Webb: "We are working under the reality"

[calteacherguy]

Statement of Senator Webb on Passage of the Iraq Supplemental Bill
Washington, DC - The following is a statement from Senator Jim Webb regarding the Iraq War supplemental spending bill that has been passed by both houses of Congress:

"I worked very hard to try to persuade the Democratic leadership to include clear, restrictive language in this Supplemental. I did not succeed, and was disappointed in many of the provisions that remained. However, we are working under the reality that, on the issue of Iraq, this Senate does not have a Democratic majority. From the outset, we are a minority of 49, given Senator Lieberman's position on the war. This reality dictates our conduct. On the one hand, I find myself unable to vote against a measure that is necessary to fund our troops who are now in harm's way. On the other, I will not relent from my continuing efforts to bring this occupation to an end.

"I will continue to press for a strategy of strong diplomatic engagement, which will enable us to end the occupation of Iraq, to increase regional stability, to fight international terrorism more effectively, and to address our broad strategic interests around the world.

"My efforts will continue with the Defense Authorization Bill, which will soon be debated on the Senate floor. This week, I introduced a restrictive amendment during the Armed Services Committee's mark-up of that bill. I withdrew the amendment during the mark-up process due to a technical objection, but I intend to offer this amendment on the floor of the Senate when the Defense Authorization bill comes up for debate in the coming weeks."

http://webb.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=275136&

I am disgusted by the attacks I have seen here on Webb and other good Democrats. Do you realize that Webb won by the narrowest of margins, and if he hadn't we'd only have 48 in the Senate? Webb is a patriot and a realist, and Americans will respect Democrats when Democrats stop attacking other Democrats.

[brentspeak]

1. Thanks for that. The people on these blasting Webb forgot to include Webb's entire statement

Makes me wonder about them, as a matter of fact.

Kicked and rec'd.

:kick:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[calteacherguy]

3. What is that supposed to mean? I'm not comprehending you. nt

[earthlover]

15. trying not to get my post deleted....

ok...pinch...be civil....no he is not a Cheney Democrat. Since when is Cheney a Democrat? Since when is any Democrat a Cheney? Your use of terminology is insulting and inaccurate. Now, would Cheney have stood up to Bush like Webb did about the war and his son not too long ago?

If you have a beef with Webb, argue it logically. Name calling is sooooo booorrrrriing! And sooooo juvinile.

[Clovis Sangrail]

4. o.0

Americans will respect Democrats when Democrats stop attacking other Democrats

The Democratic leadership brought ridicule upon the party for being spineless.
NOT other democrats.

The majority of Dems in the house, to their credit, voted against this.
The "leadership" gave in and then split their own vote by getting others to give in.

[calteacherguy]

5. Well, all I will say is I believe Webb is doing his best.

And that's all I ask.

[brentspeak]

6. Just to clarify: Jim Webb isn't part of the Democratic leadership

He's a brand-new senator, and I'm extremely glad he's a member of the party.

[Clovis Sangrail]

22. I realize that he isn't leadership

I was responding to the "and other good democrats"

[stevedeshazer]

7. That's all well and good, and I agree with his statement, but WHY DID HE VOTE FOR IT?

Great Caesar's Ghost, if he feels this way, you'd think he would vote against it.

It's this contorted logic that drives me nuts.

So, he disagreed with it before he voted for it?

Every Dem who voted for this who is up for re-election next year (I know Webb isn't one of them) will be tarred and feathered by the Republicans.

Respectfully, can someone please explain this?

[calteacherguy]

11. Webb explained it.

"I find myself unable to vote against a measure that is necessary to fund our troops who are now in harm's way."

[stevedeshazer]

13. That's it?

Bush wins. I guess it really is that simple.

So the Dems are painted into such a small corner that all they can do is vote Bush another blank check?

I was hoping for something more substantial.

Republicans in 2008 will run against Democrats and for an everlasting occupation of Iraq by being able to say that there was a bipartisan vote to support our troops by continuing to keep them there forever.

Bush and company are truly masterful politicians. They really don't get the credit they deserve.

[Orangepeel]

19. he, like Murtha, doesn't think not authorizing funding would end the war

the troops would still be there, only with less equipment and supplies. Bush won't pull them out without funding, they'll just have less funding.

[mcg]

27. The assumption that Bush would pull the troops out without funding

is a big assumption. I don't know what he would do.
The problem is that our troops are over there.
If they were already here it would be simple.

