"However, we are working under the reality that, on the issue of Iraq, this Senate does not have a Democratic majority."

And no spine, either, except for 14, some of whom are neither running for Prez or having to face re-election in '08, which, from my POV, makes them principled. Meantime, the number of deaths is climbing daily, to pre-splurge levels and above.

Bleh. Gag. Barf.

The BEST way to protect them is to get them out of Iraq as soon as possible - more money won't do a damn thing to help them.  Other then the stupid yellow car ribbons, most of us have done nothing to help the troops, including me.

Congress is terrible, Bush is worse.

We need to sh$t or get off the pot; institute the draft, increase taxes and fight like we mean it, or get out now. 

So I take it you've already served in the military? Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.

to sacrifice since 9/11.  If we're really at war for our very civilization, as this Administration claims, then why isn't the country on a war footing?  In World War II, we had victory gardens, rationing, and of course a massive draft.  What, so this time we're going to fight for our very survival with a tiny percentage of the American people bearing 99% of the burden?  That's really fair...not!

It is sickening to think of the sacrifice that these soldiers in Iraq are making for us and we just go on our merry way doing what we did everyday before and since this war began.

Roosevelt (a Democrat) had the sense to figure out how to fund our participation in World War II.  From US History, US War Bonds Home Front http://www.u-s-histo... comes the following.  It is a very interesting read.

The last time the United States issued war bonds was during World War II, when full employment collided with rationing, and war bonds were seen as a way to remove money from circulation as well as reduce inflation.

...

The War Finance Committee was in charge of supervising the sale of all bonds, and the War Advertising Council promoted voluntary compliance with bond buying. The work of those two organizations produced the greatest volume of advertising in U.S. history. In the name of defense of American liberty and democracy, and as safe havens for investment, the public was continually urged to buy bonds.

An emotional appeal went out to citizens by means of advertising. Even though the bonds offered a rate of return below the market value, it represented a moral and financial stake in the war effort. The advertisements started with radio and newspapers, then later added magazines to reach the masses. The bond campaign was unique in that both the government, as well as private companies, created the advertisements.

I've talked to my mother and father at length about WW II and what life was like for them and understand why Brokaw calls them the Greatest Generation. 

What does our boozo of a President tell us to do to help the war effort?  .....go shopping!  May the soldiers and their families forgive us for not stepping up to match their sacrifice.

That question makes no sense. 

How are you going to get Bush and his elite friends to get their kids to fight?  My tax rates have gone down over the past six years.  The poor are the ones fighting our stupid and ill-conceived war - what have you done?  As least with a draft, everyone will be required to risk being called up, and those who are really opposed to the war would be energied to argue for the withdrawal.  Talk is very cheap.

I registerd for selective service in the day; had there been a draft (and I war) naturally I would have gone and complied with what would have been asked of me.  Today, no one is asking anything from our youth or us. 

...most of which would be non-military, of course (e.g., civilian conservation corps, tutors to kids in poor areas, first response capabilities...).  This would be a great program, especially if paired with educational assistance and health care coverage, and ESPECIALLY at a time of war.  My concept is that people could select their top choices of what types of jobs they'd like to do, making it EXTREMELY unlikely that anyone who didn't want to go into the military would have to.  Downsides?  I can't honestly think of any, except that it would take a bit of political leadership to explain why this is both necessary and advantageous.

How right you are. Had to support the bill to fund out troops. What a bunch of Republican spin. Hey we Democrats have heard this type of spin for years and recognize it for what it is.

The reports were clear. There was enough money to fund this War into July. We know it and you know it. So why are you giving us this spin. Besides with executive orders, money can be shifted around to where it is needed. As long as it is appropriated in the first place, it does not have to be spent where it is alloted.

Supporting the troops is our main objective and winning this war is our main objective. How does one win. They go back in a huddle and come out with a new plan. That plan was to drop back to the borders and circle the country with strike teams. Yes out of the civil war. Out of the streets of the cities. Drop back and regroup. Yes micro manage the war. Time lines. This President cannot, so somebody has too.

