Webb shows us how it’s done

July 16, 2007

Too often, when Democratic leaders appear on the Sunday morning shows, they speak with a certain hesitancy about Iraq. You can almost hear them thinking about which right-wing bumper-sticker slogan might be used against them. They want to sound tough, but also criticize the existing policy. They want to acknowledge reality, without being called a “defeatist.” They have to explain why one can support U.S. troops without endorsing their mission.

The whole dynamic makes for awkward debates, in which Dems sometimes act as if they’re on the defensive, whether they’re facing pointed questions or not.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) doesn’t have that problem. He speaks with the confidence that comes from being a decorated war hero who devoted most of his adult life to military service. He’s not worried about being labeled “weak” by the far-right, because no one would believe it anyway.

Yesterday, on Meet the Press, Webb faced off against Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who’s usually pretty adept in these settings. Then again, he’s not usually up against someone with Webb’s background, expertise, and confidence. Consider this exchange:

GRAHAM: Have you been to Iraq and — have you been to Iraq and talked to the soldiers?

WEBB: You know, you haven’t been to Iraq.

GRAHAM: I’ve been to — I’ve been there seven times.

WEBB: You know, you go see the dog and pony shows.

GRAHAM: I’ve been there as a reservist, I have been there and I’m going back in August.

WEBB: That’s what congressmen do. Yeah, I have, I have — I’ve been a member of the military when the senators come in.

GRAHAM: Well, all — listen, something we can agree on, we both admire the men and women in uniform. I don’t doubt your patriotism.

WEBB: Don’t put political words in their mouth.

Point, set, match. Graham brags about his Iraqi trips; Webb says he’s taking a carefully-arranged tour. Graham presumes to speak for those in uniform; Webb says that’s wrong.

Graham would push, Webb would push back harder. We can only hope copies of the show are made and distributed to every Democratic member of Congress.

There were many noteworthy exchanges, but I also wanted to highlight this one.

RUSSERT: Senator Webb, are you trying to run the war?

WEBB: No, I don’t think that there is a war, to start off with. I think that this has been a botched occupation. It’s been going on for four years after the purely military part of it was done. This administration has failed in terms of bringing the right diplomatic formula to the table. We — all of the things that people like myself were predicting would happen if we went into Iraq are the — exactly the sorts of things that the president and the small group of people who have sort of rallied around him are saying will happen if we leave. We were saying that Iran would be empowered, we were saying that international terrorism would be empowered, we were saying that the reputation of the United States would be diminished around the world, and we were saying the region would become more unstable. So we’ve reached the point, and I see, with what Senator Warner and Senator Lugar have introduced, that there’s a good, strong feeling among the Republicans as well, we’ve reached the point where we have to come together as a Congress and attempt to bring some order into this.

The notion that Iraq is not really a “war” in any traditional sense is a point that probably isn’t emphasized enough. If it’s a war, who are we fighting? How do we win? How does the war end?

Mark Kleiman recently noted:

[David] Brooks uses the word war, as almost everyone does, and I think it’s a big mistake. It’s an occupation, and has none of the defining qualities of a war, especially lacking an enemy who can be defeated and accept our will, or who can defeat us and form the agreements that comprise an armistice or treaty. The word also enables the ridiculous Bushian prattle about victory and success.

And Anonymous Liberal, who had an excellent take on Webb’s appearance, added:

And the obnoxious notion that to leave is to “surrender.” Occupations just end. There’s no surrender or victory. They end when the occupying force decides that occupying the territory in question in no longer in its best interest. Did Israel surrender to Hezbollah when it withdrew from Southern Lebanon? It is imperative that the Democrats follow Webb’s lead and start talking about ending the occupation. This is not only a more accurate way of describing the situation, but it will help build the political consensus necessary to actually do something constructive.

Ultimately, I finished watching the show thinking, “The more Webb is on TV, the better.”

“The more Webb is on TV, the better.”

I totally agree. Webb is awesome. He’s tough and heartfelt. You know, he lost to Allen among men in Virgina but the women pulled him through.

  • Also from Meet the Press, Bob Novak has the most laugh-out loud statements I have seen in weeks. I am not a fan of Bill Clinton, but there is no way in hell he would get less than 60% of the vote against any of the possible Republican opponents.

    RUSSERT: Bob Novak, there also seems to be a rather subtle message — subliminal, nonetheless real, in the [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL] message, and that is, it’s time to turn the page. Twenty-eight years of two families controlling the presidency.

    NOVAK: Absolutely. And that is something that everybody talks about. And, you know, talk about nostalgia — it’s hard for a lot of these people to believe this, but there’s not that much nostalgia for Bill Clinton. I just find people who aren’t Democratic professional politicians, who are — you know, are sorry that they’ve had eight years of Republicans, they don’t really yearn for Bill Clinton. But the thing —

    RUSSERT: But he does — he’s very popular in all the polls.

    NOVAK: A lot of people don’t want him back, though, for a third term.

