Letters

Letters 10-20-2014

Doctor Dan? After several email conversations with Rep. Benishek, he has confirmed that he doesn’t have a clue of what he does. Here’s why...

In Favor Of Our Parks [Traverse] City Proposal 1 is a creative way to improve our city parks without using our tax dollars. By using a small portion of our oil and gas royalties from the Brown Bridge Trust Fund, our parks can be improved for our children and grandchildren.

From January 1970 Popular Mechanics: “Drastic climate changes will occur within the next 50 years if the use of fossil fuels keeps rising at current rates.” That warning comes from Eugene K. Peterson of the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management.

Newcomers Might Leave: Recently we had guests from India who came over as students with the plan to stay in America. He has a master’s degree in engineering and she is doing her residency in Chicago and plans to specialize in oncology. They talked very candidly about American politics and said that after observing...

Someone Is You: On Sept 21, I joined the 400,000 who took to the streets of New York in the People’s Climate March, followed by a UN Climate Summit and many speeches. On October 13, the Pentagon issued a report calling climate change a significant threat to national security requiring immediate action. How do we move from marches, speeches and reports to meaningful work on this problem? In NYC I read a sign with a simple answer...

Necessary To Pay: Last fall, Grand Traverse voters authorized a new tax to fix roads. It is good, it is necessary.

The Real Reasons for Wolf Hunt: I have really been surprised that no one has been commenting on the true reason for the wolf hunt. All this effort has not been expended so 23 wolves can be killed each year. Instead this manufactured controversy about the wolf hunt has been very carefully crafted to get Proposal 14-2 passed.

Home · Articles · News · Other Opinions · Lincoln‘s...
. . . .

Lincoln‘s Example... and a way out of the war in Iraq

Senator Carl Levin - July 12th, 2007
In his only term in Congress, Abraham Lincoln was an ardent opponent of the Mexican War. He introduced a series of resolutions that challenged President James Polk to show the “spot” of American soil on which Mexicans had spilled American blood, and he voted for an amendment stating that the war was “unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President.”
But when the question of funding for the troops fighting that war came, Lincoln voted their supplies without hesitation.
Sound familiar? President Bush recently vetoed a bill I helped draft because it would have required him to begin reducing U.S. force levels in Iraq within four months. In the wake of that veto, calls from those who want Congress to try to stop funding the war have grown louder.
Today, some of us are facing the same dilemma that Lincoln faced: Do you fund the troops fighting a war that you oppose?
I voted against going to war in Iraq; I have consistently challenged the administration’s conduct of the war; and I have long fought to change our policy there. But I cannot vote to stop funding the troops while they are in harm’s way, conducting dangerous missions such as those recently begun north of Baghdad. I agree with Lincoln, who decided “that the Administration had done wrong in getting us into the war, but that the Officers and soldiers who went to the field must be supplied and sustained at all events.” As long as our nation’s policies put them there, our troops should hear an unequivocal message from Congress that we support them.
That shouldn’t be a cause for frustration among those of us who want to bring the war to a prompt and responsible end.
There are a number of ways for Congress to try to change course in Iraq. I emphasize “try” because Democrats can’t succeed without Republican support, given the realities of Senate procedure. One way to try to change course is to stop funding for the war, which sends the wrong message to the troops and won’t pass in Congress. The better way to change course, an option that is also more likely to succeed, is to place in law a requirement that the president do so.
We can end the war without stopping funding for the troops. For more than a year, I, along with Sen. Jack Reed, have introduced legislation requiring the president to begin reducing the number of American troops in Iraq within four months while transitioning our military mission there to limited force protection, training of Iraqi security forces and counterterrorism missions.
Setting a date to begin reducing and transitioning our forces would make clear to Iraqi leaders that we will not be their security blanket indefinitely. It would force them to take responsibility for their future and to make the political compromises that only they can make. It would also give them sufficient time to make those compromises. After all, they promised to make nearly all of them by the end of last year and the rest by the beginning of this year but have yet to do so. The timeline would also allow us to plan for redeploying our forces.
By setting a policy that begins with putting into law a timetable for starting a troop reduction, rather than trying to stop funding, we offer the best chance for stabilizing a country that we invaded while also sending the message to our troops that, even though we oppose the president’s policy, we are united behind them.
Support for our approach has grown steadily. In June 2006, our measure received 39 votes. In March, it received 48 votes. In April, it received 51 votes, including those of two Republican senators. By contrast, only 29 senators so far -- none of them Republican -- have voted for a funding cutoff. That’s a long way from the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster or the 67 needed to override a veto.
Sen. Reed and I will introduce this plan again as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Bill. As previous efforts did, this amendment will require a reduction to begin within 120 days, but this amendment will also provide that all troops be out of Iraq by April 1, 2008, except for the forces needed for specified, limited missions to which they would transition.
Democrats, and I hope a growing number of Republicans, will keep fighting for this approach until either the president signs it or we override his veto. Until that day, we will continue to fund the troops, following the example so wisely set by Abraham Lincoln 160 years ago.

Carl Levin is a Democratic senator from Michigan.



 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 

 

 
 
 
Close
Close
Close