Carol Shea-Flipper Porter on the WAR

Contrary to popular assumption, while some of us in the ‘conservative’ movement are for strong national defense, we are against war for the purpose of nation-building, and especially wars we can’t win. No matter what one thinks, harken back to 2006 when any Republican, whether they agreed with Bush on Iraq or not, were ‘punished’ for the then-President’s policies.

Is it any wonder that we got such wishy-washy, non-committal responses from our delegation to Obama’s warhawk speech that outlined his seemingly contradictory strategy of sending in 30,000 more troops so that we could end the war?

Paul Hodes, D-2, assures us his decision will be ‘independent’:

“It was clear from the President’s speech this evening that he has consulted closely with our military leaders and approached our future plan in Afghanistan with deliberation and thoughtfulness. Before we send our armed forces into harm’s way we must clearly define an achievable military mission, within the context of an achievable broader strategic plan, set benchmarks to measure progress, and have a clear exit strategy. This is especially true in the complex situation in Afghanistan and the region. Going after the terrorists who attacked our country on September 11 was the right thing to do, but it was never meant to be an open-ended commitment. In the coming weeks, as we deliberate the proposed deployment of troops and resources, I will examine the full details and exercise independent judgment and oversight in considering the plan. Protecting our national security in a dangerous world is my highest priority, and it is important for our country and our brave troops that we get this right.”

Carol-Shea Porter, D-1, non-commital – perhaps waiting for directions from Pelosi?

“I have not heard anything to change my mind. However, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I look forward to hearing from (Defense) Secretary (Robert) Gates and Admiral (Michael) Mullen tomorrow, and General (Stanley) McChrystal and Ambassador (Karl) Eikenberry next week.”

Senator Jeanne Shaheen didn’t take long to blame the previous administration for Obama’s apparently non-peacenik approach while assuring us that this inexperienced teleprompter president really does know what he is doing:

“The situation in Afghanistan is extremely complex and difficult, and the President clearly understands that. After years of mismanagement of this war, we need a strategy that protects our national security and prevents a resurgence of terrorist safe havens in this region. As the President said, we must balance discussion of troop levels with consideration of Afghan governance and security capabilities, the role of Pakistan, the possibility of additional resources from our NATO allies, and the many other challenges we face as a nation.

The decision to send more American troops into this hostile and dangerous region of the world is not one to take lightly. I agree with President Obama that our objective needs to ultimately be focused on transferring responsibility to the people of Afghanistan.

Later this week, I will have the opportunity to ask Secretary Gates, Secretary Clinton, and Chairman Mullen directly about Afghanistan policy when they testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I want to hear more from them about whether we are setting clear and realistic expectations and how they will measure success and track progress.

Nearly 150 members of the New Hampshire National Guard will deploy to Afghanistan by the end of the month. It is for these brave men and women and those already on the ground that we absolutely must have a clear mission and a clear endgame in Afghanistan.”

So I ask you, are they for it or against it?