IR View: Vote yes on Referendum 2007-1

By IR Staff 10/23/07

Ballots mailed on Friday to Helena voters contained two nonbinding referendums: Referendum 2007-1 asks voters whether they're for or against urging Congress "to authorize and fund an immediate and orderly withdrawal of the United State's military from Iraq." Referendum 2007-2 asks whether they're for or against urging Congress "to fund the United States military forces totally and without conditions in the global war on terror."

For our part, we think it's well past time to begin bringing our troops home from Iraq, so we recommend voting for Referendum 2007-1. And of course it would be unwise to adopt a blank-check, no-matter-what policy toward funding anything, including the fight against terrorists, so we'd suggest a "no" vote on the second referendum.

That said, we'd like to congratulate both sides and the community as a whole for the civil, nonconfrontational manner in which this debate has played out. This is a divisive issue about which feelings naturally are running high, making the temptation to ramp up the rhetoric difficult to resist. But to a very large degree, that temptation has been resisted.

It sometimes is said that these issues really have no place in a municipal election, and moreover that such referendums are meaningless because, after all, Helenans have no power to affect the nation's foreign relations.

Well, yes and no. To be sure, the resolutions are binding on no one, least of all a president unlikely to ever face voters again. But there certainly is value in bringing a kind of formality to the discussions we've all been having with our families and friends. These ballot issues give people a chance to put their beliefs about the wisdom of this county's actions on record, elevating them above mere bar talk or sputtering at the TV set.

And ultimately, our views do matter in a democracy. Like all the similar resolutions voted on in hundreds of other cities across the country, our voices, added together, cannot be ignored by our representatives in Washington. Indeed, our voices could turn out to be more powerful than we know.

The war in Iraq often is compared to the war in Vietnam, despite the many differences between the conflicts. But there is one difference here at home that is stunning to those of us who lived through both eras: Our universal concern and compassion this time for our troops. It is that very compassion that drives opposition to the current war.

One inevitable similarity between the wars, also on the home front, was and is the insistence of many patriotic Americans that we must never give up until our objectives are met, no matter the cost. Never again do they want to see a sight like the last helicopter pulling away from the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon.

We understand that sentiment. But, as history has shown, none of the Vietnam hawks' fears were realized. In fact, the dominoes soon began falling the other way.

We could fill this page with specific arguments for our positions on these referendums, but there's no need. Readers have heard them all before - for years now - and we're convinced that most of our minds have long since been made up. All that's left for now is to stuff that ballot into its envelope and send it off, hoping it will do some good.

3.7 stars
Current rating: 3.7 with 83 ratings.


Untitled Document Please login to enter comment :
*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 

Click here to register
Reader Comments:

jkadt wrote on Nov 7, 2007 10:32 AM:

" This is why I do not buy this paper. "

purple wrote on Nov 5, 2007 4:36 AM:

" "consider this", well given the distinct fact that the only place you go to to get news about what is going on in Iraq are liberal anti-war media entities it should come as no surpirse to anyone that you would actually believe their anti-war, anti-Bush, and anti-military propaganda without bothering to check other news sources. Nothing closed minded about you, is there? "

consider_this wrote on Nov 2, 2007 11:34 AM:

" The problem with implementing the "fairness doctrine" in Iraq is that there would not be enough "good" stories to balance all the bad news. Of course, for every truthful report about the death and destruction over there, the network could simply allow blowhard Rush Limbaugh an equal amount of time to pontificate. After a few weeks of Limbaugh's glowing reports on the "good news" from Iraq, even the last five supporters of this war would then turn on the president. "

purple wrote on Nov 1, 2007 9:08 PM:

" "rockymountainway" Did I say that? The alphabet networks are LIBERAL and as such have a vested interest in ONLY telling the viewers the LIBERAL point of view. I read many news sources via the internet then. Has anyone noticed one bit of good news which came out of Iraq last week, news whick appeared nowhere? There were ZERO American warriors killed in action. That bit of news goes along with the construction projects which are completed and on-going which improve the lives of the citizens of Iraq. The defeatocrats want a return to the days of the "fairness doctrine". Okay, then the liberal media must be held to the same standard - for every negative story about Iraq, they MUST also cover a positive story. "

consider_this wrote on Oct 26, 2007 4:11 PM:

" OK. I messed up. Wrong Doctor. you know who I meant. "

rockymountainway wrote on Oct 26, 2007 10:06 AM:

