Copying an email from Hugh Hewitt and N.Z.Bear.....I have sent my emails, called the numbers and faxed these folks...have you?
Dear Pledge Signer:
Today and tomorrow will be decisive days in the Senate debate over the Biden/Warner/McCain resolutions. We believe the Senate GOP should refuse cloture on all resolutions, and thus at least provide victory Republicans with clarity as to who deserves their support in the Senate. Please contact the nine Senators below and urge them to oppose all resolutions, and to refuse to vote for cloture (which requires 60 votes) and to aggressively defend the war and the reinforcements in the debate this week. Nine phone calls, nine faxes and nine e-mails may take an hour or two, but we believe that victory in Iraq deserves that effort and much much more. The nine key senators and their contact information:
Senator McConnell: Phone: (202) 224-2541 Fax: (202) 224-2499 E-mail here: http://mcconnell.senate.gov/contact_form.cfm
Senator Lott: Phone: 202-224-6253 Fax: (202)-224-2262 E-mail here: http://lott.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Email
Senator Kyl: Phone: (202) 224-4521 Fax: (202) 224-2207 E-mail here: http://kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Senator Ensign: Phone: (202)-224-6244 Fax: 202-228-2193. E-mail here: http://ensign.senate.gov/forms/email_form.cfm
Senator McCain: Phone: (202)-224-2235 Fax (202)-228-2862. E-mail here: http://www.exploremccain.com/Contact/
Senator Warner: Phone: (202) 224-2023 Fax: (202) 224-6295. E-mail here: http://warner.senate.gov/contact/contactme.cfm
Senator Cornyn: Phone:202-224-2934 Fax: 202-228-2856. E-mail here: http://cornyn.senate.gov/contact/index.html
Senator Smith: Phone: 202-224-3752 Fax: 202-228-3997. E-mail here: http://gsmith.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction =Contact.Home
Senator Coleman: Phone: 202-224-5641 Fax: 202-224-1152.E-mail here: http://coleman.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact .ContactForm
We also belive that it is crucial that you include details of your past support for GOP candidates. When you email these Senators, please 'CC:' us at admin@thenrscpledge.com if you would like us to post your comments online.
We will be asking Townhall.com to handle the technical side of TheNRSCPledge from here on out. If you would like updates on the effort, please reply to this email with the word 'SUBSCRIBE' in the subject line (if you have not already done so to our previous email). Future updates will come from the Townhall.com server, and we don't want to do that without your permission.
Thank you for getting the message to these senators early on Monday and throughout the day and tomorrow.
NZ Bear Hugh Hewitt
This is important people.... we need to make it very clear that no money, no votes and no support of ANY kind will go to ANY candidate or politician that votes for any resolution that will encourage the enemy or demoralize our troops.
Copy of my email:
I am a staunch supporter of the GOP. My blog is newer than most but I am actively involved and I have developed a large following in a short amount of time.
I use this blog to encourage people too learn why it is important, especially for our National Security to support the party or people that I personally believe does a better job
and is more capable of protecting America.
I state this because my support as well as tens of thousands of other conservative bloggers that believe as I do, will no longer support in any way, shape or form, ANY political member that
votes for ANY resolution that we believe will encourage our enemies or demoralize our troops.
The NRSC Pledge has over 29,000+ signatures, one of which is mine.
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.
We must fight to win and our President has developed a new strategy which a small part of this strategy is an additional 21,ooo+ troops, we the people, YOUR supporters, expect OUR representatives to back the President of the United States of America in a time of war.
If this is not something we can count on, then I see no reason for YOU to be able to count on US, for support, any longer either.
2008 is coming upon us and your actions at this time will be remembered and judged.
Our decision on who to support in the future is completely up to you and your actions in this matter.
Respectfully,
Spree
Wake up America
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/
A reminder of why we are doing this from Wapo:
The Baker-Hamilton report explained that failure in Iraq could have severe consequences for our national interests in a critical region and for our national security here at home. In my many conversations with members of Congress and foreign policy experts, few have disagreed.
The strategic review commissioned by President Bush analyzed the options for setting Iraq on a trajectory for success. Alternatives now being discussed in Congress were considered but rejected after the strategic risks and stakes were calculated.
The review considered the option of pulling U.S. forces out of Baghdad and concentrating on al-Qaeda in Iraq and training Iraqi security forces, as some in Congress recommend.
Most people agree that we must focus on fighting al-Qaeda. The president's strategy steps up this fight -- particularly in Anbar province, where al-Qaeda seeks a sanctuary. The administration also agrees that we must accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces. The president's strategy does this -- with benchmarks to track progress and bolster the size and effectiveness of those forces. Training and supporting Iraqi troops will remain our military's essential and primary mission.
But the president's review also concluded that the strategy with the best chance of success must have a plan for securing Baghdad. Without such a plan, the Iraqi government and its security institutions could fracture under the pressure of widespread sectarian violence, ethnic cleansing and mass killings. Chaos would then spread throughout the country -- and throughout the region. The al-Qaeda movement would be strengthened by the flight of Sunnis from Baghdad and an accelerated cycle of sectarian bloodletting. Iran would be emboldened and could be expected to provide more lethal aid for extremist groups. The Kurdish north would be isolated, inviting separation and regional interference. Terrorists could gain pockets of sanctuary throughout Iraq from which to threaten our allies in the region and our security here at home.
