Calm Down, Senator McCain

Senator Webb, how about running as Vice President? Would you please consider it if Senator Obama asks you?

"I think what we really need to work on over the next four, five months, and it goes back to the speech that Sen. Obama gave [Monday] and this little fight that I've been watching and that is, we need to make sure that we take politics out of service," [Senator James] Webb said. "People don't serve their country for political issues."

He continued: "And John McCain's my long-time friend, if that is one area that I would ask him to calm down on, it`s that, don't be standing up and uttering your political views and implying that all the people in the military support them because they don't, any more than when the Democrats have political issues during the Vietnam War. Let's get the politics out of the military, take care of our military people, or have our political arguments in other areas."

I gotta tell you...I love it when Democrats fight back...

--WS

This time, no screw-ups please...

This is what it looks like when the Republican Party breaks with its President and runs for the hills out of abject terror that the people are going to turn on them:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment No. 2 with Amdt. No. 4803 )
Vote Number: 137 Vote Date: May 22, 2008, 11:42 AM
Required For Majority: 2/3 Vote Result: Motion Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4803 to H.R. 2642 (Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008)
Statement of Purpose: In the nature of substitute.
Vote Counts: YEAs 75
NAYs 22
Not Voting 3

McCain ducked it. Huckleberry Graham voted against it. Kit Bond? Kit Bond ain't messing around. He and Pat Roberts voted for it. A majority of Senators up for re-election voted for it. Hell, BOTH Murkowski and Stevens voted FOR it. The only vote NAY that surprises me was Charles Grassley.

Now, on to the House. Get it right this time, please.

And when you can tell us what the Cuban Missile Crisis was all about, then maybe you can make the joke stick, okay?

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino on Thursday ridiculed House Democrats after a clerical error threw a wrench in their plans to override President Bush’s veto of the farm bill.

“It shows that they can even screw up spending the taxpayers’ money unwisely,” Perino quipped to reporters aboard Air Force One.

Gates Speaks About Taking Care of Troops, MRAPs

Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently gave a speech, emphasizing the need to take care of the troops over the need to prepare for future conflicts:

The Defense Department must focus on current war demands, even if it means straining the U.S. armed forces and devoting less time and money to future threats, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday.

Meeting the war-fighting needs of the troops now and taking care of them properly when they get home must be the priority, Gates said in a speech to journalists at a seminar here sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

"I have noticed too much of a tendency towards what might be called Next-War-itis — the propensity of much of the defense establishment to be in favor of what might be needed in a future conflict," Gates said.

But in a world of limited resources, he said, the Pentagon must concentrate on building a military that can defeat the current enemies: smaller, terrorist groups and militias waging irregular warfare.

If it means putting off more expensive weapons for the future or adding to the stress on the Army — that is a risk worth taking, he said.

Gates has announced his opposition to one reform that would ease the stress on recruiting and retain soldiers who wish to pursue an education:

Gates’ letter [to Congress] complicates Webb’s effort by opposing S 22 while favoring other bills that include a Pentagon and White House initiative allowing service members to transfer GI bill benefits to family members.

“It is essential to permit transferability of unused education benefits from service members to family,” Gates said in the letter to Sen. John McCain, ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a co-sponsor of a Republican alternative bill, which was to be formally introduced on Tuesday. Transferability, Gates said, “is the highest priority set by the service chiefs and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reflecting the strong interest from the field and the fleet,” Gates said.

Transferring benefits is good for the family but also good for the services by helping to keep people in the military while family members are using the benefits, Gates said.

Gates also restated long-standing Pentagon opposition to GI Bill educational benefits that are too generous, making it more likely for service members to leave the military to attend college. “Serious” retention issues are expected if benefits exceed the average monthly cost for a four-year public college, including tuition, room, board and fees, Gates said.

Webb’s proposal would pay full tuition and fees for a public college plus provide a monthly living allowance equal to the basic allowance for housing of an E-5, which would exceed the level Gates says is acceptable.

