Jim Webb of Virginia is one of the real tough guys in the Senate. A former Republican, Vietnam vet, author of books about nam and father of a son serivng in Iraq, took on Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina .
excerpted from Meet the Press.
Webb: " This deck of cards is coming crashing down, and it’s landing heavily on the heads of the soldiers and the Marines who have been deployed again and again."
Graham: "Just wash your hands of Iraq," "History will judge us, my friend."
Webb: "It's been a hard month, Lindsey," "You need to calm down,."
Graham: "It ain't about Lindsey having a hard month,"
Webb: "This is one thing I really take objection to—may I speak?—is politicians who try to put their political views into the mouths of soldiers,"
Graham: "Have you been to Iraq and talked to the soldiers?"
Webb: "You know, you've never been to Iraq, Lindsey."
The Republican pointed out he's been there seven times.
Webb: "You know,you can see the dog and pony shows. That's what congressman do. Why don't you go look at the polls, Lindsey, instead of the seven or eight people that are put in front of you when you make your congressional visit?"
Graham: "Let's—something we can agree on, We both admire the men and the women in uniform. "
Webb: "Don't put political words in their mouth," Webb interrupted.
The exchange ended with Graham praising the troops: Graham : "God bless them and let's make sure they can win because they can." Webb: "I'll let them judge what you said."
4 comments:
As the French forces leaving Alger and hearing in port the cries of agony of the Arabs "french"troops massacred by the Arab FLN forces, ; as in Vietnam where the Vietnamese collaborators were killed by vietkong, also Iraq will be left to the worst modern Civil War and the the people that worked with American administration or army will be tortured and killed together with their family. The American foreign politics is based on American home popularity vote and the citizen on the street vote now Peace for his generation, leaving the next war to his children.
"The right war fought in wrong place" problem will be changed by " next delayed war will be fought by our kids" solution.
And in the moral issues disscusions, the issue of "responsability" toward Iraqi people, M East region, Israel it is not discussed at all.
Mirel,
The UW issues in Iraq are complicated by the general discovery that the war has been mismanaged by the most incompetent government in history. Even people who believe there were good reasons, Israel among them, for an invasion, now are faced with a dilemma:
If you believe we should stay in Iraq, who would lead that effort? For the next two years there is no one to trust.
As a result there has been no real debate about HOW to end Bush's folly. No candidate for President, except John McCain has made a proposal that does not imply withdrawal SOON or honoring the President. The Republicans badly need an alternative strategy, but Bush is in the way. The Democratic leaders, except for Edwards, are being as careful as they can be about being vague about HOW they would end the war. Any specifics means pealing off votes!
The best we can hope for, IMO, is that a smart person who cares about Israel, will be elected in Nov 08 and that, between then ans now, the issue will not be settled either by some awesome new error by Bush or by enough pressure pushing the Dem candidate too far to the left.
My own ideas are a bit different from anything I have read. I do not think there is a solution that the US can effect on tis own. We need to be a coalition of the rational. It is clear to me that a peaceful solution to Iraq is in the interest of Iran, SA, Egypt and Turkey. If we had not fucked up the diplomacy for the last six years, that might have been a common front in the beginning, now it needs to be built. It is ALSO clear, moreover, that peace is in the interests of China and India. Europe too.
The bottom line is the next President will need to build a coalition and that can not be done while GWB still sits in his chair.
How could it be done? The answer is as old as Bismarck, we need to trade off interests:
China needs oil and wants to lessen US hegemony. Invite China to help by giiving them openings to buy oil and authority (through the UN) over the occupying force.
Turkey is rightly frightened by the Kurds. We need a formula that allows Northern Iraq to continue to evolve into a Kurdish State while guaranteeing that Turkey will not enjd up in a civil war. This is a hard one.
India needs trade with the US and does not want any increase in Islamic power, esp nuclear power, on its Western borders, including the Indian Ocean, India, like China wants a lowerd US military ptofile. We migth explore an effort with India to create an alternative regional naval authority.
SA and Egypt are intertwined. The current system of government in SA is doomed and they know it. The Family wants to some solution thta is not violent and lets them keep their filthy money. Egypt fears being left behind as the flatland economy lets other countries (India, SE Asia, China, Brazil) with similar potential for development to soar while Egypt becomes poor. The obvious answer is a Saudi/Egyptian commercial alliance to develop the HUGE potential of Egyptian educated manpower and natural resources in the form of electricity from the Aswan. Interestingly, implicit in this idea is that both Egypt and SA have a good reason to really settle the Palestinian issue and have resources that could help that happen. The diplomatic challenge? Rice seems belatedly to have discovered her job, bt nothing I see suggests she has the gonads to stand up to her stupid boss or the intellectual abilities to work on anything this big.
Iran is , in many ways, the keys to this puzzle and the keys to Iran are, unfortunately, the fate of Israel. The bigots in Tehran are as committed to our deaths as were their predecessors in Berlin. They are also very antiWahabe and want to be a regional oil power. That said, I do see some hope.
First Iran is demographically challenged. The Farsi population is only about 50% and the non-Farsi are not happy. While none of the individual minorities mean much one, the Kurds, represent a serious challenge. Like the Turks, the Irani do not want an aggressive, oil rich, free Kurdish state on their Western border. Iran also has major economic problems. They realize that in the not so long run, their economy needs to be diversified.
Second, the Iranians can not afford a fall in their oil income. This is a major reason that I do not believe there is any possible solution that does not involve China. Iran will respond if its market is threatened.
So, any succcessful approach need to find a way to contain Iran. Is here one? I see onw possibility:
1. Egypt/SA become the center of a new economic initiative. As part of this they agree to prvide the resurces to passify the Palestinains ... .economic resources and possibly some land in the Northern Sinai.
2. China and India assume a new regional role in return for a decreas in US domonance.
4. Turkey and the US work to create a peaceful Kurdish entity, giving that entity a role on the ethnic affairs of Turkish Kurds.
Obviously this is way beyond the competence of the half wit in the Whitehouse. Among the Dems I am failry sure that Hilary has the skills, hope that Obama does too, am nto sure about Edwards. I doubt any Republican will serve and none of them, except McCain and Romney, strike me as having the skills.
Lets hope.
Hope is a rope, say a Klan dictum, and see me as a tree.
If the politics would be rational we didn't get WWI, WWII, Vietnam, 6 days... the federalisation of Iraq is impossible, as opposed fiercely by Turkey; the yankees will go home and Chinese will pollute the world and make the majority of goods. about Israel?...We survived as Jews a lot of mighty empires...as Israel? our survival is an interior problem and not external...
about Iran read and try to understand this:
http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/
Sad to read. You and this post are one reason I feel guilty to be living here rather than in Israel.
Post a Comment