Rawstory: Top military Republican to introduce own anti-surge resolution

[itsmesgd]

The ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner, (R-VA) will introduce a resolution asserting that sending more troops to Iraq is a mistake later this afternon, RAW STORY has learned.

Warner will be backed by another Republican and a "conservative Democrat."

DEVELOPING....
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Top_military_Republican_to_introduce_own_0122.html


Note to everyone, this is not a newly elected dem, but a repuke who is doing this. Why are the dems so damn scared to say anything?

[Tempest]

1. Dems too scared to say anything?

The Dems were the FIRST to introduce a resolution against the surge.

[itsmesgd]

3. wasnt the resolution "non binding"?

[Tempest]

7. All resolutions are non-binding on the executive office

It requires a bill signed by the president to be binding.

The Hagel resolution is non-binding as well.


And as we've seen, Bush ignores binding legislation as a matter of course.

[Veronica.Franco]

2. All are against it ...

The beginning of a week's lead editorial in the Nation bears posting:

World opinion is against it.
The American people are against it.
The Democratic Party is against it.
The Congress of the United States is against it.
The Iraq Study Group is against it.
The Iraqi people are against it.
The Iraqi government is against it.
Many Republican lawmakers are against it.
The top brass are against it.

But George W. Bush is going to do it: send 21,500 more troops into Iraq ... Can a single man force a nation to fight a war it does not want to fight, expand a war it does not want to expand--possibly to other countries? ... If he can, is that nation any longer a democracy in any meaningful sense? ... Is its government any longer a constitutional republic? ... If not, how can democratic rule and the republican form of government be restored? ... These are the unwelcome questions that President Bush's decision has forced on the country ...

[bdamomma]

5. * will not bend to the will of the American people or whoever is

in his way, do we let him take us down with him? this weasly man who just does not give a shit about anyone, he is truly our worst nightmare.

[Submariner]

4. Why are the Dems so damn scared to say anything?

I think the dialog of the majority has about reached the point of questioning the overall "sanity" of W. W does not listen to the Generals or others with far more military and diplomatic experience, and is evidently just out for himself and his place in world history. He knows he is in the toilet but won't admit his failures, so I think the Dems are waiting for a gang of five republicans, so to speak, to walk into the WH and take the f**ker out in a strait jacket, or something akin to that, to avoid the obvious partisan label that would come with telling the pretzeldent to get the f**k out of town, and take 5 deferment Cheney with ya!...imho.

[Mechatanketra]

6. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

You have the power, Congressfolks. Instead of "asserting" this or that, just shut off his damn war powers.

That's how the law is written. The President's status as commander in chief is only relevant when Congress says we need military action. If you really disagree with this, submit a bill that revokes the war powers activated by the IWR.

Of course, neither side is willing to do this, in part I suspect because significant segments of both parties enjoy the prospect of treating the military as the President's personal toy. :(