Why are DEMS pushing for a meaningless, non-binding vote on escalation?

[RiverStone]

I just don't get it!

After 4 years of this f'cked up war, the DEMS are in a position of power on The Hill and now they are pushing to vote on this non-binding, meaningless, wishy-washy resolution to not support Shrub's troop escalation. It reminds me of a "dressed rehearsal" for a play, but there is no performance, no show, no action. Even if the vote were to occur and embarrass GW - who cares! Without anything on the line, even a YES vote on this resolution may be changed when the real vote occurs. And we all know Shrub could not care less if 99% of America were opposed to his lack of executive decision making.

It does not do a damn thing to actually stop one additional soldier from setting foot in Iraq, or slow the funding to pay for one extra bullet, or put anybody "officially" on the record where the rubber really meets the road. Why do some DEMS on the Hill feel that we need to tap dance around a real vote? This is nothing but political posturing and is further wasting the time of the voting public who everybody knows is AGAINST the escalation by a healthy majority!

I understand the rethugs will demand some sort of compromise to bring it to the floor; then why not debate compromise for a binding vote? It seems to me Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should show real teeth by simply saying - after 4 years, it's time for a real and meaningful vote. In this one area, I agree with rethug Richard Lugar who said per CNN: "All of them are nonbinding, which means they have no consequence - So therefore, the impression is being given that we are taking vigorous action when in fact we are not. This is simply, as I say, a venting of emotions."

That makes lots of sense to me!

Lets hope that we will see a REAL vote on de-escalation legislation proposed by Russ Feingold, Barack Obama, or Ted Kennedy. By this, win or loss on the vote - every politician will go ON RECORD in a meaningful way to being part of the solution or the problem.




RiverStone



* * * * *


More on the upcoming vote (or not) here:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/05/senate.iraq/index.html

[Greeby]

1. Repukes are throwing everything they have into stopping even this

Imagine what they'll do when a real bill to end the war comes to the Senate floor

[Nickster]

4. Which will be somewhat defused when you have enough R votes on the non-binding

resolution. "How come you were for the idea of not sending additional troops before you were against it?" Get them to vote on the non-binding, then you have an easier road to get them on the binding resolution.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. Exactly.

Too few here on DU think strategically.

[RiverStone]

10. I can imagine...

Even more reason to make the heated debate on escalation (or not) meaningful. It seems that even if we win a symbolic vote on this, we will need to re-hash every rethug argument and more - ALL OVER AGAIN - if it makes it to the Senate floor.

This is the most compelling issue to America's voting public, our votes counted, our votes were binding - why can't the debate count as binding too? We are owed that! At face value, the DEMS on the Hill seem to be settling for symbolic bullshit when we the voters, and in particular 90% plus of Democratic voters, demand an end to escalation ASAP.

[Quakerfriend]

2. I could not agree with you more, RiverStone! Even the

'general public' seems to be aware that this non-binding stuff is worthless.

[MUAD_DIB]

3. Methinks this is the Dems not acting unilaterally, but firing a warning shot

across the bow of the Bush Admin.

The next step should be the real thing if Bush ignors them.

"Well, we warned him." They can say when they vote to close it all down in six months.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. It's rather simple

A) A binding resolution stands no chance in the Senate. It would either fail outright or be filibustered. You forget we have several Senators from very, very red states.
B) If it did pass, a binding resolution would be vetoed by Bush.
C) If it were vetoed, a binding resolution would not be overridden.

Combine that with the political incentive for passing a non-binding resolution - which gets all Republicans to state officially their allegiance on Bush's latest harebrained plan - and the choice is rather simple.

[aquart]

11. Precisely. Thank you.

[RiverStone]

13. I think a vote from the heart trumps politics...

I appreciate the strategy Vash, though it seems to me that after 4 years - thats 4 fucking years - that we need not to fire warning shots, or assume defeat, or compromise whats right for political expediency.

You said if it did pass by binding vote, Shrub would veto it. That would be true, but after the IWR fiasco, I want MY DEM Senators to go on record -consequences be damned- that they unequivocally oppose the war! That needs to happen now! They owe the American public a vote from the heart, a vote that reflects the values of those people who put them on the hill in the first place.

Sometimes the right thing to do makes more sense then being politically correct.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. Considering the difficulty in passing the non-binding resolution...

