And he always listens very carefully to the questions asked of him.  Another sign of respect.  It's clear that Webb really wants to answer questions thoughtfully and truthfully.  Again, it's unusual and very refreshing.  This is definitely one of the ways that Jim wins converts.  You can see that people are really grateful to know they're heard and taken seriously.  Allen isn't capable of this type of caring for the concerns of everyday people.

GO WEBB!

But any guy, whether Webb or Allen, who has the balls to step into the arena should be afforded to opportunity to speak as long as they like, Webb included.
 

You've never met Jim Webb, have you?

Webb plays by the rules.  I like that.  Allen doesn't.  I don't like that.  Just me.

I'm very sorry to hear about your friend.

My friend, Tony, was killed by a sniper in Fallujah four days after Christmas last year while on dismounted patrol.  He was a kind soul and a truly great husband and father.  He left behind a beautiful and loving wife, a three year old son and a five and a half month old daughter.

I'd like to see a lot less people dying in Iraq. 

I'd like to see more people in the Senate with the experience and wisdom to understand that our national defense is of the highest importance and to recognize that it would not be served by the invasion of Iraq.  I would like to see people in the Senate with the expertise to see that the invasion of Iraq would be a strategic mistake, cost us dearly, and leave us more vulnerable.  I support Jim Webb and pray he will replace George Allen in November.

Really, the fundamental point that I make is that whether the decision to go to war in Iraq was wise, justified, or just plain stupid is irrelevant now.

It is irrelevant because Iraq has been a major front on the war on terror and will continue to be so...until the Global War on Terror fundamentally changes.

Jim Webb knows this.  And, I do not believe for a moment that he actually advocates any withdrawal of troops.  To withdraw our troops now would unnecessarily harm American national security.

He knows this...and for the sake of politics...he can't say so because he would alienate his more progressive base.

The Jim Webb that I have studied is more akin to John McCain (a man I support in '08).  By this, I mean that Jim Webb was once an advocate of a robust American foreign policy -- in the style of Teddy Roosevelt.

He was also a scholar of Mahan...another Secretary of the Navy...who advocated a strong Navy to promote American foreign policy at the point of a gun -- if necessary.

In my mind, finishing the job in Iraq is very necessary. If we don't sacrifice now, we'll lose countless lives in the future.

Roger A. Jarrell II
Lexington, VA

In order to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, and to weaken the homegrown insurrgency, we must rebuild the infrastructure.  This can only be achieved in a secure environment.

Believe it, or not, I actually believe that casualties would dramatically decrease with the increased troop levels.

BTW, this very approach has been advocated by an Iraq vet on Chris Matthews.  There would be problems in terms of getting those kind of numbers together...but it could be done.  And, it could be phased down over a period of 12 months.

Addionally, it would allow the Iraqi government to take root.

I'm not a general or a military guy, but I do have friends who've fought in Iraq--one buddy in the Army reserves who spent the better part of 2003 in a desert in Kuwait, another in the Rangers who fought in both Afghanistan and Iraq in 2003-04.  Fortunately, both made it out OK.  Neither is still in the service. 

I also have a good friend from college, an Iraqi Shia, whose family moved to the U.S. in the early '80s.  His dad actually attempted to start up a business in Iraq in the aftermath of Sadaam's fall in 2003.  He got out of there after 8 months because the security situation had started deteriorating.  He's now back in the states.

I have another good friend who was turned into dust and bone fragments in Tower II in NYC on 9/11 (Matt Horning from Scotch Plains, NJ). 

I mention these details as a matter of perspective.  All of these details come into play when I speak about Iraq and the War on Terrorism.

In reference to troop levels, my sense is that these troops could have made a difference early on (also keeping the Iraqi Army intact would have made sense in hindsight).  However, at this stage in the game a lot of damage has been done to U.S. credibility in the region.  Once again, this is a laymen's perspective, but at this point, my concern is that the 500,000 would be more akin to the gradual escalation in Vietnam--than the overwhelming force advocated by Shinseki in 2003 and used by the U.S. in the first Gulf War. 

