When you have personalized death, looked into the eyes of innocent people as the life drained out of them, watched lives torn apart not once but hundreds of times-friends, enemies and those caught in between-it brings not only sadness but also an oddly stubborn wisdom. When you have watched an enemy fight with ferocity and often with honor, you tend to conclude that on some level you have more in common with those you were trying to kill than you do with people who view wars only as an intellectual debate. And when you have served among good people, fellow Marines, some of whom you came to love with the same intensity as you do your own family, there are few others you will meet in your lifetime who can ever gain that same level of trust and respect.As the colonel intimated in his talk, a sense of accountability is the burden of leadership, whether in combat or on Capitol Hill. When you have the authority to make decisions, you inherit the responsibility to accept the consequences and the obligation to use your authority for the common good.
What has this got to do with the politics of today?
Everything.
What, then, must we do?In one form or another, this question is asked daily in every community and in almost every household around the world. In authoritarian societies, it's whispered; in others, it is debated. In America, we quite frankly find ourselves doing a little of both.
Our challenges lie in improving the way we've been selecting our leaders. To the American voters, I offer this advice: Be as shrewd and ruthless in your demands on our leaders as the wizards running campaigns are in their strategies to get your vote. Do your part to send to Washington people who truly want to solve the problems of this country from the bottom up.
Don't forget - Jim is on Meet the Press (10:30 AM in DC) and his book is officially released tomorrow.
Peace.
UPDATE by Lowell: If you want Jim Webb to be Barack Obama's running mate, please sign the petition. Thanks.
MR. RUSSERT: In the press release which accompanied your book, sent out by your publisher, it describes you this way: "Now, in `A Time to Fight': the celebrated junior senator from Virginia, who is already being mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate..."SEN. WEBB: I, I didn't write that, and I didn't read it. So I know there's, there's all--you know, you have even asked me about that. But I'm not interested in doing that. I think we've done some incredibly productive things in the last year and a half in the Senate, and I've been able to do some things--you know, we just saw what John McCain said he wanted to see done. I think we've, from our office, been able to work across party lines and to really work to develop a formula where we can govern.
MR. RUSSERT: But if Senator Obama or Senator Clinton asked you, you'd be open?
SEN. WEBB: I would, I would highly discourage them is probably the best way to say it.
MR. RUSSERT: But you wouldn't be General Sherman and say no?
SEN. WEBB: You know, I--at this--at this point, no one's asking, no one's talking, and I'm not that interested, so.
... [co-host Harry] SMITH: Yeah. Very quickly, your name has been thrown around as a possible vice presidential running mate. If asked would you serve?WEBB: I'm happy were I am. You know, I think we've been able to a lot of good things and what we have to do is get a government that can -- that can bring people across party lines. I mean, I go back, I was in the Reagan Administration, watching Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill, you know bash into each other all day and then go have a beer at six o'clock. Sensibly I was never there with them, but that kind of concept of government what we need to bring back.
SMITH: Yeah, comity was the word we used to hear from once -- once in a while. Senator thank you --
WEBB: We can get there.
SMITH: Yeah. Thank you very much for being here.
WEBB: Sure. ...
CBS "Early Show"
Monday, May 19, 2008
Obama said he would make his choice based on his own criteria. Part of that criteria, he said, would be someone with independence "who can say no to me" and "who will tell me when I'm wrong.
Reluctantly, therefore, I will not sign the petition, but this is only because in the weighing of the advantages of this incredibly valuable public servant he comes out more valuable to my way of thinking in the Senate than in the Executive.
And Senator Webb has to do his thing in the Senate with McCain in the Oval House and, perhaps, Huckabee down the hall.
Now, given the state of the country, eight years of the worst president in American history, the bottomless swamp of Iraq, chances are, Obama, with or without a running mate who shields him from all of the above, is our next president.
But are we that certain that we are willing to take that chance?
