Monday, June 2, 2008

Letter to the Editor: Jenkins Shirks Constitutional Responsibility

A letter from one of Lynn Jenkins' would-be constituents in the Lawrence Journal-World smacking her for being willing to just ignore her constitutional responsibility to provide oversight of this and any future American war:

To the editor:

Lynn Jenkins is running in the Republican primary for Kansas’ 2nd Congressional District. In a recent interview, Ms. Jenkins said “I don’t want Nancy Pelosi or Nancy Boyda deciding when or how our military forces are going to conduct business over there.” She added that she “would prefer to listen to our military generals … who are the experts in prosecuting a war.”

For a person running for an important national office, Ms. Jenkins betrays a frightening disregard for the original intent of our Constitution. Our elected representatives have the clear responsibility for deciding such crucial issues as why we began prosecuting the war in Iraq , what our basic objectives were, what they are now and what our mission is today.

It’s the job of the military to carry out the directions of our elected representatives, not the other way around. The military is the employee; we, through our elected representatives, are the employers. For examples of the military run amok, just observe Burma or Pakistan.

In our district we will debate whether we prefer Jim Ryun, Nancy Boyda or Lynn Jenkins to represent best our opinions about what our national mission in Iraq should be. Whoever wins will have that responsibility, not the generals.

Oliver Finney,
Lawrence

The more Lynn Jenkins tries to act like a Member of Congress, the more she screws it up- she's absolutely correct to trust our military leaders, but she is stunningly ignorant of her own would-be responsibilities if she think she shouldn't question the line she's being fed by this president's administration.

But here's a question for Jenkins: Do you even realize people like Nancy Boyda, who serves on the Armed Services Committee, actually has access to information you, as a civilian, do not? Isn't it possible that her assessment of the situation is significantly more informed than yours? If this NPR interview was any indication, we'd imagine the answer to both those questions is "no."

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Boyda walked out on a general, so she doesn't even listen to them.

Anonymous said...

Boyda walked out on a general, so she doesn't even listen to them.

do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? Boyda got up when a retired general was making Iraq sound like a garden place- exactly the kind of misleading BS the Bush admin has been shoving down our throats for years.

Jenkins is so out of it she's rubber stamp whatever she was told to do- like invade Iran.

Anonymous said...

boyda has done more for the military since she has been in office than Ryun did in his 10 years.

she's good for kansas and good for the military.

Anonymous said...

Because the Democratic leadership is giving her earmarks in order to help her re-election camapign and keep their majority in the House ..... it doesn't make her a quality Representative for the 2nd District.

Anonymous said...

bringing home money to make sure her district gets what it needs doesn't make her a quality representative?

that's illogical.

Anonymous said...

bringing home money to make sure her district gets what it needs doesn't make her a quality representative?
----------------------------
They used to call it bringing home the bacon .... because many earmarks are pork .... take a look at the recent farm bill that Congresswoman Boyda supported .... it is full of pork. Like goat and sheep research, tax breaks for horse owners (by Mitch McConnell), $150 million for water for desert lakes in Nevada by Harry Reid (it's a desert stupid), $170 million by Nancy Pelosi for salmon research, .

So much for Democrats being the majority and changing the Washington's wasted spending habits, they are no different than the Republicans, just different pork projects.

Anonymous said...

pork to you is deeply important to the people of other jurisdictions.

for instance- boyda secured hundreds of thousands of dollars for local law enforcement in rural kansas cities. If she hadn't done that, that money would have gone to a different state, and those Kansas communities would be less safe.

an earmark? yes. wasteful "pork barrel spending"? not to the people of Kansas. to the people of Utah...maybe.

the right (and left) wing rhetoric on earmarks is ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

If they are such good ideas .... why are these "earmark" items hid in non-related bills and not open for floor debate.

I thought when we (Democrats)took over Congress, we said this practice would stop. It appears that these large non-related items are being stuffed in by each sides leadership for their home state.

No wonder people don't vote ... because of regardless of Democrat or Republican leadership the same stuff just keeps going on.

Anonymous said...

the process is more transparent, but, yes, there are still some of the old fogies on both sides of the aisle that just don't want to see things change.

at least boyda's done better than the majority- she's trying at least.

This blog is not affiliated in any way with the Kansas Democratic Party, the Democratic National Committee, Congresswoman Nancy Boyda, the Office of Congresswoman Nancy Boyda, or the campaign to re-elected Congresswoman Nancy Boyda. All commentary herein not directly attributed must be considered the opinion of the authors of this blog and not of any other individual, including Congresswoman Nancy Boyda.