Webb Strikes Again

Jim Webb didn’t waste any time with the tradition of Senate comity during his first hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday.

During yesterday’s hearing, Lindsey Graham’s questions to Defense Secretary Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace, were straight out of the White House playbook. Question after question couched in such a way that any disagreement would be tantamount to saying, “I hate America.” He finished with a question about high reenlistment rates and asked if the soldiers in Iraq:

[quote]…believe their mission is directly related to the security of their own children and grandchildren?

And after Pace compliantly answered, “Absolutely, sir,” it was Webb’s turn.

General Pace, I wasn’t going to say this, but I want to say something, just my own little interjection here on the reenlistment rates and why people serve. You know, I come from a family that’s spent a lot of time in the military generationally and I think it’s fair to say that in my experience, people rarely enlist for political reasons. Rarely serve for political reasons. They serve because they love their country, they serve because they have a family tradition, they serve for camaraderie, and so I don’t agree with the characterization that proceeded me on that, in toto. There are people who are serving because of the political mission, but there are people who, perhaps even in spite of the political mission, are serving.

It seems safe to say that when Lindsey Graham says, “My friend, the Senator from Virginia,” he’ll be lying through his teeth.

And Webb wasn’t quite ready to get to his questions. He went on to say:

I also want to say something about my longtime friend, Senator McCain’s comments when he was talking about the consequences of pulling out of Iraq and in your statement, Secretary Gates, you list some of these as an emboldened and strengthened Iran, a base of operations for jihadist networks in the heart of the Middle East, an undermining of the credibility of the United States. In many ways, quite frankly, those have been the results of the invasion and occupation. There’s really nothing that’s occurred since the invasion and occupation that was not predictable and in fact, most of it was predicted. It was predicted in many cases by people with long backgrounds in national security…and in many cases there were people who saw their military careers destroyed and who were personally demeaned by people who opposed them on the issues, including members of this administration. And they are people in my judgement, who will be remembered in history as having had a moral conscience.

Booyah![/quote]

Also, it seems, Webb will be delivering the Democratic rebuttal to the President’s State of The Union. All of this thanks to a buddy giving me a heads up and DailyKos for maintaining a keyword driven thread. Keep up with Webb’s doings here:

http://www.dailykos.com/tag/Jim%20Webb

Freshman Sen. Jim Webb will deliver the Democrats’ response next Tuesday to President Bush’s State of the Union address.

The selection was made Tuesday by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said Webb spokeswoman Jessica Smith.

Webb’s upset victory over Republican Sen. George Allen was the decisive race in giving the Democrats control of Congress in last year’s midterm elections.

As a former Navy secretary to President Reagan and a decorated Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War, Webb was among the earliest and most vocal opponents of Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.

He warned in a 2002 newspaper column, the year before the invasion, that such a move would destabilize the Middle East, strengthen Iran’s hand and mire the United States for years in a deadly conflict similar to Vietnam.

Webb said it was a factor in his decision to leave the Republicans for the Democratic Party and run last year against Allen, a conservative former Virginia governor who was considered a strong contender the GOP presidential nomination in 2008.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011600664.html

What happened to this guy? It’s a Reagan-level about face.

What do you mean in particular?

I don’t know a lot about him, but I get the impression he’s an old-style Republican (as opposed to a Neocon) who finally decided a while back that the Republicans weren’t ever going to go back to being the party that he joined, so he joined the opposition.

I wouldn’t call it a Reagan-level turnaround–Reagan’s politics REALLY did an about face, whereas I get the impression Webb is still pretty conservative on a lot of issues; he’s just not a nut-case neocon (ie active government in OUR causes, just not in THEIR causes).

edit: oh, and it certainly appears that he doesn’t suffer fools gladly.

I hope he rips off some heads and craps down their throats!

Ok, Obama-Webb it is.