In 2003 many Iraqi's likely would have been grateful for the security and show of force (this certainly would have been key in securing Fallujah the first go-around); now I just don't see how our troops would be able to determine who are our friends and who are our foes--the risk seems very real that we would end up being played by various Iraqi factions against one another--as I suspect may be the case now.  Increased numbers would only seem to increase the risk of collateral damage--which would only further inflame hatred toward the U.S. in both Iraq and its neighbors.  In this regard the Iraq War has not been good for the U.S. 

Secondarily, this position wouldn't be sustainable financially, politically, and I suspect even militarily.  In Gulf War I, I seem to recall that we ended up footing about $10 billion for the entire endeavor--thanks in large part to significant financial help from the Kuwaitiis and the Saudiis.  If we were to have 500,000 troops in Iraq for the next year or two or three years--I imagine the costs would very quickly run into the trillions.  Since 2000 our national debt ceiling has gone from $5.6 trillion to close to $8.3 trillion in 2006 (congress is now talking about having to raise the ceiling to over $10 trillion).  If we had to maintain these elevated troop levels for another 3 year period I can't see how the impact wouldn't be crippling for the U.S. financially.  Our financial security is in a very real way part of our national security.  It wasn't so long ago that the U.S. brought another empire down in large part by breaking it financially. 

Militarily wouldn't we have to institute a draft to cover the increased troop levels?  With the cutbacks in troop levels since the 90s could we afford to re-allocate 500,000 troops solely into Iraq?  If there was a high degree of certainty that 500,000 troops could do the job, I suspect it might be worth the cost, but I don't see how we could entertain this option as an open-ended commitment.

Finally, even though the Bush administration claims that politics aren't driving their policy--the reality is, even if there was a 90-10 chance that 500,000 troops could the job done in 6 months, they wouldn't do this because politically it would kill them and the GOP in the 2006 election.  I think there's a very good chance that we'll soon start hearing that 70% of Iraq is now secure--as has been the case since 2003--and then we'll start seeing a draw down in troops perhaps starting as early as this fall.  Regardless of the justification, this would still be good news.

Obviously, at this point we need to do everything that we can to prevent the situation in Iraq from sliding into a full-blow civil war, which in turn could very easily slide into a regional war.  Although, at this stage in the game there may be only so much that the U.S. can do. 

Of course lost in the mix are other very real threats posed by North Korea, Iran, China, and Russia--not to mention the threat posed by radical militant Islamist.  Our ability to meet these challenges head-on is seriously compromised by a long-term commitment in Iraq.

This has been a very long-post, but when it comes to making these decisions, I feel a lot more comfortable looking to someone like Jim Webb, than I do relying on a George Allen.  On national security issues there is no comparison between the candidates's credentials. 

Jim Terp
Arlington, VA 
 

Nice of you to join us. Plenty of people like you, who define themselves as republicans (with some amount of arrogant pride) wonder why this ICON of Integrity would move firmly to the Democratic Party. If you read the papers and the library of books, which honorable government military and civil servants have written since 9/11 and the George W. Bush debacle we now know as the IRAQ war, lied upon us by his administration ... it should be crystal clear.... as to why Jim Webb runs free as a democrat. It is the natural consequence of his family history at odds with the arrogant elite. 

In this case ... recent history has the NeoCon arrogant elite living  and thriving in the corrupt self serving world of the republican lead U.S. Government. Controlling both houses of Congress and the Executive branch ... we now have Big Conservative Government characterized by Careerism, Cronyism, Corruption and DEFICITS, both moral and fiscal. What a record, eh? Tough to be proud as a Republican!!!

I as a former Marine Corps officer with a brother (an Emergency Medical Doctor - Captain U.S. Navy)  who just spent a year in theater.... I have nothing but utter CONTEMPT for this administration and sycophants who support it. That includes George Allen and his Lobbyist friends .... nothing but YES men, supporting an administration practiced at the art of character assassination. Incompetently leading this country to ruin as they follow some hallow dogma.

These men ... all fine Republicans are ruining my future and worse than that .... my children's futures.

