Webb's Disappointing Rebuttal

(based upon official released text)

Obviously unable to control themselves on even a purely ceremonial night, the Democrat Party, having recently secured but a slim Congressional majority, opted to breeze through any areas for potential common ground in three short introductory paragraphs via spokesperson Jim Webb, so as to get immediately to points of contention between the two parties. If the Bush administration is looking for compromise, they'd be wise to read that sign.

As for those points of contention:

There are two areas where our respective parties have largely stood in contradiction, and I want to take a few minutes to address them tonight. The first relates to how we see the health of our economy – how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans. The second regards our foreign policy – how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion that will also allow us to continue to fight the war against international terrorism, and to address other strategic concerns that our country faces around the world.

When one looks at the health of our economy, it’s almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it’s nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.

At a time when most reasonable experts conclude today's economy is an extremely positive tribute to the fiscal policy of the Bush presidency, a Democrat Party more interested in wealth distribution and entitlements can't bring itself to see it that way.

I'll link as oppose to address mostly the same populist rhetoric we've been hearing from Democrats for years. As usual, they seek only to divide America by class, instead of celebrating an America of free enterprise that encourages and allows even the poorest among us to elevate themselves and accumulate wealth as a result of their work.

They remain the party which seeks to cultivate a society of average people, as opposed to nurturing what's best in each and every American by urging them forward in working for their dreams, financial and otherwise. In the world view of today's Democrats, apparently no one can succeed without government help. That concept flies directly in the face of most everything that has made America great, through its appreciation for rugged independence and every individual's unique efforts and strengths.

And of course at a time when we have so many in harms way, with more to follow under the direction of the rightfully elected Commander-in-Chief, naturally Webb and the Democrats would have to bring up Iraq.

At a time when we face a global threat from radical Islam and our last best hope is likely seeding much needed reforms through freedom and democracy within the Middle-East, even while acknowledging a far greater sacrifice of his Father's generation when his country called, Democrat Webb's message to the America of today is, the best we can do is cut and run and pretend that unreasonable and deadly enemies fully dedicated to our destruction can be negotiated with just as Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler before half of Europe was gone.

Webb's rebuttal only served to make the obvious even more clear. Anyone looking to the Democrat Party of today for genuine leadership and the valuable inspiration required to wage a difficult generational war would be well advised to look somewhere else.

I want to share with all of you a picture that I have carried with me for more than 50 years. This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served our country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq....

The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable – and predicted – disarray that has followed.

The war’s costs to our nation have been staggering. Financially. The damage to our reputation around the world. The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism. And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq’s cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq. 

Comments

[Artie]

The Dems would have an even larger margin in the Senate if more GOP senators were up for reelection in 06. What a moron. The fact that you are 'disappointed' indicates that Webb is saying the right things. You 28%ers are amazing.

[roanoke]

Where the hell is this Neo-Jackassonian getting this stat from:
________________________________________________

***nor does the majority of our military.?***
________________________________________________

What did he poll the military himself?

Really what basis in fact is he deriving this from?

What a pompous bastard.

[Legalize]

How fitting that an irrelevant blogger chose to focus on the 5 minute response of Webb rather than the 45 minute address by an irrelevant President - a true sign that power no longer resides with the barking minority, but rather with the clear majority of the public that sees the Democratic message as the prevailing message of the day.

The best you could do was misrepresent Webb's response as the usual old, tired, "cut and run" nonsense that you desperately hope against hope, were the ACTUAL message. There was no call for cut and run; there was no call for "precipitous" withdrawal. There was the very obvious (to anyone who isn't a blind partisan hack) call for responsible, and effective foreign policy - one that actually addresses the problems we face rather than aggravates those problems.

