To the editor:

I have a simple but difficult question for the readers, but first we need to discuss two of the four camps of voters in Congress on what to do on Iraq (I’ve excluded two: supporters, mostly Republicans, for the occupation of Iraq, and Sens. Clinton and Obama).

These two camps consist mostly of members of the Democratic Party. The first camp is against the occupation of Iraq. They did not want to send a bill to the president last month. They’re in favor of using Congress’ constitutional authority to withhold funding.

The second camp, who presents itself as being against the occupation, argues against this method, saying that it would abandon the troops.

The first camp counters that we already have the money in the pipeline to bring the troops home safely. I shouldn’t have to mention that this is true. Budgets are made well in advance before the actual spending takes place.

Neither camp has argued its side very well. To be fair to the second camp (call them Empire-lite), we should acknowledge that those who do the actual spending, like the departments within the Pentagon, answer primarily to the White House. There are also hidden parts of the budget which could be moved to continue military activities.

So allow me to ask you: What would our commander in chief do if Congress refused to spend another dollar on the war?

Creed Shepard,

Lawrence