I am sorry for your loss of a friend in a thoroughly useless war. I am more sorry for the gentleman I met from Culpepper who lost his son in this unnecessary war in IRAQ ... a man who by the way finds Jim Webb a source of hope amongst his despair.

If you value INTEGRITY ... if you value LEADERSHIP ... then look to Mr. Webb for guidance. If you are an ideologue and think that the Republican Party is most righteous ... than just look to the people who have left it ... they're supporting Jim Webb .... Thank God the tide is turning for the good of this
country.

Webb for Senate!!!  When Integrity matters!!

Really, I don't know what a Neo-Con is any more than I know what a "Born Again" Christian is.  What's a new conservative opposed to an old conservative?  I guess I can't find the distinction.  I've always been conservative and so I guess that I'm Paleo-Conservative.

Some have suggested that the term "Neo-Con" is just a euphemism for "Jewish", I'll leave that for others to decide. 

Really, the true debate should be not about how or why we invaded Iraq but how we get the hell out?

And, I believe that troop levels should be increased to 500,000.  True INTEGRITY comes from doing what is right -- sometimes in the face of overwhelming opposition.

To me, John McCain has shown more courage on this issue than anyone else.  He has been advocating a more robust presence in Iraq from day one.  I believe in my heart that Jim Webb believes the same.

Why do I feel this way? Because I have read his books...and I know that as a Reagan Alumnus, he would never advocate a policy detrimental to American national security.

I have a different opinion about the war.  I favored going to WAR...but I disagree with the Bush Administration's handling of it.

Frankly, we should have finished the job in 1991  -- when we had over 500,000 troops on the ground.

If James Webb would have the gumption to come out and say that we must have 500,000 troops on the ground and that he would support it, I would vote for him.

With regards,
RAJII

The first rule is to stop digging.

I met Jim Webb once, and liked him more than I was prepared to.  And I'm sincerely sorry for your loss of your friends.

I don't have it on tape, and I don't have my notes in front of me, but I'm pretty sure that I've heard David Hackworth say that in '66 he was reporting up his chain of command that the war was not winnable, his exemplary record as a field commander notwithstanding.  By mid-'68, "Uncle Walter" had come, publicly, to the same conclusion.  I've not studied the progression well enough to know exactly where to draw the line, but I suspect that roughly half the names on that granite wall are there ONLY because the CINC didn't want an "L" charged against HIS name. 

I've never been there, but I think I understand and respect the "We don't leave our own behind" credo.  OTOH, I can't imagine that there's anyone serving in the military who would tolerate having his/her unit wiped out in an apparently-vain effort to recover remains.  Where does failed serial rescue become a hole?  I dunno, but it has to be somewhere less than at half, no?

I loathed Reagan throughout his entire eight years, and ever since, and I think North should even now be smashing pebbles at Leavenworth, so I doubt that we'll agree on many issues at that level, but perhaps there's room for conversation on the question of the morality of wasting lives in a futile quest for an unachievable goal.

Political power may come from the muzzle of a gun, but democracy never does.  I wouldn't duck from being called a liberal, but I've never wittingly been part of any establishment.  I just remember, eons ago, it seems now, when Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia, told Charlie Rose that the US presence in Iraq was, and would continue to be, the problem [I paraphrase].

We clearly don't have enough "boots" to put on the ground to  control Iraq in the short term, so we can but respond inadequately, from afar, to a local adversary.  Like before, our folks get chewed up to no avail.  If Rep. Murtha is correct, and I believe he is, there's no military victory to be had in Iraq.  In the bipolar world we live in, if there's no victory to be had, all that's available would be losses.

So when do we stop digging?

So we can stop digging graves....

Jim realized that RR and company were not about security but instead were about unbridled power.  He walked because he has integrity and is truly a planetary person.

p.s.  How can you win an occupation?  The war is over, it is an occupation now.  We shocked and awed the poor Iraqis and for what...............

I didn't really understand the money=time remark, but he got his point across that Allen had droned on and that he realized the time limit given to him and would efficiently make his remarks in that time frame and not take up their business time.

