Sen Webb: Congress Will Fund The Debacle In Iraq

I am watching Senator Webb’s appearance on Meet the Press this morning and in response to Tim Russert’s playing President George Bush’s statement that Congress capitulate to his demand that the Iraq Debacle be funded without conditions, Senator Webb basically said that Congress will provide funds for Bush Iraq Debacle.

Senator Webb talks a good game, but as he has done all year, the bottom line is he will vote cede Congress’ Constitutional Spending Power. He will not vote to stand up to Bush. In the next breath he is real strong on nonbinding resolutions about Iran.

When asked by Russert about Joe Biden’s call to impeach Bush if he attacks Iran, Webb hems and haws and says that the SPENDING POWER is the way to stop Bush from attacking Iran.

Excuse me Senator Webb, IF Bush does attack Iran, basedon your statements on Iraq funding, I would expect that you will vote for funding there too.

Senator Webb is a real mess on these issues.


Skip to comment form

  1. Senator Webb is a real mess on these issues.

    Senator Webb is no chickenhawk.  He has a son in Iraq and is a combat veteran who has told the truth about war.

    Senator Webb has been a voice of opposition to the war unlike your own favorite hawk.

    Indeed I am not pleased that Webb is willing to vote to fund the occupation of Iraq and would wish he would do much more.

    But why single out a true warrior who has been a voice of reason in the noise?  Is it the pigmentation of his skin or is there something we are missing?

    BTW another vote from you to suppress my opinion will be appreciated.  I will know I have hit my target with a bulls eye despite my aging eyes.

    Best,  Terry


  2. …Congress wouldn’t impeach President Bush if he walked into Congress and started shooting.  Haven’t you seen Congress?

  3. Russert: does the Maliki government have the capacity to bring Iraq together?

    Webb: I think that’s a really tough question.

    — No, it isn’t.  He didn’t even get approval from parliament for the “principles of agreement”.  He tanked on that.

    Are they even going to talk about that?

    • brobin on December 2, 2007 at 16:35

    reformed Republican. He is not going to understand this situation for quite some time, if ever.  

    His inability to do the right thing here is inbred.  He cannot think beyond the reality of this countries situation today in order to see what is necessary for him to do to create a better tomorrow.

    Senator Webb is a huge disappointment as a Democrat.

    • Edger on December 2, 2007 at 16:57

    It’s what they’ve intended to do all along.

  4. and a Reagan Democrat?. While he hates Bush, he remains a Republican out of time. I don’t see any one with the power who will actually use it to end this, candidates and congresspeople alike are just going to string along this debacle while they settle in for the long haul of owning Iraq. I find myself in agreement with Jay. Until we get our butts kicked or go broke it will continue and be spun as something else but remain an aggressive occupation.    

  5. referred to relationships. Having watched the MTP program this morning in my usual Sunday  routine i had a bit of an epiphany. I saw something that I interpreted entirely differently to Armando’s honest evaluation from his perspective, So far so good, then I read the comments and had a major epiphany.

    I believe that i am still heavily influenced from having been brought up in a parliamentary political system, on both a local and national level, where vigourous debate and differing points of view are both welcomed and encouraged. The aim being to arrive at a consensus position. What I saw was Senator Webb who refused to be drawn into simplistic intemperate responses. An elected leader who demanded he be allowed to present an extremely nuanced and thoughtful analysis of a specific trip he had just undertaken regarding the political and military aspects of the so-called surge, instead of the standard Republican response that everything is fine and all the Dems want to do is to surrender America’s national honour.

    This will always be the problem because nuance rather than bombast always looks weak. One important thing I thought he said was that it is necessary for the Congress and the nation to have the debate the Republicans are now openly putting forward that we will in fact remain in Iraq permanently.  That will definitely be part of the fear strategy being formulated in the backrooms of Republican strategists (as per Greyhawk’s essay yesterday, re-booting, not re-treating)). It will be the same old, same old, if you withdraw you surrender, never retreat, never give in. America loves war.