 

I take seriously, even if it is contrary to my opinion...

The man has the gravitas on these issues that to simply dismiss them as ludicrous or spineless is inane posturing..

tough to fault him.

n/t

Yes, this is a big disappointment, and I for sure wish that Jim Webb had voted against this bill.  But I also believe him when he says that he will continue to fight for us.

This is not the end, my fellow Democrats.  This is only the beginning of the fight.  Bush may think he's won this round, but this war is only more tightly being tied around his and the GOP's necks.  They lost on it last year, and they are going to lose on it next year too.

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

I mean...okay we couldn't do a freaking timeline, but was that our ONLY option, I heard tons of other options that should've been included, I'm very unimpressed with him on this, I thought he would fight harder.

Not giving up on him yet though, just he's a bit unpolished to me now.

Webb didn't say that a timeline was the only option. I take him at his word that he tried to get "more restrictive language" in the bill. This statement doesn't specify what options he tried to get. Don't rush to judgement.

His son is in Iraq, anything he would've put in would've been hard to dispute?  I'm just waiting for him to step up. 

Webb's son is home. But even if he goes back to Iraq, that doesn't give him special priviledge to shape the legislation and no one would or should recognize that.

I think it does..for damn sure, do you think other men and women who have kids serving over in Iraq wouldn't mind having the ability to have someone of their own representing THEIR interests in Iraq.  I think he could do a good job of representing the families of those who are serving abroad.

but you're wrong on this point. Yes, I have enormous sympathy for those whose loved ones are serving in Iraq. However, as a U.S. Senator, Webb has to be objective while considering the sacrifice of those who serve and their families. He has said so in the past regarding the separation of having a son serve in Iraq and his duties as a Senator, which he admited was difficult but necessary. I don't recall anyone objecting to this point before, in spite of your rightous indignation.

Its anger...its fucking rage...

Its always some time in the future, that republicans will become sane and see the light, the only time that will happen will be Summer 2008 as the election soon approaches, maybe then they will stop towing the line, but until then.  I don't see them changing.  And basically we have an unpopular president, who's screwed us on Iraq, screwed the troops without body armor and adequate armored vehicles, screwed the wounded by letting their facilities go to waste, usurped the Constitution, politicized every department he could, given away our money to his corporate buddies, ignored New Orleans, fucked over people dying of diseases with possible cures by stem cells.  The Democrats had an opportunity to say, ya know what, fuck this, you've had your way for 6 years, now its time to do things OUR ways.  And the reason is because they don't want to 'use the troops for politics'.  George Bush has been playing this game for 5 fucking years, and we STILL don't get it.  He's not going to back down, he has no reason to, who likes him?  He's a lame duck, he's going down with Iraq, and we're saying, let's wait for him to get it???? WAIT FOR HIM???  Like he waited for Katrina to just SETTLE itself.  I'm fucking pissed off.  I'm pissed at Democrats for playing it safe.  And everyone I know thinks the same thing?  Why are we playing the '4 months down the road things will change game,' how many years have we played it?  I'm really not mad at Jim Webb by himself,  he couldn't produce enough votes to change things.  But i'm mad at him as a Democrat.  It just seems like Democrats didn't TRY.  And now they're going on vacation, to enjoy their memorial day while people die in Iraq, while Bush still calls them all the same things he would call them, if they didn't just give up.  I'm just sick of it.

for a flailing, long winded reply from you.

well...then what's your response besides smarmy sarcasm

all I want to say, you just want to tire me out with hot air and bad attitude.

