Senator Coleman responded promptly and thoughtfully to my emailed encouragement to support President Bush. My response to his response keeps coming back as undeliverable. Being tech illiterate I have trouble thinking through the cause, so forget about it.

    The Honorable Senator Coleman has one point of dispute with the President and General Petraeus. Senator Coleman thinks deploying our soldiers to Bagdad is not a good idea. We disagree. I took some pains and time to explain myself. Let me try here to share these thoughts since the cyber post office seems incapable of delivering his mail from me. I know there is probably a way I can hit a few keystrokes and paste my email into this space but again I respect the wonder of this stuff by am not inclined to ever master it. I will just transcribe my answer to Senator Coleman from the hard copy I printed for myself.

    Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:23 AM

        Thank you for your response. As I read it I am persuaded we differ on only one point. Your determination to vote against President Bush in this "symbolic" no confidence measure is pegged to the disagreement you have with deploying our soldiers into the  Bagdad operational area. This most dangerous area must be secured by those least capable of securing it as a first step. On all other points you can support President Bush and his Generals.
        With due respect this is unreasonable. On both practical and "symbolic" grounds we must deploy the best to the biggest point of danger and crush their will to defy the forces of goodwill arrayed agianst them. We must, by our continued willingness to shed our blood with our Iraqi allies, prosecute this conflict with the greatest hope for securing an enduring end to hostilities in this area. To sit on the outside rooting for them will not remove our soldiers from danger, it will just prolong the period that they will face danger.
        As we confronted the result of American resolve failing in Viet Nam we continued to face danger. What made it most excruciating is that we were denied relief in the form of a robust ability to strike back with all our combined forces. We bled but had to endure while the pragmatists in Paris discussed the shape of the table.
        Your calibration serves only your hope of securing a reputation of independence in the State of Minnesota where this war is so unpopular. I understand your dilemma. I cannot find it in me to give you a pass on this point. You, like so many others, seem to have calculated that the outcome is so gloomy that victory on the ground, in Bagdad, is impossible. Yet, the new General says otherwise. By frustrating this operation you aid and abet its enemies both foreign and domestic and make the General's task much more difficult. What I fear most is that this General is not the warrior we need just now but rather a man determined to do his own calibrating and thereby desert his commander-in chief when we all need him most.
        Your refusal to lend an ounce of support to the forces mounting against the President will distinguish you espeacially in light of your public anguish over this matter. Soldiers understand warfare and our soldiers have the advantage of being volunteers. They cannot understand and come quickly to despise politician's of all parties. Today we need our soldiers on task and reinforced more than our politician's calibrating (there's that word again) their next election.
        I will resort to prayer, that you do what is right in this matter.

    I will try to mail this again. Perhaps his mailbox is stuffed and overflowing with letters form constituents. I pray that these are mostly pleas for him to buck-up, to stand up, consequences be... whatever.