Senators:Beginning To Realize That The Vote, While Nonbinding, Would Be An Important Statement

Townhall ^ | 1/31/07 | Hugh Hewitt

[Valin]

Click on Source for links

[LYSandra]

A----- are fogetting who they work for! They've been told what kind of message this sends to terrorists and what it does to our soldiers. They keep putting politics above the nations security and the safety of our soldiers.

[bnelson44]

I really don't have a problem with McCain's bill

[Valin]

I sent (yet another) E-mail to my senator (Norm Colman) saying pretty much what you said.

[misterrob]

Personally I don't see what the issue on benchmarks is about. We apply standards and performance requirements AKA, accountability, to so many other situations this should be no different. The benchmarks might be an issue but the concept shouldn't be.

Here's one:

Mookie swings in three months or we are leaving.

[misterrob]

Iraq's leadership needs to be held accountable and for anyone to say otherwise is smoking crack. That politicians feel the need to grandstand is a different issue.

[Night Hides Not]

A----- are forgetting who they work for!

I respectfully disagree with you. These REMFs know exactly who they work for: their big campaign contributors, i.e. lobbyists.

We're just the clutter on their radar screens.

Still, these Senators are going to think long and hard when it comes time to actually go on the record. They learned from Jean Francois Carry the perils of flip-flopping on important issues.

[Valin]

The problem with this are
1 Do you really what to let Congress micro manage Iraq? Because that's what will happen.
2 Do you want to let the bad guys know just what it will take to get us to go, and when we'll leave?

You may not have a problem with that but people like Gen. Petraeus do.

[misterrob]

I don't want Congress to have this ability per se but they are not going to continue to fund an effort that has been failing due in large part to Iraqis. At what point is the WH going to hold Iraq accountable? How is the WH going to measure progress?

And while the bad guys would benefit from our leaving our commitment is not open ended either and it shouldn't be.

[Courdeleon02]

I think McCain's view represents a reasonable middle ground on this issue. He wants to win but we need to see the effect of the surge and there is nothing wrong with establishing benchmarks as you do with any project in business. I am tired of the Anti-McCain diatribes on this board which are insanely unfair to him. He happens to be the only Republican other than Rudy who can save this country from Hillary.

[avital2]

then let the Senators set up a meeting with the Prez, discuss same. there is no reason to put this into a resolution. they are only advising. a resolution will be misunderstood abroad.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Why make this non-binding?

The Senate has no cajones. Come on Sanators, go on record. Force the President to make the call.

[Son House]

then let the Senators set up a meeting with the Prez, discuss same. there is no reason to put this into a resolution. they are only advising. a resolution will be misunderstood abroad.

Agreed,

if they had any class, it would all be discussed in private.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I liked parts of his bill, but his "list of benchmarks" was not appropriate for the legislative branch. If he wants to define goals, that's OK, but they weren't goals, they were metrics based on one person's idea of how to reach the goals.

I would support the Senate passing a binding resolution requiring the executive to clearly define the goals they are working to, and a set of benchmarks that the executive plans to use to measure whether their current plan is working, so that if the plan is NOT working the executive will be able to modify the plan.

I fully support congressional oversight of the war. They are our representatives, they are the ones to ask the tough questions, to ensure the executive is not just off pulling plans out of their butts and marking time to the end of their term.

But putting a list of benchmarks that Iraq has to meet in order to "keep our support" is wrong for the legislature. Iraq should be talking to the executive branch for that type of input, not legislative. Iraq doesn't need the senators telling the insurgents what they have to do to keep Iraq from getting our support.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Well, one reason to be non-binding is they don't need to get an agreement with the house. Also they don't have to suffer the ignonimity of a presidential veto.

And they can't be "blamed" for anything bad that comes of it.

[SaxxonWoods]

Agreed about McCain's resolution. Maybe people should actually read the thing. Naaahhh...

[WTSand]

If Lincoln would have "benchmarks" for the Civil War "Inside the beltway" would refer to Richmond.

[misterrob]

Would that be so bad?

[LetsRok]

How about exeterminating anyone capable of raising a rifle against an American soldier. Let Iraq start all over. No tribes, no classes, everyone starts on an equal playing field.

[WTSand]

Not at all.