What good is a NON BINDING resolution in Iraq?

Question

So let me get this straight. Liberals are for CUTTING (our losses) AND RUNNING (from) Iraq, but almost immediately after gaining a 'mandate' from the public, Nancy Pelosi sticks it to the people by passing a non binding resolution that is completely outside of their jurisdiction, and therefore, unenforceable. Democrats don't support the troops in Iraq, but rather than voting to actually stop funding the war that puts them there, which is within the powers and abilities, the best Democrats can expect is a non-binding resolution that addresses the decision to go to war, which is, as far as I understand, not supposed to be in their purview. It's a good thing for Democrats that the electorate doesn't respond to inept leadership the same way Conservatives do. Conservatives respond to inept leadership by not turning out to the polls, which in essence is saying, 'why should I take time from my busy schedule to go and vote for someone who is not going to do what I have elected them to do?'

Democrats respond by saying “It's Bush's fault! Rally the troops! Vote early, vote often!”. Apparently, it works. In American government, there is a concept of 'checks and balances'. Checks and balances, unlike the concept of 'separation of church and state', is an actual intentional concept, and not a side note written in personal journal. The Checks and balances are meant to ensure that no single branch of government carries too much weight or power. The president has the power to send troops to war, but he has to ask the Congress for the money to do it. If the congress feels that the president is 'over the line', they can respond by voting against giving him the money to continue action. The decision to go to war is probably not the type of thing that should be left to an elected committee, because committees have a tendency to lean towards the safest option, whereas individuals are more likely to Boldly go.

That is why exploration in any field is generally backed with group support, and not led by group decision. That is why ships have captains, and not committees. Personally, I feel that if ANY of the house or senate actually thought that a pull out of Iraq would not mean the enemy would follow us back here, they would have have voted to stop funding the war a long time ago. Liberal Senators have put themselves in a precarious position, and ultimately, I think that it is the American people who will pay. There were 8 major attacks on American interests during Bill Clinton's time in office. During Carters presidency, Americans were held in Iran for 444 days, and released on the day that Ronald Reagan was sworn in. If History is any indicator, the war will continue, either over there, or over here. As a party, Democrats take the position of being 'anti-war', so the elected officials are to some extent, obliged to act on the behalf of the people who elected them.

Unfortunately, in this case, acting on the behalf of the loudest people is the best way to damage all of the people. Up until now, I can not think of a satisfactory answer to a simple question that I have asked of many 'intellectual' Liberals. What if we pull out, and they make use of our Liberal border policy to come over and kill more Americans at home? In that circumstance, has the end of the war proven to be more beneficial than the continuance of the war? I'll go ahead and show my conservative bias now, in my mind, if you say that it is better to lose more American civilians at home than it is to lose fewer servicemen in Iraq, I find it very difficult to take you serious as an intelligent individual, Since the attacks on September 11th, we have lost more American Civilians at home to illegal aliens than we have lost servicemen in Iraq.

When you start thinking about how many of the servicemen were killed by actual Iraqis, as opposed to the international fighting force known as Al Qaeda, our losses could be considered negligible. I am a registered Democrat, and I will vote in the next democratic primary, just as I did in the last one. When the next election comes around, I will vote Republican, just like I did last time. If the Republicans don't wake up and grow a pair, I might vote independent, but barring an extreme reality check, I will not be voting with the party. I want for the party what the party seems to want for the nation. Dissection and reassembly, as something else.

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

There is a Constitutional process to rescind war powers that have been given to a president. A non-binding resolution is one of the first. It is putting the president on notice that his actions are going against what the people demand. Mr. Bush can't veto it and must respond. If he continues his illegal action, further steps will be taken with the final act impeachment and removal from office. In our democracy, you just can't walk in there, make him pack his bags and leave.

For a good example of how this works, read what led to Mr. Nixons resignation from the presidency. At the end, he only had 2 options - resign or be impeached. If a president is impeached and removed, he can be charged with criminal behavior. It is considered treason to act agains the will of we, the people and our representatives in Washington.

Just stand by - they are going to remove that madman from the White House and it won't take long.

Answer 3

In my view it's a complete waste of taxpayer time. If you believe in something then try to make it count. A non binding resolution is only a way to express displeasure to the President and I bet he already knows how most in Congress feel. This is typical government misdirection, try to put on a show for the people while in reality wasting time and money while there are a multitude of issues to work on. Both parties are guilty of this.

Answer 4

Because if they pass a binding resolution and pull out because of it, then a year or two down the road we get hit with another terrorist attack that would be political suicide for the democrats and they know it. So the best thing to do is try and get Bush to pull out then it's all his fault again. That's a win win for the Dem's.

Answer 5

Nothing will change drastically till after 08. The democrats don't want to make any mistakes that will cause a loss in the election.

Answer 6

It was a total show! Only put on to appease that loud far left, like Cindy Sheehan and her group who were up in congress a few weeks ago disrupting the meeting.

Answer 7

Are you done with your diatribe?

The one thing the resolution does it puts people on record as to where they stand.

Why do you want them to cut funding? That would be pretty irresponsible, don't you think?

Answer 8

There you go, thinking you could trust the Democrats too bad
you couldn't have a non binding election.

Answer 9

It is no good. It did send a clear message to the men and women laying their lives on the line in Iraq though. The resolution was a slap in the face to those brave men and women.

Answer 10

democrat response.non binding no decision ...typical non direction or substance.