The Virginian-Pilot
Even when he's playing the same political game as everybody else, Sen. Jim Webb refuses to abide by the rules, including the one that requires politicians to reduce every issue to a yes or no sound bite.
Asked a simple question by Tim Russert about how the surge is going in Iraq, Webb provided a four-part answer that stretched on for several minutes and 723 words, including nuances about geography and religion, history and perspective that have been sorely missing from Washington's debate.
"So those components have come together, they have coupled with the fact that wherever the American military has gone they have done their job tactically, whether it was the initial invasion or now, and they have given us this moment," he concluded. "... We need to take advantage of this in a regional way, not simply an Iraq way."
The points expressed on "Meet the Press" Sunday are not new ones for the junior senator from Virginia. He has been a strong proponent of regional diplomacy - which the administration has only recently and haltingly begun - since before the war started. In other words, events have begun to catch up with Webb's analysis, and not for the first time.
When Webb warned months before the war began that invasion would begin a decades-long commitment to Iraq, his warning produced scoffs from neoconservatives.
Their vision of the Iraq invasion has since been discredited by events, and the White House just recently signed a "declaration of principles" in which Iraq and the United States commit "to developing a long-term relationship" that "will serve the interest of coming generations based on the heroic sacrifices made by the Iraqi people and the American people for the sake of a free, democratic, pluralistic, federal, and unified Iraq."
In other words, the U.S. adventure in Iraq looks as if it won't end anytime soon. Even if the surge is working, and it is, few Americans outside the White House have even considered committing troops and treasure to propping up the Iraq government for years, let alone decades or more.
"[I]t's sort of the elephant in the bedroom for this entire time period... how long are we going to be in Iraq?" Webb asked. "What are we funding implicitly as opposed to explicitly?... [I]f you want bases in Iraq for the next 50 years, which is what the Republican leadership now is finally openly saying... then you're going to have one sort of approach, which you ought to be open about it."
When the administration first started talking about invading Iraq, the war's costs were estimated at under $100 billion. They've risen steadily, past $200 billion, past $500 billion. The latest estimates put the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan above $2 trillion.
The national debt is expanding by $1.4 billion a day - almost a million dollars each second, and now amounts to $30,000 for each American. The nation will owe more than $10 trillion by the time President Bush leaves office.
In exchange for taking out these huge loans, Americans don't get better schools or health care - they get a commitment to a corrupt and divided Iraqi government that can't be bothered to protect its own people, write its own constitution, or figure out what to do with the billions of dollars it is earning for selling oil.
America already knows that Iraq's government has squandered the sacrifice paid by so many U.S. soldiers. Now it must decide whether that same bargain is worth a new generation of indebtedness.
As he has so many times before on Iraq, Webb has identified the problem, and has suggested solutions grounded in simple sense beholden to no particular ideology. Is Washington so myopic that it can't see the elephant at the foot of the bed, even when it's broadcast on a Sunday morning chat show?
- » Higher SPSA rate, if OK'd, would be highest in the country
- » Storms packing high winds blow down trees, power lines
- » Personal vehicles won't be let into D.C. from Va. on Jan. 20
- » Parents of Virginia 6-year-old who drove car due in court
- » Funerals set for cheerleading pair killed in I-64 crash in Norfolk
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
2 trillion friggen dollars!!??!!
Why on earth would we want to spend one more second enmeshed in these huge, costly military expeditions? The "War Birds" of the military-industrial complex and their stockholders, are the only winners in this fiasco. Our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan serves no clear military purpose, at least not one that can be easily defined. The neocon's "War on American Taxpayer's" is a total success. And Bush's smirky disregard of the will of the American people in this matter, is criminal. The only solution would seem to be, following in the footsteps of our coalition partners, and making as quick an exit as tactically permissable. We have no business playing kingmaker, and have enough enemies without generating more anti-US hatred around the world
In Iraq forever?
Gee, and I thought the mission had been accomplished. We will be in Iraq for many years to come, and if Bush has his way next we will be in Iran. Republicans love war, and the wealthy, and they must love the lies of George bush.
Liberating a Nation?
you mean Iraq where the majority of the people don't want us there? You mean the War in Iraq that was based on one lie after another? You mean Iraq where it's own now elected government doesn't do anything for it's own people? You mean Iraq where they don't know how to handle their own oil money? You mean Iraq where the people will not step up top the plate and take care of their own country? Or do you mean the Iraq were multi-thousnads of their people and almost 4000 of our troops have been slautered? Not to mention the number of wounded for life. Yeah, we did a good job of liberating Iraq didn't we? We did a good job of becoming the most hated country in the world because of Bush. Stop funding this damn war and bring our troops home.
We Liberated Iraq - not "invaded".
Jim Webb has it wrong - he states, "When the administration first started talking about invading Iraq, the war's costs were estimated at under $100 billion. They've risen steadily, ...". President Bush did not "first start talikng about "invading" Iraq - they defended our nation by enforcing the UN resolutions and bringing a brutal dictator to justice, liberating a repressed nation in the process.
The real elephant in the room...
Is not really the question of how long are we staying. The real problem is, what happens when we finally do leave? The terrible truth of the Iraq situation is that it cannot even be judged as a success or failure until we leave. Yes, our military has a capability of quelling violence if we commit enough people and money. But true success in Iraq will only be achieved if we leave a peaceful, stable Iraq in our wake. Whether we do or not is a question no one can answer for sure, but I have to be skeptical of the voices who have been wrong at almost every turn up to now.
Bush hating anti-americans
It's amazing that the Bush haters seem to follow the liberal media hoping for articles that will allow them to spew their anti-american dogma. They don't have a plan themselves but are sure that anything Bush or Republicans have done is totally wrong. A democrat probably be elected president but I bet we will still be in Iraq. Most democrats realize the implications of pulling out but have to keep their voters "happy" by their statements. We'll see.
Bush Standing Tall?
Those are mighty big words to describe a mental midget.
It's easy for "w" to stand tall while others lives are on the line. Pathetic doesn't even begin to describe our current "commander-in-chief. If you don't think a Democratic President will pull our troops out of Iraq you're in for a rude awakening come January, 2009. It's a shame that we'll have to wait that long considering all the money that will be spent not to mention the lives that will be lost in the meantime. Refresh my memory please. What's this week's reason we are in Iraq?
Bush standing tall?
We saw how Bush stands tall as he sat there reading his little kiddy book about a goat while America was under attack and several thousand Americans were being murdered. What have you been smoking?
A plan, boss, I see a plan
We now know that mini bush had almost no "plan" for his invasion of Iraq and even less of a "plan" for governing his conquest after the fall of Saddam. Why this great conservative push for a "plan" from the Democrats? We can't leave until conservatives feel there's this great, worthy plan that meets their expectations? So we are there forever. Leaving will be much easier than going or staying. We simply tell the Iraq government: "We are leaving in 90 days. I suggest you make plans to flee Iraq beforehand since your government will last about 60 seconds after the last US solider airlifts out. " Cut the crap about Democrats without a plan. This one's easy. First, we undo all the damage done by bush and his extremist followers. Then we move forward.
What's Dem's Answer?
I'm over all the bull about "pull out of Iraq..." and whining about the deficit from the liberals/Democrats. What is the Democrats' proposal to protect us Americans both physically and economically from the terrorists out there that would love to kill us all? Also, be realistic...it doesn't matter who our next president is, we're not pulling out of Iraq (for all the same reasons Bush is standing tall and getting bashed.) If you think otherwise, send me some of that stuff you're smoking.