What is a non binding resolution?

It depends on the beholder.

To one it is a toothless way for politicians to puff up themselves, and maybe their Presidential aspirations. I use the word charade.

To another it is of immense importance because it reflects societal and popular feelings, according to a media source. I use the words conflict of interest due to politics and generating income.

Some other recent non binding resolutions from our Congress have addressed: Japan, Taiwan, and Iraq (that one is the opposite of today’s proposals).

Non binding resolutions have been from either of the Houses of Congress. Others, to include the U.N., have used this political technique.

In the present day proposed non binding resolution, what are the alternatives for opponents of the Presidents actions?

1) They can voice agreement with the president no matter what he suggests.
2) They can be silent.
3) They can show opposition in symbolic and non-binding ways.
4) They can show opposition in binding ways (e.g., cutting off funds to prevent a surge)
a. This gets my recommendation. First there has to be a vote so there is a record. Second, Congress’s members must vote to overcome a probable Presidential veto if they even get the votes in both houses first, which is debatable in the present Congress. And then we get to vote in 2008. That should sort it out, either way. In other words, let’s dance.
b. Many just want to avoid a binding vote for their political reasons, good and bad.

Is the proposed non binding resolution intended to:

1) Be anti-Bush mostly
2) Condemn the poor management and strategy to date of the President and his hired minions
3) Be an anti-war statement
4) Be an Iraq anti-war statement. Start the slippery slope to leaving soon.
5) Be some other combined intent of all the arm chair generals, secretaries of state, and librarians of congress that abound in our country and congress
6) Help promote someone’s Presidential aspirations
7) Ignore or denigrate the war on terrorism
8) Just be an anti-American statement

What are the political impacts if such a non binding resolution passes in the Senate?

1) I don’t know
2) Our enemies in Iraq, the region, and the war on terror will be emboldened
3) Our allies will have to hedge their bets about the USA in all ways, and for decades
4) Many Americans will be pleased
5) The old failed strategy of the President and his minions will be politically confirmed by many
6) The new strategy by the President and his minions will be condemned, investigated to death, reported to death, and otherwise politically to the USA interfered with.

Who cares what our allies think?

1) They are wiser than us and should guide our national policy
2) We should act in our vital national interest, perceived or otherwise.

Who cares what I think?

1) Most people are patriots who seek defense of our country, victory in the war on terror, and even victory in Iraq, whatever that is.
2) Much of the friction is in methods (albeit everyone is some kind of expert these days). I do not question sincerity for almost all.
3) The President and his minions could have done much better in Iraq. In the end, he is in charge, and I fault him, so far.
4) There are much better ways to achieve our vital national interests than some non binding resolution.
5) Our representatives in Congress can do what ever they want. And I can vote like I want.