  • Graham sounds like a guy who thinks that playing paintball is worthy of a Combat Infantryman’s Badge. Oooh! Seven visits while surrounded by 100s of heavily armed bodyguards. Oooh! Lindsey is SOOOOOO brave!!

    Been thru the Dog and Pony shows in Bidnez and if you assume that you’re getting the truth from this bullshit then you are blind to reality or at the very least, dumber than a headless chicken (and in the case of Lindsey, both)

  • Considering Graham’s level of talking points babbling, I would have preferred Webb be a little less polite. Something along the lines of “I know it is hard to make sense when your mouth is full of shit…” But I guess that is hoping too much.

  • No, I don’t think that there is a war, to start off with.

    I wrote before that Dems have to be careful of saying that there is not a war, because the other side might turn it against them by saying they are out of touch with reality. I still think they certainly might try that, but when I wrote my comment before, I felt like including the caveat that it may, at some point, become better to argue the distinctions between this situation in Iraq and actual hositilities in a declared war (because we’re showing that the Republicans are distortng, and, we’re cutting off the whole Repub narrative: we know war better than you do; that’s what we tell everyone and that’s what they’re starting to think; and we say war, war, war- all the time; and even the media says war, war, war, all the time now). I didn’t want to jump the gun at the time (it would be very bad if everybody started saying this is not a war without knowing how to follow up to being challenged on that), but it may be that that time has come.

  • I didn’t pay attention to Webb when he was on (my brother and I were pretty much just knocking on Graham), but it sounded pretty good.

    The excerpted language here is pretty good.

  • I had kind of made up my mind yesterday that I wasn’t going to bother with the Sunday shows, but I happened to land on MTP during this segment and managed to wait – somewhat impatiently – for Graham to stop blathering, so that I could hear what Webb had to say. I wasn’t disappointed.

    Graham hit all the talking points – and if you didn’t know what was going on in Iraq, you might even think he was making some good points – but Webb, in his demeanor and in his narrative, was much more compelling.

    I thought Webb hit several particularly good points, in the limited time he got to speak. One was calling bullshit on Graham for portraying the troops as being behind this occupation as a result of their political beliefs – Webb’s reminder that these men and women do what they do because they love their country is one that a lot of people need to be reminded about.

    Because Graham just would not shut up, and Timmy seemed content to let Graham go on uninterrupted, Webb was not able to stress as well as he could the hypocrisy of people like Graham, who portray themselves as such champions of the troops, being opposed to making sure the troops get rest equal to the length of their deployment.

    At the end, I thought Webb made Graham look like the simpering cheerleader he was being.

  • So, would the U.S. Military Occupation be correctly characterized in mainstream American consciousness, it should lead to the logical next question — what is the purpose of the U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq? Furthermore, what is the purpose of the billions of U.S. Taxpayer dollars embezzled by Dick’s Private Corporate Empire, other than to enrich the anational, amoral, imperial corporatists who wish to enthrone One World Government? How does the U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq in any way contribute to American National Security?

    Color me a “conspiracy nut,” but King George, The Dick-tator, their cabal of Loyal Bushie Brownshi(r)ts, and the NeoCon 9/11 Hit Squad have conspired to break the back of our American Armed Forces. We are less secure in our national defense now, I believe, than at any time in our history. We are vulnerable to subversive terrorist attacks as well as attacks through conventional warfare — precisely because our military has been weakened and our treasury robbed by the treacherous actions of a few disloyal traitors.

  • Webb could have done better. A good response to Graham’s “I’ve been to Iraq seven times” would have been along the lines of “Yes, and each time you said we were making progress and you have been wrong every time.” Then have examples.

    I think that should be a key strategy of every Dems talking whether on air with a republican or not – they have been wrong (or deceitful) every step of the way. Why should anyone listen to them now? For example, why should we think your predictions on what would happen if we pull-out given that you have been wrong about everything so far (and that are intelligence agencies feel differently).

  • I wanted Webb to tell Graham cracker to just shut the hell up for a minute. “Blathering” is the perfect word.

    I read this morning that we might have another “surge”. Can you say, “Vietnam”?

  • Occupation it is, and occupation must end! Bush is not a nation builder as he noted in the 2000 election, and now he is proving it before our very eyes. Oh, and by the way, Bush is for tough sentencing guidelines for all Americans save his precious Libby! -Kevo

  • From the beginning I have referred to it as Bush’s Quagmire in Iraq. I also refer to it as an invasion, crusade or occupation. Never as war.

    A war implies at least two warring parties, with victory and surrender clearly defined by everyone involved, as you say. Those conditions, if they ever existed, came to an end on the May Day, 2003 with the Shrub’s “Mission Accomplished” speech on the deck of the aircraft carrier (which made to spend an extra half-day at sea for the photo-op so Commander Codpiece could show off his … well, codpiece). At time U.S. military deaths totaled one hundred thirty-nine (139).

    I never understand why somebody in the media doesn’t ask whichever blowhard they’re interviewing what they think of Cheney’s 1991 assessment: “I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do?”

