Thank God for Macaca
Senators Webb (D-VA) and Graham (R-SC) were on Meet the Press debating Iraq, which means it was a beautiful thing to watch. Transcript of the carnage can be found here. Graham, an occasionally able bodied spokesman for Bush administration policy, stuck by his guns as well as he could. Webb, on the other hand, cleaned his clock pretty good. Senator Webb sponsored an amendment saying that combat veterans in Iraq should spend as much time home as they do in Iraq. Which means if a soldier spends a year in Iraq, he or she should spend a year at home before being redeployed. It had all kinds of bipartisan support, it got 56 votes, and all kinds of military support, but it died. Graham said he voted against since he didn't want politicians, who are motivated by the next election, making decisions about troops on the ground, who are needed past elections. Of course, this eventually devolved into the two men trying to talk over each other. What was striking was the tone and manner of arguments the two men made.
For years, Democrats had been associated with more emotional, less-factoid based and Republicans had been more associated coldly rational, strong intelligence based policy measures. This debated put all that on its head. Graham pointed out we had to stay since we were in a proxy war with Iran, since they are supplying weapons and troops. Webb pointed out the Saudis were supplying weapons and men to the Sunni factions and that these groups were merely allying with groups in Iraq they had been historical tied to. He asked that political opinions not be put in the mouths of the men and women serving, and pointed to a recent poll saying there was only 35% agreement with Bush's policies among service members. (I can't find a current one, just one from last December in the Military Times which had support at 41%). He chastised Graham for trying to politicize the views of service members. He and Graham fought about what the service men and women really think about things, and they both waved their familial links to the military (going back to the Revolutionary War, for both of them) at each other. Except for Webb never mentioning his famous son, Jimmy Webb. Lance Corporal Webb is a Marine who has served in Iraq (unsure if he's back yet or not). While he was mentioned prominently in the campaign as a reason he was running, he did not come up in this debate as a tearjeaker. He could have gone for an emotional win, but he instead chose to remain with the facts on the ground.
And it's a winning argument against a guy who just keeps saying "God bless our troops" and "Congress can't be allowed to run this war". Senator Graham, or as a friend calls him, Miss Lindsey Graham, kept appealing to "al-Qaeda is the greatest threat we face" even when presented with evidence saying they are NOT the biggest problem in Iraq. The person saying they weren't the biggest threat was the head of the CIA. He named six other things, then al-Qaeda in Iraq. Criminality and civil strife were both higher than al-Qaeda. Of course, Graham kept saying we were in a proxy war with Iran since they were providing weapons and al-Qaeda will, if not stopped in Iraq, threaten us here at home. Graham seems to be operating under the delusion al-Qaeda fights like this is a game of Risk, turn based and one thing at a time. There's an underlying assumption that if we are fighting them in Iraq they are completely incapable of striking another target anywhere. One would think the attacks in England a couple weeks back would have helped disprove that, but alas no. Graham and his ilk still think that a win there means al-Qaeda will stop hating the Us. Graham also told the tale of how al-Qaeda was there to disrupt the democracy that was in Iraq and Webb reminded him a) it's a fragile democracy and b) they were bombing us before the voting began.
It's amazing to see Democrats, or at least A Democrat arguing logic and facts on the grounds and a Republican trying to argue idealism in the face of reality presented. The Republicans of not that long ago (well, maybe it is a while ago since this was still when I proudly called myself a Republican) would have scoffed at the idea of basing foreign policy on "well, we need to do this since it makes us feel better." This was not the province of the Republicans who wanted smaller government, lower taxes, more personal freedoms and minimal foreign policy involvement. Fighting a war, and a bad occupation at that even after they have said we should leave, so we can feel more secure without the real numbers to back it up. While it is true we haven't been attacked since, we could just as easily attribute that to Battlestar Galactica being on the air as the war in Iraq. But, seeing a Democrat argue foreign policy and war deployment based on what numbers are best for troops AND to see a Democrat fight, in a real honest to God way, for American troops is all wonderful and new.
Let's see what other miracles can be pulled out for November 2008.
So it is written, so do I see it.
For years, Democrats had been associated with more emotional, less-factoid based and Republicans had been more associated coldly rational, strong intelligence based policy measures. This debated put all that on its head. Graham pointed out we had to stay since we were in a proxy war with Iran, since they are supplying weapons and troops. Webb pointed out the Saudis were supplying weapons and men to the Sunni factions and that these groups were merely allying with groups in Iraq they had been historical tied to. He asked that political opinions not be put in the mouths of the men and women serving, and pointed to a recent poll saying there was only 35% agreement with Bush's policies among service members. (I can't find a current one, just one from last December in the Military Times which had support at 41%). He chastised Graham for trying to politicize the views of service members. He and Graham fought about what the service men and women really think about things, and they both waved their familial links to the military (going back to the Revolutionary War, for both of them) at each other. Except for Webb never mentioning his famous son, Jimmy Webb. Lance Corporal Webb is a Marine who has served in Iraq (unsure if he's back yet or not). While he was mentioned prominently in the campaign as a reason he was running, he did not come up in this debate as a tearjeaker. He could have gone for an emotional win, but he instead chose to remain with the facts on the ground.
And it's a winning argument against a guy who just keeps saying "God bless our troops" and "Congress can't be allowed to run this war". Senator Graham, or as a friend calls him, Miss Lindsey Graham, kept appealing to "al-Qaeda is the greatest threat we face" even when presented with evidence saying they are NOT the biggest problem in Iraq. The person saying they weren't the biggest threat was the head of the CIA. He named six other things, then al-Qaeda in Iraq. Criminality and civil strife were both higher than al-Qaeda. Of course, Graham kept saying we were in a proxy war with Iran since they were providing weapons and al-Qaeda will, if not stopped in Iraq, threaten us here at home. Graham seems to be operating under the delusion al-Qaeda fights like this is a game of Risk, turn based and one thing at a time. There's an underlying assumption that if we are fighting them in Iraq they are completely incapable of striking another target anywhere. One would think the attacks in England a couple weeks back would have helped disprove that, but alas no. Graham and his ilk still think that a win there means al-Qaeda will stop hating the Us. Graham also told the tale of how al-Qaeda was there to disrupt the democracy that was in Iraq and Webb reminded him a) it's a fragile democracy and b) they were bombing us before the voting began.
It's amazing to see Democrats, or at least A Democrat arguing logic and facts on the grounds and a Republican trying to argue idealism in the face of reality presented. The Republicans of not that long ago (well, maybe it is a while ago since this was still when I proudly called myself a Republican) would have scoffed at the idea of basing foreign policy on "well, we need to do this since it makes us feel better." This was not the province of the Republicans who wanted smaller government, lower taxes, more personal freedoms and minimal foreign policy involvement. Fighting a war, and a bad occupation at that even after they have said we should leave, so we can feel more secure without the real numbers to back it up. While it is true we haven't been attacked since, we could just as easily attribute that to Battlestar Galactica being on the air as the war in Iraq. But, seeing a Democrat argue foreign policy and war deployment based on what numbers are best for troops AND to see a Democrat fight, in a real honest to God way, for American troops is all wonderful and new.
Let's see what other miracles can be pulled out for November 2008.
So it is written, so do I see it.