The Enhancement of Recruiting, Retention and Readjustment Through Education Act, cosponsored by McCain and other Republicans, provides $1,500 in basic monthly benefits plus $500 a year for books. It also includes transferability of benefits, with the right to transfer all benefits to family members after completing 12 years of service and to transfer half of earned benefits after six years.

The Republican bill might have attracted support from military and veterans groups if the more generous Webb proposal was not on the front burner. But the promises of full tuition plus stipend benefits, similar to what was provided after World War II, are very attractive to major veterans groups and to new organizations representing Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans.

A senior Pentagon official, speaking on condition of not being identified, said the McCain bill, co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Richard Burr of North Carolina, “is retention friendly. It gives education benefits a big boost, but not more than average national costs. We can manage retention at those levels, but S 22 is a retention killer.”

Webb, in an interview, described such arguments as "absurd."

The Department of Defense, he said, "is doing a very good job managing its career force, given the strains that are on it. But it's doing a very poor job of taking care of the people who don't come in for a career."

Raising GI bill benefits nearer to those offered to veterans returning from World War II, Webb said, will give every volunteer, particularly those with no intention of making the military a career, "a proper reward for their service" and a great tool for transitioning to civilian life.

Defense officials have to understand, Webb said, that a volunteer military is "only a career system to a certain point." The current system isn't properly rewarding those who enter "because of love of country, or family tradition, or the fact that they just want to serve for a while," he said.

The services, he said, "have got this one demographic group they keep pounding on and throwing money at. Yet there's a whole different demographic group that would be attracted to coming in and serving a term."

GATES on MRAPs



During the same question and answer period, Gates also spoke about the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle:

Gates pointed to the mine-resistant vehicles as an example of spending money now on critical lifesaving equipment, rather than pouring all resources into war-fighting systems of the future.

Roadside bombs and suicide attacks "have become the weapons of choice for America's most dangerous and likely adversaries — and the need to have a vehicle of this kind won't go away," he said.

Gates also issued a warning to the military services, which have long set their sights on pricey, sophisticated weapons systems that take decades to develop and get onto the battlefield.

The Army has its $200 billion Future Combat System, the Air Force has its F-22 jet fighter. Both programs have been plagued by delays and escalating costs, as well as criticism from Congress.

However, the MRAP vehicle has been cited as having already been compromised by an insurgent-deployed weapon that finds a vulnerability in the design:

The deaths of two U.S. soldiers in western Baghdad last week have sparked concerns that Iraqi insurgents have developed a new weapon capable of striking what the U.S. military considers its most explosive-resistant vehicle.

The soldiers were riding in a Mine Resistant Ambush Protective vehicle, known as an MRAP, when an explosion sent a blast of super-heated metal through the MRAP's armor and into the vehicle, killing them both.

Their deaths brought to eight the number of American troops killed while riding in an MRAP, which was developed and deployed to Iraq last year after years of acrimony over light armor on the Army's workhorse vehicle, the Humvee.

The military has praised the vehicles for saving hundreds of lives, saying they could withstand the IEDs, or improvised explosive devices, which have been the biggest killers of Americans in Iraq. The Pentagon has set aside $5.4 billion to acquire 4,000 MRAPs at more than $1 million each, making the MRAP the Defense Department's third largest acquisition program, behind missile defense and the Joint Strike Fighter.

The military has resisted efforts to find out what might be wrong with the MRAP:

The Marine Corps has ordered a civilian scientist to stop work on a report critical of its efforts to obtain new armored vehicles, saying he exceeded his authority, a Marine official said Tuesday.

Franz Gayl, a retired Marine officer and civilian science adviser, alleged in a Jan. 22 report that "gross mismanagement" of the program to quickly field Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles had resulted in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of Marines in Iraq. Gayl had planned to continue his investigation.

American Legion chastises Congress, comes out in favor of Jim Webb's GI Bill legislation

This is one of those things that came on the wire feed while I was off at the convention that needs a post of it's own.

The American Legion has come out strong in favor of S 22, the GI Bill legislation offered by Senator Jim Webb (D,VA) in January 2007.