    I never understand why somebody in the media doesn’t ask whether Reagan was wrong when he decided (after our marines got blown up in Lebanon) that there was no point getting bogged down in a civil war there and immediately pulled the remaining troops out. For the invasion/conquest of medical students in Grenada.

    I never understand why thoughtful people give our media the time of day. We’d be a much healthier country if we woke up one morning and found them all out in street begging for honest work.

  • “Can you say, “Vietnam”?”

    Oh, yes indeedy, Dale, we can all say “Vietnam” and should keep saying it, loud and clear!

  • I disagree with Michael at 9. I think it’s too debateable as to whether we’ve seen “progress” (as far as, Repubs will have examples they can point to). What Repubs will point to will be examples that won’t be relevant to overall progress- emphemeral examples that don’t mean the violence is going away, but just that people (us) in Iraq are building sand castles before the waves come to knock them down each time. I know it’s weird that the Repubs focus on this stuff, but I just don’t think the progress issue is good to invite the Republicans to argue about, because it can be hard to understand.

    That said, when the Republicans do argue about it, don’t hesitate to argue about it- talk about it just like I did above (sand castle analogy; explain how analogy applies to particular examples Republicans cite of so-called progress), argue well, and win.

  • I know Senators are supposed to have a sense of decorum, but watching Webb eat Graham’s lunch I thought back to the days when folks would actually pull pistols and duel. I would love to see something like the Burr-Hamilton duel, only in that scenario it would be Cheney on the wrong side of the gun…

  • As much as I wanted to see Webb as eating Graham’s lunch, because of all the cross talk, it came across better in the written accounts than when watching it.

    In Steve’s original post he accurately id’d that dems speak somewhat hesitantly about Iraq, and until he got cooking, Webb came across the same way to me.

  • Webb understands the military. He could make a great VP candidate and carry Virginia’s 12 electoral votes for the Democrats.

  • I wish we could replace Pelosi with someone who has a spine. Maybe Jim Webb could sit down with Nancy Pelosi and teach her about how to be a leader instead of a political animal.

  • I wish we could replace Pelosi with someone who has a spine. Maybe Jim Webb could sit down with Nancy Pelosi and teach her about how to be a leader instead of a politician.

  • Occupation rather than war. I agree it is more accurate. While I do think Webb would theoretically be a good VP, I don’t know that I would feel comfortable with him as President, particularly with the expanded powers, the imperial presidency. It’s good to balance his effectiveness in discussing war with the knowledge he didn’t speak to John Kerry for decades because of Kerry’s stance on Vietnam. Intolerance is not the best character trait.

  • I’d love to see Webb on the national ticket as well… but he’ll never get there. Ironically, that’s for the same reasons I think he’d be so good: he refuses to be scripted or to muzzle himself in support of the Party Line.

    I thought the most interesting thing he said on Russert’s show yesterday was when he pushed back against Graham’s bullshit apologetics for “the surge.” Limp Lindsay was talking about how we had “taken back” Anbar Province because the population there had been won over by Petreus; Webb countered that what had happened was the population exacting “redneck justice” against al Qaeda in Iraq, which would have happened whether or not the Americans were present in force.

    If you know anything about Webb, you know that he’s not unsympathetic to notions like “redneck justice.” As it happens, I think he’s right under certain circumstances–and, more to the point for political purposes, I strongly suspect that such a view resonates with the American electorate. But can you imagine Hillary Clinton’s campaign advisors taking on a guy who dares to voice such uncouth thoughts?

    Webb makes so much sense politically as Hillary’s running mate that maybe they’ll ask him anyway, and just sweat through the days waiting for him to say something that upsets their delicate stomachs. But I doubt it (and I doubt he’d accept second billing on a Clinton-headed ticket).

    Webb’s appeal just reminds me that the two-party system really does constrain our options and unacceptably narrow our choices. At this point, I plan to support the Democrats next year–but my ideal really would be a Bloomberg/Webb ticket unfettered by all the political baggage and obligatory ass-kissing that goes with being labeled as Democrats.

  • Attention Democrats! Watch the video or read the transcript. Try to have the same certainty and balls as Webb. We won the war four years ago. By definition, an occupier only owns the ground on which he stands, As soon as he leaves that spot, he no longer owns it. Either send 1,000,000 troops and kill everey one, or get the hell out. We didn’t lose in Vietnam, we quit because someone figured out it wasn’t winable. Enough!

  • Webb could have said, “My son is serving in Iraq. Is yours?”. That would have scored him some easy debate points…

    Instead, he won the debate without using his son.

    Now that is what I call class. Pure, unadulterated CLASS.

  • GRAHAM: Have you been to Iraq and — have you been to Iraq and talked to the soldiers?

    Poor Cracker… Must have forgotten that Webb has a direct line into what the soldiers think. Jimmy’s been back home from Anbar for about a month, and doubtless, his father debriefed him thouroughly.

    • Comments are closed.