 Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtdmski  Oh yes, the House with another non-binding resolution. This is just a grandstand for House Democrats to attack the President. A non-binding resolution has the weight of nothing, it is not a law, just a statement.
Now correct me if I am wrong, but throughout the campaign the Democrats attacked the stay the course philosophy that President Bush declared. Now the President is seeking to increase troop strength, something else the Democrats mentioned, and in their non-binding resolution they are attacking this strategy and instead maintaining the stay the course philosophy of before the election.
So let's see if we can all follow this folks, this resolution will not prevent the deployment of 1 single troop, nor will it require the return of 1 single troop from in Iraq. In other words, it does not a damn thing.
Now when you say one thing and then do another they have a word for that, so somebody please help me out with that. The two that come to my mind most immediately are hypocrite and liar.
dmk | Srg, I think the main point, as evident by the title, is that Congress is sending Bush a message that going into Iran without Congressional support, is outside his powers. Quote: |
Originally Posted by CNN In an interview Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, noted that Bush consistently said he supports a diplomatic resolution to differences with Iran "and I take him at his word."
At the same time, she said, "I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran." | Now correct me if I am wrong but aren't the majority of Congress against putting in more troops? Even twelve Republican oppose it. This is how a democracy operates, which is what this country is still suppose to be. Quote: |
Originally Posted by CNN During the first three days of debate, more than 300 lawmakers spoke on the resolution supporting the troops but disapproving Bush's plans to augment their numbers by some 21,500.
Democrats supported it, while all but about a dozen Republicans opposed it, warning that it would hurt the morale of the troops and encourage the terrorists. | I watched the debate for a few hours and CNN doesn't mention the desire of congress to support the troops already there. With the current agreement, with the Iraqi government, the soldiers hands are tied in a lot of situations. If the Iraqis want to be in control, and our guys are getting killed because of it, then we should get the heck out of Iraq or give our guys, already there, the ability to do what is necessary to get the job done!
Our mission should be to truely help rebuild and clean up the denatured uranium we spread everywhere and get our combat soldiers out of that toxic enviroment as soon as we can, not send more soldiers in.
Bush should be grateful the resolution is none binding. I think this show some support of the President's ability to make the correct choice, yet still lets him know how most of congress feels. Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour
There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle. ~Alexis de Tocqueville
Last edited by tyreay; 02-16-2007 at 09:28 AM.
|