reserve and those who control it want the war to go on forever to prop up their farce.
2007-02-17 03:41:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
If he can't attack Iran, then he'll turn around and attack the US again (like he and his fellow neocon traitor buddies did on 9/11/01). But this time he'll blame it on Iran rather than on his made up boogie man, Al Qeada.
By the way, "Al Qeada" means "toilet" in most Middle Eastern countries. Why would a huge and powerful international "Muslim Extremist" terrorist group call themselves Toilet? Wouldn't then be more likely to name themselve after something from the Koran?
EDIT:
Aadel, in some ME dialects, yes Al Qaeda DOES mean Toilet. .... or more precisely, "I'm going to the toilet".
2007-02-17 03:25:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