H 81°, L 61° | Tomorrow: 
H 81°, L 62°To the Editor:
In "Troop funding shouldn't be jeopardized", columnist Joe Trovato argues that Congress should provide President Bush with every dollar he has requested to continue the war in Iraq, because troops that are "in harm's way" should "always have the funding… they need to carry out their missions, whether those missions are popular or unpopular."
Following Mr. Trovato's logic, once any President places American soldiers in a dangerous situation, he must be provided with an unending stream of the taxpayer's cash, for as long as he wants it, no matter how senseless the "mission," no matter how much the American people oppose it.
This is exactly the situation we face today. A recent Associated Press poll showed that 60 percent of Americans support withdrawing all troops from Iraq over the next six months. Nevertheless, the war continues, against the public's will, sustained by truly staggering amounts of money - over $100 billion voted by Congress in March, and another $145 billion expected by September.
The fundamental question here goes far beyond the issue of the war in Iraq. Do we really believe that our country is a democracy, and that our government has an obligation to obey the will of the people, or do we follow Mr. Travato's view, that we cease to be a democracy the moment our soldiers boots hit foreign soil?
Steve Burns Faculty Assistant Dept. of Physics
IP hash: 83b6c53e
Cluebat to ignoramus: We’re NOT a “democracy”— we’re is a democratic REPUBLIC. That means representative democracy— NOT mob rule.
Moreover, YOUR Commander-in-Chief was re-elected by >50% majority— and there is NOTHING your mid-term results can do to thwart the will of the people.
The 2006 mid-term election results were NOT a mandate for pulling out of Iraq (except in Connecticut where pro-war Joe Lieberman walloped anti-war “Ned the Red” Lamont).
In fact, if the Democrats’ pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: “Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections” — especially in the sixth year.
In Franklin D. Roosevelt’s sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.
In Dwight Eisenhower’s sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.
In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson’s sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.
In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford’s sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.
Even America’s greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.
But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a “tsunami” — as MSNBC calls it — rather than the death throes of a dying party.
During eight years of Clinton — the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! — Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House — only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.
Meanwhile, the Democrats’ epic victory last Fall, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate — and that’s assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats’ total gain is less than this week’s gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.)
So however you cut it, the 2006 midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was.
In a choice between Republicans’ “Stay until we win” Iraq policy or the Democrats’ “Stay, leave … stay for a while then leave … redeploy and then come back … leave and stay … cut and run … win, lose or draw policy,” I guess Americans prefer the Republican policy.
The Democrats say we need a “new direction” in Iraq. Yeah, it’s called “reverse.” Democrats keep talking about a new military strategy in Iraq. How exactly is cut-and-run a new strategy? The French have been doing it for years. The Democrats are calling their new plan for Iraq “Operation Somalia.”
The Democrats certainly have their work cut out for them. They have only two years to release as many terrorists as possible and lock up as many Republicans as they can. Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about — and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs.
IP hash: 190807b5
“we’re is a democratic REPUBLIC.”
Oh, that’s good grammar!
“Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about — and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs.”
The Republicans would do better for the troops if they would just bring them home. Remember, we weren’t supposed to be in Iraq in the first place. We went to Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden and we should’ve stayed there. But no, we had to side-trip into Iraq for God-knows-what!
IP hash: 83b6c53e
We’re NOT a “democracy”— we’re in a democratic REPUBLIC.
There feel better, typo nazi 10:42?
And your complaint— over our “sidetrip” to Iraq— is with Bubbah, not Bush (see also, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
Leftists didn’t want Saddam removed and now they want to give the place over to worse players.
How about listening to what our soldiers in the field want for a change and pour yourselves a nice cup of STFU? http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/002979.php
IP hash: c2cf1090
Speaking of listening to soldiers in the field… http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0301/dailyUpdate.html Quick summary: 72% of U.S. troops polled in Iraq wanted all U.S. forces out in a year. And that was just about a year ago. So if we cared what the troops thought, they’d all be home by now.
IP hash: 50c1dbe6
First poster, your claim that Reagan was the “greatest president in the history of all mankind” discredited anything good points you may have had. And given the number of “Bubbah” posts lately, clearly you skip class every day to troll message boards.
What amazes me is the gall of Bush to claim “family values” and “support our troops” in the same breath. How many troops haven’t seen their husbands or wives and children for several years (aside from a month “vacation”)? How many troops were called up within a week of their weddings? How many were not allowed to return home to see the birth of their children? How many divorces amongst troops have happened because of this war? How many families now have a son or daughter, a brother or sister, or a husband, wife, father, or mother struggling with post-traumatic stress? How many families have lost a son, daughter, brother, sister, wife, husband, father or mother, or now have to cope with amputees and disabled veterans?
Supposedly the majority of troops are ready to come home. Guess what, now they’re being redeployed AGAIN, this time for 15 months. Imagine not seeing a family member for that long, while worrying constantly that they might be killed.
By the time combat operations are over, and our troops are brought back home, I’m willing to bet that this war has destroyed more families than gay marriage/adoption ever could.