There is nothing ruder than someone who keeps talking just to keep the spotlight on himself, especially when a group has other business to conduct.  That's pretty arrogant and egotistical to presume that the crowd is there for you and your comments.  It might be different if you truly had groundbeaking comments to impart, and if your audience was entranced.  Not so George Allen yesterday.

Very true.
Allen had signs, Webb had people.

Signs can't vote.

I think George Allen - and, no I'm not going to call him Felix - was being rude however unintentionally by taking 25 minutes.  That's not going over by 5 minutes or something. That's a sizeable chunk of extra time.

I also think the whole flag amendment was a red herring to throw red meat to the conservative base and distract people from the legislation the Republicans can't get passed in Congress.

I think Allen beat that dead horse to try to rattle Webb, who opposes constitutional amendments that take rights away from people.

Actually, has there been a recent rash of flag burnings that I've missed somehow?  Is that why this is so crucial an issue right now when we've got a record deficit, a war we're losing in Iraq, real nuclear threats coming from North Korea and Iran that we can't answer strongly, and an economy that looks better on paper than on the ground?

Not dealing with issues that actually matter to people and that affect their lives and instead wasting 25 minutes of their time on diverting platitudes and drivel is the most insulting part of this.

Frankly, I believe the 1980s Supreme Court decision overturning anti-flag burning laws was wrongly decided.  Had that decision never been rendered, this whole argument would be moot and no amendment necessary.

I have two basic points on flags and I'll call it a night:

1.  This is more than just a Republican tactic, etc.  There are many people in the heartland who are passionate about this issue.  Republicans campaign on it because that sentiment is there...it's not something they created out of whole cloth for NRCC purposes.

2.  Your very words are true..."The flag isn't fabric, it's people: it's every veteran and veterans' families, and every battlefield and patriot grave."  Therefore, it must be protected.

Not all speech in America is protected.  We can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater...and we cannot use fighting words to insight a riot...when it is clear that fighting will ensue.

And, we have laws against certain hate speech.  Flag burning...by your very apt description above of exactly what a flag represents....is hate speech.  Accordingly, it should not be protected.

Finally, this is not a matter of civil liberty...or small versus big government -- it's about protecting a national symbol. If we all can't agree on protecting the one symbol uniting us, we are in trouble as a Nation.

Roger, I am a Viet Nam veteran.  Like Jim Webb, I have many medals, great respect for those who served and passionate love of this country and fellow Americans.  That does not, however, qualify me as any more of an American than anyone else.  Viet Nam carries a lot of baggage within my generation for those who weren't called or avoided service.  Too often, and unnecessarily, the compensation for this baggage is to latch on to symbolic Americanism.  Like flag burning.  Or flag tearing.  Or flag shredding. Or whatever.  Let it go.

The Constitution of the United States is about the rights of people and the responsiblities of government; not the rights of flags or other symbols.  Symbols, anthems and ceremonies are supportive of but not substitutes for allegience, compassion and mutual respect.

I strongly object to Jim Webb's opinion of President Carter's amnesty for deserters, as I believe the healing of the country was far more important than the feelings of veterans, like me or Jim Webb, who served.  Likewise, I strongly support Jim Webb's opposition to any proposed constitution amendment banning flag burning, as I view any such amendment as nothing more than grandstanding on a non-issue and an abuse of the Consitution I swore an allegience to protect.  On this issue, Jim Webb is head and shoulders above George Allen.

It does not offend me if someone chooses to burn a flag as an expression of first amendment rights.  It does, however, greatly offend me for a political party or candidate to attempt to make this an issue of allegience via an abuse of the Constitution.

If we cannot agree that the rights of individuals are more important than artificial protection of symbols, then we are indeed in trouble as a nation and as human beings.

The problem with these distracting issues is that we have real problems that Congress should be focusing on.  And Jim knows this.  That is why he wouldn't waste time. 

Did you see the poll on George Allen's website about the flag burning amendment.  It was well over 70% against the amendment.  No one really wants time wasted on this.  Investigate September 11 if you want to make a difference for our future.  Stop threatening the people who step up and question that failure.  And leave the flag alone. 

