For those who do not understand, maybe this will clarify things for you.

[William769]

Non-binding resolution

A non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-binding_resolution

[William769]

1. Kick for educational purposes.

:kick:

[Warpy]

2. This carries as much practical force as the censure of the NYT

of the Move On ad: none.

However, it's providing those members of Congress who voted for it with a trial balloon: if there is no outcry from the folks back home, then their jobs are safe if they let the WAH president have another WAH to fuck up.

It's up to all of us who lives in a Blue Dog district to tell them that this is not the case.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Its sole purpose is toothless political posturing . . . . and pandering.

[William769]

4. That may very well be true.

But the point I am making is that some people here are screaming (one in paticular) that voted to go to war with Iran, and they didn't, not even close.

[zulchzulu]

31. It begins with a G and has "standing" in it. What word am I thinking of?

GRANDSTANDING!

That's right! You are correct!

:hi: :headbang: :hi:

[Armstead]

5. Um, you don't remember 02-03 very well , do you?

The whole nonsense surrounding the IWR was supposed to be symbolic too.

That wasn't supposed to lead us to war either.

The weasels who went for it claimed that all it did was show national support for Bush's negotiating position regarding international pressures on Sadaam to reveal his huge and deadly arsenal of WMD's.

[William769]

6. I remember very well.

That was not a non binding resolution. See how educational this has been?

[Armstead]

7. You are missing the forest for the trees

Do you remember how long anmd tortuous that whole process was? And how the spin of the Vichy Democrats was that the whole point of any legislation was simply to bolster the bargaining position of the US regarding all those awful WMD's that we were so sure Sadaam had?

How the Collaborationists kept reassuring those goofy critics of the Rush to War that this was intended to prevent a war with Iraq?

[William769]

8. I'm not missing anything.

I'm calling people on their bullshit. This was not a Bill to authorize use of force against Iran as some people here would like us to believe.

[Armstead]

9. In her own words.....

HRC's website...Speech of Oct 2002 explaining her vote....It's instructive to read the whole spech and then tell me it doesn't give you a sense of deja vu.



http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783

EXCERPT:

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections. ....

MORE

[William769]

10. What does that have to do with the non binding resolution passed yesterday?

[Armstead]

11. The parallels...

According to Hilary, the IWR was meant to prevent war by strengthening the US bargaining position in the UN against Sadaam, not give Bush an excuse to go to war. She also was SO SURE Sadaam was aggressiveing building a huge arsenal of WMD's that we had to be forceful. And, of course, the rest of the world would follow our lead if this "no war" war resolution were passed.

The parallel is that byt doing so, she legitimized the Bush rush to war, and bought into the whole TOTALLY WRONG and TOTALLY COOKED UP crisis with Iraq.

The administration and the Neo-Cons are now cooking up an equally phony confrontation with Iran, for eerily similar reasons. By voting for this -- non-binding or not -- Hilary is doing the exact same thing she did back then....Even though she claims to be sadder but wiser about Bush now.

If you can not see the parallels, then you have a case of selective amnesia.

[William769]

12. Once again what does that have to do with a non binding resolution

As compared to what was passed in 2002 which was not a non binding resolution?

[Armstead]

14. You are missing the forest for the trees

I can see why you are a Clinton supporter.

You have the same approach of burying the basic point behind a lot of mumbo-jumbo.

I could see a reasonable point to be made and reasonable debate if you were to at least acknowledge the parallels, and then defend Hilary's position on Iran today.

But instead you focus on the single point that this was "non-binding" compared to the "binding" IWR. At the time, Hilary claimed that she wasn't voting for giving Bush war powers, but was merely showing national unity against Sadaam.

In that context, whether yesterday's vote was "non-binding" or not is irrelevant. The basic fact is that it gives Bush another justification to add to the underlying drive to create any excuse possible to go after Iran militarily.

[William769]

15. I am not missing anything.

This is about what a non binding reslution is and people trying to make it something that it's not.

[Armstead]

20. Let me ask you a simple question.

Do you support the effort by the Bush administration to widen the Iraq War into Iran? Do you believe that Iran is such a threat to the US that we should open another Pandora's Box by continuing to provoke them and backing them into a corner that is untenable for them?

If you believe that Iran is a critical threat to the US today, and that Bush is right to be pushing us to the brink of a wider war, then we can have an honest difference of opinion. If you believe it was right to further Bush's aims by notching up the present "crisis" with Iran, then you would at least have a debatable point.

That is the point. Not whether a particular vote is "non-binding" or not.

[William769]

22. This is it in a nut shell.

I posted what a nonbinding resolution is, contrary to what others have said on this board since yesterday. I am only going to address in this thread what a non binding resolution is.

No matter what you say, it does not change the fact of what a nonbinding resolution is. And thats the point.

