The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee has voted, largely along party lines, to oppose the president’s deployment of additional troops in Iraq - setting the stage for a full Senate debate on the war next week, according to the Chicago Tribune.

But what does it even matter?

“This is slow-walking,” complained Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who called for timetables for withdrawals of U.S. forces, but reluctantly supported the non-binding resolution opposing the chief executive’s new Iraq policy.

Some who oppose the troop deployment say the non-binding resolution is a hollow statement and want to restrict funding for any escalation. Others agree that it’s a hollow statement and believe (correctly) that President George W. Bush will be undeterred, proceeding to deploy another 21,500 troops in Iraq.

But the committee has, at the very least, set the stage for congressional debate on the Iraq war, with the resolution declaring that “it is not in the national interest” of the U.S. to escalate its involvement.

The 12 to 9 vote, which included Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska joining the 11 Democrats on the committee, followed the rejection of a tougher approach offered by Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn., pictured below, at right), who wanted a measure saying U.S. force levels in Iraq could not exceed their levels of January 16 - days after Bush announced his proposed troop surge.

Dodd’s bid lost, 15 to 6, and while the presidential hopeful eventually voting for the non-binding measure, he admitted that the resolution is toothless.

“We must demonstrate we are prepared to lead on this issue, not simply sit back, fearful of taking positions most of us believe are in the interest of our country,” he said.

Five Democrats, as well as all 10 of the committee’s Republicans, rejected Dodd’s approach. Part of their reasoning was political - they thought it would never pass Congress.

“This is not the place or the time,” said Sen. James Webb (D-Va.), a war critic who delivered the party’s response to the president’s State of the Union address.

“It’s getting away from the central message of what we’re trying to convey here,” said Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)

Yet some of the senators supporting Dodd complained that the resolution is largely meaningless:

“We have the responsibility to take definitive action,” said Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.).

Hagel, the sole Republican supporting the resolution, was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying Iraq is “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.”

“There is no strategy,” he added. “This is a ping pong game with American lives… and we better be damn sure we know what we’re doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder.”

Ouch. That’s tough talk, and while advancing the non-binding resolution, many war opponents are indeed holding out for a tougher stance down the road, eyeing restrictions on the president’s war spending.

“We clearly have an opportunity constitutionally to exercise our power of the purse and the rest,” said committee chairman Joe Biden (D-Del., pictured above, left) “The bottom line is we need a majority of the votes to do it… My intention is to send the first of many messages to the president, unequivocal… ‘Mr. President, stop what you are doing.’”

Earlier this week, another presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) seemed resigned to the fact that any such proposal carries limited weight, calling debates on the matter “academic.” If the Democrats really feel this war is unjust, now is the time for someone to step up and voice that opinion - not just with words, but with an actual counterproposal.

Seriously. Besides putting one’s self on record as opposing a ridiculous war, what possible purpose is there in passing a non-binding resolution if it’s not going to be followed by something substantive? Either try to leverage your Congressional majorities for real action, or stop wasting everyone’s time.

At the very least, there are other matters which could be addressed if - as Bush himself says - he doesn’t need the approval of Congress to proceed with his troop increase.

Separately, Vice President Dick Cheney said that passage of any Senate resolution would not change the administration’s new strategy in Iraq, according to the Sioux City Journal.