You know this is bullshit, right?

House Of Representatives:'We're against this troop surge, we want to say we voted against it, but we don't want to actually stop it--the thought of being held responsible for our bullshit politics frightens us.'

When these Democrats and Republicans of yours are sincere, their legislation is binding--like when they voted for the war--binding; like when they voted for the PATRIOT Act--binding; when they voted for the minimum wage increase--binding.

Whenever there's a hook that leads to a governmental power-grab, the resolution is always fuking binding. When there's a limitation on rights involved, the resolution is most certainly, and emphatically binding.

You can argue that the binding resolutions that the GOP push on us make them assholes more often than not, but if you want to know exactly why the Democrats get labled 'PUSSIES' as well, this 'non-binding-resolution' is all the reason you need to cite. The principle of this action tell the entire tale.

They want to say that they are against feeding more American flesh and blood into the Iraq War Machine, but they don't want that message to be binding, particualy since they have the majority to make it binding. Fuk them. I warned you that these fuks, these Democrat fuks in particular, are fuktards of the very first order.

What LOki said.

But what about Our poor Troops? We can't take money away from Our Troops, loki.

I agree with you 110 % LOki. The only valid reason for a non-binding resolution is to see who would vote for a real resolution. Still, that doesnt look very likely.

As with everything else the government of these United States gets involved with lately, mistakes and mismanagement seem to be the order of the day. ANY resolution on Iraq at this point is denying the basic problem. We are now an occupying force, with supply lines stretched across half the planet. We are trying to sift through a population to determine enemies from allies on a house by house basis. Our troops are under/ ill equipped to defend themselves. It is truly a testament to the superioity of the US military against any other armed force on the planet that more of our troops have not died. Unfortunately the original premise of this war, to wit: 'Remove Sadaam and the threat of WMD, while at the same time crushing Al Quedaa', has not and will not be achieved in totality.
Sending more troops to essentially create a 'larger sifter' may indeed work. It will almost certainly lead to more casualties, and that is sadder and more infuriating that any 'non-binding resolution'.

The Senate failed to pass a bill that was basically the same thing discussed here. Pretty uninspiring.

What LOki said. They voted to do nothing.

YAY DEMOCRACY

One thing I read: the non-binding resolution is meant to put the administration on the defensive for when they vote on the binding resolution of not funding escalation. There is also talk of redefining the powers granted for the Iraq effort to a more narrow goal. I'm not ready yet to write off the Dems because of this non-binding resolution, which does seem rediculous on the surface.

What bothers me most is when I hear Biden and other Dems talk about the Iraqi's responsibility to get their shit together. That was our responsibilty after the initial invasion (according to the status quo); so when did our FUBAR become theirs? That whole line of reasoning rings hollow.

The FUBAR was always theirs. Regardless of what Bush and his administration thinks, freedom isn't something you can just give away like a fruitcake (Shit, I'm quoting myself).

I'm just saying that if the period following the invasion wasn't a complete and total failure on the part of the U.S., we and they might not be in this mess now. Some goes for Afghanistan.