Why did congress waste time on a non binding resolution on Iraq?

Question

Is this part of a tactical ploy or am I missing something here?

Answer 1

to all those who claim this "got us talking about Iraq" - have you been under a rock? What else has anyone that notices these things been talking about for the past four years?
It was pointless, a total waste of time that would have been immediately ignored. Instead of using the power of the purse, they try and fail to wag their collective finger. This country is going to hell.

Answer 2

Right now, no one knows what to do about Iraq except for the Bush Administration. Bush wants to "stay the course." Not saying if that is right or wrong, all I'm saying at least he knows what he wants to do in Iraq - stay there. Congress on the other hand knows the dangers of pulling out of Iraq and knows how much the public hates that war. So unsure what to do, the House approved a non binding resolution.

Answer 3

You aren't missing anything. The Dem's have offered no solutions to ANY current problem this nation faces....other than scream "I hate Bush".
What has happened to all the things they said they were going to do the first 100 hours? They haven't done a thing except waste the taxpayers money.
If they are so set against the war in Iraq, then they have the power from the Constitution to cut off the funds for the troops. Why don't they go ahead and do it, or shut the h-e-l-l up and get on board and the entire country stand as one against terrorists.

Answer 4

So that if the War continues on and the critics of Bush are proven wrong by acts of terrorism from Iran, then they (the lawmakers) can back-pedal; but if they're right they can trumpet that and trounce the Repubs in the next election. It's a coward's game, really. Plus it makes the public think that their elected officials really care about public opinion, which is a delusion a person must get over at some point his/her lifetime.

Answer 5

It makes me ask your self why we've the present human beings working the teach. I comprehend that folk disagree with the conflict, duh. regardless of the undeniable fact that, having congress bypass a "non-binding decision" isn't clever by any ability. ITS NON-BINDING! which ability the president can only say, "meh... yeah? so?", and proceed the troop buildup. How with reference to the congress truthfully bypass some thing which would be binding, a minimum of stress President Bush to teach his hand somewhat. after all, i think of that the whole theory behid the alternative is ludicrous, binding or non-binding. What this does is only tell the troops that are at present in harms way that we'd like them to proceed to do the interest, yet devoid of any backup (even nevertheless we truthfully are sending the backup, form of like a undesirable interest of 'psych'). i can only wager that the morale over there is particularly low at appropriate. i won't see how this decision will strengthen on that. As for u.s., its stressful for me to declare. we've long considering the fact that departed from truthfully being a representative government. particular I comprehend that *we* elect the people who're serving there, regardless of the undeniable fact that it seems that that's our only purpose in the political chain as quickly as those we vote for get into workplace. i for my section disagree with the path that the conflict has taken, yet I have not have been given any clue the thank you to proceed the two. in all probability why i'm no longer a known. after all, it incredibly is yet another occasion of u.s. proving how incompetent we are able to be. I advise those politicians truthfully have self assurance that this entire decision ingredient makes a distinction. and that's between the main important problems with our political device, yet thats yet another positioned up/answer. Heh.

Answer 6

The system of checks and balances of the Constitution was being placed in jeopardy. They was attempting to overrule presidential power which is strongly supported in the Constitution. This is why it had to be nonbinding. If they attempt to make it binding the Commander-in-Chief will no longer be needed. We are well on our way to anarchy then. The Constitution never gave the right to the law-makers to decide for the President of this country. That is why it was sent to the Senate and it was denied. That is called tying the president's hands and all future presidents.

Answer 7

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 8

A big partisan political sop for their left wing anti war supporters. The usual political BS. Grandstanding for the voters.

Answer 9

It let all of us know where people stand on this issue. And I am glad. Nice to know that the reps (some of them) actually can think for themsleves and NOT vote party lines, much like the dems have shown with Pelosi

Answer 10

I think they are trying to build a coalition so that they can move forward.

They are trying to determine what can be agreed upon by enough people to move forward. Maybe this was a good way to go about getting it started. Maybe its the only way.