Can some liberal nut explain the point of the non-binding resolution? If you seriously believe the war is wrong why not debate funding, etc.? You want points politically for going against Bush, but you don't have the balls to stand for something and take that heat from the American people! Thank you for giving aid and comfort to the enemy and showing our troops how supportive you really are.
2007-02-17 09:52:29 · 7 answers · asked by Chester's Liver 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Well obviously they are gutless.
In this fight in Congress they have their tail between their legs even when its nothing but a piece of paper!
Don't trust Democrats with national security -- Please!
2007-02-17 10:00:05 · answer #1 · answered by John16 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are a few reasons. The first and probably most important is the fact that they couldn't even get a non-binding resolution to a vote in the Senate (Cloture failed 56-34, meaning the debate on the bill cannot end and an up/down vote cannot occur). Secondly, very few want to go on record with some kind of binding resolution which will cut troop funding or tie the hands of the military. Finally, I think many Democrats in the House and Senate are content to watch Bush fail in this current attempt to secure Baghdad and Iraq. If they do not cut funding and this current surge fails, they can blame Bush's policy decisions. If they cut funding and the surge fails, they can be blamed for the failure.
2007-02-17 18:41:15 · answer #2 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As a conservative I will tell you that the Libs wanted a non binding resolution in case the war starts going well and public opinion changes. They wanted a secret ballot so they can do another rendition of:
What you gonna do
What you gonna say
Do the Slick Willie Waffle
And ya come out OK
The Slick Willie Waffle
it's bound to save the day
Do the Slick Willie Waffle
And ya come out OK
Remember they don't even know what the definition of the word is is.
Their constituents are so stupid they couldn't fill out a simple ballot and claimed to have voted for Buchanan.
2007-02-17 18:01:27 · answer #3 · answered by pretender59321 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The resolution was to see where people stood on the issue. Alot more republicans voted yes than expected so now they will use Bush's new budget for the army to make it impossible for him to send more troops over to iraq or extend the stay of the ones that are already over there.
2007-02-17 18:01:04 · answer #4 · answered by jwk227 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Coming sooner than you think apparently, in the form of an APPROVAL of funding, coupled with requirements that troops not be deployed without being FULLY trained and equipped, and that they have had at least a year stateside between yearlong combat tours, and that no more troops have their terms of service or their combat tours extended involuntarily.
What do you think of that?
If you had to choose, whom do you support more, the troops or the president?
2007-02-17 18:13:03 · answer #5 · answered by oimwoomwio 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the dems are weak liars who mislead the american public when they ran largely on an antiwar platform and now they dont do anything to bring our boys back home. More politics as usual!!! I hope they all get voted back out again ASAP. I wish some country had the power to preemptively strike Washington DC and erase the POS legislature, and administrative branches of the Fascist republic we call the USA.
2007-02-17 18:38:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because liberals are cowards.
2007-02-17 18:02:35 · answer #7 · answered by Herb 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