I don't even think the binding one would get to a veto.

And honestly, I don't want leadership to be voting from the heart. Their job is to ensure an entire progressive agenda, not just Iraq. Call it what you will, but I am not a one-issue voter and I don't want our party mortgaging everything else just for trying to get something done that will absolutely go down in flames.

[stillcool]

6. PR Campaign? n/t

[Tom Joad]

8. It's even worse than non-binding, it actually supports the war effort.

http://www.counterpunch.org/feingold02032007.html

Congress is gearing up for a big Iraq debate next week. The Senate will take up the John Warner-Carl Levin resolution, which some are portraying as an important, symbolic rebuke of the president's Iraq policy. Symbols can be powerful, but only if they have substance behind them. Read the fine print of the resolution itself, and you will find that it is not a rebuke at all. In parts, it reads like a reauthorization of the war, rejecting troop redeployment and specifically authorizing "vigorous operations" in part of Iraq. This resolution isn't a symbolic rebuke of the president; instead it symbolizes a Congress that is too timid to challenge the president's failed Iraq policy.

Under the guise of constructive criticism, this resolution signs off on the president's policy of maintaining military operations in Iraq indefinitely. While a resolution like this might have been all you could expect from a Republican Congress, it hardly seems like the product of a Congress under new Democratic leadership.

After voters registered their opposition to the war last November, the new Congress was supposed to offer dramatic change. Instead, less than a month into this Congress, some members in both parties have rallied around a resolution that endorses the catastrophic status quo in Iraq.

Beyond a tepid disagreement with the president's "surge" strategy, this resolution does nothing to stop the escalation. It even rejects "any immediate reduction in, or withdrawal of, the present level of forces." For Congress to reject bringing troops out of Iraq, after almost four years of a disastrous policy, makes no sense. It ignores public outrage over the war and the need to address other pressing national security priorities. The American people recognize that there is no U.S. military solution to Iraq's civil war. And as long as we focus disproportionate attention and resources on Iraq, we will not be able to counter the full range of threats that we face around the world.... more at above link

[Jacobin]

9. Congress is pretending to 'listen to the voters' re: November election

while continuing to do what it damn well pleases, i.e. enabling Smirk to continue his warmongering with faux-condemnation.

they're just letting you know THEY are in charge and they don't give a rat's ass what you voted for. We are an Empire and you are its mere subjects, so please stop bothering them. They tried to placate you with meaningless drivel and now you are whining again!

/rant/sarcasm off

[aquart]

14. Thank you for your concern.

Let me know when you figure out who "they" are.

[Jacobin]

15. You'll like this. TPM calls it a "plot"

Expecting that, I'm sure.

Today at 5:30, the Senate will take up a very technical-sounding measure that could have far-reaching implications: It could kill, at least in the short term, any chance that the Senate will formally condemn President Bush's plan to escalate the Iraq War.

What's going to happen is this: The Senate will be voting on the question of whether GOP Senator John Warner's anti-escalation resolution -- which has broad bipartisan support -- will even be allowed to be debated on, let alone come to a vote. And Mitch McConnell, the GOP's Senate leader, claims he's got enough Republican votes to prevent Dems from getting a fillibuster-proof 60 votes in favor of it going to the floor. In effect, that could mean that the Warner resolution -- that is, the resolution against escalation with the most chance of a broad passage -- won't get debated or voted on at all.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012290.php

Seriously though, I would think that while nominally the senate GOP appears to be blocking this debate, as usual, it would be the financiers of the GOP senate who are making the decisions affecting our country.

The list for and against is at the above link


:hi:

[blues90]

12. I think they are more concered about their careers

and the 2008 elections more than the death of the troops . I really have to wonder how much they consider those of us who are still here fighting to stay above poverty .

I am pretty sick of all politicians as it stands now .

[Orsino]

16. Let's do both.

Support the non-binding resolution while we urge our reps toward something with teeth. And while we harangue Da Prez.

[mmonk]

18. Politics. Wasting our time and votes believing they can fool us.

[PassingFair]

19. Wasting our time and votes.

Not to mention the LIVES of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of
Iraqis and thousands of American service people.

Sick, sick, cynical politics.

Shameful.

Feingold should be canonized.