Do you have Grey Poupon? ;)

is Webb parroting the GOP talking points about "supporting the troops"? Oh wait he used to be one of them! I thought he wasn't going to vote for anything which did not have the language about giving the troops a year at home before they are redeployed? What happened to all that anti war swagger we saw during his campaign? I hope he intends to attend every single funeral of every single Virginian killed in the next few months. Since it wouldn't have mattered anyway in the vote, he could have stood up with the other brave Democrats and voted against this bill. Oh well, he'll be a one term senator if he ccontinues along this path.

is a GOP talking point.  Everyone supports the troops, it's Bush's FUBAR Iraq war (and foreign policy in general) we don't support.

was every 5 minutes the GOP apologists and Bush say if we don't pass this funding bill then we aren't "supporting the troops". That the Democrats don't support the troops because we want to bring them home. And that's why this bill got passed because the Dems were so afraid of being seen on not supporting the troops and being weak on defense. 70% of the country supports getting out. So now the Democrats have pissed off their base. Folks are infuriated. And I'm sure the Rethug base is fat, dumb and real happy. In my humble opinion, "supporting the troops" means getting them out of harms way.

about what it's like to lose people in a war and it's arrogant to pretend you know more about it than he does.  Unless you can claim to have watched your fellow soldiers or Marines die around you then you are not qualified to lecture Webb about attending the funerals of Virginians killed in Iraq or to ascribe more bravery to those who voted against this bill and basically made themselves peripheral to this debate than to people like Webb who, much as it sickened them, agreed to a compromise so they could live to fight another day.  Webb had a choice between pugnacity or practicality and he chose practicality, primarily so the troops would NOT go unfunded.  To you it's a talking point. To him it's a bullets and bombs reality.  He'd rather not attend those funerals so he'll do whatever it takes to make sure that if our people are in harm's way they have the wherewithal to defend themselves and come home alive. 

You troll-rated me?  Is it because I called out someone who would lecture Webb on losing people in a war?  Please look at this and then tell me whether you think Webb needs such reminders:

The day the piece of shrapnel ripped his arm away just below the shoulder, a clean swipe like a hot knife that left the arm itself intact at his feet, I cried. Mike McGarvey was my radio operator, which in a Marine rifle platoon is tantamount to shadowhood, alter ego, little brother. Everywhere I walked, he was two steps behind, carrying the PRC-25 radio that linked us to the company. Nights we slept on the same poncho, talking for hours in the darkness about home, aspirations, love, God--our soul. McGarvey was the fifth radio operator I had lost in three months. I had lured him to the job because I liked him. He was competent. He was a friend. He was 18.

I sat next to him in the sunbake of a pocked, clay-dust hillside, waiting for the medevac helicopter to carry him away. That large green bird had hauled dozens of young men who had trusted my judgment to the cool blue sheets of hospital beds, to scarred. uncertain futures-and I could no longer hold back the frustration and the anger. He saw my tears, fixed me in a squinting stare and shook his head.

"Knock that stuff off, Lieutenant. It's only an arm."

Parade Magazine, November 21, 1982

I will trust Webb's judgment in this matter.  I believe he never spends a day where he does not at some point contemplate war, whether past or present.  I believe he will never be casual or swaggering or cocky about war and that he will never fail to see its human costs.  His love for the ones who fight; his sheer admiration for all who serve, runs throughout his writings.  He could not hold cheap the lives of our soldiers and will not act against their interests.  If you want to troll-rate me for that, knock yourself out.

Please get your head out of the clouds, 2006 is over and nothing guarantees 2008 will be a repeat. I was an army officer when the democratic party nominated George McGovern and went down in flames in 1972.

Listen to Webb who has to play compromise by the Senate's rules and cannot cut off his nose to spite his face and be an effective representative for our points of view.  If he quits and takes his ball and bat home when the game isn't going his way, he will not be invited to play again.

How many of you voted for Nader because Gore just wasn't doing everything you wanted for the environment and other pet causes?  Guess what, if you did, you helped elect Dubya, the biggest friend the environment and the working man has ever had in the White House and who knows what you'll be able to accomplish if you follow through on your third party whining. Webb and I were the dogs in another fight and I say trust his judgement over your own in this fight.

Please get your head out of the clouds, 2006 is over and nothing guarantees 2008 will be a repeat. I was an army officer when the democratic party nominated George McGovern and went down in flames in 1972.

