The issue is victory not Bush

Brian Bresnahan:

In response to the request for renewing my membership in the Nebraska Republican Party, I politely voiced my displeasure with Chuck Hagel’s stand on the war on terror. I wasn’t rude to the nice young lady on the other end of the line, no need to shoot the messenger, nor was I going to dismiss myself from the GOP. But it was an opportune time to share my views.

The young lady, likely armed with provided talking points, replied that no other Senator was more conservative than Senator Hagel. She pointed to his voting with the President 98% of the time last year as proof. No other Senator could boast such a thing.

I had to pause and quickly recall what I had just told her moments earlier. Nope, I hadn’t said anything about voting with or against the President, but that’s where the talking points trained her to go.

I had only shared my disappointment with Senator Hagel’s unwillingness to fight for victory, nothing more. But a nearly irrelevant response was given from an errantly based set of talking points.

...

But none of those topics implied in her answer were relevant to my point. I hadn’t shared disappointment in him not voting with the President 100% of the time, I don’t expect him, or any other Senator to. I was stating my disappointment with our state’s Republican Senator not arguing for victory.

Because, when laid bare, that’s what the argument is. Are you willing to fight for victory against terrorists or not? The question is not “do you vote or agree with the President, how often, and on what issues?” It is whether or not you are willing to accept, or even argue for defeat, and then be willing to face the guaranteed consequences of doing so.

What’s at stake here is much more important than how often one agrees with George W. Bush on all the issues. The same would hold true for any other President during war-time. At stake here is the long-term security of our country which directly affects our freedoms, thus it supersedes the argument about any one man because it affects all of us.

...

The debates in the House and Senate last week noticeably lacked rhetoric reflecting a desire for victory in Iraq and the rest of the war on terror. They represented the path our country has taken. We have lost our way, searching for personal answers about a man instead of our nation, its security or its future.

Many on the left lost their way and gave up the cause for victory over terrorists quite some time ago. They’ve since then made their stand, arguing against Bush, not for American victory.

...

Sorry about the lack of a link, but this was too good to wait until it was posted. Nebraska's is a conservative state. It deserves a senator who wants to win the war in Iraq. Hagel's call for retreat gives hope to the enemy who wants to win in Washington what he cannot win in Iraq.

Update: Link is working now.