Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Feb 16, 2007.
meaningful? or waste of time?
Exactly. This measure by itself is something of a waste of time, but it gives us a baseline of where the House is at, and it also puts the GOP in the same kind of armlock they spent 12 years forcing the Dems into -- forcing a vote that will make the GOP members choose between supporting their president and doing what their constituents want.
Any GOP member who voted against this resolution will have it held against them in less than 2 years.
Now, next up are the binding resolutions. Murtha has vowed to attach conditions to the military appropriations bill that would effectively begin to bring the troops home, and he's doing it in a very smart way. He's going to say that Army units must meet Army readiness standards for rest and equipment readiness before being deployed. That will be hard to spin as "not supporting the troops". If the Dems can keep 31 members who voted for this resolution to stay on board for Murtha's, the President will face a choice of vetoing the money he needs for the war, or accepting the conditions of the bill.
Republicans all have to go, its the only solution I can see. They dont get Islam,or its many historys such as Sunni vs Shia conflict,just as they didnt get that we were attacked by Saudi's, or that Saddam had no WMDs. Republicans have another agenda and thats all power to the corporations. Republicans have to go, next election maybe we can get them to a very small minority in Congress. 400 billion down the drain, and they want more.
Actually, I meant that it was practically meaningless as far as actually doing anything, but the opposition are going to still claim it demoralizes the troops and embigens the enemy. Somehow. While still claiming it does and says nothing.
I support the Murtha thing, but they're already still saying it's against the troops. Look at that guy who misquoted Lincoln to say so. Even long after it was proven to be a lie. Pretty much standard fare for them now, isn't it.
Yes it's meaningless as regards immediate action. But I see this as laying the groundwork for more meaningful stuff later.
The Democrats came into control of Congress somewhat leery of cutting off any funding, lest the Republicans attack them as being "against the troops".
Now, you'd have thought the Dems would realize that the election itself gave them a mandate to end the war. But having just gained the majority, they are taking baby steps until they feel more confident.
The fact that the public hasn't reacted negatively -- indeed, seems to embrace this resolution -- has given Congress the courage to go ahead with the cuts mentioned in the second paragraph of that article.
Not particularly gutsy on the Dems' part, but it is careful and canny.
it needed 60 to pass.
Interesting, albeit not entirely surprising, to see who voted against bringing the Senate resolution to the floor:
Joe Lieberman. He may look like Mr. Peabody, but he thinks like Zell Miller.
As far as I can tell Lieberman is a republican wearing a Democrat badge but lets all be honest ,all of the Senate is working for the Corporations just like our Cheese in Charge and his legions of draft dodgers. What is there to win in Iraq? Split it up and lets go catch Osama and his fellow murderers.
Nope, Iran is next. They have oil. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda is regrouping in Pakistan along the border so we can blame the Dems for not keeping our country safe when Osama attacks again.
I don't know how it's the Dems fault, but I'm sure the neocons will find a way to say it is.