The Senate has apparently reached a bipartisan agreement on a non-binding resolution opposing the escalation in Iraq. Yesterday, I wrote about
how half of a glass is better than nothing. Apparently there are a number of Dems who will oppose the resolution saying it doesn't go far enough:
The Post and LAT go inside with word that Senate Democrats are facing opposition to the compromise Iraq resolution from members of their own party who say it doesn't go far enough.
I agree. At best, this resolution is only an opening salvo. I completely support Dodd and Feingold in their quest to take more decisive action.
But I have a question. If you're Feingold or Dodd, why not vote for the bipartisan resolution and
continue to push for legislation they've proposed to cut off funding? The only argument I can think of is that supporting the non-binding resolution takes time away from doing the right thing now. But they have to know they do not have the votes in the Senate to pass their own legislation, much less pass with enough to avoid a filibuster. So in fact, don't they need more time? Why not use this first resolution as a building block? Does it have to be either-or? Or is their current opposition part of a political strategy?