OPINION & EDITORIAL
Column distorts troop funding bill
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- SSFC stipend appropriate (December 11, 2007)
- Poor plowing cuts off handicapped access (December 10, 2007)
- Cars that actually help the environment (December 10, 2007)
- Organic food: Deliciously safe (December 10, 2007)
- Diversity deserves attention at UW (December 7, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Democracy extends to war (April 13, 2007)
- Democrats play dangerous game (November 20, 2007)
- Troop funding shouldn't be jeopardized (April 10, 2007)
- Anti-war, pro-troops (September 21, 2007)
- Religious group funding not 'according to the gospel' (September 24, 2007)
by Letters to the Editor
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The argument used in the article titled "Troop funding shouldn't be Jeopardized" is disingenuous. Let us consider the actual clause in the Feingold-Reid bill criticized in the article:
"(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008."
To use Senator Feingold's own words, "[The] bill requires the President to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq." Clearly, the bill does not reduce military funding before that date, and after that date keeping troops on the U.S. payroll in Iraq would become highly illegal. There would be no "starving" of the troops unless the president broke the law by continuing their deployment in Iraq. The bill does allow exceptions for what it calls "limited purposes", but in general it legally binds the president to remove US forces. Construing the bill to mean something else is dishonest. To suggest that the military would have to reduce supplies to its men and women because of a tapering budget is incorrect. The bill does not slowly reduce funding over time, but rather creates a law saying no funds can be expended to continue the deployment after a certain deadline (outside of the exceptions). Zero funding means anything that costs money cannot legally be there, including salaried soldiers. Obviously, you simply cannot cut support to troops that are not there.
There is nothing wrong with debating U.S. involvement in Iraq, but resorting to distortion should not be done. The Feingold-Reid bill is plainly an attempt to end the military occupation in Iraq. Attempting to discredit it by saying it puts military men and women at higher risk is only an attempt to avoid the argument and gain popular favor. Iraq is too large a problem to be solved though sound bites, something we as a nation are learning the hard way.
Noah Bachmann
Civil & Environmental Engineering Major
Junior
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 4:51am):
Why do you hate America?
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 6:16am):
"bill requires the President to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq."
Why don't they call it retreat? If the Democratics want to surrender then they should say so clearly.
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 7:58am):
Ahhhhh, help me! My blind patriotism, where is it going? I'm starting to see blurry figures of common sense... I hope I can find my hole of ignorance again.
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 10:45am):
"If the Democratics want to surrender then they should say so clearly."
And I suppose to a Republican, law in general and the Constitution in particular are just so much toilet paper.
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 11:19am):
Gee, I feel so much better now knowing Leftists in Congress (and their willing allies in academia) are threatening to hack troop funding at a date certain; rather than using legislative leachcraft for a slow bleed of American resolve.
Looks like the Left has learned something from the Daniel Pearl incident afterall.
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 11:26am):
"And I suppose to a Republican, law in general and the Constitution in particular are just so much toilet paper."
Definitely! That's just about how Bush put it in November 2005.
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 11:49am):
"Why don't they call it retreat? If the Democratics want to surrender then they should say so clearly."
Hey idiot, it was a Republican's idea to invade Iraq in the first place!
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 12:15pm):
I say we should retreat. The longer we stay, the weaker we look. We're losing to a standing army of zero. Let's call it how it is: Iran is the undisputed regional winner, thanks to jumpsuit George.
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 12:33pm):
A HISTORY LESSON ON IRAQ, for those who need a reminder of what Democrats were saying a few years ago.
http://patdollard.com/2007/03/07/democrat-hypocrisy-on-iraq/
That Bush, he's such an evil genius. Maybe he fooled 'em all - perhaps even before he was President his mind control abilities were operating on the Democrats! Either he's some kind of Jedi master and they're just weak willed fools or maybe, possibly, they're just opportunistic hypocrites.
With benefit of hindsight, I don't think we should have invaded Iraq. But then I now think we should not have saved Kuwait or Saudi Arabia from Saddam.
But I don't think that just pulling out now is the best idea either. It would be viewed as a huge victory by our enemies, and those enemies will not become friends even if Hillary is President. Submit or die is their agenda, for both Democrats and Republicans. To them, it's just continuation of a war which has been going on for a thousand years.
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 12:37pm):
Why did a majority of Democratic senators - such as Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, and Chuck Schumer - vote to authorize a war with Iraq on Oct. 11, 2002? And why is this war now supposedly George Bush's misfortune and not theirs?
One, they rightly concurred with the president's post-9/11 conversion to the idea that removing a Middle Eastern mass-murdering regime and leaving a consensual government in its place could be a key component in winning the war against Islamic terrorism. And two, their party had always believed that the United States can sometimes make things better abroad by stopping tyrants and dictators.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2I3YzM1NGZiNjNjNDIzMzU1N2ZhNjM3NDlmNDQ1ZTE=
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 12:40pm):
Redeploy = Surrender. Man, when the going gets tough, the defeatocrats get going. Why dont we just bring our troops home? I agree with the democrats on this one. That way when they come attack us again, the republicans will never be voted out of office again. One day i will unhappily have to say, "I told you so" to the damn hippy democrats.
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 2:24pm):
I know what we should do, appoint a "war czar." Haha! The Commander in Chief can't do his job. Stay the course, idiots.
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 4:19pm):
We certainly had better record when it was the Department of WAR instead of the Department of DEFENSE.
Isn't the best defense a good offense? The Islamic warlords sure seem to go with that idea.
We should have left Iraq immediately after the fall of Baghdad - through Iran to Afghanistan, sort of a "Sherman's March to the Sea" type of deal.
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 5:59pm):
I am sure members of every terrorist organization and all countries who hate us are now thanking the Congress of the United States for showing that we allow politicians to run a war just because we love to lose!! Keep the politics out of it, we win, we go home. Why are the politicians in Washington so stupid they would prefer to surrender and lose lives later (it will happen) just so they can get elected. It is disgusting to see... thanks Russ!! You da man!! Please, is there anything lower you would do to win an election?
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 6:28pm):
"Keep the politics out of it, we win, we go home."
And you're enlisting when exactly?
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 8:54pm):
Sign up now for 15 months in an arid land of historical wonderment. It's free! All clothes, food, and shelter are provided. Health care and caskets are complimentary. Your only responsibility is to kill anything that moves, especially when politicians visit for photo ops.
Anonymous (April 13, 2007 @ 1:16pm):
6:28, I doubt you will read this, but I already served and can no longer do so for reasons beyond my control! You can thank me now for preserving your right to be a whiny twit who's only sense of duty is condemning those who do.
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 @ 2:32am):
What is victory in Iraq?
When the Sunni's and Shia stop killing eachother? Is that what American men and women are dying to accomplish? I don't see the point.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
