Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and John Warner (R-VA) have merged their proposed non-binding resolutions against the “surge” – in hopes of putting together a filibuster-proof majority.
Will they succeed?
Will it matter?
Maybe.
No.
-
Yes. Most Dems + some Reps = passage. The compromises have been worked out. And the minimum-wage bill the Reps were opposing as a mini-filibuster tactic is now passed, so the deck is clear for it.
-
Not by itself, being nonbinding. But psychologically it matters enormously. It will be the first time in Bush’s administration that Congress got up on its hind legs and told him to cut the shit. It’ll be a lot easier for them the next time, and the time after that, etc.
Wow. After all these years, after everything we’ve been through, Bush was right.
He really IS a uniter.
It’s not the first time. Congress refused to pass Bush’s social security plan, they refused to pass Bush’s immigration reform plan, they blocked the ports sale to the Dubai company, etc.
Bush has actually had a bad relationship with Congress considering that until recently, it was Republican controlled.
Bush never actually submitted a Social Security plan or an immigration reform plan; he simply challenged Congress to come up with something that would make him look good. Dubai withdrew from the ports deal; Congress didn’t act on that either.
Congress was ready to act on Dubai if they hadn’t withdrawn, though. Frist publically said so. And Bush didn’t submit the Social Security plan or immigration reform plan because he knew Congress wouldn’t pass it and he didn’t want to take the political risk.
Does anyone have a link to the wording of the proposed resolution? From what I can read about it, it sounds like a resolution asking the President to “stay the course”.
The operative language on it is short (I’m leaving out the whereases), so I’ll copy it here…it’s S. Con. Res. 7
Thanks.
Wow, that is the most mealy mouthed thing I’ve read in a long time. They couldn’t even bring themselves to name Iran or Syria, just “selected nations”. Looks like “stay the course” to me. I’m with Feingold on this-- he says he won’t sign any non-binding resolutions.
Well, heck, what do you expect? This thing is strictly for the ‘Go to hell, you loser, we’re in charge now’ factor.
I do find it surprising that the ‘surge’ as it seems, just isn’t getting the traction I would have expected. The President can go through with it, of course, but it sure looks like a whole bunch of people, even in his own party, are willing to tell him he’s on his own politically with this thing.
What the President does in response to this will be telling. There’s been quite the charm offensive under way this last week from administration types to make sure people know they’re going forward and that they continue to believe it’s a good idea.
I disagree. This is exactly why Congress doesn’t run our wars-- it’s a meaningless, watered down, pile of… nothing. And that’s the 100 more sensible folks in Congress. If it were a statement of who is in charge, it would at least have some baby teeth in it.
I think that Bush is going to be given 4-6 more months to operate as he wishes. After that point, if things aren’t showing signs of improvement, we may very well see a real measure passed-- one that either rescinds or redefines the AUMF or cuts off funding for some time in the future.
It sure is. Paragraph 4 has got to go. Let the president sweat, let him veto it, and let the republicans who sustain the veto take a little heat for God sakes! It’s not as if things’ll get better come June. Why the hell would the dems vote for a resolution that leaves them open to charges of flip flopping when it becomes clear a few months down the line that congress must act to defund?
That’s because it’s a compromise. Levin had to agree to drop the language about a surge not being in America’s national interest, and Warner had to agree to drop the language about maybe supporting a troop-level increase at some time in the future, IIRC.
He doesn’t have to sign anything, he just has to vote.
:dubious: And just what makes you think the House is any less sensible than the entirely superfluous ought-to-be-abolished Senate?
Of course, by that time, we might already be at war with Iran . . .
You know, for all the protest within the Congress about the war, they are too chickenshit to do the only thing that matters: de-funding the war. Is this about politics, or is this about doing the right thing? If the right thing to do is getting out of Iraq right now, someone has to take the hit, and they’re all afraid to do it.
I used to think that John Kerry was a disloyal ass, but due to the passage of time I have learned what it was that he learned, summed up in one sentence: How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? The Democrats, by not stepping up to the plate and doing the right thing, the thing that the Republicans were unwilling to do, are asking that very question of the soldiers in Iraq. But hey, the military goes Republican, so it’s not like they’re losing any votes over this, right? :rolleyes:
Trapped by cowardice: the epitaph of both parties in the 110th Congress.
:dubious: And you would rather they did?
If that’s what it takes, yes. At this point there nothing left to be done but withdrawal in disgrace.
Yes, I know it’s a compromise. That still doesn’t change the fact that it is virtually contentless.
My bad. I probably meant to say “sign on to”, but “vote for” is more to the point.
Because the House has a bunch of nuts in it. Sure, there are some good pols, but the ration of good:nuts is much lower in the House. If I were to abolish one chamber, I’d get rid of the House and keep the Senate.
:rolleyes: I’m still willing to bet on that if you are. But then, I know you won’t. For some reason, folks like you feel the need to exaggerate the dangers Bush presents as president. It’s pretty humorous to watch, actually.
So has the Senate.
Cite? Analysis? Names? Anything?