Jenn of the Jungle posted at 4:42 PM
The whole "nonbinding" thing is as stupid as it get's way to waste those first 1,000,000,000 hours Dems!
Anonymous posted at 4:12 PM
I took the advice of the video, and let my new Senator from PA know that I don't support an Escalation.
I did let him know, however, that I do support a surge as designed.
FleshPresser posted at 4:36 PM
C'mon, Jenn... you and I BOTH know you're more intelligent that this... this is the BEST comment you can leave? Perhaps it's because you're secretyl pissed off that the Dems have already accomplished more in their short leadership than the Repubs did during the entire term of the last Congress!
As for "anonymous" - people like you simply piss me off. You go ahead and fiddle around with linguistics all you want while soldiers lives are being lost in Iraq. While you play the semantics game, people are dying, and we are no closer to a solution than we were any of the last times the President decided to "surge."
Come back if and when the President's plan works and tell me I was wrong.... PLEASE.... I really want you to tell me I was wrong.... but something tells me that you're not going to get that opportunity.
Chris posted at 8:15 AM
FP I have to say, as hard as it is to say, I agree with Graham. If the Dems really believe that this war is a lost cause then they should have put forward a resolution to stop funding, forcing the president to bring the troops home. As it is, "non-binding" is impotent whether Reps "stop" the debate or not, it is an irrelevant vote. The Dems are trying to score points without taking any losses on their side. If "Bring Our Troops Home" really is their cry, then they should do everything in their power to make it happen. So far, they are not.
Ryan posted at 3:12 PM
Could someone please find the percentage of Senators who have children actively serving in Iraq? That would really put a perspective on things...
They're more than happy to send everyone's kids off to die, but if it were the majority of their kids involved, we'd be in a whole different situation right now.
Anonymous posted at 10:33 PM
Ryan, if you are saying that they only support the war because they have no personal vested interest, perhaps it would be worthwhile to find out the percentage of military that are serving over there that support or oppose the war?
Cb posted at 10:49 AM
FP I know you have been busy (I hope the play went well!) but I am wondering if you intentionally did not approve my earlier comment. In case it got lost, it was essentially this: If the Dems are so committed to ending our involvement in Iraq then they shouldn't mess around with a "non-binding" resolution. They should do what is in their power and cut the funds to the war operations. Presumably they don't because they are concerned with their political careers. But if they are people of principle then they should be willing to take that risk.
Clinton should be given credit for owning up to her votes and Obama should be challenged for not following through on his convictions since the Dems now control Congress.
Cb posted at 12:20 PM
BTW, It looks like something is finally moving. Today I read
"Dems move to limit Bush's war authority
By DAVID ESPO AP SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT Thursday, Feb. 15, 2007. (AP Photo/Lauren Frayer)
WASHINGTON -- Four years ago, Congress passed legislation authorizing President Bush to go to war in Iraq. Now Senate Democrats want to take it back.
Key lawmakers, backed by party leaders, are drafting legislation that would effectively revoke the broad authority granted to the president in the days Saddam Hussein was in power, and leave U.S. troops with a limited mission as they prepare to withdraw."