" So, purple, if it's not NYT, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, MSNBC or the internet, you're going to say the only reliable source of news is FOX. FAH! Wake up! We have lost! My friends in the battlefield have been killed in a war we can't win. Being the rest home before they suffer a similar fate. "

purple wrote on Oct 24, 2007 11:53 AM:

" "john adams" - Mr Peck is a defeatocrat, therefore he is "never" wrong. If someone were to check the e-mails he gets, he would receive dozens of e-mails from moveon.org, democrat underground, media matters, and of course the DNC for the democrat talking points. Those, plus the NYT, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, are the ONLY sources of information he bothers reading. "

john adams wrote on Oct 24, 2007 9:25 AM:

" Mr. Pecks’ letter regarding Reagan’s diary entry on May 17, 1986 on GWB being a ne’er-do-well: I stopped at a book store and found no entry in Reagan’s diary for May 17, 1986 and nothing in the index about GWB. Several websites debunk the statement. It was written in jest by Michael Kinsley in the New Republic. Mr. Peck is mistaken and fell for an urban legend that isn’t true. Has he ever been told by the “far right” not to criticize GWB? Maybe he’s mistaken about that too. The “far right” (Regular conservatives? Paleo’s? Neo’s? religious right? Libertarians? who we talking about?) criticize GWB much more than any left winger ever could. If Mr. Peck read a little more widely, he’d know that. "

purple wrote on Oct 24, 2007 8:16 AM:

" "mt_pass". Defeatocrats like Mr. Peck are INFAMOUS for taking something out of context and then presenting their version as the ONLY truth. Defeatocrats believe their opinion is always right and is the only one anyone must recognize -- sounds a lot like communism don't it! If the defeatocrats had it their way, news sources other than the leftleaning kind would be banned so only their version of events ever gets read. Hitler's propaganda minister would be proud of them. "

angelwatching28 wrote on Oct 23, 2007 9:13 AM:

" Can the IR take on sides in politics? Is it not correct that news media are to stay neutral to the issues, just report the facts and not be opine? Miss.Angelwatching "

montanadude wrote on Oct 23, 2007 9:07 AM:

" Hey, Ray, maybe it's becuase we have been defeated. Who cares? This isn't a Monday Night football game. Let's cut our losses and come home! Americans are being killed and for what? I don't feel any more secure knowing we destroyed a nation, albiet a nation with problems, yes. If anything, we are fueling the terrorist's fires with our failed attempt to bring western politics to the region. We overreacted to 9/11. Mistakes were made in the heat of the moment. The best offense is a good defense, so let's beef up our borders, our intelligence, and our international presence in the world. "

Crabby1 wrote on Oct 23, 2007 8:45 AM:

" Then Dan, let the MHS take your home to tear it down for a parking lot! the new proposal is a joke and something Montanans don't want! Put it up to a vote of the people and be done with it. And good for you, Ray! It's time people started exposing the hyprocracy of our government, and society in general! "

mt_pas wrote on Oct 23, 2007 7:50 AM:

" In reponse to Ray Peck's typical left wing hit job, I am sorry to say Ray but you, once again, have taken a 'tongue and cheek' article and turned into something it is not. If you do an internet search for 'Ronald Reagan's Diaries' the first hit I got was that, per Snopes, your typical cowardly smear is an urban legend. Why don't you stick to voting on non-binding cowardly resolutions that submit to surrender with all your buddies and leave the truth with real Americans. "

purple wrote on Oct 23, 2007 5:44 AM:

" Why am I not surprised that the IR would take and recommend supporting the "defeatist" stance. The IR ought to stick what they [attempt] to do best, report the news not inject their socialist opinions. I guess the IR "forgot" how many millions of south Vietnamese died following the fall of south Vietnam, which means they have no problem with something similar happening in Iraq. "

consider_this wrote on Oct 23, 2007 12:38 AM:

" Mr. Holman writes, "Every property owners’ taxes, including Mr. Canterbury’s and mine, reimburse the county’s coffers to pay settlements for lawsuits and damages." Well then, Mr. Holman, quit suing the County Commission for doing the job they were elected to do and we could all save put those tax dollars to better use -- like cleaning up the mess you developers make when you overload the valley's aquifer with individual septic systems in your developments. "


Text Size:
Small | Medium | Large

View/Post Comments
 Email this story
  Print this story
 Rate Article
 Share Article

submit to reddit Delicious Digg!