"When The American Legion championed the original Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, even some veterans groups complained that it would 'break the treasury,'" National Commander Marty Conatser said. "Instead, the GI Bill transformed the economy and has been widely hailed as the greatest domestic legislation Congress ever passed. The critics were wrong then and they are wrong now."

Conatser pointed out that while the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill, S-22, would cost $51.8 billion over 10 years, "it is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the sacrifices made by America's servicemembers and their families."

The debate over the cost for the original World War II-era GI Bill was unpersuasive to its author, American Legion Past National Commander Harry Colmery. "If we can spend 200 to 300 billion dollars to teach our men and women to kill, why quibble over a billion or so to help them to have the opportunity to earn economic independence and to enjoy the fruits of freedom?" he asked at the time.

Over the decades, the GI Bill has enabled millions of veterans to attend college and is estimated by some economists to have returned $7 to the economy for every $1 in cost. However soaring tuition and decreases in program benefits over the years has left higher education out of reach for many current veterans.

Concerns that the new GI Bill, proposed by Sen. James Webb, D-Va., would hurt military retention are unfounded, according to The American Legion. "This bill would encourage young men and women to join the military," Conatser said. "As far as retention goes, the CBO estimates that a simple $8,000 bonus to personnel at their first enlistment point would increase reenlistments by 2 percentage points. Another way to encourage mid-level servicemembers to stay in the military is to transfer GI Bill benefits to family members so the servicemember can remain in the military and still benefit from the program."

Conatser had a suggestion to critics who believe the GI Bill is too expensive. "Visit Walter Reed. War is expensive indeed and the bulk of that cost is paid for by the men and women who wear the uniform. Benefits are just a small, small cost of war."

"The GI Bill is important enough to stand on its own merit," concludes Conatser. "I have faith in the American people that they will demand that Congress pass the GI Bill, which truly expresses the thanks of a grateful nation for service above and beyond that of normal citizenship."

The support - or lack thereof - of the American Legion will go a long way in a lot of republican congressional districts this fall. The organization has nearly two and three quarters million members who have served in foreign wars, and every year more and more men and women become eligible to join. The republican party pisses off the veterans constituency at their own peril. Personally, I hope they continue on this self-destructive path. The sooner we put two behind the ear of the myth that the republicans are the party that best represents the military interest, the better off we will be.

A New GI Bill Is Needed Immediately

Freshman Senator James Webb of Virginia is trying to bridge a critical gap between the cost of a college education and a promise made to our Veterans:

Congressional advocates of an update to the Montgomery GI Bill gathered for an impressive show of force Tuesday afternoon, pressing for swift passage of the measure.

The bill, primarily sponsored by Vietnam veterans Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) would cover the full cost of tuition at a public state university for soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and provide a monthly living stipend.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.) and over 25 veterans’ advocacy organizations all participated in a rally for the bill on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.

“At its heart, this bill is about helping a large and deserving group of young men and women readjust to the civilian life that we enjoy because of the sacrifices they make wearing that uniform,” said Reid.

The cost of everything is rising, and that includes the cost of going to college. That rise in costs has not been matched by an adequate increase in GI Bill benefits:

"These are people . . . who served the country at a time when very few people did," said Sen. James Webb (D-Va.), who is pushing a bill that would expand benefits for veterans, including active-duty guards and reservists, to cover the cost of the most expensive public universities and to match contributions from private schools with higher tuition, for four academic years. "We should give them the best shot at a good future."

An earlier version of the bill stalled in Congress; the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs opposed it as too expensive, too complex to administer and too likely to tempt troops to move back to civilian life. The bill, substantially revised, now has 58 co-sponsors, including both Democratic presidential candidates.

There are dozens of other bills, including one announced last week by senators including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), also a presidential candidate. Hundreds of supporters of Webb's bill plan to rally today on Capitol Hill.

Many people enlist to earn money for college, and almost everyone signs up for the education benefits -- which, in the case of the main GI Bill, requires a service member to pay about $1,200 into the plan-- but not everyone takes advantage of it. And that buy-in is not returned even if the benefits are unused.

About 70 percent use at least some part of it, said Keith Wilson, director of the education service, but the VA does not track how many earn degrees.