As for your economic "analysis": I wonder who your "reasonable experts" are. Probably not the ones who note the gross disparity (that means "difference" for all you wingers) between vast wealth and vast poverty, the declining purchasing power of the American consumer, the mounting debt of the American consumer, the mounting population that is living with zero health care, the mounting population that is living below the poverty level, and the mounting population that is living paycheck to paycheck, etc.; and the few that actually enjoy the benefits manifested by the growth we see in the Dow. Here's a tip, detective, GDP, which is the most misleading indicator of overall prosperity, is DOWN since the Clinton years; debt is UP; inflation is UP; purchasing power is DOWN; health care costs are WAY UP, especially for small businesses - for whom most of us work; and low wage jobs that don't keep up with the aforementioned costs are UP as well. Sure, unemployment is relatively low, but most of the people earning wages are not able to put those wages towards the very basics required to sustain themselves, let alone a family.

Of course you don't get that your message has been roundly rejected; that is not surprising. What IS surprising is that you continue to lie about it, while at the same time tip your hand as to who is actually in charge for the moment in U.S. politics, i.e. NOT YOU. Get used to it. And PLEASE continue to not get it. I have no doubt that this will be the case.

[Phoenix]

Pompous? He was given the rebuttal by Reid - one that was written by Reid and several others, and Webb rewrote the entire thing. Webb's narcissism shone brightly for all to see.

And his thinly veiled threat at the end? Amazing.

[Stormy70]

Webb should have let his toupee give the rebuttal. It was all anyone could stare at the whole time.

[Oregonian]

Roanoke: Before you go calling your own senator a "pompous bastard," you might want to try reading a newspaper.

------------------
Poll for Military Papers Finds Troops' Support for War Plunging (December 29, 2006)
------------------
"a poll for the Military Times newspapers, released Friday, shows that more troops disapprove of the president’s handling of the war than approve of it."

...

"Barely one in three service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the new poll for the four papers (Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Times). In another startling finding, only 41% now feel it was the right idea to go to war in Iraq in the first place."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003526245

[TheSpartan]

Why should the democrats strike a bipartisan tone? After so many years we're back in control. We have a voice and President Lame Duck had better start listening. The president sounded weak in his state of the union, Webb struck a position and attitude of strength.

[ApplePie]

George Allen had a great speech tonight. Far better than the President's. Oh, wait, you mean that was Jim Webb. But I thought Allen won Virginia? I swear I heard that on Fox. I guess they were lying.

[Phoenix]

Oregonian,

Did those articles you mentioned detail why the troops disapprove?

I'm thinking they hate the ROE. Who established those? The PC Police?

(I know I could follow your link... tired. Sorry, but I'd still ask the same question.)

[Jethro]

The troops thought they were going into Iraq to get revenge for 9/11.
Now they are figuring out that was a lie.
I know I'd be pissed.

[Bill Adkins]

George W. Bush looked like a defendant seeking mercy at sentencing - or worse yet, a defendant looking for shock probation. "Give me one more chance - puhleeezzee? I'm changed - I'll do better - don't be mean to meeee!!!" What a whiner and incompetent he is. Or, I have to ask -- is Bush a Branch Davidian? He's taking on that Koresh look - "Don't come any closer, we'll burn the place down!!"

[Don]

The Republican response to Webb's rebuttal is the standard bully finally meets actual man. Republican fear is palpable. We're still in the blustery stand off stage, but Repubs are already scanning for the nearest exit.

[Theresa, MSgt (ret), USAF]

When the next attack occurs, I certainly hope this "strong, determined, for the people new congress" led by that stalwart defender of children, Queen piglosi, has the collective sack to do something. Their past track record of defending this country doesn't support that, but hey, a girl can hope. I just pray the deaths aren't in the millions this time.

[David M]

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 01/24/2007

[Artie]

Theresa, you are such a scared sheep. Btw, the fact that you were some enlisted nobody in the Air Force is totally irrelevant and the fact that you feel a need to point it out proves what a zero you are.

[Horselover Fat]

Nice try morons, but i guess you didn't actually bother to read those polls.

Iraq, Afghanistan and President Bush
6) Should the U.S. have gone to war in Iraq?

Yes 56%
No 26%
No opinion/no answer 7%
Decline to answer/no answer 11%

7) Regardless of whether you think the U.S. should have gone to war, how likely is the U.S. to succeed?