The new plan for Baghdad specifically corrects the problems that plagued previous efforts. First, it is an Iraqi-initiated plan for taking control of their capital. Second, there will be adequate forces (Iraqi and American) to hold neighborhoods cleared of terrorists and extremists. Third, there is a new operational concept -- one devised not just to pursue terrorists and extremists but to secure the population. Fourth, new rules of engagement will ensure that Iraqi and U.S. forces can pursue lawbreakers regardless of their community or sect. Fifth, security operations will be followed by economic assistance and reconstruction aid -- including billions of dollars in Iraqi funds -- offering jobs and the prospect of better lives.
As Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of our forces in Iraq, explained in hearings before Congress last week, reinforcing U.S. troops is necessary for this new plan to succeed. Any plan that limits our ability to reinforce our troops in the field is a plan for failure -- and could hand Baghdad to terrorists and extremists before legitimate Iraqi forces are ready to take over the fight. That is an outcome the president simply could not accept.
The Baker-Hamilton report supports this conclusion. It said: "We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad . . . if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective." Our military commanders, and the president, have determined just that.
The focus on reinforcing our troops must not overshadow the comprehensive nature of the changes in the president's strategy. Contrary to what some have suggested, reinforcing our military presence is not the strategy -- it is a means to an end and part of a package of key strategic shifts that will fundamentally restructure our approach to achieving our objectives in Iraq.
Building on experience elsewhere in the country, the new strategy doubles the number of provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) in Iraq. These civilian-led units will target development aid where it is needed and help the Iraqi government extend its reach to all corners of the country.
Because close civilian-military cooperation is key to success, 10 new civilian PRTs will be embedded with U.S. combat brigades.
The new strategy incorporates other essential elements of the Baker-Hamilton report, such as doubling the number of troops embedded with Iraqi forces, using benchmarks to help us and the Iraqis chart progress, and launching a renewed diplomatic effort to increase support for the Iraqi government and advance political reconciliation.
Ultimately, a strategy for success must present a realistic plan for bringing security to the people of Baghdad. This is a precondition to advancing other goals. President Bush's strategy offers such a plan -- and it is the only strategy that does.
The plan is already working and now is NOT the time to allow the political gameplayers to force our military to retreat in defeat.
BAGHDAD, Jan. 28 — At least 250 militants were killed and an American helicopter was shot down in violent clashes near the southern city of Najaf on Sunday, Iraqi officials said.
For 15 hours, Iraqi forces backed by American helicopters and tanks battled hundreds of gunmen hiding in a date palm orchard near the village of Zarqaa, about 120 miles south of Baghdad, by a river and a large grain silo that is surrounded by orchards, the officials said.
The Iraqi's are finally stepping up to the plate.... now is not the time to abandon them.
SIGN THE PLEDGE if you have not already and make your calls, send your emails.....MAKE YOURSELF HEARD.
[UPDATE] 12:43pm- This article on RCP clearly shows what effect our combined actions are having.
The Democratic plan was for Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden to sit down over the weekend with his longtime Republican colleague, Sen. John Warner, and hammer out a consensus bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush's troop surge in Iraq. But Warner, who has been making backroom deals for 22 years in the Senate, informed Biden late last Thursday: No deal.
Warner wrote that the "will of the Senate" should be determined in "open" session, not closeted negotiations. That killed the Democratic leadership's dream of passing a Biden-crafted anti-surge resolution by 70 votes or more. Such a proposal now cannot get the 60 votes needed for cloture to end a filibuster (and could fall short of the 50 senators needed for a simple majority). Conceivably, no resolution at all may be passed by the Senate.
[...]
Biden wanted to force through his sharply worded (though non-binding) resolution. But advisers prevailed on him to meld his proposal with Warner's milder non-approval language. Biden and his principal Republican co-sponsor, Sen. Chuck Hagel (second-ranking Republican on Foreign Relations), on Wednesday said they were ready to begin negotiating with Warner, the former Armed Services Committee chairman.
[...]
One of Biden's advisers told me then that the negotiations should prove no problem because they were willing to accept "about 90 percent" of Warner's resolution. Democrats complained that its present wording left the door open for further troop increases, and some questioned its first paragraph affirming the president's constitutional role as commander in chief. Such language was supposed to have been massaged during the weekend.
But Biden was surprised late Wednesday afternoon to receive a blunt letter from Warner and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, the most conservative Democrat in the Senate. They asserted that they and other co-sponsors of the resolution "believe that issues set forth in [the resolution] should occur as a consequence of the will of the Senate, working in 'open' session, during floor debate and consideration." In other words, no private negotiations.
KEEP the pressure on folks!!!!!!!! SIGN THE PLEDGE, make the calls, email and fax these people, over and over again until they understand that they COUNT ON US and if we cannot count on them, then they cannot count on us anymore.
Tracked back by:
The Cesspool of Politics from Right Truth...
.