Maybe I am missing something here

[mbossman2]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defying a veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Senate narrowly signaled support Tuesday for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by next March.

Republican attempts to scuttle the non-binding timeline failed on a vote of 50-48, largely along party lines. The roll call marked the Senate's most forceful challenge to date of the administration's handling of a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070327/D8O4P0TO2.html

why would/should Bush veto a non-binding resolution?

[Kuch]

Why would he veto a non-binding resolution? Because his veto demonstrates his intentions of not setting a deadline for troop withdrawal. Even entertaining such a resolution will hint that he is having second thoughts on continuing on this path.

Do I agree with this? No, and here’s why.

The school of thought that I am sure he employs is that if he even considers this resolution, he will be opening the door for more discussion in regards for troop withdrawal. I think he is wrong in this because talking about all aspects, even a troop withdrawal, at least brings ideas to the table, which our government needs. Being open to ideas and entertaining the plans of those who do not see eye to eye with him will at least spur people to speak out on their own ideas. I’m sure there are a lot of great ideas out there and there is a lot of room to maneuver on this topic between an increase of troop strength to a total withdrawal of all forces.

[drisley]

This isn't about debating and having a big idea-fest. This is about troop funding which they need soon. So, the Dems are not out there trying to have a debate...they are deliberately trying to force their way by linking war strategy into the troop funding bill. And to top it off, they couldn't even get this through the Dem party on its own merits so they essentially bribed the remaining votes by introducing over $20 billion in pork projects.

[Kuch]

Probably the reason that the dems are using these tactics is because Bush won’t talk about setting a timeframe for withdrawal or pressuring the Iraqis to take over things.

[heyhey]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defying a veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Senate narrowly signaled support Tuesday for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by next March.

Republican attempts to scuttle the non-binding timeline failed on a vote of 50-48, largely along party lines. The roll call marked the Senate's most forceful challenge to date of the administration's handling of a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070327/D8O4P0TO2.html

why would/should Bush veto a non-binding resolution?

this is not a really a pure non-binding resolution like the other attempts have been.. this is an ammendment linked to the Iraq funding bill. The dems and the Republicans who are for withdrawal didnt touch the money... they only attached a conditional timetable to it.. the only reason it is "non-binding" is there is not much the congress can do if he doesnt stand by it after the funding...

Bush is going to veto it because he has no intention of getting our troops out of there anytime soon no matter what the American people are calling for...I think this is wrong because both the majority of congress and more importantly the vast majority of the american public who he should be serving instead of serving his ideaology are for troop withdrawal. His stubornness on this issue is going to cost not so much the Republican presidential candidate but all those up for re-election in congress because by doing this he is going to force them to take a pro-war stance when the vote gets bounced back to congress that aligns them with this terribly unpopular president. I dislike Bush for my own issues but you Republicans should be really disliking him now because he is seriously each day more and more is devastating your party and quite possibly going to cause a veto-proof majority in the Senate in 08 that a potential Republican president is going to be at a standstill with.

Hillary has taken a right of party stand on this. She wants to keep a limited # of troops in Iraq even after the major wtihdrawl to guard the borders, continue to fight in Al Anbar and al Queda in Iraq stongholds and troops as support to those we leave there. This is very different then just about all the other democratic candidates especially Obama. She is calculating, yes but I imagine this could cost her the nomination.

[jedi_knight01]

this is not a really a pure non-binding resolution like the other attempts have been.. this is an ammendment linked to the Iraq funding bill. The dems and the Republicans who are for withdrawal didnt touch the money... they only attached a conditional timetable to it.. the only reason it is "non-binding" is there is not much the congress can do if he doesnt stand by it after the funding...


But the hole problems is if and when bush vetos this bill, they won't be able to draft another one in time to resupply the troops with the equipment they need to continue the fight.. It is the same as taken away the funds without actually doing it.. A this rate the dems can almost surly kiss good by their hopes to capture the white house in 08 is this even happens...