They want a "real" vote? Let's give 'em one...

[bmcatt]

One of the constant whines that's coming out of the Republic Party over the non-binding Iraq Resolution is that it *is* non-binding. Paraphrased: "If they're so serious about this, why don't they ask for a binding resolution on Iraq?"

In thinking about it, I think that that's a *GREAT* idea. After the non-binding one passes, let's turn around and start a binding resolution. Let's even get it as part of a closed-rule (no amendments) appropriations bill for funding the war. That way, no matter how convoluted it gets, the assclown-in-chief either signs it or vetoes it. And if he vetoes it, we get to pounce with "so who does and who doesn't support the troops?"

Time to dust off all that dry powder and actually use it for more than just ballast.

[maxsolomon]

1. would that it would happen

you have more faith in the party than i

[bmcatt]

2. *sigh* Hope, not faith... n/t

[GainesT1958]

3. I agree, and ideally I'd like to see it, but....

We want something as a first step that can get some Repub votes. After that, we can stick it to Dub by witholding funding for any more of the escalation, piece by piece. That's the beauty of the House; they have the power of the purse first.

I want to see something that will also stick it to the Repub senators who don't even want a vote. I loved it when that slimeball Saxby Chanbliss asked in committee, "What are we even doing here?" I wanted to tell him: We're HERE today, Senator, because you didn't do anything about it when you were THERE (in the majority)!:mad:

B-)