Allen is a bobble head for bush and a complete waste of time.  Let's care for the people, care about how much harder they are working now for less money, care about the widening gap between the haves and have nots, the dangerous loss of our middle class.  Care about what matters.

The right to vote is just an Act. When will the right to vote be an amendment.  Thousands of things more important for Congress to do.

With the right to hold public office comes the responsibility to support the Constitution and to act in the best interests of all.  There was a time when Republicans spoke of the primacy of individual rights.  Has that time now passed, replaced instead by the priority of allusion in furtherance of the pursuit of power? 

Can you simultaneously preach of the need for strick constructionist judges and frivolous Constitutional amendments?

What right of the individual would be protected by such an amendment?

What responsibility of government would be imposed to protect the individual?

To my delight and confidence in our future, Republicans continue to walk away from the individual American whom, after all, is the decider of elections and our futures.

This hombre loves individual freedoms....like the right to keep and bear arms, the right to worship freely, and the right to own private property.

Take a look at the Kelo decision....never before has our fundamental right to own property been in greater jeopardy.  Thank Justice Souter for that one.

And, all Americans have a fundamental right to keep more of what they earn.  So, I suppose you are in favor of low taxes and elimination of the death tax.

Surely, as one who wants protection of the individual, you cannot advocate the death tax or higher marginal income tax rates.

And, all Americans have a fundamental right to keep more of what they earn.  So, I suppose you are in favor of low taxes and elimination of the death tax.

The estate tax is levied on that less than 2% of the population inheriting estates worth over $7 million, the tax is not levied on those who earned it. Also, since a large percentage of this wealth is in investments and capital gains, it has not been previously taxed.

As Warren Buffett States:

"I would hate to see the estate tax gutted, It's a very equitable tax," Buffett said. "It's in keeping with the idea of equality of opportunity in this country, not giving incredible head starts to certain people who were very selective about the womb from which they emerged."

To read about Buffett's statement, read Buffett calls for retention of estate tax.

In short, Republican tax and economic theory is based on the belief that the very wealthy are the engine of the economy and that their investments and purchases drive job creation.  Trickle down.  Thus, you seek trillion dollar cuts for the wealthy few who also comprise a significant part of your political base while leaving behind the vast majority of Americans with very little except trillion dollar debts to pay over generations.

Democrats believe, and experience documents, that small business and the middle class drive the economy and job creation.  Broad-based and sustainable.  And we seek equitable and targeted -- economic zones, college tuition, small business, environmental -- tax policies that stimulate the broadest base of economic growth which benefits all Americans and the sustainability of our economy.

Yes, it would be nice if we could live in the wealthiest and most secure country in the world for free.  We can't.  The debate from that point on is one of how best to drive our economic engine with equity and benefit to all and with protection for future generations.

Your "tax-cut and spend" policies are not policies at all. They are a prescription for bankruptcy and multi-generational obligations.  Would you support a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget?

Repeal of the estate tax is actually the creation of the DNA Entitlement.  Do we need more entitlement spending?

And as regards the individual, think of all this in terms of the linquistic aspect of "you." Singular or plural? 

Your answer will clearly define your view of America and your political alignment.

Can we think of some other regimes in history who have done the same?

And, frankly, your entire premise that conservatives seek to cut income tax rates "for the wealthy few who also comprise a significant part of your political base while leaving behind the vast majority of Americans with very little except trillion dollar debts to pay over generations" seems more likely based on the party line or class envy than sound economic philosophy.

It has been a longstanding rule that as marginal tax rates decrease...revenues increase over the long run.  Obviously, tax rates cannot be reduced lower than a certain point...but I submit that we still have room to cut marginal rates -- for all Americans.

Would you support a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget?

Before I answer this question, you seem to paint with a broad brush when saying "you" and "your." 

My beliefs re: fiscal and monetary policy is not necessarily that of the Republican Party.

Would I support a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget?

Absolutely.  And, I would go a step further.  I'd support term limits and a line item veto.

I honestly believe that these three reform measures would fix much of the pork barrel spending.