Very likely to succeed 31%
Somewhat likely to succeed 42%
Not very likely to succeed 17%
Not at all likely to succeed 3%
No opinion/no answer 6%

10) Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?

Approve 54%
Disapprove 25%
No opinion 9%
Decline to answer 12%

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2005_chart2.php

Politics, Civilians and Policy

7) Some people think that by criticizing the military, news organizations weaken the country's defenses. Others think that such criticism helps keep our country militarily prepared. Which position is closest to your opinion?

Weakens defense 62%
Keeps nation prepared 22%
Don't know/no answer 16%

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2005_chart4.php

Morale

6) Would you recommend a military career to others?

Yes 81%
No 14%
No opinion/no answer 5%

7) If you had a son or daughter who was planning to enter the military, would you support that step or would you suggest a different occupation?

Support that step 72%
Suggest different occupation 22%
No opinion/no answer 5%

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006poll_morale.php

Jim Webb and the "Run from Baghdad" crowd need to explain how long we will let genocidal slaughter take place after we take our troops "off the streets of Baghdad" as he said in his speech last night. How long will we fiddle while Baghdad burns? How many thousands of Iraqis will have to die before we send our troops back in to do the job we should be doing now? If you don't have a plan for the death and destruction that will take place in the aftermath of our retreat, then you really don’t have a plan at all.

[larry]

i think webb should have flexed his muscles for us - poped the bi's - and threatened to *kick bush's ass right there right then!!*

you know, what passes for the democrat version of class; and dignity.

[Tom]

Jim Webb and the "Run from Baghdad" crowd need to explain how long we will let genocidal slaughter take place after we take our troops "off the streets of Baghdad" as he said in his speech last night. How long will we fiddle while Baghdad burns? How many thousands of Iraqis will have to die before we send our troops back in to do the job we should be doing now? If you don't have a plan for the death and destruction that will take place in the aftermath of our retreat, then you really don’t have a plan at all.

Posted by: Horselover Fat

Are you serious? Webb and his family have spent time in uniform as much as anybody. The voters made their choice. Is that not enough? The best you can do is to accuse him of 'running'? Quick question: Why are you not fighting over there? It seems as though you want everybody else to fight for your ego and confidence. If you are so set in your beliefs - get you a$$ to Iraq and show us the way. If not, you are a chickhawk. All hat and no cattle. So why not accuse 70% of americans they are traitors, why not accuse the majority of soldiers who are against this thing, why not accuse the repubs who are sick of this debacle? Your little love fest of 'killing brown people' is becoming more and more crazed

[Theresa, MSgt (ret), USAF]

Artie, I earned the title, so I use it. Oops, that’s right, EARNED is a foreign concept to you democrats. The blowjob the leftards are giving brave Jim Webb is based solely on his having spent SOME time in uniform. So, if a one or two term enlistee can use his military service to justify being a total classless asshole leftard poster child in public to the President of the United States, than I, a 21 year enlistee/retiree, sure as hell can use my damn title any time I chose. And by the way Artie, I contributed my fair share to the defense of this country. What have you contributed, dickhead?

[sylvia james]

Horsefat Lover:

The poll you posted is over a year old.

This is the current one, which says exactly what Webb said it did.

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php

"
Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president’s approval rating among the military is only slight ly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush’s handling of the war. While ap proval of the president’s war lead ership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military."

[Artie]

Theresa, you are a foul-mouthed, uneducated slob. Enjoy the welfare/pension that you get. Loser.

[Oregonian]

Horselover Fat: Let's try reading those polls together, shall we?

---------------------------------
Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?
2004: Approve 63% - Disapprove 20%
2005: Approve 54% - Disapprove 25%
2006: Approve 35% - Disapprove 42%

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2004_chart2.php
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2005_chart2.php
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006poll_iraq.php
---------------------------------

As Jim Webb so accurately put it, "The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction."

[Horselover Fat]

Sylvia you are absolutely right, I stand corrected and I apologies for a silly error. The poll results I posted are from a year ago but they only ones readily available from the site.

