The rest of the headline reads: "with 17 votes from the G.O.P." just to further drive home the notion that the New York Times is slanted to the left, just in case you didn't know. I actually love the New York Times, I am a daily subscriber. Sometimes these (not so) subtle additions to stories just make me laugh a little.
OK, the House passed an Iraq Resolution and regardless of your position on the war you must wonder what this will do. I first must applaud the 17 Republicans for actually not voting with their party. Not to say that voting with your party is bad, it just is a bit ridiculous sometimes. Oh yea, there were also 2 Democrats who voted against it (this was not in the headline). These "across the aisle" votes actually don't mean anything because if the vote was close these Representatives would have no doubt voted along their party line.
That aside, what is the purpose of this resolution? I'll give you a hint, it has to do with elections. This resolution was easily passed by way of the 32 seat Democratic majority, but unfortunately it will not do much. They are covering their backs just in case the president's troop surge strategy does not succeed and they are faced with the "why did you let this happen" question from voters in 2008. Unfortunately this resolution does nothing more than cover backs, and make a good photo op for Speaker Pelosi. President Bush isn't going to say "oh, well that's it, start the withdrawal."
I find it unlikely that the Senate will pass this or any similar resolution because of the rules of the Senate, and the near partisan split in seats. One Senator can ruin a vote, which has happened recently on a similar initiative.
If Congress wanted to stop the troop surge they would cut the funding off to the troops. I would not like to see this happen because I support our troops and everything that they do. But it is the only legitimate way that Congress can actually stop the troop surge.
Read the full article
OK, the House passed an Iraq Resolution and regardless of your position on the war you must wonder what this will do. I first must applaud the 17 Republicans for actually not voting with their party. Not to say that voting with your party is bad, it just is a bit ridiculous sometimes. Oh yea, there were also 2 Democrats who voted against it (this was not in the headline). These "across the aisle" votes actually don't mean anything because if the vote was close these Representatives would have no doubt voted along their party line.
That aside, what is the purpose of this resolution? I'll give you a hint, it has to do with elections. This resolution was easily passed by way of the 32 seat Democratic majority, but unfortunately it will not do much. They are covering their backs just in case the president's troop surge strategy does not succeed and they are faced with the "why did you let this happen" question from voters in 2008. Unfortunately this resolution does nothing more than cover backs, and make a good photo op for Speaker Pelosi. President Bush isn't going to say "oh, well that's it, start the withdrawal."
I find it unlikely that the Senate will pass this or any similar resolution because of the rules of the Senate, and the near partisan split in seats. One Senator can ruin a vote, which has happened recently on a similar initiative.
If Congress wanted to stop the troop surge they would cut the funding off to the troops. I would not like to see this happen because I support our troops and everything that they do. But it is the only legitimate way that Congress can actually stop the troop surge.
Read the full article
No comments:
Post a Comment