This is all part of the republican plan to tax work and not tax wealth. By supporting this you are supporting the idea that certain individuals should NEVER have to pay taxes simply because of their situation at birth, I cannot conceive of an idea that is more UN-AMERICAN.

Applying focus group tested names does not change the facts, as my grandfather said to my aunt's (city slicker) boyfriend 'if you keep calling that bull a cow I'm gonna make you milk the damned thing'.

I would feel much stronger keeping the estate tax and reducing income taxes--and income that each individual earns during his or her lifetime.  This strikes me as the right type of incentive for hard, smart work. 

Historically hereditary oligarchies and Democratic government are not natural allies.  The effect of removing the estate tax would push us in the direction of an oligarchy, which is to say away from a Democracy. 

Whether you're talking about ancient Greece, or the Democracies that arose in the 17th century, or the ones that are arising now in the developing world today (India and some extent China)--these Democratic movements have always run in parallel with the emergence of a strong middle class. 

You can't say that you believe strongly in the value of inherited wealth and Democratic government--unless you're willing to deny history. 

Of course all of this has to be balanced out with sound fiscal policy on the spending side. 

Two, if we need enact laws to protect the flag from its citizens we are big, big trouble.  Since, it is a rare event we do not have a problem.

Third. The flag at what it stands for is strong enough to stand on its own.  Going the long mile and passing a constituional amendment brings it down a couple of pegs.  Making flag burning a crime is what totalitarian governments do, not free societies.

Forth, Thi country has all lot more poressing issues to deal with.

PS What bothers me more, all lot more, are folk who fly the flag disrepectfully.  They fly the flag warn, faded and/or tattered.  They show a blantant disregard for Flag while pathetically trying to feigning respect or cashing in.

Very Respectfull,

Lt. Will Wagoner, USN - Separated

" ... I believe the healing of the country was far more important than the feelings of veterans, like me or Jim Webb, who served.  Likewise, I strongly support Jim Webb's opposition to any proposed constitution amendment banning flag burning, as I view any such amendment as nothing more than grandstanding on a non-issue and an abuse of the Consitution I swore an allegience to protect.  On this issue, Jim Webb is head and shoulders above George Allen."

So did Lincoln.

My take is that any flag that can't be burned doesn't deserve to be burned.

And my take is that if we were living up to our avowed principles, no one would want to burn our flag. 

If we're in Dred Scott mode, I might reach for matches myself, as I might if we let the Voting Rights Act expire and give Blackwell free rein to scrub all non-white voters in less-than-median-income households from the rolls in Ohio.  Any flag that can fly over that isn't worth the sulfur it takes to strike its match.

Webb does not believe in amending the constitution to restrict liberty.  Period.  He thinks flagburning is wrong, but that it hardly represents a constitutional crisis.  Sen. Mitch McConnell, #2 RFepublican in the Senate and himself a former Federal judge happens to agree with Webb and voted against the amendment, as did Bob Bennett of Utah who is not exactly a flaming liberal.

Webb had spoken often of his libertarian streak -  he says that government should stop at his door absent a compelling reason to come in -- that applies to sex, that applies to his guns.  That is consistent with his position on the amendment.  it is also why although he is opposed to gay marriage he is for gay rights and opposed the proposed Virginia constitutional amendment as well.

As far as Iraq, he has made clear that he would have voted against Kerry's proposal on troop withdrawal.  But if you will go back and read his 2002 piece on Irq he was absolutely right.  Today I spent two hours with an Air Guardsman who just came off active duty, and who spent a significant amount of time while active in Iraq.  He described in detail the permanent nature of the basis we are building there.  This administration is not interested in any Iraqi government that would ask them to leave - they will not allow it to take power.  They are interested in oil, which is why they have pushed the "government" to gut the oil workers union, which is why Bremer tried to privatize things so that they could be sold off to US companies.

Webb is about as far from political as any major candidate I have ever met, and I have known quite a few, up to previous and current potential presidential candidates.  He says actually what he thinks.  If he does not know aboutan issue, he will not take a position on it and attempt to learn as much as he can.

