Sign the Pledge!
Write.
All weekend long. Write.
And don't forget to sign.
It is this important.
We need Republican activism. Drown out this nonsense, and send a more meaningful message. Appeasement and compromise are not the answer, here.
Do not be discouraged. Do not allow McConnell to cave to McCain.
McCain...#$%^&%*......."a great American....lousy Senator...and an awful Republican."- Hugh Hewitt
This is why we lost in November. We had a Republican majority that didn't behave like a majority. Without cohesive party discipline and party loyalty, we gave it away.
This is the final straw. "The anti-war resolution is a frivolous thing, a pathetic exercise in rear-end covering."- Dean Barnett
Above all, write your senators and sign the pledge because it is the right thing to do. Let history show that America is no paper tiger.
All weekend long. Write.
And don't forget to sign.
It is this important.
We need Republican activism. Drown out this nonsense, and send a more meaningful message. Appeasement and compromise are not the answer, here.
Do not be discouraged. Do not allow McConnell to cave to McCain.
McCain...#$%^&%*......."a great American....lousy Senator...and an awful Republican."- Hugh Hewitt
This is why we lost in November. We had a Republican majority that didn't behave like a majority. Without cohesive party discipline and party loyalty, we gave it away.
This is the final straw. "The anti-war resolution is a frivolous thing, a pathetic exercise in rear-end covering."- Dean Barnett
Above all, write your senators and sign the pledge because it is the right thing to do. Let history show that America is no paper tiger.
Labels: pro-victory, surrender resolution
posted by The WordSmith from Nantucket at 1/27/2007 07:55:00 AM
11 Comments:
I thought I left a comment here; guess not.
I pledged and wrote, Wordsmith, and also sent the link to many people not on your e-mail list.
Hugh Hewitt is right concerning McCain being a lousy Senator and an awful Republican, but a "great American"??? Perhaps at one time when he was in the service and also held as a prisoner of war, but now? I think not.
Off topic, I finally have the HaloScan problem solved.
but a "great American"??? Perhaps at one time when he was in the service and also held as a prisoner of war,
gayle, as frustrating as he is, as I reminded readers at Dee's blog,
So although he seems to be every conservative's favorite Republican punching dummy...and make no mistake, I certainly do not want him as our presidential candidate and am angry at him over "the gang of 14", let me remind you that when Hugh Hewitt called him a "great American and an awful Republican", this is what he meant by "great American":
On October 26, 1967, McCain's A-4 Skyhawk was shot down by an anti-aircraft missile, landing in Truc Bach Lake. He broke both arms and a leg after ejecting from his plane. After he regained consciousness, a mob gathered around him, spit on him, kicked him and stripped him of his clothing. He was then tortured by Vietnamese soldiers, who bayonetted him in his left foot and groin. His shoulder was crushed by a rifle butt. He was then transported to the Hoa Lo Prison, also known as the Hanoi Hilton.
Once McCain arrived at the Hanoi Hilton, he was placed in a cell and interrogated daily. When McCain refused to provide any information to his captors, he was beaten until he lost consciousness.
When the North Vietnamese discovered his father was the Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command, (CINCPAC), commander of all U.S. forces in Vietnam, he was offered a chance to return home. McCain turned down the offer of repatriation.
McCain signed an anti-American propaganda message which was written in Vietnamese, but only as a result of rigorous and brutal torture methods, which have rendered him incapable of raising his arms above his head. According to McCain, signing the propaganda message is something he most regrets during his time as a POW. After McCain signed the statement, the Vietnamese decided they could not use it. They tried to force him to sign a second statement, and this time he refused. He received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal.
On one issue, the war on terror, I think he gets it; even if we disagree with him on the torture issue. But we must remember that his position is influenced by his unique experience, which might be incorrect, but cannot (or rather should not) be so easily dismissed and ignored.
Gayle also wrote:
but now? I think not.
That is why "now" he is a "lousy Senator and an awful Republican". But still a "great American". I'd also like to remind potential '08 voters, that if it came down to it, keep in mind that he votes GOP around 87% of the time; which is much, much, much greater than Hillary, Edwards, or Obama's voting record. Their record is far to the left.
Great post!! As you already know this post and your comments are what inspired my post where I linked to this. Keep up the great work.
I fully support and encourage everyone here to speak out to their representatives on their position on this resolution.
Just as I fully support those who are opposed to this war to contact their representatives to encourage them to sign the resolution.
And I'm thankful to God above and my many fellow Americans who agree with me who showed up by the tens if not hundreds of thousands this last weekend to call for an end to this war and for our representatives to take responsible action.
May the correct "side" win out in the end.
I really do not have a lot of patience for many of these "peace" protestors; especially when they lack respect themselves
One can hardly hold the whole anti-Iraq War movement responsible for the actions of the .1%.
As I said, hopefully we can both continue to support one another's right and duty to contact their representatives and urge appropriate action.
I think the majority is on my side in opposing this Iraq invasion as a threat to our security. But by all means, express your opinion.
Dan,
Even if that were true, that the majority is on your side, I could care less. Staying in Iraq, to me, is the right thing to do, until the country is secure enough to fend for itself. Talking about "the Iraq Invasion" tells me you are still stuck on "major operations". The war is over, as far as removal of Saddam. We are not at war with the Iraqi people. We are in a different phase. And I ask you, what are the consequences of just packing up and going home? Will the suffering cease?
Read what I said again, I didn't say just pack up and go home. I said withdraw our troops and ask for help in figuring out how best to help the Iraqis.
But any help we offer needs to come out of a position of humility, not a we know best mindset. We've proven that's not the case already.
And good for you that you don't care about majority opinion, that you will push for what you think is right. That's been my position all along, as well.
It's what we have to do to be ethical people. But in our nation, if the majority opts against an invasion such as this, eventually the leaders have to withdraw. Representational gov't is not perfect, but it's what we've got and it's good.
I agree that majority rules, when it comes to voting time.
I said withdraw our troops and ask for help in figuring out how best to help the Iraqis.
Hasn't that kind of been the plan all along? In a sense anyway. We would all like the troops to come home; but only when Iraq is secure enough to support itself. The irresponsible thing would be to let it fall into chaos, and cause more death and destruction. And if we follow the Powell doctrine, if we broke it, then it's our responsiblitiy to fix it.
But perhaps unlike you, Dan, there are many on your side of the peace protest aisle who are calling for unconditional withdrawal. Now.
"I agree that majority rules, when it comes to voting time."
Yes, and at voting time last November, nearly unprecedented change was voted in and last week, some 100,000 folk came out to remind the new Congress not to forget why they were put into office.
And some 40 folk came out to support Bush's war. I'm just saying let the people be heard.
Dan,
That is like taking an opinion poll. Since when have you EVER seen a large turnout of "pro-war/pro-troop" demonstrations? It doesn't happen, because mostly nutjobs go out and participate in "civil unrest"-style demonstrations.
Until you have millions flocking to these, I wouldn't blink an eye over the protests. The largest protest in history occurred before the Iraq War. Last weekend was nothing, to me, except people advocating for surrender. Not for peace. They think not of the consequences of what happens if we leave.
And last November I agree was probably a referrendum on the Iraq War. But with Republicans, it's not in wanting to "cut-and-run" from Iraq; but in dissatisfaction with how it's been fought (some probably want a more aggressive war with the gloves taken off) and a dissatisfaction with a Republican majority that didn't behave like a majority. Dissatisfaction with immigration reform. Frankly, the Democrats did a better job in campaigning for '06.
Post a Comment
<< Home