Senator Webb's statement on his vote for the Iraq Funding Bill

[Virginia Dare]

he calls out Lieberman for his obstruction. He will offer an amendment on the Defense Authorization Bill, which has already passed the House. He's not giving up.

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

[wakeme2008]

1. Too late Spineless Webb

:shrug:

[Virginia Dare]

6. Webb is spineless for acknowledging that they don't have the

votes to pass a timetable? I'm sorry, but that's just bullshit. Instead of banging his head against a brick wall, he's looking for other ways to get this done, can you not see that?

Were the funds already in place to continue the war anyway or not, I can't seem to get a definitive answer on this from anybody making these claims? :shrug:

[bowens43]

12. NOthing but excuses.

There stance should have been 'no timetable no funding'. It's as simple as that.

[wakeme2008]

13. Right Four simple words

no timetable no funding

[Virginia Dare]

14. How does no funding get us a timetable?

how does no funding get us out of this war?

[wakeme2008]

15. How do you think Congress got us out of Vietnam

:shrug:

[Virginia Dare]

17. I assume there were a lot more Democrats on board at the time..

than there are Republicans on board now?

Of course, we had a draft so the public pressure was a lot more intense as I recall. There were massive sit-ins at just about every major university in the country. There were anti-war demonstrations all over the country on a regular basis.

That's just not happening right now. There aren't enough Republicans feeling the real heat yet. They'll get it this summer when they go home.

[onenote]

19. Congress didn't get combat troops out of Nam by defunding

All combat troops were gone from Vietnam by the end of March 1973 pursuant to the terms of the Paris Peace Accords. Congress passed a defunding bill to cut off additional military support for the Vietnamese that was vetoed in June 1973. Eventually, support for the South Vietnamese military was cut off and in 1975 Saigon fell.

But in terms of getting the combat troops home -- which is our only realistic goal since I doubt that there is anything we could do or not do that will end the civil war in iraq -- the analogy to Vietnam simply doesn't hold water.

[liberalnurse]

18. I seriously doubt he is even close to spineless.

I find him to be a savvy,smart, strategic politician. Take some time and look at history of Congress.....Nothing happens in the first Quarter....

Opposition, the Congressional GOP, just recently had it's teeth clamped down on the America "seat" for the last 6 years; and we do not occupy the White House which is essential for expedited Bills.

I do not have the need for instant gratification to where I throw-up my arms and start screaming spineless when things are not accomplished my way, the first time. To think on those terms would be delusional. Politics is not a steam rolling production unit. One may of gained that impression over the last 6 years when *bush owned the Trifecta....

Change is happening because we have not turned the other cheek. We who are reasonable and peel away at the layers of D.C politics realize this and will continue to support our Democratic Leaders through the political gauntlet.

[BootinUp]

2. Thanks, unusually informative for that type of statement. n/t

[Straight Shooter]

3. True, or false?

"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 have read posts on DU indicating that clearly the funds will be there to serve our troops, that this is a red herring. It's clear from what we've learned, that the troops are not being funded properly anyway as regards food, water, armor, protection, healthcare, and bush has even shot down the idea of raising their wages.

The capitulation of our Lewinsky Congress, kneeling before bush, will make it even more difficult in the future to bring our troops home and end this war. This is not the fault of Lieberman that so many Dems voted yes! Every capitulation to bush merely serves to embolden the GOP.

Senator Webb, you were the one who was going to show bush the way, remember? Pray tell, what way is that, the way of the white flag?

[treestar]

4. But exactly, * can continue the war without it, but the troops are

having to make do on less.

I think we are underestimating the sacred cow status of the troops here. DU is one thing, but the general public quite another.

[bigtree]

5. If there are funds there for Bush to 'serve' the troops there's money for Bush to continue

without the appropriations the Democrats determined the troops need and included in their Democratic funding bill.

[Virginia Dare]

7. There seems to be a disconnect in this argument, doesn't there?..n/t

[Straight Shooter]

9. I cannot remember who posted that the troops will have the funds anyway.

All the Dems could have voted nay, safely, knowing that the Lieberman/GOP caucus would prevail. Then they (GOP) would totally own this bloody war. From my perspective, the jostling by the Dems makes it all look like an elaborate charade. Perhaps,ironically, the Dems were hoist on their own petard.

It's complicated, I'm reading so many viewpoints. But I can't get rid of this sickening feeling in my gut that this war will not end until bush is out of office, and probably it will have metastasized across the Middle East and we will never extricate ourselves.

[Virginia Dare]

16. I've seen lots of people posting this argument..

I think it originated with some anti-war groups. I guess the rationale is that if you cut off the supplemental funds, the contractors aren't getting their money, the military has no support, so they have to come home. Personally, I think Bush would leave them there anyway, and trash the Dems for abandoning them.

I still don't see how this was the last best chance for ending the war. Nobody has been able to convince me of that.

[BootinUp]

22. Any disruption of funds during war time

is a political monster, better to end it with at least a small measure of bi-partisanship or an actual passed bill which we couldn't get this time. We really don't have a voting majority in the Senate.

[TwilightGardener]

8. The war won't end by defunding. Webb, Murtha, Biden, Levin and many

others in Congress do not support it--and I don't blame them. I trust Webb to help bring the war to a responsible (most likely gradual) end, as much as he can in the Senate. Kerry and Boxer might see it differently, but good people can disagree on the best way to do this. Jesus, people, this isn't black and white--Iraq is an absolute conundrum, and a clusterfuck, and a tangled web. If a clear, easy, obvious way to disentangle from it presented itself, with maximum benefit for us and Iraqis and the least amount of destabilization for the region, everyone would agree on it. That solution isn't there--everyone is guessing right now. Stop beating our best and brightest Dems in Congress over the head for this.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Constitutionally the war must end if defunded.

That is the power that congress holds alone to itself. Were Bush to contiue the war absent any funding he would be directly causing a constitutional crisis. This is the fight that our spineless leadership declined to fight.

[BootinUp]

23. nice bit of arguing n/t

[Rydz777]

10. I like Webb. He is sound on many issues, but I was very

disappointed in this vote. His explanation is not persuasive.

[onenote]

21. He made his position plain in the campaign and he has stuck to it

He opposes the war. He thinks it was a mistake from the outset. He wants to end the war. But he doesn't think "precipitously" (his word) withdrawing the troops is the best approach. And, while many hear conveniently seem to forget this, Webb's position was similar to that of many, probably most, Democrats running for Congress last November -- Democrats that many on this board are now criticizing but who had those same DUers support six months ago notwithstanding their position on the war.

Nuance -- seems to get lost on the Internet.

[orleans]

11. he didn't want to be part of a gop smear that would say: LOOK WHO

DOESN'T SUPPORT THE TROOPS!

i'm sure the gop will go to work right away on the 14 who voted no.


maybe the rest of our dems are lacking in intelligence or courage as to how to counter the smears--

check this out: THE WUSS-O-CRATS
http://www.wilem.com/rrs/rrs_20070524_002.mp3

(it's the second hour of randi rhodes show from thursday, top of the hour--& let me know if this link doesn't work and i'll get you another one)

[BootinUp]

24. Maintaining a super slim

majority in the Senate is not a game for purists.