According to CNN Political Ticket, the Senate will debate a resolution "opposing the Iraq war."
A few very important details included in the story:
- This is a different resolution than the one put-forward earlier today by Kennedy.
The resolution trumps an effort by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, to require President Bush to seek specific authorization before increasing troops in Iraq.
- Oh, by the way - this "trumping" resolution is also non-binding.
The Democratic-controlled Senate will begin considering a non-binding resolution next week opposing President Bush's new Iraq policy, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, announced Tuesday.
- Last but not least, this "trumping, non-binding" resolution is at least two weeks away.
Reid said the resolution will be introduced next week but the full debate won't begin until at least the following week because the Senate will be debating an ethics reform bill.
I don't know what others think, but these details do not seem too encouraging to me, particularly in light of this afternoon's reports that the "surge" will start in less than three weeks time.
Anyone care to add their interpretation of this lastest going-on in the Senate by Senator Reid?
Update: If you want to voice your support for Kennedy's legislation plese visit: It's Not His Decision It's Ours (www.tedkennedy.com)
(Thanks to "greenearth" for providing the link.)
Update 1/10/2007: NYT headline this morning is Democrats Plan Symbolic Votes Against Bush’s Iraq Troop Plan. Some people have pointed out that pushing forward a non-binding resolution is not a watering-down attempt, but is instead a smart political move. I think opinion will continue to be mixed. Do you think this move hurts them anti-escalation momentum, or do you think it works swimmingly by forcing individuals to go on record?