An independent study found that just over half use some part of the benefits, said Ray Kelley of AMVETS, a veterans support group, and only 8 percent use all. "Congress is realizing we're not giving them the benefits we say we're giving them," Kelley said. "They only have 36 months from the time they start using it to the time they finish." That means going to school full time, year-round.

Students apply for the flat-rate benefit monthly and get a check once it is confirmed that they are still enrolled. Luke Stalcup, 27, of Student Veterans of America, who served in Iraq and will attend Georgetown University for graduate study in the fall, said he paid his rent late every month after the GI bill check came in. Now he relies on loans and scholarships to cover the rest of the cost at Columbia University.

That's right--very few people did serve. This bill is so solid, only the craziest wingnuts are opposing it. Why should they care? These Veterans are never going to vote for them in the future. They don't have a powerful lobby in Washington D.C. that can help prop up a campaign fund. Taking care of the people who served is an idea that is actually under siege as we speak--more and more, the wingnuts are fleeing from the Bush doctrine of government by incompetents and returning to their old song and dance--pissing on everything that happened in the 1960s and the 1930s in the hopes of conjuring a Ronald Reagan who can appear and give them a conservative icon to worship:

Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things - using the mantra of “change” endlessly - the cold fact is that virtually everything has says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.

Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive, and subsidizing those who are not - all this is a re-run of the 1960s.

We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation, and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day.

The violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances, and hamstringing the police.

Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes - including the media magic of meetings between heads of state - was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.

Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.

History? You mean the history of Republican Party politics from the 1930s, which encouraged doing business with Hitler and tore into Roosevelt for trying to help Britain? Remember lend lease? Remember when Roosevelt wanted to start preparing for war--he was fought every step of the way by Republican politicians. When the war was nearly upon us, the Republican Party was isolationist and unpatriotic to extremes that were conveniently forgotten once we banded together, joined our allies and defeated our enemies.

Modern conservatives have a deep, black hole in their memories--and let me fill it with some information about a certain Republican who, by the 1950s, was called "Mr. Republican" and was, in effect, the spiritual leader of the conservative movement:

Robert A. Taft:

A staunch non-interventionist, Taft believed that America should avoid any involvement in European or Asian wars and concentrate instead on solving its domestic problems. He believed that a strong U.S. military, combined with the natural geographic protection of the broad Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, would be adequate to protect America even if the Nazis overran all of Europe. Between the outbreak of war in September 1939 and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 Taft opposed nearly all attempts to aid Allied forces fighting the Nazis in Europe. His outspoken opposition to aiding the Allied forces earned him strong criticism from many Republican liberals, such as Wendell Willkie and Thomas E. Dewey, who felt that America could best protect herself by fully supporting the British and other anti-Nazi forces. Although Taft fully supported the American war effort after Pearl Harbor, he continued to harbor a deep suspicion of American involvement in postwar military alliances with other nations, including NATO.

Here's another piece of history that this liberal is not ignorant of--a viable GI bill educated countless Veterans after World War II and helped us create an educated, professional, and thriving middle class. Hence, the need to support Webb's critical piece of legislation. It's a smart investment in our future. It's one we need to make every generation or so. It didn't bankrupt this country. It didn't lead to socialism. Here's another fact--our economy was wrecked by an unpopular and unnecessary war that divided the American people, one which was largely fought by the poor and the minorities and hundreds of thousands of whom we abandoned and forgot to take care of. Ring any fucking bells? Everything that was done back in the 1930s saved us from socialism, and saved capitalism as a viable ideology. Everything that happened in the 1960s is viewed through a wingnut prism designed to marginalize the Democratic Party. It's a shopworn lie that isn't going to play very well with voters born in the 1970s and 1980s who don't give a shit about what happened in the 1960s.

What you see in that vile little piece from Thomas Sowell is the new wingnut marketing campaign--everything that made America great is an evil, corrupt government program that will starve and kill us all and lead to socialism. Have you noticed how often you hear the terms "socialist" and "Marxist" out of these people lately? It's not for nothing that they're desperately trying to re-run the Reagan mantra of 'government is the problem.' Everything they have touched has turned to shit. They gotta run with whatever their diseased little minds can conjure up.