There are however some interesting thins in the article you linked to. Like the following paragraph:

"While approval of Bush’s handling of the war has plunged, approval for his overall performance as president remains high at 52 percent. While that is down from his high of 71 percent in 2004, it is still far above the approval ratings of the general population, where that number has fallen into the 30s."

So the troops still support the President, even if they don’t support the way the war has been handled. If they don’t support the way the war has been handled that hardly means they want to join the Jim Webb “Run from Baghdad” crowd. Many soldiers disapprove of the ROE they where forced to comply with which kept them from being as heavy handed as they would have liked to be, specifically in dealing with religious militias.

And now to deal with Tom “The White Liberal Trust Fund Baby”.
Tom wrote:
"Are you serious? Webb and his family have spent time in uniform as much as anybody. The voters made their choice. Is that not enough? The best you can do is to accuse him of 'running'? Quick question: Why are you not fighting over there? It seems as though you want everybody else to fight for your ego and confidence. If you are so set in your beliefs - get you a$$ to Iraq and show us the way. If not, you are a chickhawk. All hat and no cattle. So why not accuse 70% of americans they are traitors, why not accuse the majority of soldiers who are against this thing, why not accuse the repubs who are sick of this debacle? Your little love fest of 'killing brown people' is becoming more and more crazed"

Forget the Fact that Tom “The White Liberal Trust Fund Baby” refuses to answer any of the questions I posed. Forget the numerous spelling and grammatical errors. Forget the arrogant assumption that I haven’t served in the military. Lets take the rant line by line:

“Are you serious? Webb and his family have spent time in uniform as much as anybody. The voters made their choice. Is that not enough?”

What does this have to do with explaining how we will deal with Iraq has a failed state? The man served his country, his father served, his brother served, his wife’s brother’s college roommate served, fantastic, so did I, so did mine. What does that have to do with Iraq? Zippo.

“The best you can do is to accuse him of 'running'?”

Jim Webb said we should “take our soldiers off the streets of Baghdad”. If that’s not “running away” from our problems what is?

“Quick question: Why are you not fighting over there?”

Quick Question: How do you know I’m not? How do you know I haven’t? Answer: You don’t. I did serve in ’91, but missed this trip, so far. What have you ever fought for Tom “The White Liberal Trust Fund Baby”?

“It seems as though you want everybody else to fight for your ego and confidence.”

I don’t even know what this means. Again what does this have to do with the questions I posed?

“If you are so set in your beliefs - get you a$$ to Iraq and show us the way. If not, you are a chickhawk.”

What’s a chickhawk? J/K

Ahh the chicken hawk argument. The quintessential argument of White Liberal Trust Fund Babies. Firstly, if I am a chicken hawk I share good company, Lincoln, FDR, Churchill, Bill Clinton, the list goes on and on. Secondly the argument is dumb on it’s face. Only those who have been to war can have opinions about whether or not to go to war? This begs the question: what gives Tom “The White Liberal Trust Fund Baby” the right to an opinion? Tom “The White Liberal Trust Fund Baby” has never been to war, why does he get to have a say anymore than I do? Further more, Tom “The White Liberal Trust Fund Baby has never had an abortion, so no opinion allowed on that subject either. Never been an Illegal immigrant? No opinion on illegal immigration allowed. Never been poor? No opinion on poverty allowed. Never been black (like me), No opinion on race allowed.

Complete and utter stupidity. It’s not like the foundation of this country is the free exchange of ideas between individuals. Not in Tom The White Liberal Trust Fund Baby’s world.

“So why not accuse 70% of americans they are traitors, why not accuse the majority of soldiers who are against this thing, why not accuse the repubs who are sick of this debacle? Your little love fest of 'killing brown people' is becoming more and more crazed”

Talk about crazed.