From what I have read of what you have posted here there are two possibilities, and i will only address the one that grants you every benefit of the doubt.  You clearly are unhappy with Allen and with this administration, but you have been listening to far too much spin -- whether from main stream media or as put out by the Allen camp -- to Webb clearly. 

As for Iraq -- we do not have the capability of putting in half a million troops - we are having trouble maintaining a level around 140,000.  We have no choice but to draw down, or we will totally break the army and the marines.  Serious military leaders are saying this, including people in positions of command now.  The guard is already pretty much broken.  We have maintained force levels only by repeated tours, by stop-loss actions, by activating individual reserves, by lowering the standards for recruiting, and by threatening those who wouldn't re-up with being sent to Iraq under stoploss.  All of this is publicly documented.  Meanwhile we did not properly equip or train the troops we did send, we have tried to charge them for meals when in the hospital, we have been cutting back on veterans services, and we are ingoring PTSD among the returning troops -- we even violate military standards by returning to hostile fire situations troops who clearly need to have PTSD addressed.

You cannot force a government down the throats of a people who do not want it. 

We cannot abandon Iraq, but doing more of what we have been doing will only kill more Iraqis and more Americans, and not solve the problem.  The current leadership has demonstrated its inability to change what it has been doing.  Thus there has to be a change.

I do not agree with Webb on everything.  But he is a far superior candidate than is Allen.  His closest friend on the Hill is Chuck Hagel, like him a Vietnam era combat veteran.  He will be an independent voice.

But he did not become a Democrat for political advantage.  he was raised asa democrat, almost disowned by some in his family for having worked for Reagan.  He was returning - on economic, security and fairness issues - to the Democratic fold long before he decided to run for the Senate.

There are people here who can take you through this in far more detail than can I.  But I would suggest that you listen to Webb when he talks with people, watch how hie listens and actually answers the questions they ask.  He has had to learn that with the media he has to be more focused, that if they talk with him on tape for 5 minutes they might use one 15-20 second sound bite.  He is learning how to be a politician.  He is not yet one.

Welcome to RK -- we do not agree on everything here.  But you will find few people here who do not have great respect for Jim Webb -- and for most of us that is because we have worked with and for him, spent time up close, watched him in situation public and private.

1.  I read for myself.  While I like to read and listen to "SPIN", I only do so for the purpose of critiquing it in terms of effectiveness of advocacy.

I know more regarding Webb than you might think.  I've read his books.  If they are a blueprint to his brain, I've studied it.  Naturally, his books have been silent on taxes, partial birth abortion, tort reform, etc. but they do give me insight into how he views America's role in the world.

2.  I never said that I was displeased with Allen --- only the Bush Administration (for not more aggressively expanding the war).  I am quite happy with Allen's voting record and have found him to be a sensible conservative.

3.  You are correct regarding the fatigue of our military.  This is why I advocate putting more men and women in uniform by whatever means necessary.  If it takes a draft...so be it.

This is a zero-sum game.  We have to view it as such.

Any time votes like this fail by "1" vote, its obvious its just a political game and not a serious vote. You can be sure that 1 vote failure was reached through a lot of back room negotiating on both sides. Had some senator miraculously changed his mind and voted contrary to plan, you can be sure anoher one later down the line would switch back to keep the balance.

- jeremy

By speaking beyond his time, "Dude-Ranch" Felix must have been feeling very insecure and uncomfortable.  Over staying his time was not only disrespectful it was indicative of a larger truth.

Veterans are pretty savvy folks.  They know if politicians have nothing worthwhile to say -- they just talk a lot.  Jim Webb and the Legionnaires know that.  George Allen doesn't.

BY TYLER WHITLEY
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
Sunday, July 9, 2006

Opponents of the war in Iraq are hurting the war effort by encouraging the enemy, Sen. George Allen, R-Va., said yesterday.

His Democratic challenger, Jim Webb, said opponents have a duty to speak out and criticize a war that has hurt this nation's efforts to fight terrorism.

The two spoke separately to about 500 Legionnaires attending the state convention of the American Legion at the Holiday Inn Select in Chesterfield County.