Desperation is self-evident every time a wingnut bleats about socialism, Reverend Wright, or the war on terror.


UPDATE - Blue Girl 11:35 a.m.

I shake my head in wonderment that this bill does not have 99 cosponsors. The GI Bill transformed America. It made the middle class, which became the envy of the entire world, possible. Every dollar spent on the GI Bill was returned to the economy seven times over.

Simply put, it made us a better, stronger and more diverse nation.

The promise of educational assistance is one of the most effective recruiting tools we have at our disposal, but it is more than that. It is a promise made to those who enlist that this country appreciates their sacrifice and their service and we will stand by them and help them move up in society in return for their service to protect it.

UPDATE II - PALE RIDER - 1:21PM

This helps explain what's really going on--and it's just bullshit:

...McCain has all but locked up the Republican presidential nomination and is preparing for a fall campaign in which his support of the Iraq war is sure to be a major issue. Yet the former Navy pilot and Vietnam POW makes himself a target by refusing to endorse Webb’s new GI education bill and instead signing on to a Republican alternative that focuses more on career soldiers than on the great majority who leave after their first four years.

Undaunted, Webb, who was a Marine infantry officer in Vietnam, is closing in on the bipartisan support needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate, where the cost of his package — estimated now at about $52 billion over 10 years — is sure to be an issue. But McCain’s support would seal the deal like nothing else, and the new Republican bill, together with a letter of opposition Tuesday from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, threatens to peel off support before the Democrat gets to the crucial threshold of 60 votes.

“There are fundamental differences,” McCain told Politico. “He creates a new bureaucracy and new rules. His bill offers the same benefits whether you stay three years or longer. We want to have a sliding scale to increase retention. I haven’t been in Washington, but my staff there said that his has not been eager to negotiate.”

“He’s so full of it,” Webb said in response. “I have personally talked to John three times. I made a personal call to [McCain aide] Mark Salter months ago asking that they look at this.”

“Hell, no,” Webb bristled when asked if there had been an implicit message that he would attack McCain if he didn’t come on board.

"John McCain has been a longtime friend of mine, and I think if John sat down and examined what was in this bill, he would co-sponsor it,” Webb said. “I don’t want this to become a political issue. I want to get a bill done.”

The debate will soon come to a head when Congress takes up the administration’s request for new emergency funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The current plan is for the House to take up a 2008 military construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations measure, strike its content and then layer in a series of three amendments that would include not only war funding but also very likely the Webb bill.

Hey, Thanks For the Courageous Stand

McCain Media Mancrush in ACTION:

Really, do these people actually believe what they're saying?

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, seemed to give a thumbs down to bipartisan legislation that would greatly expand educational benefits for members of the military returning from Iraq and Afghanistan under the GI Bill.

McCain indicated he would offer some sort of alternative to the legislation to address concerns that expanding the GI Bill could lead more members of the military to get out of the service.

Both Democratic presidential candidates — Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., — have signed on as co-sponsors, and the bill has gained bipartisan support from 55 senators on Capitol Hill. A vote on the proposal is expected before the summer.

But the bill, which would dramatically increase educational compensation for American troops, has run into some unexpected resistance, both at the Pentagon and now from McCain, who has remained silent on the issue, saying he had not studied the bill close enough.

Notice that there are two glaring, incongruous pieces of information in this story that are not tied together and examined.

On the one hand, McCain wants to author his own "some sort of alternative" to the highly popular GI Bill expansion that actual working Senators are pushing. On the other hand, McCain said that he "had not studied the bill close enough."

So which is it? Are you going to come up with an alternative BEFORE you actually look at the issue? If not, are you going to offer up some half-assed piece of vanity legislation that will help you win in November? Or are you going to let lobbyists write the damned thing for you, as is more likely the case, what with the multitude of lobbyists who are calling the shots for you?

When will the media point out that McCain has no idea what's going on in the Senate? When will they point out that for him to try to affect legislation amounts to malpractice because he has no idea what's gone on in committee or in the House?