Being against the war doesn’t mean you want to run away like Jim Webb does. The majority of Americans want to stay and finish the job because they understand the consequences of leaving Iraq. That’s why the Dems won’t cut off funding or do anything that will actually stop the war. As far as “killing brown people” goes, I am a brown person, you, Tom “The White Liberal Trust Fund Baby”, clearly are not. It is also clear that you couldn’t careless whether they live or die if you believe we should abandon those brown folks to sectarian genocide. As bad as things in Iraq are now they would be infinitely worse if we run away. If you advocate abandoning Baghdad or Iraq has a whole then you owe it to us and the Iraqis to explain what you feel the consequences of that action will be. If you feel things will just get better on their own, as Jim Webb seems to, then you are a fool at best and a willing accomplice to genocide at worst.

[Car]

Why do you 'warriors' think that the opinions of the military matter in deciding the course in Iraq? Last I checked, their job was to follow orders. Bushco has been in Iraq since 3/03 and has achieved nothing other than a $500B tax bill and a lot of death. Why squander more for an inevitable loss? Face it cons, you idiots backed a loser adn a failure. Mission accomplished!

[Horselover Fat]

Why make a cogent argument when you can just toss bombs and run like scarred little girl?

"Bushco has been in Iraq since 3/03 and has achieved nothing other than a $500B tax bill and a lot of death."

25 million Iraqis liberated from a murderous regime that killed them by the hundreds of thousands, nope, no achievement here.

Idiotic rant by another white liberal trust fund baby, MISSION ACOMPLISHED!

[Oregonian]

Horselover Fat says: "The poll results I posted are from a year ago but they only ones readily available from the site."

Yeah... except, of course, for those one-month-old results from December 2006 that are posted right at the top of the polls page.

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/

You might want to be a little more cautious about calling other people "morons." Just a thought.

[Horselover Fat]

Already apologized for my mistake.

Care to answer any of the questions I posed about the aftermath of our possible abandonment of Iraq?

[Michael Douglas' Ghost]

For the record, Kerry was 100% right about the military being full of morons. 90% of military members polled thought that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Does it get any dumber???

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12103.htm

[Horselover Fat]

More poll propaganda from the White Liberal Trust Fund Babies.

http://www.uncorrelated.com/2006/03/zogby_poll_propaganda.html

[Horselover Fat]

"For the record, Kerry was 100% right about the military being full of morons."

Absolutely disgusting. Any of the White Liberal Trust Fund Babies here who "support the troops" care to shred this a-hole?

[Michael Douglas' Ghost]

There is no bigger trust fund baby than the dried up drunk that you call your leader. You morons make fine cannon-fodder, i'll give you that.

90%! What a bunch of morons. Thank goodness for the military, there aren't enough jobs at Walmart for all the dopes.

[Oregonian]

"Already apologized for my mistake."

No, actually you apologized and THEN you claimed that the 2006 results were not "readily available." You barely had one foot out of your mouth before you put the other one in.

[Horselover Fat]

It wasn't when I went looking for it. It has since been posted.

Care to answer any of the questions I posed about the aftermath of our possible abandonment of Iraq?

Or are you a frightened White Liberal Trust Fund Baby like the rest of the posters here?

[Ken]

What do you have against trust funds?? I'm thankful that my family worked hard for generations and was able to afford me a lot of advantages. Your anger is misdirected, but then, you cons are always angry for the wrong reasons.

[Les Bergh]

Mr.Webb failed to mention the fact that his Dear Dad would not have been a Berlin Airlift hero had a cowardly Dem. congress forced Truman out of Berlin by claiming it was an "internal matter". He also conveniently forgot to mention the fact that if Eisenhower would not have cut and ran from Korea in order to win the presidency we would not still have 40,000 troops in Korea nor be under nuclear threat from N.Korea 50+ years later. How much has that cost so far? Hundreds of billions of dollars! Jim Webb may have been a hero once, but he is a loser now!

[Horselover Fat]

so we are talking about these poll results right? http://www.militarycity.com/polls/

Published Dec.29, 2006?

6) Should the U.S. have gone to war in Iraq?

Yes 41%
No 37%
No opinion/no answer 9%
Decline to answer/no answer 11%

Seems only 37% think the war was a mistake.

