Once again we see Jim Webb for what he is.

I think we're seeing a lot of Democrats for what they really are - and as far as I'm concerned, it's not a pretty picture.

What I want in a politician is the ability to put country ahead of party when push comes to shove. All I've seen from the Democrats for the last 5 years has been maneuvering so they can have a political advantage, and to hell with anything else. The most important thing to them is getting into office - and that's all well and good in peacetime, you expect stuff like that.

And when the shit hit the fan on 9/11, for a brief time they managed to put aside the political shit-slinging. There was actually a threat, and it had to be dealt with, and so they backed the President.... while it was convenient to do so.

In politics, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. And political/anti-war activists have figured out how to get listened to. There's nothing really wrong with that, BUT there comes a point where being anti-war may gather short-term 'positive' results only to be very, very damaging long-term.

I submit that the current crop of Democrats are not taking the long view of their actions - as I've posted before in two years when Bush is out of office they're going to have to knuckle down and actually FIGHT the WoT. The enemy, radical Islam, won't go away if you throw Iraq out to the jihadist wolves. It won't go away if we cut off support to Israel. It won't go away if we refuse to fight it - it won't be appeased, it won't be bought off. And it won't go away when Bush is out of office.

It's got to be fought. If not now, when we CAN win at a comparatively low price in men and materiel, then when? Does France have to be lost to Islam? Denmark? Spain? Sweden?

Daily you get reports on what Muslims do to their own that they feel are insufficiently devout. Do you think that because someone carried a sign ina demonstration they'll be spared? Or voted for a non-binding resolution? What's the plan for success? Or is it just going to be for accommodation? A negotiated peace, that'll last about as long as Chamberlains' did?

I found this part particularly interesting:

Then-Congressman Christopher Dodd typified the hopeless naiveté of his peers when he intoned that "calling the Lon Nol regime an ally is to debase the word.... The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is peace, not guns. And the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now."

So the reasoning was, if military aid was stopped, peace would follow. But opps.....one third of the population murdered once that aid did stop.

Amazing parallel to today's Democrats.

." After I had argued that the war was clearly winnable even toward the end if we had changed our strategy, the 1972 presidential candidate who had offered to go to Hanoi on his knees commented, "What you don't understand is that I didn't want us to win that war." Mr. McGovern was not alone.

Well, at least McGovern was honest.

This is so hard to believe this was written by Webb. I guess some Republican must have pissed in his corn flakes sometime down the road.

I'm saving this one..........

My jaw just dropped.

Oh, would someone please read this back to him on the air?

Yes, it's too bad that Bush and Cheney weren't listening to James Webb before the invasion back in November 2002,
"We should not occupy territory in Iraq," he said. Do you really want the United States on the ground in that region for a generation? ......
I don't think Iraq is that much of a threat," said Webb, an opinion rarely heard among current or former Republican administration officials.

I don't think Iraq is that much of a threat," said Webb, an opinion rarely heard among current or former Republican administration officials

Was Bosnia a threat? Of course not, yet Democrats rallied around the flagpole for that one.

Democrats never claimed Bosnia / Kosovo was a threat that I know of, but many sure believed Iraq was a direct threat to United States.

Especially when they claimed they did their own homework on said threat.

Liberals....hypocrisy without bounds.

"only this time he is working along side them in their attempts to undermine our efforts in Iraq."

"Our" efforts?

Avoid the plurality. The last thing you should do is give the impression your chairborne screed should somehow be equated to the efforts of those a soldiers -or a policy maker who wants them to come home alive.

Thank you.

Avoid the plurality. The last thing you should do is give the impression your chairborne screed should somehow be equated to the efforts of those a soldiers -or a policy maker who wants them to come home alive.

And the chickenhawk meme resurfaces.

Dan, the chickenhawk meme isn't going away, because those who use it forget whence they post their own screed. Many of them, too, have yet to progress beyond that childlike dream that somehow we can all just get along.

For those who think once the dems defeat Bush they will turn their attention to defeating the REAL enemy, sadly, I think you are deluding yourselves. Look at their platforms...healthcare, education, taxes, etc. Just like clinton, they will turn their heads from something they are afraid to see and have no concept on how to handle, and deal with GLOBAL WARMING!

"Liberals....hypocrisy without bounds."

Actors in Biblical days were called "HYPOCRITES". Still true to this day. The democrat party of perpetual fraud consists of a three ring circus act. The Maistream Media always promotes the next Democrat Rising Star as some sort of accomplished Superstar of celebrity status. What a load of crap they would have you believe girls are throwing their panties and fainting in mass numbers. What a complete farce , Democratic my arse. Criminal frauds is more like it.

Oyster:

I think the chickenhawk argument is without any merit whatsoever. But I also think those on the right whose screed is to bomb everything everywhere all the time as the answer to all our problems have yet to progress beyond the childhood game of playing John Wayne and war.

But I also think those on the right whose screed is to bomb everything everywhere all the time as the answer to all our problems

So your main issue is with the fantasy stereotype, and not the actual people. Good to know.

Hugh, fair enough. You are correct in that bombing is not the answer to everything. And there are those wo think it is. We didn't have to bomb the USSR. But the USSR did a lot more posturing and bellicose shouting than anything while their citizenry ate grass and tree bark to stay alive or languished in prisons for speaking out. The same seems to be the case in NK. They'll likely eventually collapse at this point without a shot being fired. However, radical Islam is a different animal altogether.

I'll tell you though, James Webb ought to be choking on his foot right now. He went on at length and with great passion in that piece and now seems to be hell bent on repeating that history.

John:

One thing I'm sure about me is that I don't live in a fantasy world or have fantasy stereotypes. Well, actually I guess that's not ALL together true!

Oyster:

I agree that NK will probably fall on its own and I agree that radical Islam is different than any other threat we have faced.

True, Cambodia's implosion may have been abetted by the American withdrawal; the law of unatteded consequences. My guess is it would have happened anyway. But the larger fear, that Chinese and Soviet Union spheres the domino effect, (the red menace) would occur, the attended consequences, did not happen In fact, if anything the reverseoccurred. The Communist Vietnam that emerged was very anti-Chinese. The same scenario may be at work in Iraq , and whether the continued presence of American forces in Iraq helps fuels or staunch the spread of radical Islam.

Excuse me ...suffering the effects of carnival. It is rather the 'law of unintended consequences' or intended consequences.

Over 2 million allys dead because of these cut-and-run enemy sympathizers. No matter- they have no shame or remorse - and remain traitorous to the core.