Listen to Webb who has to play compromise by the Senate's rules and cannot cut off his nose to spite his face and be an effective representative for our points of view.  If he quits and takes his ball and bat home when the game isn't going his way, he will not be invited to play again.

How many of you voted for Nader because Gore just wasn't doing everything you wanted for the environment and other pet causes?  Guess what, if you did, you helped elect Dubya, the biggest friend the environment and the working man has ever had in the White House and who knows what you'll be able to accomplish if you follow through on your third party whining. Webb and I were the dogs in another fight and I say trust his judgement over your own in this fight.

Webb. But he screwed this up. His son is home now thank goodness. He had nothing to lose by voting against this thing. He must be held accountable as does everyone. I'm sure the Democratic reps and senators will be hearing an earful in their districts this Memorial Day. How appropriate.

did Webb screw it up, except that he didn't vote how you would have wanted it?

I like to think that jurors know more about the trials they are sitting on than the media does, and I'll think the same of the congress and senate. 

You have to pick your battles and live to fight another day.  It's not always about *you*.

We elected him to speak for us. 70% of the country and I assume Virginia could be included in "the country" want us out of the debacle. It's not about what I wanted him to do it's about what his constituency wants him to do. Now if he never heard a word from his constituency that's a whole other problem. Webb isn't in the Senate just to go on his merry way and do what he deems necessary. He has us to answer to three years from now at the voting booth. As a freshman senator I assume he is aware of that unlike a senator who has been around for forty years. But of course, it's not just Webb. A whole lot of other Democratic senators voted for this bill. Webb just happens to be our senator-so he gets the heat from his constituents. That's the way it is supposed to work.

You have to live to fight another day.  I don't think he's unaware of his responsibilities or the opinions of his constituents.  I don't like this particular bill, but I think there is more going on behind the scenes than you or I know about.

We elected him to represent us, so let him represent us.  Don't second guess everything he does.  In 6 months we all might be saying it was a brilliant stroke played instead of bitching that he voted the wrong way.

And, in *5* years if you still disagree, vote him out of office.

You think the only thing important to him was that HIS kid made it back so it doesn't matter what happens to the others?  Look back at Thaddeus Toad's diary from a couple of days ago about Bush's willingness to continue vetoing timeline based legislation EVEN if it means that the troops go without.  He was totally on point.  Bush is indeed willing to sacrifice the welfare of the troops who are already there in order to make his point.  He's willing to let them go without necessities just so he can say "look at what you made me do" to the Dems.  And the ever fickle American public just might buy that. 

It's easy to sit there in splendid ideological purity and isolation from your perch and to say you would have done things differently, but Webb's in a tight position.  There is no Democratic majority on this issue thanks to Lieberputz and with a sick Senator who isn't well enough to vote.  Maybe you'd feel better if Webb held his breath until he turned blue and refused to play, but it would only harm his long term goals and harm the troops.  Webb knows that the first obligation of an officer is to take care of his men, and that's what he's doing.  Contrary to your naive assumption that he had nothing to lose he in fact had everything to lose.  He has more credibility when it comes to military issues than the vast majority of the Senate, but if he is going to succeed in his objectives he's going to have to entice away enough Republican support for his long term goals to overcome Dubya's obstruction.  This is a temporary, four month funding provision - hardly the overwhelming victory for Dubya the Administration and the talking heads are prattling about.  I'd call it a strategic retrenchment.  And take a look at some of the gains in the legislation. There is much needed funding for the Veterans Administration. 

In the meantime, Webb has made it clear that he intends to pursue his amendment regarding redeployment of troops.  If he succeeds in getting it passed he will have effectively starved the war of sufficient troops to fight it and the Administration will be forced to start withdrawal.

It's this all or nothing dogmatism by the anti-war lefties that leaves me shaking my head.  There are practicalities to consider which will not allow withdrawal to be accomplished  simply, swiftly, or efficiently.  Rather than lead a losing frontal assault Webb is executing a flanking maneuver by which he will continue to hammer home the message that we need negotiation (something on which there's finally been some movement from Rice and company); that we cannot keep redeploying unrested, exhausted troops, thus building support for his amendment; and that we need to bring in the regional powers to the table.  You play with the cards you're dealt, not with the ones you'd like to have.