7) Regardless of whether you think the U.S. should have gone to war, how likely is the U.S. to succeed?

Very likely to succeed 13%
Somewhat likely to succeed 37%
Not very likely to succeed 31%
Not at all likely to succeed 10%
No opinion/no answer 8%

Seems 50% think the War is either Very Likely or Somewhat Likely to succeed, while 41% think it will fail. Iteresting.

Just so we know what we are talking about:
Published:
Dec. 29, 2006


Iraq, Afghanistan and President Bush
1) Are you on active duty?

NOTE: Only active-duty responses were counted in remaining results.

Yes 100%
No 0%
2) Service branch:

Army 46%
Navy 21%
Air Force 23%
Marine Corps. 9%
Coast Guard 1%
No response 0%
3) How many times have you deployed to Iraq?

Once 32%
Twice 12%
Three times 3%
More than three times 3%
Never/no response 50%
4) How many times have you deployed to Afghanistan?

Once 12%
Twice 1%
Three times 0%
More than three times 0%
Never/no response 85%
5) In total, I have deployed in support of the war in Afghanistan and/or Iraq for:

Less than 2 months 3%
3-6 months 17%
7-12 months 25%
13-18 months 11%
19 or more months 9%
Haven't deployed/no response 34%
6) Should the U.S. have gone to war in Iraq?

Yes 41%
No 37%
No opinion/no answer 9%
Decline to answer/no answer 11%
7) Regardless of whether you think the U.S. should have gone to war, how likely is the U.S. to succeed?

Very likely to succeed 13%
Somewhat likely to succeed 37%
Not very likely to succeed 31%
Not at all likely to succeed 10%
No opinion/no answer 8%
8) How soon do you think the Iraqi military will be ready to replace large numbers of American troops?

Less than a year 2%
1-2 years 20%
3-5 years 36%
5-10 years 22%
More than 10 years 12%
No opinion/no answer 7%
9) How long do you think the U.S. will need to stay in Iraq to reach its goals?

Less than a year 2%
1-2 years 8%
3-5 years 26%
5-10 years 31%
More than 10 years 23%
No opinion/no answer 8%
10) Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?

Approve 35%
Disapprove 42%
No opinion 10%
Decline to answer 12%
11) Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

Approve 52%
Disapprove 31%
No opinion 6%
Decline to answer 10%
12) Do you consider the war in Iraq to be part of the war on terrorism that began Sept. 11, 2001, or do you consider it to be an entirely separate military action?

Part of the war on terrorism 47%
Separate military action 47%
No opinion 5%
13) We currently have 145,000 troops in Iraq and Kuwait. How many troops do you think we should have there?

Zero 13%
0-50,000 7%
50,000-144,000 6%
145,000 13%
146,000-200,000 22%
200,000+ 16%
No opinion/Don't know 23%
14) We currently have 18,000 troops in Afghanistan. How many troops do you think we should have there?

Zero 8%
0-10,000 7%
10,000-17,000 4%
18,000 15%
19,000-50,000 27%
50,000+ 12%
No opinion/Don't know 26%

Other Army
Times Publishing Company websites

[sglover]

Jesus, the right-wingers get more rabid, delusional, desperate every time I check in with them. But what I'll never understand is how they manage to get more stupid with time. It's like they've signed on for some kind of negative learning correspondence course.

To "Theresa, Msgt" -- I'm a vet myself. I was a navy corpsman, though not a lifer. I served in a decidely rear-echelon post, as I'm almost certain you did, too, being in the Air Force. I got the GI Bill, you got a pension. But let's not kid ourselves -- there's military service, and there's military service. Your sneer,

"The blowjob the leftards are giving brave Jim Webb is based solely on his having spent SOME time in uniform"

kinda sorta overlooks the fact that Webb earned a Navy Cross for shielding one of his men from a grenade, while assaulting an enemy position. Neither you nor I ever came within a light-year of this kind of service (and this clown Reihl -- what's there to say?) Now I know that you people like to play hate-filled games about who really "earned" their decorations, and I know that you have a deep psychological need to tear down anybody who might be your better. But for your own sake, you might pause to reflect that a guy like Webb has demonstrated accomplishments in the real world, so that your sneers mainly make you look uninformed, shabby -- pretty sad.

