Ideas for responding to Senator Warner's watering down?

It seems that Senator Warner has managed to figure out how to water down an already watered-down resolution.  He is stipulating that while Congress is opposed to troop increases, they will do nothing to de-fund the current operations in Iraq.

It's funny, because I thought we had already done a lot to demonstrate that the majority of Americans are against the war, against escalation, and for return or redeployment of the troops.  I mean, heck, we voted accordingly last election; we've been expressing it in numerous polls, letters to the editors; 100,000 made it to DC in mid-January to protest which I think is a major demonstration of disapproval.

What more do we need to do?

I've written this morning to my Senators Feingold and Kohl.  Feingold needs, of course, no persuasion.

There is Feingold's Power of the Purse petition to sign.  There is also Move On's Virtual March on Washington.

Are there any other ideas for how we can let the Senate know that this mealy-mouthed resolution is not where it's at?

•  Does anyone have a link

  to the actual text of the Warner-Levin compromise resolution?

  by pontificator on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 08:14:14 AM PDT

  •  I tried searching for it this morning

    it wasn't on thomas yet when I looked (it's senate concurrent resolution 7 i think).

    I didn't see any text in either Warner's or Biden's bills that indicated that Congress just would not not fund the troops, so if it is in there, it's new.  It could also be the press not knowing what they're talking about.

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 08:21:17 AM PDT

    •  yeah, this is what I get from thomas right now

      The text of S. CON. RES. 7 has not yet been received from GPO

      Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from the Government Printing Office a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed.

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 08:22:33 AM PDT

      •  It's annoying that

        None of the dozens of articles posted on this subject include the actual text of the damn resolution.

        by pontificator on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 08:26:01 AM PDT

        •  yeah really n/t

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 08:32:07 AM PDT

•  It's a non-binding resolution.

  What it accomplishes politically is that it gets a filibuster proof bi-partisan majority (if not a veto proof one) on record as opposing the administration's war policy.

  It is a huge symbolic loss, but it only a symbolic one.

  What I think it will do is embolden the administration to be even more openly defiant of Congressional authority and public sentiment, creating the necessary conditions for impeachment.

  by ek hornbeck on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 08:26:13 AM PDT

  •  well, it doesn't need to be veto proof

    the president doesn't have to sign off on a sense of the congress resolution (though the more people who vote for it, the better)

    but yes, it will need to be filibuster proof, which if the indications I'm reading in the press are correct, it sounds like it will be.

    Also note, as has been pointed out, it is non-binding, which means that even if it is the "opinion of the congress" at this time that funding shouldn't be reduced, it's not binding on the congress either (and how is that phrases? does that mean that they'll continue to fund, or that they won't just drop the ax on spending. ie, is cutting funding along with a demand for redeployment still compatible with the phrase in the resolution?).

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 08:30:00 AM PDT

    •  I also wonder about the non-binding aspect of it

      Is it non-binding for all bodies involved or just the executive?  If they put the wording in about funding the troops, can they go back on that legally?  Politically?

      by Naranjadia on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 08:47:49 AM PDT

      •  Legally, yes they probably can

        It's just a "sense of the senate."  It is just the opinion of the senate and doesn't have the force of law, so the Senate could go back on it if they chose.

        Could they go back on it politically? Well, I guess thats a question that can be debated.  I think part of it will be how it is phrased, exactly.  I still haven't seen the actual resolution yet.

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 08:52:57 AM PDT

        •  or

          "sense of the congress" (since both houses would presumably pass it)

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 08:53:29 AM PDT

•  Eh, six of one, half-dozen of another ...

  ... Inasmuch as both Senate resolutions are non-binding, I am not sure the compromise language in the one Warner sponsors makes a lot of difference, except to the extent that it could garner 65-75 votes instead of 50-60. Bush will do whatever he wants anyway, so I don't know that it matters a great deal except in the political sense of showing how little support the "surge" idea has even among members of his own party.

  If I understand this correctly, one of the last things the Rethuglican-controlled 109th Congress did was to pass the defense appropriations bill to keep funding the Iraq occupation this year. If true, that would make it very difficult to defund the war now, because even if such a bill could pass in the House and the Senate, we wouldn't have enough votes to override a certain veto.

  Even so, I am hoping that passing a non-binding resolution against the escalation will be only the first move of many against the boy king. Actually, I am more anxious for the hearings and investigations to begin so that we can gather the evidence needed to impeach AND convict the bastard who arrogantly claims to be our great Decider.

  by philimus on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 09:34:36 AM PDT