"Ladies and gentlemen, we are in a war, and it's high time people recognized that," Allen said. "There is a lot of bickering and political posturing on this . . . but what is not helpful for the credibility of America and our will to win are those who revel in the political world, the world of 'I told you so,' that 'we never should have gone.'"

Webb cited Dwight D. Eisenhower's criticism of the Korean War in 1952 when he was running for president. He called the war "an appalling failure."

"No one in 1952 was criticizing General Eisenhower for expressing his concerns during a time of war," Webb said.

The war has distracted this country from facing serious strategic threats such as China, he said.

Webb was a critic of the war before the invasion. He now says the U.S. should not set an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal from the increasingly unpopular war.

Allen has been one of the war's staunchest defenders.

He drew applause when he said "we must demonstrate to the entire world . . . that America won't back down. . . . We should not be emboldening our enemies."

Webb, a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, proposed that military veterans of the war on terrorism be given the same GI Bill benefits as veterans of World War II. Those benefits include full tuition, payment for textbooks and a monthly living stipend, he said.

The current GI Bill, which has a maximum benefit of $800 a month, was designed for the peacetime, all-vol- unteer military and does not do justice to those who have served on active duty since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, he said.

Allen, who did not serve in the military, was accompanied by U.S. Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., a veteran of World War II and the Korean War. Warner is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Like Webb, he is a former secretary of the Navy.

Warner, a member of American Legion Post 295 in Middleburg, wore his American Legion garrison cap.

He called Allen "my good friend" and had kind words for Webb, whom he described as a hero. Webb, as a Marine captain, served on Warner's staff when Warner was secretary of the Navy. Webb, who was wounded in Vietnam, called Warner his mentor.

Allen said he registered for the draft while in college and received a high draft number. The war in Vietnam was winding down by his sophomore year at the University of Virginia, in 1973, he said.

"Anyone can say they believe in something -- talk is cheap," Webb told the Legionnaires later. "But when you put your life on the line, no one can deny that you believe in something. . . . When your country called, you answered."

Webb and Allen, through their staffs, have clashed bitterly since Webb won the Democratic nomination last month. Leaving the room after addressing the Legionnaires, Allen shook hands with Webb, slapped him on the back and called him "Jim."

Virginia has 700,000 veterans and about 50,000 are members of the American Legion. Webb transferred his membership yesterday from a post in Beaufort, S.C., to the post in his hometown of Falls Church.

The American Legion has been one of the major forces behind a proposed constitutional amendment to ban the desecration of the American flag.

Allen, who voted for the proposed amendment 10 days ago, said burning the flag "is not speech -- it's conduct." The amendment failed by one vote.

Webb has called the proposed amendment "divisive politics that distract Americans from the real issues that are facing our country."

Webb did not mention the flag amendment yesterday.

Afterward, several Legionnaires said Allen has been a friend of veterans, but the fact that Webb served in the military and Allen did not might influence their vote.

The American Legion does not endorse candidates.
###

There's nothing I hate more than war hawks who say those who criticize the war are crippling the war effort, disrespect the troops, are unpatriotic, etc. Where would we be today if the Founding Fathers concluded, "Oh, we can't criticize King George and Parliament, that'd be unpatriotic"?

1.  Webb didn't even show up to the VFW Convention three weeks ago. This looked really bad. Really bad.

2.  Webb had about 15 volunteers show up to the Legion Convention, but none of them were veterans.  Most were college-age and fit the college age liberal mold.  This is not how we win over the grizzled old vets like me.

Allen had a booth set up and upwards of 15 vets in his entourage.  They had veterans bumper stickers.

The only reason that it appeared we had more people than them is because ours were non-veterns wearing Webb shirts and theirs were actual convention-goers who blended into the crowd better.  This was a huge topic of discussion at the event.  The only vet for Webb I saw was a guy in a USN hat w/ a bunch of Webb buttons on it.  I agree that it is great to have anyone willing help us at these events, but our "army" consisted almost entirely of kids. We need to do a better job of recuriting people who fit the bill.