Pardon and apologies if anyone else has diaried this specific topic.
In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, E.J. Dionne, Jr., argues that:
"The anti-surge resolution is a necessary first step, which is why those who are against a genuine change in our Iraq policy are fighting so hard to stop it."
He also points out that, at least in the Senate non-debate/filibuster, Republicans including Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) argued that Congress could not state
"its views, except though a vote to block funds for Iraq."
More below....
I've, too, been watching the debates on H. Res. 63, the anti-Iraq-surge non-binding resolution. Yes, that appears to be a critical first step.
I hope the so-called upper chamber can vote on this next.
We all know the reasons why our representives in Congress must state their opposition to the surge as a necessary pre-condition, politically and legally. See the above link if you're unsure.
The arguments against it have been as noted as well in this debate:
- Congress has no such power
- The shameless Peter King, D-NY-3, stating that Truman waged an unpopular war, and had a 70 % diasapproval rating, too
- The idiotic liar Lee Terry, R, NE -3, who claimed the war is all about fighting Islamic terrorism, which see to be right out of the GOP playbook, as previously diaried (sorry, I can't find the link).
What do you think?