Weakness in the Senate
by kos
Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 02:24:37 PM PST
Is there anything more pathetic than Senators fighting tooth and nail over wording over a non-binding resolution that does absolutely nothing?
Well, Feingold is done playing that silly game.
I oppose the weak Warner-Levin resolution as currently written because it misunderstands the situation in Iraq and shortchanges our national security interests. The resolution rejects redeploying U.S. troops and supports moving a misguided military strategy from one part of Iraq to another. The American people have rejected the President’s Iraq strategy and it’s time for Congress to end our military involvement in this war. We must redeploy our troops from Iraq so that we can focus on the global threats that face us.
Yesterday, Feingold introduced the Iraq Redeployment Act of 2007. Feingold’s bill would force the President to safely redeploy U.S. troops out of Iraq by prohibiting further funding of military operations in Iraq six months after enactment.
Dodd will also oppose the useless Warner-Levin amendment.
Dodd, D-Conn., became the second Democrat to say he would vote against the measure. Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisc., is also against the bill, which is expected to be debated in the Senate next week.
Dodd’s central argument was that a non-binding resolution is meaningless.
This complicates Reid’s efforts to get to 60 votes, and it’s a good thing. Kill this piece of crap dead.
What’s the point of a useless amendment? Is Reid really that desperate to give Jon Stewart more material for the Daily Show.
Reid should introduce BINDING legislation. Let the Republicans vote against it. It’ll give us grist to use in the 2008 elections. The American people didn’t elect a Democratic Congress to waste time passing useless, non-binding resolutions that Bush can easily (and gleefully) ignore.
A successful non-binding resolution will be no more useful in ending this disastrous war than a failed binding one. So let’s make a real statement on the war, not empty platitudes and rhetoric.
· Permalink ::
· Discuss (178 comments)