Is This Political Blackmail?

Playing politics is nothing new in Washington. In fact, it is something that we've come to expect from both political parties. And I guess there are a few things that get done that way when nothing else will work. But there are some issues where politics should be set aside and doing the right thing should be paramount.

A story appeared yesterday saying that some Republican congressmen have threatened to pull their support of war funding unless President Bush backs off on the illegal immigration bill. Somebody please tell me that they were misquoted; that this was just a big misunderstanding. Surely they're not planning to withdraw funding for our troops in harm's way simply to gain leverage in the debate over the amnesty legislation.

Now don't misunderstand me; I am wholly opposed to this bill that would grant legal status to immigrants who are here illegally. I think I've made that clear in some of my earlier columns. If we're going to do this, why don't we just pronounce all other lawbreakers in our country innocent, as well? Drug dealers, you get a free pass. Prostitutes, you're in the clear. Bank robbers, just keep the money. After all, you risked your life to pull off your illegal undertaking, and you should be rewarded for your bravery. Besides, you did it to help your family.

Our lawmakers in Washington wouldn't dare decriminalize 99% of all criminal activity in this country (well, most of them wouldn't). So why do many feel, along with our President, that illegal immigration is the one crime that's not really a crime? Are they afraid of being labeled a racist or a bigot? With all due respect to our national leaders, this has nothing to do with race or bigotry. It's a matter of what is right and what is wrong (not to mention the national security implications behind it all). With immigration, as with everything else, there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. We shouldn't be rewarding these lawbreakers who are doing things the wrong way.

Having said all of that, I must admit, however, that I don't think this issue is worth sacrificing support for our troops. If the only way this bill can be defeated is by using our troops as pawns in the political process, then the cost is too high. What will be next?

Today we've conveyed to the president our intention of withholding funds for orphaned children in this country. Unless he votes with us, we're cutting off money for the kids. Maybe next time he'll think twice before he supports some legislation that we don't agree with.

Absurd? Not much more so than threatening to hold our troops hostage in a political power play. It's just as wrong when the Republicans do it as it is when the Democrats do it. And all who would participate in such a thing should be ashamed.

You don't have to read much of what I write to get a sense of which way I lean politically. More often than not, I agree with the Republicans. But I'm not going to walk in lockstep with everything they say when my conscience would dictate another direction. I'm deeply disappointed with our president over his support of this amnesty bill. I'm equally disappointed with those Republican congressmen who have shown a willingness to play politics with our troops in harm's way.

Let's just pray that this bill will be defeated without having to use our fighting men and women as tools in the political process. They deserve much better.

A Novel Idea For Supporting The Troops

It has always been a moving experience. I’ve been fortunate enough in my lifetime to see it firsthand on several different occasions. But for whatever reason, the last time I witnessed it, emotion took over and I couldn’t hold back the tears. What I’m referring to is the changing of the guard at The Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery.

Watching these elite sentinels going about their duty, I was reminded of what a privilege it is to live in the United States of America. And I became overwhelmed as I thought of the supreme sacrifice that many have made so that I might live free. As I walked away that day, I voiced a prayer of thanksgiving, expressing my gratitude to God for giving me the blessing of being born an American.

Yesterday we celebrated Memorial Day in our country. I would be lying if I told you I spent the whole day honoring those who gave their lives for this country. But I did pause for a few moments yesterday to remember and reflect. To me, that’s what Memorial Day is all about. Not everybody, apparently, shares my feelings.

For presidential candidate and former senator John Edwards, Memorial Day is a time to protest an unpopular war in Iraq. He seems to think that a public demonstration against the war on Memorial Day is appropriate, but only after first “taking a moment of silence beforehand to honor the fallen” (as if that will make it ok). Mr. Edwards believes that an anti-war rally on this sacred holiday is the best way, in his words, “to honor the memory of those who paid the ultimate price for our freedom, and to honor the troops serving us today.”

How ironic that he wants to honor the troops serving today, when he has personally expressed his support for a bill that would cut the funding to those in harm’s way. That’s essentially what the Congress tried to do by sending a bill to the President linking money for the troops with a timetable to get out of Iraq. And isn’t that a great idea? Publish our plans on how we’re going to retreat for the whole world to see. I’m no expert on military strategy, but that doesn’t sound like a course of action that will support the troops. And by passing a war-spending bill that the President had no choice but to veto, the Congress was, indirectly, cutting off funding for our servicemen and women.

Yet John Edwards actually had the nerve to claim that President Bush was, and I quote, “vetoing Congress's bill that would support the troops.” He’s got to be joking. Let’s look at this thing logically. Imagine if every divorced father who pays child support in America accepted this reasoning: “I’m going to support my child by withdrawing all funding.” And you think we have a problem with dead-beat dads now, just wait until all the divorced fathers adopt the Edwards plan. Some may even use it as a defense in court:

Your honor, I’m supporting my children in the same way that John Edwards and the Democrats in Congress are supporting the troops. I’m giving them nothing!

It’s not hard to see the inherent problems with the ideas of John Edwards and other like-minded Democrats. I’m sure they have the best of intentions, but faulty plans usually lead to disaster despite the loftiest objectives.

And now that Memorial Day has come and gone, what was the result of Mr. Edwards' call for anti-war protests? Three of today's headlines immediately jump out at me:

-Vandals deface veterans’ graves with swastikas in Washington state.

-Teens arrested for tossing eggs at color guard in Massachusetts.

-Vandals in Philadelphia spray swastikas on American Legion building.

I’m not saying that these three incidents were directly related to John Edwards’ call for protests. In fact, they probably weren’t. But when Mr. Edwards suggests that Memorial Day is an appropriate time to demonstrate against public policy concerning American troops in harm’s way, he gives a certain legitimacy to those vandals (if only in their own minds) that they would not have had otherwise.

Mr. Edwards, you were wrong. You should apologize to our nation, to our soldiers in harm’s way, and to all the families who have lost loved ones that were fighting for our freedom.

There are 365 days in a year. Whether you’re for the war or against it, Memorial Day should be about those who’ve given their lives for this country. Pick out another day from the 364 remaining and protest on that date, but leave the last Monday in May alone.