Indexes
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (75)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- President Obama's first year (45)
- Many reject the politics of 'no' (45)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (44)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (41)
- Time to shed the convenient sham of 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy (34)
- We need to conduct respectful conversations (30)
- Tasered suspect claims he is Yosemite Sam (25)
Area congressmen split on Iraq vote
Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, Lodi's congressman, voted in favor of the House bill which pushes for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq in late 2008, while Galt's representative, Dan Lungren, R-Gold River, opposed the measure.
Related stories:
Comparing House and Senate Iraq bills
Democrats: Bill reflects voters' demands
McNerney released a statement Friday, but Lungren made his opinion clear in a letter sent to his district earlier in the week. The following are excerpts from both statements:
Congressman Jerry McNerney
"The Iraq war has now carried on for more than four years. While there have been moments of hope in Iraq, they have been overshadowed by a deteriorating situation and an increase in violence and chaos.

Our troops have performed admirably. But now, our men and women in uniform find themselves amidst a religious civil war. If they stay, they will continue to oversee the killing. Many American troops will be wounded or killed in the process. However, if our troops pull out too quickly, chaos and violence will surely follow, perhaps engulfing neighboring states.
I believe our plan is the most responsible course we can take. It moves our efforts in a new direction that protects our troops and honors our veterans. It uses the leverage we have available to make Iraqis responsible for Iraq, and it refocuses efforts on Afghanistan and the war on the terror.
Our plan was developed only after discussions with military and foreign policy experts, and considering the Iraq Study Group Report's recommendations, the Pentagon's standards on combat readiness, and the growing needs of returning veterans and their families.
Our plan establishes responsible benchmarks and a reasonable redeployment timeline over 12 to 18 months — which I have consistently called for.
The plan ensures that our veterans and their families are treated with the respect they've earned when they return home, by increasing funding for veterans' health care — including specifically addressing post traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries, the hallmark injuries of this conflict.
It is time for a new direction in Iraq. This reasoned plan accomplishes just that."
Congressman Dan Lungren
"I have to say, this is both cynical and unconstitutional.
First, it sends a wrong message to our troops in the field. It tells them that despite the fact that General Petraeus, our new military commander on the ground in Iraq, was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate, those in Congress do not support his mission — a mission that he helped develop, a mission that he put his stamp on, a mission he has told our troops he believes can be victorious.

Second, it sends a message to the Iraqi people that they cannot trust our ability to continue in the tough fight so that we can transfer to them the responsibility for their own security.
Third, it sends a very direct message to the enemy, that in fact while we say we are implementing a new, targeted effort — the new tactics, new strategy that General Petraeus is in charge of — we do not believe it is actually going to work. It tells our enemies that if you just wait long enough, we are going to leave.
All of those things undercut the possibility that we can succeed in Iraq. The emergency supplemental is a cynical attempt by the Democratic leadership to spend taxpayers' money in order to influence votes that have nothing to do with the war. Such "pork" includes votes in the area of agriculture, votes in the area of funding for children's health, votes on the minimum wage, votes in miscellaneous funding. This was done solely to attract votes from people who otherwise might not vote for this because they do not believe we ought to have these restrictions.
This debate really comes down to whether we believe that Congress is better able to direct the war in Iraq than the generals of the armed forces on the ground.
And if we, the Congress, do believe that, then we had better change the Constitution."

Reader Feedback
T & C wrote on Mar 25, 2007 11:21 AM:
T & C wrote on Mar 24, 2007 10:21 PM:
R. Wayne wrote on Mar 24, 2007 6:32 PM:
Steward wrote on Mar 24, 2007 9:59 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.