Posted by
on Wednesday, January 24, 2007 7:51:52 PM
As promised, I'm going to deliver our thoughts regarding the president's State of the Union speech. But before I go into that, I'd like to address some of the e-mails that came in overnight about Marcie's job last night live-blogging the event.First off, yes a couple of quotes weren't exactly as they were stated by the president. That's what happenes when she's trying to listen to the speech, and she has me in the other ear, so if there's any blame to be passed around on that one, lay off of her and focus on me. I thought I was giving her a hand by noting the quotes fromt he president that were important. Secondly, yes, she dropped quoting him for the most part, and focused on one sentence summarizations with regard to his comments because she simply could not keep up. Third, there was no commentary or analysis by her, except at the end because the goal was to record the event for posterity. Analysis falls to me, which I'm about to begin.
There are numerous reactions in the blogosphere to the speech. Some are good, and some aren't so good. Personally, we agree the pseech was pretty good. Yes the president brought up programs he'd like to enact, laws he'd like renewed, and reform he'd like to see happen. We all knew that there would be foreign and domestic acknowledgement of things the US must do, and things we'd like to see happen. Of course, as a Constitutional conservative, I've got some problems with more than one program he brought up, but that's moot right now.
The crux of the speech came in the second half, when he was talking about the war. I wish he would've contrasted what must be done, and what the Democratrs wanted to do. Make it, quite literally, a put-up-or-shut-up moment for the Democrats. Either they are with the president, and the nation, in the continued prosecution of this war, or they're going to take the side of the other retreatists that have reared their ugly heads, like John Warner, Gordon Smith, and Susan Collins.
And whether those on the Left like it, we're not leaving Iraq until the job is finished. The president is going to get his chance to try this new strategy, and provided the Iraqis abide by their word--no more protection for the militias, the extremists, and others trying to tear the country apart--this strategy should work. We do agree with him that the military must be expanded, though we don't agree with the number. 92,000 is too little. We need more. When World War II was going on, over 30 million men from the United States were under arms to fight back Nazism, Japanese Imperialism, and Italian Fascism. We face an enemy now that wants us destroyed just as much as the Axis powers did, and we have just over one million men under arms now. The military definitely needs to be larger, and while we are in a 21st Century world on the 21st Century battlefield, we'd be happier if more than 92,000 men were added to the ranks.
And there is no argument on this issue. This war is the most important turning point in our history, and we can't afford to withdraw from the field of battle--regardless of where that battlefield is. Thus, I'm brought to a very serious subject that was highlighted by Hugh Hewitt today that is important to us, as voters and bloggers. As I pointed out above, several GOP senators are moving forward with a resolution that will not only tie the hands of the president, but force a retreat from this fight. This can't be allowed to happen. So, people are applying pressure in the right spot, thanks to him and NZ Bear. We understand the gravity of a retreat, and when the president's own party begins to turn on him, it's time that the party stands up, and prepares for the beatdown of the century.
Marcie and I are on board with the NRSC Pledge and we urge our friends, colleagues, and fellow bloggers to jump on board. The pledge is, as follows:
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 to 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.
Jump on board and take the pledge. Call Sen. McConnell's office at (202) 224-2541. Urge him to mount a filibuster of the Warner/Biden resolution, and kill this move by the retreatists before it's too late. If that line is busy, call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 225-3121. And don't stop with Sen. McConnell. Get on the phones to as many senators as you can, and urge them to stop this resolution in it's tracks. Don't let the handful of cowards in the Senate who don't have the stomach to see this war through win the day. We can't afford to let them win. And remind them that if this happens, the contributions are gone. To the NRSC, to the RNC, and to their own campaigns. This issue goes beyond party lines, but the Republicans are going to suffer for their transgression if they idly by and don't take action to stand firm with the president and the nation.
Publius II