    We play right into that meme by calling Webb a pseudo Republican, and other names.  I honestly am beginning to believe that I really don’t belong either here or over at DK. I am cursed with seeing things from both sides and don’t see the world in extreme black and white terms.  It’s probably age.

    Looks like we shall be faced with a ‘rightwing Democrat versus a leftwing Republican’! How ironic.

  6. I know that the fact that Webb’s son is (was?-I haven’t kept up on his son’s deployment status), serving in Iraq, makes him conscious of the impact of funding the war or not.  I didn’t see the interview, so I don’t know if Webb explained why he is supporting funding the Iraq war.  I really wish that he would explain his determination to keep handing money over to Bush to keep funding Bush’s Folly.  

    My son is in the military-navy- and could end up having to go to Iraq along with other

    Sailors and airmen being “drafted” into the Army/Marines, if this endless war keeps going on.  

    Many troops and their families are in similar situations.  Some will be faced with yet another deployment to Iraq, to see if they can escape death or grievous wounds just one more time, after having returned home from previous deployment(s).  Some will continue to face extended deployments.

    Some will be forced to stay in the service when their voluntary period of enlistment has ended:

    “…The Army will likely continue employing a controversial “stop-loss” policy intended to keep soldiers in war zones beyond their original commitments due to demands placed on the troops, according to Secretary of the Army Peter Geren…”  

    I just don’t understand why Webb wants to continue to give unconditional war funding to Bush while Bush’s policies have been   “Destroying” the military. Maybe he sincerely believes that giving Bush money will somehow help the troops.   IMHO, the troops and their families deserve to hold his feet to the fire to get an explanation from him as to why they must continue to be pushed to the breaking point by a commander-in-chief who is incompetent at best.

    For some of us, this is a life and death issue.


  7. It’s an old soldier schtick god damn it and it is nothing but a schtick.  It’s old soldiers forgetting what being a soldier is really like and what it’s really about…..they just get hung up like idiots on this bullshit can’t defund the soldiers in harm’s way in Iraq.  Do they fully remember how hard it was to be a soldier some days and how it was about the mission and had nothing to do with funds?  Some missions are hard and some not so hard but a soldier’s day revolves around the mission and after his paycheck that is it for his concern about fucking funds!  So what mission in Iraq are they going to fund and which one are they going to defund?  I’m so sick of this and P.S. Senator Webb….this soldier’s wife is really really sick of you and in her soldierly wife opinion you aren’t being honorable or soldierly where the mission in Iraq is concerned…you are being cowardly!  

  8. I thought he’d be different when he was on the campaign trail…I gave up on him.

    • ctrenta on December 3, 2007 at 04:25

    Howard Zinn said it best to describe the situation in Congress

    “When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not to fall in meekly behind them…Whatever politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not for what is winnable, in a shamefully timorous Congress.” ~Howard Zinn

    Food for thought people! Let’s wake up and smell the coffee!  

    • timber on December 3, 2007 at 07:14

    Why dont Democrats talk about funding for a 18 month withdrawal starting now.  

    I was disappointed with Chris Dodd at Fox Sunday—when ask to comment on the charge that if Democrats got what they want re witdrawal 6 months ago—they would now be talking about Al Queda taking over the country instead of winning against Al Queda.

    Sen Dodd then just answered the usual talking point that we must redeplooy troops, etc.

    Al Queda will never win in Iraq even if we left 6 months ago.  The majority Shiites wont let them.

    The secular Sunnis wont allow a fundamentalist extremist to rule.  Sure there may be unholy alliance between Al Queda and Sunni since foreign fighters provided some money, guns and manpower to fight the US and Shiites.  But when Gen Petreus came ad gave them more money and guns and  power than what Al Queda can give they sided with the US.  

    Democrats should say —If the Surge is really working, then we must leave now.  We will fully fund a 18 month withdrawal.  

Comments have been disabled.