DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**xLQLRcXh** · 02-13-2007, 04:50 PM

As if anyone believed her. What I still want her to answer is why only a non binding resolution. If they are so against the war, pass legislation cutting off funding. Or do not pass any more funding bills till the president withdrawls.

I agree they should do more. But I'm hoping that the non-binding resolution is just the first step.

House Takes Up Resolution on Iraq -- Concise Measure Seen as Precursor to Binding Legislation on Funding, Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2007:

The Democratic resolution, just 10 lines in length, will frame three days of debate on the war, culminating in an expected vote Friday to put the House on record against President Bush's decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional U.S. combat troops to Iraq. In two short paragraphs, the resolution affirms Congress's support for "the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq" before breaking with the president's new strategy. Waiting in the wings is binding legislation that would fully fund Bush's $100 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but add four conditions: Soldiers and Marines could be deployed to Iraq only after being certified as fully trained and equipped. National Guardsmen and reservists could be subject to no more than two deployments, or roughly 12 months of combat duty. The administration could use none of the money for permanent bases in Iraq. And additional funding for the National Guard and reserves must be spent to retool operations at home, such as emergency response.

02-13-2007, 04:50 PM	#14
xLQLRcXh Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 490 Senior Member	As if anyone believed her. What I still want her to answer is why only a non binding resolution. If they are so against the war, pass legislation cutting off funding. Or do not pass any more funding bills till the president withdrawls. I agree they should do more. But I'm hoping that the non-binding resolution is just the first step. House Takes Up Resolution on Iraq -- Concise Measure Seen as Precursor to Binding Legislation on Funding, Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2007: The Democratic resolution, just 10 lines in length, will frame three days of debate on the war, culminating in an expected vote Friday to put the House on record against President Bush's decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional U.S. combat troops to Iraq. In two short paragraphs, the resolution affirms Congress's support for "the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq" before breaking with the president's new strategy. Waiting in the wings is binding legislation that would fully fund Bush's $100 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but add four conditions: Soldiers and Marines could be deployed to Iraq only after being certified as fully trained and equipped. National Guardsmen and reservists could be subject to no more than two deployments, or roughly 12 months of combat duty. The administration could use none of the money for permanent bases in Iraq. And additional funding for the National Guard and reserves must be spent to retool operations at home, such as emergency response.
	Quote