I agree with Catzmaw and would only add that the neocons still surrounding Bush must surely have told him that when Teddy Roosevelt was President he sent the whole white fleet to Hong Kong without the money to bring it back.  He then challenged Congress to fund the return of the fleet and Congress provided the funds.

If you think, based on his actions since 2000 with the greatest secretary of defense ever (Rumsfeld's retirement ceremony)this chickenhawk wouldn't leave our troops in Iraq without funds in this game of chicken, you are as delusional as he is.  Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings, but this guy wants to be TR and Truman wrapped in one with "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead."  Webb is a freshman and we'd be better off encouraging him to try to get the 101st Airmobile and 160th Aviation rested in case they are needed for a quick extraction.

I don't want to hear any whining about they don't have a large enough majority and those of us who are active need to do more while they vote the politically expedient way. Quite frankly I'm less than impressed with the excuse and if he wants my money and time he'll have to do much better than this.

really am.

up for the troops. 

This is why normal people despise the anti war left. You guys are willing to abandon the soldiers already in the field to make a political point. Shame on you. Those guys and girls out in the field do not deserve to be abandoned. So if Bush is willing to abandon them to the enemy without support we have to do what we can to keep them safe while they have to submit to his fucked up war. It is a sorry ass place to find ourself in but that is the reality.

Webb did what he thought was right. This is a dirty deal we were handed in the Senate and Webb knows it. But when we have and asshole like Bush in office who is all too willing to sacrifice young souls in a badly managed and misguided effort, there is little the Senate could have done. The reality is they do not have a majority. Bush has the upper hand on this and played it down to the hilt. He has a special place in hell reserved for him for fucking out soldiers like this.

That being said. Webb will continue to fight. It is his nature. This is not over.

This is a long-term game of chess, requiring that we eventually maneuver one Chimpy McFlightsuit, alias "worst President ever," alias the self-proclaimed "decider," into check mate.  Count the pieces on each side of the board, look at their position, figure out where you want them to be several moves ahead (e.g., September), then plot a strategy that leads to the end goal (check mate!). 

By the way, I trust Jim Webb, more than just about any other human being on this planet, to get us where we want to go on this.  I am ecstatic that Jim Webb is on OUR side, and let's not forget that he very much IS on our side.  Thank you Jim Webb!!!!

I totally agree with both of you.  My son-in-law is over there as we speak, I have friends with sons over there. If I had the power I would start the trial of bush-cheney tomorrow and begin a plan to end the iraq war.  I agree with Lowell that this is only the first round.  I personally don't think that Pelosi and Reid played it very well.  To me this has only made our side look weak and bush-cheney look stronger.  I am not a politician but it seems that someone should have counted the votes first rather than following this path and losing. 

Thank you for visiting RK!

...let's place the blame squarely where it belongs - with George "Boy Wonder" Bush, "Deadeye" Dick Cheney. Donald "The Defense Secretary We Had, NOT The One We Wished We Had" Rumsfeld, Paul "Too Clever by Half" Wolfowitz, etc., etc - not with the Democrats, most of whom are trying their best given the constraints of our constitutional system of government. And no, that's NOT an excuse, it's just reality! 

You are totally right and I did not mean to even imply that I blamed anyone for these messes in Afghanistan and Iraq but the bush-cheney administration. bush-cheney have basically taken a population in Iraq that was cowered by sadam and emboldened it into taking up arms. Now bush is so timid with the Iraq government that it is starting to game us.

Thank you for visiting RK!

WillieStark is right on target.

I understood that ending a war would not be easy, nor would it be quick.  I knew that it would take more than rallies on the National Mall or clever-costumed protestors with funny hats and witty signs marching in a circle outside the White House.  I decided the only way to do it was to change the country: first, by changing the national perspective on the war, then by changing the people we send to Congress, and perhaps finally by changing the people who occupy the White House.  This was never meant to be a sprint; it's a marathon and a relay race.  But after less than five months, many of you are screaming and crying.

