Now the House is wasting time on a non-binding resolution

[bif]

Total waste of time and money. Give it up folks. The administration doesn't give a shit what you pass. The only thing they'll understand is if you cut their funds. And even then, the Pentagon has vast reserves they can tap into.

[dicknbush]

1. True True....One big circle jerk in my opinion. Rove is laughing at the TV

THey are happy to let you waste your time bloviating about a resolution that when it reaches the White House they will use it for toilet paper.

[bigtree]

2. It's such a 'waste of time' that the republicans are fighting it tooth and nail

the funding part is coming next

[Dhalgren]

5. The Republics would fight the Democrats "tooth and nail" over

where to put the water fountain. Democrats don't get it. The point is that you fight. Of course the pukes are going to come out strong against the mild-mannered Democrats - on any issue. And if this really is a "waste of time", then the repukes are all for that, right?

[bigtree]

6. they get it. this is a political process. This is groundwork for the binding actions to follow

[Dhalgren]

8. I don't know how much faith I have anymore. I will wait and see

what they do when they actually start doing something...

[OwnedByFerrets]

3. I disagree with you in three ways........

1) They are reminding monkeyboy of what we voted for in Nov. They are OUR representitives. Its their job to remind him of this.
2) They are fully capable of doing more than ONE thing at a time. This is NOT the only thing on the table or being worked on by our representitives.
3) It will put ON THE RECORD how representitives stand on the so-called surge. It needs to be ON THE RECORD.

[Dhalgren]

7. I don't agree.

1) Their job is not to remind the monkeyboy of anything. Their job is to stop the monkeyboy from doing any more damage to this country and its people. Besides, he has already flung feces all over the Nov. elections.
2) Well, let's see what all of those "other things" are.
3) They could go on the record with some sort of binding resolution, too. Going on the record does not require a non-binding resolution.

[CoffeeCat]

10. I agree with point #3....

...and that is the only positive I see emerging from all of this.

Republicans are very astute at this tactic. They send through a bill called, "Protecting
innocent babies from carnage" and they dare the Democrats to veto it--so they can be
on the record as wanting innocent babies to suffering.

I like the Dem strategy of getting the Republicans on the record, regarding the surge.
Dems know that this vote could really harm Rep politicians who are up for re-election
in 08. Iraq will be on fire by that time. They all know this. Dems are forcing them--
practically daring them--to support the pResident and have that support on record.

It's a nice chess move.

However, this week-long-speech adventure needs to be backed up with real action, regarding
Iraq AND Iran. The Dems have to do things that will MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

Pontificating about the horrors of BushCo is pointless. We all know that they're
evil thugs. Let's do something concrete to stop them.

[rodeodance]

4. come join us-Official thread (see under Greatest)

[CoffeeCat]

9. Which makes you wonder why...

....the Democrats are spending an entire week on this.

I love hearing tough talk against Junior, his sick war and his neocon crimes.

However, the time for hours and hours of talk---about a NONBINDING RESOLUTION--really is over
and will amount to no change.

This should have been done about two years ago, when it would have made a difference.

The White House is going to war with Iran. That's what they're gearing up for and plotting,
as the Democrats speechify themselves to death. What I really don't want to see--three years from now--
is a gaggle of Democrats pontificating about how horrible the last three years of the Iran
war has been---in the context of a NONBINDING RESOLUTION.

We need meaningful action, not a bunch of histrionics about how bad Iraq is. We all
know how bad it is. We don't need a week to say that. We need tough action.

[bif]

11. I totally agree

[OwnedByFerrets]

14. "This should have been done about two years ago, when it would have made a difference."

They had NO NO NO NO power to do this two years ago.

[CoffeeCat]

15. They had the ability to speak, didn't they?

What the Democrats are doing--is talking. They're explaining
their position against the Iraq war and against Bush's failings.

Two years ago the Dems most certainly had the ability to organize and speak
out vociferously against BushCo and this war. They didn't have
muzzles over their faces, did they?

I understand that their post-06-power now allows them to force
issues to the table. However, this is a non-binding resolution,
and in the end it's nothing but talk.

I'm ticked, but I'm still waiting to see the context of this
non-binding resolution. If the Dems use this as a springboard
for real change, well then I'll apologize for my negativity.

As it stands now, the Dems are using their power and their majority
status as Democrats to pontificate and tell us what we've been
screaming from the rafters--for years.

It's just not cutting it for me. I'm not impressed, but maybe
I will be in the near future. Let's hope so. We're at critical
mass folks. In my opinion, we don't have a lot of time for grandstanding.

[WilliamPitt]

12. Ah...*ahem*...before you abandon all hope...

...take a look at what you're actually talking about:

The Democratic resolution, just 10 lines in length, will frame three days of debate on the war, culminating in an expected vote Friday to put the House on record against President Bush's decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional U.S. combat troops to Iraq. In two short paragraphs, the resolution affirms Congress's support for "the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq" before breaking with the president's new strategy.

(snip)

Waiting in the wings is binding legislation that would fully fund Bush's $100 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but add four conditions: Soldiers and Marines could be deployed to Iraq only after being certified as fully trained and equipped. National Guardsmen and reservists could be subject to no more than two deployments, or roughly 12 months of combat duty. The administration could use none of the money for permanent bases in Iraq. And additional funding for the National Guard and reserves must be spent to retool operations at home, such as emergency response.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021300519.html

Is it the full monty, total withdrawal, etc? No. Is it a "waste of time"? No.

The non-binding resolution counts noses, the next one lines them up for the first of what will be a spate of Iraq bills out of the House. Don't look to the Senate for the momentum on this. The leadership is coming from the Reps.

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. They're sending a message to the psycho that his behavior is unacceptable, they're sending a message

to THE PEOPLE that this is a FIRST STEP and they're making the repukes take a stand...you're either for our resolution or you're against the soldiers.;) NEXT STEP...cut the funding. Better yet, IMPEACHMENT. THE PEOPLE voted in Nov. to end this war. THE PEOPLE are with the DEMS on this and the repukes have come out of it looking like a bunch of warmongering fools.