I'm curious -- why doesn't this Reihl putz enlist for The Cause? He looks healthy enough, and the recruiters are taking all comers. He could learn a useful skill.

[Neil]

Dan won't enlist b/c he grew up White Trash in NJ and now has what is (for him) a great job. He's a patriot AND a success.

[Horselover Fat]

Ken,

I find it ironic that rich white kids see fit to tell me that as a minority I am used as pawn by the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.”

I find it ironic that rich white kids who have never fought for anything, never earned anything they have, see fit to tell those who do fight, those who do believe in their mission in Iraq, that they are guilty of crimes akin to genocide while simultaneously claiming to support the troops.

[Horselover Fat]

sglover, neil.

Care to answer any of the questions I posed about the aftermath of our possible abandonment of Iraq?

[Neil]

No reason that we should support a 'plan' that involves squandering additional billions by acting as a referee in a civil war. Bush and friends had their chance. Now its time to cut off the losses and the funding.

[James]

FoxNews has it right on Bush's speech: It was flat. Not that good; It won't do anything for him.

Webb's rebuttal was better because Bush's was flat.

The last part was pure Marine.

However, Neither speech gave useful information on how to handle Iraq. No details, no "why" our ideas will work. All rhetoric. The reason is simply: No one wants to do the real solution to win Iraq, nobody. And that's to retake Iraq in a second invasion and take absolute control of the entire country. You'll need 500,000 COMBAT troops. But the fighting will stop. Then rebuild Iraq.

[sglover]

Horsefat,

"Care to answer any of the questions I posed about the aftermath of our possible abandonment of Iraq?"

It will be bad. Much as war sceptics always warned. It's bad now. The issue that you refuse to confront is, what power does the U.S. have to influence events? After almost four years of the most frightfully botched military operation since the Civil War, only the wilfully obtuse can have any confidence that we can accomplish anything. Hell, we don't even know what we WANT to accomplish. (However, Bush does. He wants to stall and hand the whole awful problem off to the poor bastard who succeeds him. It's that legendary devotion to responsibility held by the "Party of Values".)

To anyone vaguely acquainted with history, it was clear from Day One that the whole idiotic adventure would open Pandora's Box, and leave us in a situation with no good options. Deliberately opting for a situation in which there are no good options is just about the most stupid thing that any would-be strategist can do. But Bush did it, we're staring right into the maw of Pandora's Box -- and you think you're going to impress anybody with the world-shaking insight that the whole region could turn to shit?!?! You and your crowd should be EMBARRASSED. You should be CONTRITE. You're in no position to lecture, or demand answers, from anybody.

It continues to astonish me that right-wingers (not true "conservatives" in any meaningful sense) want me to believe on the one hand that government isn't capable of running a school system or regulating commerce, yet perfectly competent to perform massive social engineering projects in profoundly alien culture half a world away. Less befuddled minds would notice the contradiction, and maybe do some necessary soul-searching. .....

[punkingale]

Horseloverfat: What makes you think the aftermath in Iraq will be any different if we leave in six months or six years? It's Sunni against Shia and we're caught in the middle. We don't even know the enemy.

[sglover]

"However, Neither speech gave useful information on how to handle Iraq. No details, no "why" our ideas will work. All rhetoric. The reason is simply: No one wants to do the real solution to win Iraq, nobody. And that's to retake Iraq in a second invasion and take absolute control of the entire country. You'll need 500,000 COMBAT troops. But the fighting will stop. Then rebuild Iraq."

If the administration had been at all honest about the costs of their little adventure, it never would have got off the ground. It's another piece of recent history that right-wingers desperately want to avoid discussing.

I defy any remaining Bush lickspittle to find a greater blunder in all American history than our glorious Mesopotamian adventure. Maybe, just maybe, the War of 1812 compares. But Vietnam looks positively sensible, wise, in comparison to the strategic disaster in Iraq. And the worst may be ahead of us.....