I never thought ending a war and changing a nation's direction could be simple.

So please stop approaching it with a simple mind.

We need the White House.  We need large majorities in Congress.  We need strong leaders like Jim Webb.  Then we'll be able to achieve our goals on Iraq, global warming, health care, education, stem cell research, and many other issues.  But yeah, this is a marathon...slow and steady wins it.

Electing people is one step; we must make sure that they follow through. There are many distractions in Congress, mainly the status quo and lobbyists. Common people must keep an organize front to make sure that legislatures do their job.

Jim Webb has been doing his job, maybe more than most people on the Hill. His statement makes it clear that he is very unhappy that he had to vote the way he did, but he felt that he couldn't abandon the troops in Iraq.

We are focusing on the wrong people. Bush only has power because the weaken rubber stamping Republicans still side with him.

The people lacking the courage to represent the people are the Republican enablers who are too afraid to stop supporting Bush. Had these Republicans more valor, we would have been able to have the votes to override Bush's veto.

but I don't understand why you're going around troll-rating people who happen to have a different point of view.  I call bullshit.  Oldsoldier and I and others have reasons why we don't think this is the big catastrophe you folks who want instant resolution think.  That doesn't make us trolls.  This war's been going on for over four years and the balance of power is extremely narrow in Congress, tilting Republican on this issue in the Senate, and fully Dubya's in the executive.  We can't go in there raising hell and whining and alienating the people we need to draw over to our side of the street and expect to get anywhere. 

But his explanation is lacking.

"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..."

That's a pithy excuse.  Only 49 means it was a symbolic vote, so why not vote no?  Voting no would not have kept him from trying to end this thing, so why vote with the opposition?

I'm highly disappointed.

I'd be curious to know what people think of this. I think that EJ Dionne makes some excellent points, for instance:

What was true in January thus remains true today: The president will be forced to change his policy only when enough Republicans tell him he has to. Facing this is no fun; it's just necessary.

Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said recently that no one remembers how long it took to reverse the direction of American policy in Vietnam. Obey is hunkered down for a lengthy struggle.

In a divided system, democracy can be frustratingly slow. But it usually works. Critics of the war should spend less time mourning the setbacks of May and begin organizing for a showdown in September. They would profit from taking Barry Goldwater's long view.

Dionne is right: to get out of Iraq, we've got to convince a critical mass of REPUBLICANS, not DEMOCRATS, to pressure the President (let's face it, Bush isn't listening to MoveOn.org).  If not, given our system of government, it's extremely unlikely, bordering on zero probability, that the slim Democratic majority in Congress can force through its will on Iraq or any other issue, no matter how upset and angry we might get.  Actually, in the US Senate, it is completely impossible for Democrats to force their will, because we effectively need 60 votes to get anything done.  We're not even close.  That's why we've got to pick up both the White House and as many Congressional seats as possible in 2008.  If not, we're basically screwed, and not just on Iraq either...

during which he said he hated and despised the legislation despite being its author and that he did it with the greatest reluctance and dismay and with the understanding that this would not be the end of the debate.  He did what he felt he had to do. 

the public is already with us.  Don't let the voting public forget that the Iraq War is a Republican-supported war.

In my view in just a few months the Congress has completely turned the tables on Bush's Iraq quagmire and re-defined the debate. As a result, many Repubs are ready to dump Bush and the current strategy in the fall if the surge falters, (which it will without the 300,000 troops needed from the beginning to pacify the country). This authorization bill, loaded with Democratic initiatives (minimum wage!) is, at best, a Pyrrhic victory for Bush--in 3-4 months Harry and Nancy may well have a veto-proof majority for withdrawal, or at least steadily closer to the legislative check-mate we seek. Bush's goose is cooked. And the more debate, the bigger the Iraq quagmire becomes, the more rope we have to hang the Repugs with next year.

Strategically, cleverly, subtly...do you play chess? :)