And why doesn't someone just state the obvious--McCain is helping the Pentagon screw over the troops.

Critical Mass

It's a critical mass of factors. The length of this war, the nature of the fight, the lack of adequate protective gear, the lack of medical care while on active duty, the shortage of available care when people get out of the military--ALL of these things are contributing to the destruction of a generation of military members:

According to Army statistics, the incidence of U.S. Army soldiers attempting suicide or inflicting injuries on themselves has skyrocketed in the nearly five years since the start of the Iraq war.

Last year's 2,100 attempted suicides -- an average of more than 5 per day -- compares with about 350 suicide attempts in 2002, the year before the war in Iraq began, according to the Army.

The figures also show the number of suicides by active-duty troops in 2007 may reach an all-time high when the statistics are finalized in March, Army officials said.

The Army lists 89 soldier deaths in 2007 as suicides and is investigating 32 more as possible suicides. Suicide rates already were up in 2006 with 102 deaths, compared with 87 in 2005.

More later...but Senator Jim Webb is sponsoring legislation that will start to address these issues. We'll have more this week.

UPDATE I - PALE RIDER

Here's the info from Senator Webb's website:

Webb Calls for Stronger Suicide Prevention Programs in Defense Department

"Armed Forces Suicide Prevention Act" One of Many Webb-Supported Measures to Address Troop Welfare

Washington, DC- With new reports this week showing a steady rise in U.S. Army suicides among its active-duty personnel since the invasion of Iraq, Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) and several of his colleagues introduced a bill that would direct the Department of Defense to enhance its suicide-prevention programs. The legislation, Webb said, “places greater emphasis on the well-being and welfare of our troops.”

The “Armed Forces Suicide Prevention Act” mandates an evaluation and enhancement of the military’s suicide prevention programs to ensure that they address the combat stress faced by troops today. The bill also establishes an outreach campaign to soldiers and families to reduce the stigma associated with mental health problems and to encourage those needing help to seek it.

Wanker of the Night: Faux Filibuster Edition

I have been listening all night long, and I am getting ready to turn in.

But before I do, I have to anoint John Thune the biggest wanker in the Senate.
The Junior Senator from South Dakota has secured the title. That is quite an achievement when one has both of those double-digit I.Q. chuckleheads representing Oklahoma, Lieberman and Mad Jack Insane to battle for that dubious honor.

Thune is obliviously willfully ignorant if he is unaware of the Military Times poll from last winter that shows only one in three members of the armed services approve of the president and his conduct of the war.

That would almost seal the deal for him all by itself. But there is more...

He actually said to Jim Webb, a combat veteran himself, and the father of a Marine who served in Iraq...that he knows better what the boots on the ground think, because he has been there (and disrupted operations like visits by potentates always do) and Webb hasn't!

Really!

He said that!

Let me just clear something right the hell up...Visits by potentates are a pain in the ass stateside during peacetime. In a war zone they are an obscenity.

Webb has a very good source. The best source available...He has a son who fought there, recently. He is also a combat veteran.

Jim Webb has the decency to not subject the troops in harms way to the added strain of a dog-and-pony show that is always precipitated when a potentate comes a-calling.

Stateside, during peacetime, it's a gigantic pain in the ass when those pricks come to visit. In a war zone, those little juggernauts are an affront to decency.

Remember that a mile away from Lindsey “I bought five rugs for five dollars” Graham when he got such a killer deal on those rugs last April, six G.I.'s who did not have those Apache gunships and Blackhawks hovering overhead giving them cover, were killed.

Remind everyone of that.

And remind 'em that when a Republican says he is behind the troops - the bastard likely has one hand on his fly and lascivious intent.

You know how I am always saying I love the smell of roast wingnut in the morning?

Well! Feast on Jim Webb putting Lindsey “I bought five rugs for five dollars” Graham in his place.

Graham kept repeating that he has been to Iraq seven times (on taxpayer-funded junkets that serve no purpose and only accomplish disrupting operations to accommodate the potentates) – and Webb – whose son served as a combat Marine in Iraq – did not mention the fact of his son's service.

