Feingold doesn't go far enough

[TomClash]

Since the Senate insists on passing nonbinding "Sense of the Senate" resolutions, why do we stop at cutting off funding for "The Surge" (which, by the way, sounds like some bad old school movie of the week)?

Let's ratchet it up a notch and vote to redeploy our soldiers right out of Iraq. The Democrats could not be accused of "failing to fund the troops" because we wouldn't cut off funding - we'd simply move them out.

In a way, Surge is a perfect description for Bush's last desperate attempt to "win" the War. It might wind up being the Surge before the Purge - the end of the Bush-Cheney regime.

[John Q. Citizen]

1. because the Senate doesn't deploy or reploy troops.

[TomClash]

2. Read the OP

All of the proposed resolutions are nonbinding "Sense of the Senate" resolutions so your comment is not exactly salient.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. I did read it. i guess you meant vote on a sense of the Senate non-binding

resolution to leave Iraq now?

That wouldn't accomplish any more than the non-binding bill they can't get passed now would.

[femmedem]

3. Because Lieberman coyly hints he'll change to Repub

if the Dems stop his favorite war. :mad:

It's in the New Yorker, and discussed on this DU thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3098514

[Hippo_Tron]

5. I think that Feingold supports cutting off funding for the entire war, not just the surge

Edwards as I recall is the one telling them just to cut funding for the surge.