[Orangepeel]

31. yep. Webb (and Murtha

and others, probably whose statements I havent' read) seem to think it is possible, if not probable that bush wouldn't. I also think it is probable that he wouldn't, given his lack of caring and huge ego. If this belief is correct, then not authorizing the budget resolution would only result in the troops suffering, not the end of the war as many are assuming.

[OHdem10]

8. Webb is one of the best Democrats we have in the Senate

I get confused when I read some of these threads.

The Democratic Party has a fine history starting with FDR as
an example of being the party of strong Defense and strong
Military, JFK, strong defense strong military, Johnson screwed
up Vietnam but History will be kinder to him, Civil Rights,
Medicare, Ant-Poverty.

The Party has never changed its position. The Democrats
In the House and Senate all support strong defense and strong
military. Rank and file Democrats supported the War in Afganistan
but were thrown a curve ball with Iraq. I realize Kucinich
works with a Peace Movement. I do not know if this makes
him against all war. I listened to his speech prior to
the Iraq War and from that I gathered very strongly he opposed
the Iraq War.

No matter how we feel the Democratic Party has a Patriotic Gene.

Senator Webb who works very hard for Social Justice and is not
afraid to admit -- in fact, he is proud of it, has military
experience and Cabinet Experience with War. He will be measured
in approach. All Democrats in office will be measured on
War Issues.

They must learn when to fight back. Permitting tags like
Cut and run" "they are going to de-fund troops" was a major
error. Had these two simple ideas been diffused, squelched
whatever--the fight could have been much easier.

[OHdem10]

9. Why did he vote for it---Simple there is no way

he could do othewise. With his knowledge, he would send
money for the troops.

He knows the chances for a win are better in Sept anyway.

[Odin2005]

10. Now can the people who were bashing Webb redirect thier anger towards Loserman?

The vitriol against good democrats just because of the political realities caused by Joementum the Bushlicker's position is pathetic.

[greyghost]

12. Enough...

I'm so sick of this whining about the war. Some simply refuse to see the reality of the situation.

They should stop a minute and reflect on these facts:

1.These soldiers volunteered.
This is not Viet-Nam where the kids had NO CHOICE.

2. We are not going to leave Iraq, we will be there for the next 50 years or more. Our grandchildren will be receiving their Social Security(hopefully)and we will still be in Iraq. SEE: Germany & South Korea

3. This whole debate is simply semantics.

4. The most important move is to get the troops out of harms way and let the civil war come to its natural conclusion.

[noamnety]

23. "These soldiers volunteered" is a misleading RW talking point.

"To the writer of “Just don’t re-enlist,” (letter, May 16): Thousands of soldiers, myself included, didn’t re-enlist. We were forced back in after our expiration of term of service. While we understood when we ETSed that we could be recalled for “national emergency,” we don’t feel Iraq qualifies.

While I appreciate your viewpoint, you should know that thousands of soldiers did just what you suggested when they decided the military was not the right place for them to remain. And regardless, we are still here."

http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=46156
----------------------------
50,000 troops have been stop lossed - meaning they've been forced to serve WITHOUT volunteering for that particular service.

I volunteer sometimes to be an escort at a local women's clinic. There's no long term commitment, but let's say, just for fun, that I signed a form saying I would do that for the next 6 months. If I were told I now legally had to do that for the next 5 years, and didn't have the option to quit, that would no longer be volunteer service.

[greyghost]

24. No it wouldn't be.

I'll give away my age and admit that I lucked out, Nixon stopped the lottery just as I was registering.

I feel for all of you who were recalled against your will. As with my generation, your options suck. Many of us went to Canada and some are still there.

However, there are many in the service who did volunteer for this horseshit. If there was a draft going on now there would be riots in the streets. If the MIC learned one thing from Nam, that was it.

[jumpoffdaplanet]

14. What is so difficult about just voting NO?

All this is crap, and Webb knows it.

He should just admit he was a coward in this instance. And stupid to believe anyone listens to fox noise, cnn or msnbc.

All this did is smear his reputation.

I'm sick of people helping Webb, and the others, rationalize their cowardness.

If these cowards in congress were afraid at the mere thought that rethugs would make commericals calling them on voting NO, then all they just did is let the rethugs know they are coward deep down and will never stand up to the rethugs when it counts.

Webb should admit he is a coward who can be bullied into betraying the people who elected him. Just get it over with.

