A few days ago I posted about the House of Representatives vote for an Iraq withdrawal timetable. I asked how far this would go. Well now the Senate has also voted for a timetable, a nonbinding timetable, which is better than nothing but not too courageous if you ask me. Here is a quote:
As drafted, the legislation called for troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days, with a non-binding goal that calls for the combat troops to be gone within a year. The measure also includes a series of suggested goals for the Iraqi government to meet to provide for its own security, enhance democracy and distribute its oil wealth fairly — provisions designed to attract support from Nelson and Sen. Mark Pryor (news, bio, voting record) of Arkansas. Despite the change, Pryor voted to delete the timeline. The vote was a critical test for Reid and the new Democratic majority in the Senate nearly three months after they took power. Despite several attempts, they had yet to win approval for any legislation challenging Bush’s policies. Republicans prevented debate over the winter on non-binding measures critical of Bush’s decision to deploy an additional 21,500 troops. That led to the 50-48 vote derailing a bill that called for a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days but set only a non-binding target of March 31, 2008, for the departure of the final combat forces.
What do you think? (Ah-hem Robert.)
Pingback: IST Control Center
Pingback: Les Enragés.org
As far as I’m concerned a non-binding anything is a complete waste of time. If the senators wanted to make a statement they could have easily went out on the capitol steps and called a press conference to say whatever it was they wanted to say.
I can’t believe we pay these people to sit around and argue for hours on end about non-binding resolutions.
Better that, than that they start actually doing stuff.
Even a “binding” timetable would have been non-binding because the bill wouldn’t have passed with veto proof majorities (and probably wouldn’t have passed the senate at all). Bush has said he will veto *anything* with any kind of timetable at all so we know it’s going to be vetoed anyway.
Given that Bush is going to veto this, I think it makes him look like even more of a tone-deaf, obstinate, psycho to veto something he doesn’t even have to obey than vetoing a binding timetable would.
I heard on the radio that this was going to reach a final vote next week; that would indicate to me that there were differences between the House bill and the Senate bill that will have to be worked out in committee.
What I’d love to see is for the committee to toss out all the bribes – whoops, I mean, domestic spending, and see what happens when our elected representatives vote the actual issue. Until they do that, this can’t be viewed as an actually representative vote. And since it’s non-binding, if it’s not representative then it’s doubly worthless. Mind you, I understand politics, but a thinking person will realize what’s going on here.
Interesting that Lieberman, who cacuses with the Democrats IIRC, voted against the bill. They had to have a Republican cross over to get it to pass.
As far as I’m concerned a non-binding anything is a complete waste of time.
Perhaps – unless they attach the non-binding statement to a FULLY BINDING funding authorization. At some point Bush will need to choose between signing a bill that contains a deadline for drawing down US deployments (even if non-binding), or de-funding his own war. If he signs it, he gives cover to war opponents both during the next authorization bill and in the next election cycle. If he vetos it, he ends his war and forces Bush to bear primary responsibility for its ending.
There’s nothing hypothetical about this bill. Which is precisely why Bush is making such a fuss over it.
Yes, I would prefer to see the pork stripped out of the bill, just as I’d prefer to see pork stripped out of most bills. Yet it’s amusing to see the White House complaining about the pork when Bush has never declined a morsel of pork in the past six pork-laden years.
Yet it’s amusing to see the White House complaining about the pork when Bush has never declined a morsel of pork in the past six pork-laden years.
Which I think is one reason why the Republicans had such trouble in this recent election. Certainly the war was a huge factor, but the Republicans are supposed to be the limited-government party. Yet when they came into power, they didn’t make any fundamental changes in the process. They just started grabbing money for their own pet projects instead. They lost a chunk of their base over that, a base that they could have used in this last cycle.
talk about ‘do as i say, not as i do’ policies. no wonder they hate us.
That’s something I don’t think the Dems have the guts to do.
Apparently the major difference between the House bill and the Senate bill is the that the House bill sets a deadline for withdrawal (3/2008) whereas the Senate bill has no such thing but instead says that there can be no increase in troop levels after 120 days from passage (which allows sending new troops as long as there are matching numbers that come home). If the 3/2008 deadline is put into the committee bill, it apparently won’t pass the Senate.