American Republic Online

The U.S. Senate voted on a three resolutions concerning Iraq yesterday:

1. Surrender by March 2008 failed 50-48.

2. The Senate should not undermine the safety of U.S. troops passed 96-2.

3. The Senate should not cut off funding for the troops passed 82-16.

Let’s consider these in turn.

1. Notice the language in this resolution that won’t receive outside consideration (except, of course, in ARO): Whereas the circumstances referred to in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) have changed substantially… in other words, we’ve changed our minds about the war in Iraq. Why is it that they can say this in a resolution, but not in public? Remember this joint resolution: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq? It passed the Senate 77-23. Why is it so hard to admit the past and say “I messed up,”? Instead it is now “the President’s war.”

2. The Senate agreed that the Consitution says the President is the Commander in Chief, and that it wouldn’t be good to put our troops in harms way. Bravo Foxtrot Delta.

3. The Senate should not cut off funding for the troops if it means it might put them in harms way. Again…why are we paying their salaries? Is this why we need a Senate? It’s like watching an Entmoot.

On a side note, three cheers for your editor’s own Senator Bob Corker. He, in fact, voted against all three resolutions, saying

“I think the American people recognize this debate for what it is - political posturing…the real debate on Iraq will occur in the coming weeks when we take up the supplemental funding bill.

“Congress has spent far too much time debating non-binding resolutions and resolutions that claim to be binding, and I plan to vote against all of them - Democrat and Republican. Though I strongly disagree with their position, if members of Congress want to oppose the war in Iraq they should vote to cut off funding, not pass more meaningless resolutions.”