And stop pretending it wasn't cowardness. Just stop.

[calteacherguy]

17. It has nothing to do with being brave or cowardly. Webb did what he thought was right

under the circumstances, and I respect him for that.

[jumpoffdaplanet]

32. He was a coward and ...

no amount of spinning will cover that up.

He just showed his true colors.

[earthlover]

18. what's difficult about voting no?

well, for one, some anti-war folks will attack you for voting no if you don't happen to have the initials JE. SARC

[jumpoffdaplanet]

33. Are you talking about Obama and Clinton?

Because they only voted NO when it had already passed.

That's the cowards way.

If they had meant it, and not just to get votes, they would have been the first to vote NO.

They would have had ads out letting people know they were going to vote NO and showed they were working to convince other dems to vote NO

They would have showed leadership, not crawl on their hands and knees to vote that cowardly NO.

It's really too bad they didn't that this opportunity to kick dirt into the faces of the rethugs.

[Catchawave]

16. As a Virginian, Webb is so much better than

George Allen :toast:

Or, am I wrong? Snork.

[Honeycombe8]

21. You are sooooo right. And remember that he won by a hair...

a very thin hair. It was a nailbiter, waiting to see the results of that election.

I don't see why people have a problem understanding why the man didn't vote NO on the bill. Because he didn't want to. Because he believes the military should be properly funded. If he had his way, the troops would be pulled out. But the Dems don't have the votes to do that, so the troops are staying. So they need to be funded, in his opinion. That's what he is saying in his statement.

Hardly a cowardly act. Just a difference of opinion from some others, who would cut the funding. They are not cowardly, either. Difference of opinion.

The Dems are lucky to have the likes of Jim Webb in their party and in Congress. The Dems have a particular weakness, which is they are perceived as weak in defense and kinda girly-men. Doves. Which is fine, except in war time, Americans want tough people running the show. Webb is that kind of Dem....he wears army boots, says what he thinks, an in your face kinda man, with a strong military record, and strong on defense. But he thinks the IW was a huge blunder and should be stopped. A man's man, who WOULD be for war if necessary....the right war. But not this war.

[greyghost]

25. No question...

about that!:toast:

[Skip Intro]

20. Thank you, Senator Webb.

There is a reality, that many here would rather pretend doesn't exist, that dictates what is possible and what is not.

We, Dems, are limited in what can be accomplished, at this point in time. Its just a fact. It is the reality.

We could have played tennis with the funding bill, but I know sure as I'm sitting here, that bushco would have won this round, and Dems would have come off looking like we hate the troops - ask Max Cleland what bushco is capable of, as far as using bloodshed to manipulate public opinion. That is a reality.

Public opinion = votes = who gets to be in power. That is a reality.

Should Dems have fought a losing battle and surrendered 08 in the process?

[tblue37]

26. Good on ya for posting this. (eom)

[Edgeoforever]

28. ...and the reality is you caved in to the madman.

[Honeycombe8]

34. Webb WANTS to fund the troops. He believes in it. That would be his ...

stance, no matter what war, at what time.

He wants the troops pulled out, but since the Dems can't do that, they must stay. So...wherever the troops are having to stay, it is Webb's belief that they must be funded. He has never been FOR cutting funding.

You differ in your opinion. You think the funding should be cut. Fine. Webb believes differently. And that's fine, too.

A "caving in" is to sign on to something that you don't believe in. He believes in funding the troops. There's no cave-in there, on his part. There IS a cave-in on the part of some others, who don't want to fund the war, but feel like they have to.

[blueworld]

29. Jim Webb is my senator

I respect him enormously, but I also respectfully disagree with his logic on this issue. I may be completely wrong, but nonetheless, I disagree. Joe Lieberman is a slimy weasel of the lowest order, granted. I also reject outright that Dems can't criticize other Dems. We're not partisan sheep.

But this Iraq issue involves life & death for hundreds of thousands of people. We now know for sure it was based on deliberate deception, manipulation of intelligence, illegal leaks & Lord knows what else.

Given the enormous length of time, the mismanagement, the corruption of this carnage in Iraq, why couldn't the Dems have dug in & fought? Perhaps one or two Republicans would have voted with them & they could keep sending the bill back to Chimpy. In either case the message would have been clear to the voters and the White House & the world. If this wasn't worth making a federal case over, what is?

[mzmolly]

30. Thanks for posting.

K and R.