[sglover]

James -- the bit about Bush lickspittles wasn't directed at you. I don't know what your take on all this is. But this site does seem to be infested by Bush lickspittles, and it's certainly hosted by one.

I thought Webb was pretty emphatic that a withdrawal plan had better be forthcoming, and that we need to conduct regional diplomacy (read, it's time to talk to Syria and Iran). I also thought that he managed to make his arguments in an economical manner, so that it was about as aesthetically pleasing as political speech gets, nowadays.

And I'll actually give Bush some credit for his performance -- he wasn't as flagrantly embarrassing as he often is, and he managed to read the teleprompter competently. For him, that's about as good as it ever gets. I never expected the performance to have any real content. At this point, what the hell can Bush possibly say? Two out of three (or is it three out of four, now?) Americans believe that every word out of the Idiot Prince's mouth is a lie.

[sglover]

Whoa.....

"Mr.Webb failed to mention the fact that his Dear Dad would not have been a Berlin Airlift hero had a cowardly Dem. congress forced Truman out of Berlin by claiming it was an "internal matter". He also conveniently forgot to mention the fact that if Eisenhower would not have cut and ran from Korea in order to win the presidency we would not still have 40,000 troops in Korea nor be under nuclear threat from N.Korea 50+ years later. How much has that cost so far? Hundreds of billions of dollars! Jim Webb may have been a hero once, but he is a loser now!"

EISENHOWER is gutless defeatists, now?!?!? EISENHOWER? I think a few former German field marshalls might have a more informed perspective about that than you.

My god..... It's time to swab the decks of this fever swamp with rabies vaccine. You people aren't "conservatives" -- you're some kind of BizarroLand hybrid of Curtis LeMay and Chairman Mao. Can any of you right-wingers hold jobs higher than 7-11 Slurpee technician?

[Charles Warren]

We have this foolishness from Horselover Fat...

"It is also clear that you couldn’t careless whether they live or die if you believe we should abandon those brown folks to sectarian genocide. As bad as things in Iraq are now they would be infinitely worse if we run away."

We have no business policing other people's civil wars. We owe the Iraqi Sunnis nothing more than we owed the Sudeten Germans or the Ostdeutsch. They are our enemies and we have no obligation to die protecting them. They did their damndest to provoke this civil war. So why should we protect them from the consequences ?

It is the nature of a war of religion that it just plain has to burn itself out. The European Wars of Religion begun by the Reformation only ended at the horror of the Thirty Years War. Wars of religion only end when the zealots and haters are dead or burned out. Peace comes when the proud and brave and strong have had enough of killing. We neither started this fire nor can we stop it. And isn't it funny how the rationales of this war just keep shifting ?

I'd leave off the race card, Horselover Fat. Blacks can see right through it.

Riehl, I always get a kick out of you hyper capitalist types complaining about 'class war'. Your entire agenda of offshoring/outsourcing/illegal immigration free trade globalism has been one big class war against working Americans. You whine 'class war' when working people start to fight back. Get used to it. It's going to be theme of the new Democratic majority coalition as Reagan Democrats accept that they cannot afford the cost of your cheap labor/permanent war agenda.

You are what I like to call Liberty League Republicans. The Liberty League was a political front group of the mega rich to fight against FDR and the New Deal. Their response to the Depression was lecturing the guys on the bread lines about bootstrap rugged individualism from their yachts and penthouses.

[Ashley]

“Mr.Webb failed to mention the fact that his Dear Dad would not have been a Berlin Airlift hero had a cowardly Dem. congress…”

And you, Les, fail to mention that his “dear dad” knew going into Baghdad was a colossal blunder and did not, still does not, support the tactic or the motivation. Seems like a lot of actual warriors, from dad the Joint Chiefs, don't like Iraq or how it went off from the jump.

[charlie]

Dan, what is your military record? When have you put your life on the line? These are not rhetorical questions. You disparage the service of others, what have you done except talk?