U.S. House votes against troop escalation

[mountain bed]

Today, after a week of debate, the House of Represenatives passed a 'non-binding' resolution that came down against sending more troops to Iraq. The vote was 246-182. 15 Republicans voted for the resolution, 2 Democrats voted against.

 

Being non-binding, the resolution is largely symbolic...but the statement it makes can be spun dozens of different ways. What is it really saying & what are the potential consequences?

 

--is it the voice of the people telling W. "we've had enough of your incompetence"?

 

--does it "embolden the enemy" ?

 

--is it the first step in a process to eventually cut off funding for the war ?

 

--does it begin to make a case for re-deployment, so troops can fight elsewhere (Afghanistan)?

 

--is it, as some have said, basically meaningless ?

 

Those are just a few possible interpretations...no one would deny, however, that it is gonna be a heated subject for quite a while.

 

What do you think?

[cryptique]

I think the Dems shouldn't have wasted everyone's time with a nonbinding resolution. If it ain't got teeth, what's the point? People want the troops out -- let's do something about that, for real.

[uncle wilco]

it means nothing. nothing at all.

[anodyne]

it's a first (albeit anemic) step at ending the war. they forced the hand (weakly) to get people on record in their support for this escalation. now they need to DO something with those numbers.

 

this was a chance to begin framing the campaign ads for 2008.

[napoleon]

it's a first (albeit anemic) step at ending the war.

 

exactly.

[skyflynn]

this was a chance to begin framing the campaign ads for 2008.

Sadly, this is correct.

[EliotRosewater]

I wish there were tivo for life

[skyflynn]

I adore KV, BTW.

[c53x12]

That they hate America?

 

Actually, it means at least 10 minutes of material for Colbert's next show.

[MrRain422]

--is it the voice of the people telling W. "we've had enough of your incompetence"?

 

Sorta.

 

--does it "embolden the enemy" ?

 

No, and I really hate this argument. For one thing, it assumes that our enemies aren't already emboldened. They are. Secondly, it seems to imply that our troops are a bunch of wilting flowers who will roll over and die if their mission doesn't have 100% support back home. Sorry, I think our troops are tougher than that. With the shit that they deal with on a day to day basis, a nonbinding congressional resolution isn't going to make them start crying. Aside from the fact that I would imagine that they're also intelligent enough to know the difference between someone disagreeing with the President's plan, and someone who does not support the troops. I mean, come on righty pundits, give our troops just a little bit of credit.

 

--is it the first step in a process to eventually cut off funding for the war ?

 

Doubtful. It would be nice, but no, I don't think this will actually happen.

 

--does it begin to make a case for re-deployment, so troops can fight elsewhere (Afghanistan)?

 

I don't think I've heard any of the Dems involved in this even mention Afghantistan. But again, that would be nice, as Afghantistan sure does need the extra troops. And 20,000 there would make more difference than 20,000 in Iraq.

 

--is it, as some have said, basically meaningless ?

 

Unfortunately. I don't know if it's completely meaningless, but whatever meaning it does have is pretty negligible, especially since they took out what little meaningful language was in there before they tried to bring Republicans aboard.

[WilcoFan]

It think it does help. It basically does tell Bush and the rest of the world that we do not support his war. Just in a wimpy way. -- As wimpy as this resolution is, I didn't think congress had the testicular fortitude to do it. Good for them.