The other issue is who is the best president for Muslim fundamentalists? The brilliantly evil Dr. Evil, urrh, Osama bin Laden, figured out awhile ago that it's a Republican. So let's say there's a nasty October surprise courtesy of al-Qaeda or Hamas or Hizbollah or some deep cover freelancers. And the choice for our dumbed down compatriots is, John McCain, American war hero and military mandarin, or Barack Hussein Obama.
Are you willing to take that chance?
General Clark is, to my mind, the only acceptable substitute for Jim Webb. Not near as wonderful, but acceptable.
For a long while, my position here was that Jim Webb would be a slam dunk for Secretary of Defense in either an Obama or Clinton administration. But as the race for the Democratic nomination has developed and the right's line of attack on Obama clarified, it became evident that an Obama Webb ticket trumps everything.
Not to get too over the top, but it's a wondrous thing that Virginia, which produced so many of our genius founding fathers, has once again, at what may be the most critical moment in our history, a true crossroads -- and I'm of the opinion that things are way more dire than even they appear to be -- produced a patriot and a leader who would not have been out of place in Philadelphia or Valley Forge.
Also, brilliant Osama bin Laden? Please. What main objective has he managed to achieve? We are still in Saudi Arabia. And we also occupy two other Muslim lands. The state of Israel still exists. The caliphate has not been re-established. Damascus and Cairo are under secular governments. Baghdad is under the control of Al Qaeda's theological nemesis, the Shia. Iran, the largest Shia state, is in ascendancy. And even in free election in messed up Pakistan, they didn't vote in theocrats. It looks like taking out the World Trade Centers worked out real well for him. Brilliant, indeed!
Not to end up in a position of defending the indefensible Osama bin Laden, but knowing your enemy is a precondition to defeating him. Osama has been quite clear in his principal objective: to destroy the United States by bankrupting us. All his other goals follow on that. Since, as he has said, no one in capable of standing up against our overwhelming military might, he expressly formulated the 9/11 attacks to provoke American rage and the unleashing of our power, jujitsu-like, against the Muslim masses. With an investment of a mere $ 500,000, he has managed to trigger the spending of trillions of dollars we don't have while turning the Muslim masses against us. One would have to say, everything else aside, that given the rate of return on his modest investment, there has been a certain brilliance to the focused clarity of his Dr. Evil-like vision, the simplicity of his plan and its execution.
The burden is on Obama to deal with those attacks, not a surrogate. If he can't deal with the attacks on his own, then it will be Kerry '04 all over again. The VP choice is not going to blunt the attacks. Did socially conservative Lieberman protect Gore from those attacks? You know Lloyd Bentsen was able to crush Dan Quayle rhetorically; was that helpful in some meaningful way to Dukakis?
Does Jim Webb even have the kind of national name recognition that would provide the type of benefit you claim he will have?
Ultimately, people vote for the presidential candidate. And that candidate wins or loses on their own merits. When people cast their vote, they are looking at the headliner.
Substantively, it is pretty obvious that his best partner would be Bill Richardson. He is a guy with extensive international experience. He has a proven track record of success. He is currently a successful western state governor.
This is Senator Obama's decision to make. We chose him to be our nominee. We should have the faith in him that he will make the right decision.
I have great faith in Senator Obama and his campaign team. They have more than proved themselves. They have run a remarkable grassroots campaign, maximizing the involvement of people all over the country. There is nothing to hold us back from committing ourselves to this team of proven winners.
He is NOT a good campaigner, he has a wealth of problems, including statements by his own LT Gov about his problems with women.
His track record as Sec Energy is full of problems
he is in bed with the nuclear industry
and I know from personal experience that he does not listen all that well, and sometimes does not know the details of his own policy.
Yeah, he might give you several states, although at this point Obama would not need him for NM - might help with CO and NV. But I do not think he would bring all that much to running the government. And friends who are very well wired in NM politics and civic life agree with me on that.