posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:24 PM
Unlike the Senate, where debate on beginning the debate on their version of the Iraq war stalled yesterday, the House will vote next week on their
own, non-binding resolution that would oppose the troop surge in Iraq.
The Democratic-controlled House will vote next week on a nonbinding measure opposing President Bush's decision to dispatch additional troops to Iraq,
officials said Tuesday, hastening a postelection clash between Congress and commander in chief.
The precise nature of the measure remains to be determined, the officials said, although Brendan Daly, a spokeswoman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said,
it will be "our opposition to the surge" in troops.
Under House rules, Democratic leaders have the authority to advance a measure to the floor for three days of debate and a vote.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
The question for the House is the same as that for the Senate: why exactly, if you are fundamentally opposed to a change in the number of troops in
Iraq, and would like to see them in fact decreased, would you debate on a resolution that will have no force of law? If you actually believe what you
are saying, and believe that it is the absolutely right thing to do, won't you bite the bullet and cut off funding for the war?
Furthermore, if you are opposed to the troop surge, what is your plan for Iraq? And how does any such plan harmonize with the opinions of military
and intelligence analysts?