Webb On Iraq: The Missing Question

Lowell Feld writes up Senator Jim Webb's blogger conference call today:

Sen. Webb started off by talking about how he shared the "disappointment" of many regarding "the way the appropriations supplemental was handled by our party." He had hoped that his amendment, which would require that soldiers can't be redeployed unless they've been home at least that long, would have been attached to the supplemental. That would have cut right to the "inviolable bottom line" regarding how our troops are being used. The logic on that was "unassailable and clear," so if the President had vetoed it, everyone would have understood what he was doing. . . .

I think the questions to be asked about this statement are obvious. Feld reports the following questions:

"Teacherken" asked whether we could do better than a 1:1 ratio, why stop there? Sen. Webb responded that 1:1 is a floor, that he's aiming for 2:1 on the active side.

. . . I asked Sen. Webb about PTSD:

. . . Waldo Jaquith asked about the effect that Webb's amendment could have on troop levels in Iraq.

. . . Terry Rea asked whether governors had any power to limit National Guard deployments overseas

. . . Spencer Ackerman of Talking Points Memo asked about the politics of Webb's amendment, and whether this was something "wavering members" could "latch onto."

. . . A mystery blogger - nobody seems to know who it was! - asked whether Sen. Webb had any reaction to the statements by Sen. Lugar and others on Iraq.

These are all good questions but ignore the most obvious and important one to wit:

President Bush vetoed the Iraq Supplemental and demanded a bill acceptable to him (no timelines, no restrictions). The Congress provided President Bush just such a bill. You voted for it. What will you do if the President does this again regarding the upcoming Iraq appropriation bills?

< Court Reissues PlameGate Opinion Adding Karl Rove's Name | SCOTUS To Overturn MCA? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by mmeo on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 09:31:53 PM EST
    Everybody knows the problem: the so-called antiwar Democrats are unwilling actually to refuse to fund the war.

    Senator Jim Webb, who personifies this lack of resolve, can shift the deck chairs on the Titanic all he likes.  I'll wait until he votes to refuse funding to the war.

    "so-called" is the operative wording (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:48:51 AM EST
    my guess? (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by cpinva on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 05:52:31 PM EST
    and this is just a guess mind you: they'll bend over, spread those cheeks wide, apply a little k-y jelly to lube things up, and take it like the losers they've so quickly become.

    and really, why shouldn't george and dick do them all, in one horrifying, stygian orgy of greased-up ass?

    Yes but... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 08:34:41 PM EST
    At least they get to use some lube, the military personnel are taking it with none.

    And I'm the one (none / 0) (#2)
    by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 07:01:34 PM EST
    Who gets all the 1s here at Talkleft.

    Heh (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 07:14:14 PM EST
    That is quite the comment.

    Not quite in the spirit of the site.

    The language is NOT profane, strictly speaking, but the spirit is.


    Spirit of speech (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by wlgriffi on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:18:30 AM EST
    Should be welcome to a so-called "Big Tent Democrat" --No? A lot of thin skin lately.

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:51:43 AM EST
    Did I censor any speech? Actually I did not.

    Please leave your personal demons out of this.


    Half-off-topic (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 09:12:10 PM EST
    Just had a run-in with your old "friend" DH over Iraq funding. Took him about 30 seconds to tell me that I didn't know anything and couldn't read.

    No comment (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:32:59 PM EST
    He is their ticking time bomb, not mine.

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:42:31 PM EST
    BTW (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:46:19 PM EST
    Id di the BH weith Conn Carroll today - he was egging me on to blast the Netroots on Iraq and, yep, I did.

    Excellent (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:52:04 PM EST
    I look forward to watching.

    It looks like (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:16:16 PM EST
    The video should eventually appear here. I'm just getting an error message now though.

    Bad Link? (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:36:30 PM EST
    Looks like the video isn't loaded yet. n/t (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:38:21 PM EST
    Thanks, just one correction. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Lowell on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:15:10 PM EST
    My name is Lowell Feld, not "Lowell Kell."  Last year, I was Jim Webb's netroots coordinator.   This year, I'm back to blogging at www.raisingkaine.com



    Sorry Lowell (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:30:48 PM EST
    I knew that. I really did.

    Look, I don't expect you to give Webb the business but I do think Webb should invite one blogger that will.


    I think we asked good questions (none / 0) (#22)
    by Lowell on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 12:44:36 PM EST
    ...what would you have asked if you had been on the call, just curious?

    I know it makes no difference folks (none / 0) (#8)
    by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:21:29 PM EST
    but his kid's in the war.

    at least that was important back when the blogosphere was putting this "fighting dem" front and center of the blogosphere movement.

    fair play to put him on the spot with difficult questions.

    but calling this man names is only going to setback your cause.

    just the fyi.

    My husband is in the war (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 07:41:04 AM EST
    It isn't that I don't understand how that goes for Webb.  BTD isn't taking a stand on ending Iraq that military and their families can't support.  There is a certain code though that soldiers live by and work by and Webb wants to be able to never in any way feel that he is shirking his duty to his country and he wants the President to do the right thing.  It is a soldier thing.  They all have a horrible time if someone accuses them of somehow falling short in doing their duty, it can't even be able to be questioned or they have already failed.  Webb can never hope for Bush and Cheney to have a come to Jesus moment though on this where they care what they do to anybody whether it be soldier or Iraqi.  Webb is doomed to failure by attempting to always be the good soldier, and he isn't the soldier anymore and what he is doing is hurting other soldiers horribly and he may not even understand what he has done to his own son until his son comes home and tries to live some sort of "normal" life again.

    Did I call him a name? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 10:32:08 PM EST
    Senator Webb is what I called him.

    What should I call him?


    Not you (none / 0) (#15)
    by Stewieeeee on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:21:52 PM EST
    Maybe I should have replied more directly to one of the comments above.

    Anyway, my comment wasn't addressed to you, but to anyone who thought such a thing might work.


    Antiwar Dems (none / 0) (#18)
    by JHFarr on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:32:45 AM EST
    I agree with "mmeo." The problem is that the antiwar Dems aren't antiwar. They're more anti-being-yelled-at-by-Republicans. Basically, they don't give a damn, which is why I'm not even paying attention any more. It's the Democrats' (and Jim Webb's) war now too, because they funded it. I'm against the war, so how can I remain a Democrat???

    Because of all the attendant ramifications (war powers, energy policy, the environment, NSA spying, etc. etc.), the conflict in the Middle East is the most important issue of all for me and many others, and the Democrats just don't get it...  I've well and truly had enough, and no amount of Kossian or FDL finger-wagging is going to move me a single micron. Sign me "not voting in 2008" unless I have a red-blooded, courageous anti-war candidate to vote for, PERIOD.