They are working out wording to specify the terms of our troop use in Iraq. (Nothing like letting lawyers decide military strategy, but, whatever).
If they tried once and failed to pass the 'lite' version of this, why do they believe the full metal version will make it through?
2007-02-22 18:55:26 · 6 answers · asked by MoltarRocks 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They are desperate and cowardly. Our fifth column.
They are unwitting pawns for the terrorist alliance, the vast network of disgruntled third worlders and ex-communists.
2007-02-22 18:58:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If we pull out of the middle east too soon it will be a catastrophe and the Dems know this. That is why they made it non-binding. If they pass a binding resolution forcing the withdrawal of troops they know they will be blamed.
What they hope to do is force President Bush to withdraw our troops so he will be blamed. This is why Bush is asking for a straight up vote on the war funding. The Dems can't cut funding or they will get the blame for the problems that follow and they won't get re-elected. On the other hand after all these Democrats yelling about how bad the war is and how we should get out, how can they vote for the funding? It might get them voted out of office.
It's a pretty pickle for the Dems. Guess ole George is a lot smarter than some people give him credit for.
2007-02-23 03:09:15 · answer #2 · answered by bill j 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Actually, didn't the non-binding legislation pass in the House, but was held up in the senate by filibustering Republicans?
The Democrats promised to do everything they can to follow the Iraq Study Group's recommendation for phased withdrawal. I'm glad to see they're continuing to do that. If Britain can pull out and call it victory, why can't we?
2007-02-23 03:25:18 · answer #3 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Legislation doesn't have to succeed to be useful. Many bills are never expected to pass. Even a doomed bill can be an effective device. It puts people on record. It can be a statement, a protest, a drawing of battle lines, an campaign strategy.
The McCain-Feingold Act, for example, was expected to be struck down by the Supreme Court. It wasn't really supposed to become a law. The Supreme Court upheld it so they're stuck with it.
2007-02-23 03:14:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It was a statement by Congress that they do not support Bush's plan to escalate the occupation in Iraq.
It was a bipartisan effort, and was very effective. Notice how people are still talking about it...
2007-02-23 03:22:33 · answer #5 · answered by MenifeeManiac 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
they dont but are simply drawing a line in the sand sort of speak to influence the 08 races, Hillary is under the gun for voting for and now being against the war, so they figure its a covering of their political backsides is all I can figure at our taxpaying expense that is, as seems to me they are neglecting their duties waisting time, AGAIN
2007-02-23 05:17:37 · answer #6 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