It's rainy out there today. My Boca Java donation to the troops has been shipped this time to the 399th CSH FOB Diamondback . I placed an order for Girl Scout cookies with our neighbor's sweet little granddaughter last night. I am heartened to see the Girl Scouts are participating in a program to offer customers an option to send boxed of cookies to the troops. I'm sending some. Comfort items are essential to folks in tough environments.
In a perfect world, I would be in Washington, D.C. this weekend. The National Review Conservative Conference is happening. It would be wonk nirvana for me, I'll tell you. I would listen to premier intellectual movers and shakers and get a boost of motivation.
"I think those that don't support the plan have an obligation to produce their plan for victory". - Senator Joe Lieberman.
Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha and their minions are in Baghdad to meet with al-Maliki. She makes a point of saying they support the troops. To her mind, supporting the troops is denouncing a plan before it is implemented. She voted against the war in the first place. The Senate Armed Services committee voted unanimously to send Gen. Petraeus's name for nomination for leading the efforts in Iraq. The Senate voted unanimously to confirm him. All along, the non-binding resolutions are floating around. So, they are saying they will send him off to handle a mission they do not support or intend to fund.
"I know there is skepticism and pessimism and that some are condemning a plan before it's even had a chance to work," the president said. "They have an obligation and a serious responsibility therefore to put up their own plan as to what would work." - President George W. Bush
General Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services committee that the non-binding resolutions would embolden the enemy. He clearly stated that the resolutions would harm the troops.
"Whatever you voted on, you did not vote for failure." - President George W. Bush, the State of the Union address
So, while newly elected Senator Claire McCaskell was watching Senator Carl Levin for clues as to when she should stand during the State of the Union address, as she stated the next morning, and the members of the Senate produce no productive suggestions or plans for action in Iraq, we are subjected to the likes of Senator Joe Biden, running for President himself, claiming that the resolutions are not meant to embarrass the president. So, what is are we to believe is the purpose?
If the sole response to the situation in Iraq is for the newly elected Congress to state that the way to end the war is to cut funding, well, God help us. When Murtha was questioned as to how the "redeployment" of troops to Okinawa would be able to respond to the situation, he said, well, he didn't really mean Okinawa specifically. So, if those spouting the opinion of the day aren't specifically offering solutions, how serious are they?
I have signed a petition online. I encourage you, if you are a voting Conservative, whether Republican or Independent, to do the same. The process is quick and simple.
The petition, named the NRSC Pledge reads:
If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute t the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.
For all those demanding the troops be brought home immediately, I ask a simple question: Then what?