[Armstead]

25. Perfect Clintonesque answer

Focus on the irrelevant details at the expense of the larger point. Play legalistic games and use spin to deflect the real point.

Perhaps the legalistic aspects of the vote is worth mentioning. But what really has many people upset is the simple fact that she chose to do something that is in the same pattern of what we went through in 02-03. The parallels of supporting anotehr drive by Bush to further mire us in a war over there is the real point -- NOT whether something that adds to that is "binding" or not.

How about answering the question I asked above? You may disagree, but at least it would be a disagreement on substance and principle, not just style and political pandering.

[William769]

26. You have offered nothing on how this non binding resolution

Gives Bush the authority to go to war with Iran, your just ticked because I won't let you deviate from what this thread is about.

[Armstead]

33. Read Hilary's speech above and justify this

You are not defending the basic implications of this NON-BINDING vote.

I concede that it is not an automatic step to war because it is non-binding.

However, you refuse to address the real point, which is that this vote supports Bush's Middle East Policy, and furthers his strategy of creating a crisis with Iran that may well lead us to another war. By supporting Bush's position, Hilary is advancing his case.

Please defend that in a positive sense. I have already acknowledged that it is non binding. Now it's your turn to tell me why it was a good vote for her to make.

[William769]

37. Thats all this thread is about.

"I concede that it is not an automatic step to war because it is non-binding." Nothing more, nothing less.

[Armstead]

39. Spoken like a True Clintonite

You could have used at least some of the typing energy you have wasted repeating that mantra with a short succinct answer to my basic question.

Did Hilary do the right thing by bolstering the position of Bush towards Iran?

I'll make it even easier. You can give a Yes or No answer.

[Texas_Kat]

13. More precisely it was a "Sense of the Senate" resolution

SENSE OF THE SENATE is legislative language which offers the opinion of the Senate, but does not make law.

More Sense of the Senate resolutions from 07 ranging from the completely inconsequential to the banal.


http://www.sjsu.edu/senate/sen_res.html

[SaveElmer]

16. It's the usual hyperventilating that occurs...

In the liberal blogosphere...it means nothing electorally except Hillary is probably right where most voters are on the issue...

[NavyDavy]

17. no matter what you do some people will never be convinced....

but bravo zulu on your efforts.....

[AlCzervik]

18. stop making excuses and trying to deflect criticism.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. Maybe this will clarify things for YOU:

Once again, the Dems knuckled under to the Republicans.

Sure, it was a trivial, non-binding resolution, but it was the Republicans' way of saying, "Bwa-ha-ha, we can make you do anything we want just by whining."

If they can't laugh the Republicanites out of the House chamber for even bringing up such a trivial resolution, what good are they on serious issues?

"He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much, and he that is unjust in the least is also unjust in much." Luke 10:16.

[Armstead]

21. They prefer obfuscation over clarity

[William769]

23. And what does that have to do with a non binding resolution?

Your spinning is about as good as my maytag wahser.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. Reading comprehension is a good thing

I don't know how I can make it any plainer, but I'll try again:

They caved miserably on something trivial. I therefore cannot trust them to do the right thing on important issues.

I really wonder what issue they would consider important enough to take a stand on.

[William769]

28. My maytag is also running.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. Speak for yourself

I know what I mean.

If you choose to be obtuse, that's not my problem.

[Armstead]

35. Choosing to be obtuse seems to be the modus operandi

They avoid the basic point of whether this was a good vote or not. Instead focus on the fact that it is non-binding.

Sorta like "I'll vote for a non-binding resolution to kill cute puppies. I know it's wrong, but it doesn't matter because it's non-binding."

Maybe a bad analogy, but the point is I fail to see any active defense of the basic purpose of this vote. Just the whining and evasive "All that matters is that it is non-binding."

[madfloridian]

24. The right wing said "jump", the Democrats said "how high, sir".

That is the bottom line.

[zulchzulu]

29. This attempt at a free pass for another bad vote brought to you by...

Gulli-Go
Stay gullible all the time.

[William769]

38. And your many posts today about it being a war vote was

Well disingenuous to say the least.

[Texas_Kat]

32. For everyone's information:

If it make you feel better (or worse).... Obama and Dodd (and 66 others) sponsored a bill earlier this year that contained very similar (if not the exact same) wording:

snip

....(8) The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism).

Findings and Resolution (Sense of Congress):
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110D1tlnG:e1064:

Sponsor list:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00970:@@@P

Maybe someone can explain again why the Sense of the Senate resolution voted on yesterday is different than the one passed in March?

[Milo_Bloom]

34. So the moveon motion didn't bother you either... its all meaningless.

Amazing how much denial one person can swim in.

[Lord Helmet]

36. excuses, excuses