He didn't have to. We all knew he was the one with moral authority without him having to turn over that card.

Webb took the high road and everyone watching knows it. “You go and see the dog-and-pony shows.” Webb scolded Graham, “Don’t put political words into [the soldier’s] mouth.”

Graham came off looking like nothing so much as a petulant, obstreperous, delusional, kool-aid swilling jackass. He kept pounding his finger on the desk and saying “let them win.”

Which is total horseshit. The only way for an occupying invader to *win* is to commit random slaughter and war crimes. We know this. Is Lindsey Graham advocating that U.S. G.I.'s commit war crimes?

And by the way Lindsey, just let me air a grievance, and I say this as someone with long and strong Air Force association - I bleed Strata Blue - I just can’t equate your time as a JAG lawyer in the Air Force during peace time with Senator Webb leading a Marine rifle company in Viet Nam; Senator Webb received multiple service commendations, not the least of which was the distinguished Navy Cross and two Purple Hearts.

They don't give those out for paper cuts, or hangovers caused by too much German beer, unfortunately for Lindsey.

I’ve been to Rhein Mein – it was decidedly not a hardship tour. In fact, it was a very popular billet back then.

Oh, hell – just watch Webb eviscerate the little weasel:

Webb Calls Out Lieberman

Yesterday, Senator James Webb of Virginia offered an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill for 2008 that would require that all service personnel have at least as much dwell-time as they do in the war zone.

Joe “More War” Lieberman denounced Senator Webb’s imminently reasonable amendment. “Give the American soldiers a break,” Lieberman said. “It’s as if the American troops have the enemy on one side and Congress is sniping at their heels on the other side.” He added that Congress is advocating a “defeat, retreat strategy.”

Senate conservatives have announced that they will filibuster the bill.

(I say let them. In fact, I dare them.)

Yes – mandating dwell-time to keep these people from just running them all the way into the ground is anti-soldier. I’ll just note that Senator Lieberman, in spite of being born in 1942, did not serve in the armed forces, and certainly received at least one (confirmed) draft deferment, but the blogger Connecticut Bob speculates the number is much higher, and I think so too, given the years he would have been in college and of draft age, 1960-1967; while Jim Webb certainly did step up when he was called upon to do so, and led a rifle company in Vietnam. Service is not a requirement to serve in elected office – I read Starship Troopers, and I don’t like that idea of citizenship. But when a politician opens him – or her – self up to such criticisms and comparisons the way Lieberman has – well, can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, as a real Democrat once said.

Today, Jim Webb swung back, and hung one of Lieberman’s chin. He reminded one and all that he was warning anyone who would listen – for the last five years - that we were “heading for trouble” if we went to war in Iraq:

I was warning about the consequences of invading and occupying Iraq well before we went in. … I don’t know where Sen. Lieberman gets his opinions about how well we’re doing. […]

You have a government in Iraq that has no power. It has very little power — it cannot compel action and it’s surrounded by armed factions that retain the power. That is not a situation we’re going to resolve without the interaction of all the countries in the region in a positive, proactive diplomatic way. And that’s what I’ve been saying for three years.

Center for American Progress senior fellow Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense, released a statement in support of the bill on the ThinkProgress website:

Regardless of whether a member supports a phased withdrawal of American forces from Iraq or continues to support President Bush’s latest escalation, he or she should support the Webb-Hagel amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill.

It takes two full years at home or after a one year deployment for a unit to become fully combat ready. Spending a year at home after a year in the combat zone is barely enough time to get themselves marginally ready physically and mentally for the next deployment. Giving them last time would mean sending units and individuals into battle who are not combat ready.

Members cannot vote against Webb-Hagel and claim they support the troops. Sending people back for another tour without the same amount of time at home as the length of their tour is wrong strategically and morally. (emphasis mine.)

Folks, here is the link to the U.S. Senate home page. Call and/or email your Senators and demand that they support Webb-Hagel. Just for good measure, here is the page that lists the Class II Senators, those up for reelection in 2008. If your Senator is one of the obstreperous few, and on that list – remind him or her of that salient fact when you contact their office.