Thursday, January 25, 2007

It’s A Fine Line Between Opposition And Security

Lieutenant General David Petraeus testifies to the Senate Armed Forces Committee about his nomination to be general and commander of the Multi-National Forces in Iraq at a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, January, 23, 2007. Image Credit: REUTERS/Joshua Roberts (UNITED STATES)

It's A Fine Line Between Opposition And Security

Today, Hugh Hewitt and the website "Truth Laid Bear" are helping to define the politics of the issue that lays between honest dissent and opposition with the policies and actions of a two time elected President in a time of war and non-binding resolutions that put our volunteer armed forces at greater risk as well as signal a belief that our armed forces are not up to the mission at hand.

Hugh Hewitt, a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host, writes on the conservative weblog portal, Townhall, that many Republicans in Congress are in conflict over the recent decisions of President Bush and his administration's handling of events in Iraq.

Hugh believes that if the Republicans sign-on to the non-binding resolutions that condemn the recent decisions of President Bush and his administration's handling of events in Iraq, that the funding of the Republican political effort should take a hit!

Further, he believes that the passing of these resolutions cross the line of political opposition in that they signal (in the words of General Patraeus, President Bush’s pick to manage the Military effort in Iraq) "that any resolution denouncing the strategy in Iraq would encourage the enemy"

Excerpts from Townhall –

Take The Pledge: How Victory Trumps Party
By Hugh Hewitt - Thursday, January 25, 2007

What does it mean to "encourage the enemy?" It means to increase their will to fight on, and their courage to do so even in the face of the arrival of reinforcements. It also means to increase - substantially - the likelihood of redoubled and retripled efforts on their part to kill American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. To vote for the sort of resolution that General Petraeus addressed is a profoundly wrong action.

General Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate on Wednesday -- which has to mean that the senators who voted for him have confidence in his military judgment.

Many Democrats are willing to encourage the enemy if it means hurting George W. Bush. They are willing to disregard the advice of the general they have just sent to do a mission if it serves their political purposes.
Because the troops and the war trump any partisan calculation, I have helped organize a campaign to alert Republican senators that a vote for the Warner resolution, or any other similar resolution, is a deal breaker for me. I will not contribute to any senator who so votes, and I will not work for any senator who so votes.

Further, I will withhold all funds from the NRSC if the NRSC supports in the '07-'08 cycle any Republican senator who voted for the Warner amendment.

I am not alone in this conviction, even though it may mean splitting with some friends, senators I have eagerly helped elect in the past with my time and treasure, and whom I know to be very good senators on almost all issues. At the web site more than 4,000 people signed the pledge of non-support for individual senators and the NRSC in the first six hours of its operation. Hundreds of bloggers have joined on as well. I expect the numbers to grow, and the memory of the votes of next week to remain strong for years to come.

There are two parties in the country - the victory party, and everybody else.
Read All>>

If you believe as we at MAXINE do ... security and safety at home is found through VICTORY and not through non-binding resolutions that give aid and comfort to our enemies ... TAKE THE PLEDGE:

No comments: