VA-Sen: Jim Webb's statement on the Global War on Terror, 8-10-06

[Catchawave]

“The news of a terror plot uncovered and foiled in England today highlights the continuing need to stay committed and strong in our fight against global terrorism. This fight cannot be won by simple intimidation. America must continue to make funding and executing the war on terror a priority. British authorities should be commended for their excellent work in foiling this terrorist plot.
“The war on terror is global and we must confront it wherever necessary, with the full array of military options available. Winning this war will make America more secure. A victory requires a mobile fighting force, one that is capable of responding to threats wherever they emerge. The occupation of Iraq keeps our military locked down in a civil war in the Middle East, and consumes resources that can better be used in the larger fight against global terrorism.

“As recently as yesterday, George Allen conflated my long-held warnings against invading and occupying Iraq with being ‘against … the war on terror.’ Mr. Allen knows full well that he is misrepresenting my views in order to protect himself politically from his blind support of the Bush Administration's failed strategy in Iraq.

“Beginning more than a year before the invasion of Iraq, I consistently stated that the Administration's misguided effort to drag our country into an ill-advised occupation of Iraq would hurt, not help, in the war against international terror. I am deeply disappointed that Mr. Allen is now so clearly and deliberately misrepresenting my views. He knows exactly how I felt about this because I personally explained my views to him in September 2002, five months before the Iraq invasion.

“As the events of this morning demonstrate, the stakes in the war on terror are too high for people such as Mr. Allen to be using them as cheap political props.”

http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3876

[queenbdem87]

1. WoooHooooo!!!!

Go Jim!

[peacebird]

2. Well done! BRAVO!

:toast:

[SutaUvaca]

3. Beginning to recognize a wecome pattern.

Repuke tries to capitalize on terror and a Dem calls 'em on it for the cheap and slimey politicking it really is.
If the neocon talking points "stay the course" it can very well backfire on them big time.
I'd love to see a bunch of their fearmongering butts laughed off the talkshow sets of America.

[Catchawave]

5. Absolutely ! Especially after the UK events....

We must keep questioning our leaders on both sides of the aisle....How is the War in Iraq preventing global terror? Now that would be a real Hardball question!

Welcome to DU SutaUvaca :hi: :toast: :hi:

[niyad]

4. good speech, but just ONCE, I would like to hear congressional leaders of

either party talk about reducing the conditions that produce terrorists, NOT just about military solutions.

[Catchawave]

6. Another great talking point !

IMO, I think *Bush's War* has produced more terrorists since his invasion.

[Virginian]

8. "They" have a spin for that.

If we talk about understanding the terrorist mind and what causes it, "They" spin it to be that we want to give the terrorists couch time with a shrink so that they can feel better about themselves and rid themselves of guilt from trying to kill us.

We have to put an end to that spin. We have to make our political enemies understand a little about human nature.

Some of my ideas:

Do you really think they hate us because of our freedom? Then tell me why they hate Americans and not Swedes who have more freedom than we do.

(I don't know what freedoms the Swedes have that we don't, I just read that here on DU.)

The civilians who are living in the current conditions have quit thanking us for getting rid of Saddam. At least when he was alive they knew who to be afraid of. Not as many people died then as are dying now.

How many innocent Iraqis do you think have died in Bush's war? Each one of them had friends and relatives who are now angry at us for starting it. That is one of the basic building blocks of terrorism.

How many innocent Lebanese have died from Israeli bombing? Each one of thm had friends and relatives. We supply the bombs to Israel. We are not telling Israel to stop bombing. The "Terrorists" provide the survivors with food and water. What do we provide -- more bombs to Israel.

No there isn't a finite number of terrorists that we can kill over there instead of killing them here. How do you identify who is a terrorist and who isn't? Do they wear a sign or wear special terrorist uniforms? No, someone who wasn't a terrorist yesterday might be one tomorrow. We need to quit the killing because we are changing the minds of people who like us into hating us. We are making some of them into potential terrorists.

[Catchawave]

7. From the NYT:

At the very least, the arrests in Britain were viewed by both parties as something of an August surprise, the kind of event that can change the story line of a campaign. The critical question now is the extent to which the fall campaign will be fought over the war in Iraq, something Republicans would like to avoid at all costs, or the overall campaign on terror, the only major issue where Republicans have consistently held an advantage over Democrats.

But in a sign of how this campaign might be different, Democrats struck a tone notably different from the elections of 2004 and 2002, when for the most part their strategy was to try to turn the subject away from national security. This time, Democrats attacked Republicans as failing to improve airline security and, most of all, argued that the decision to invade Iraq had been a distraction that depleted United States resources and allowed the world to become more dangerous.

“The war in Iraq had nothing to do with the war against international terrorism, or very little to do with the war on terrorism,” said James Webb, a former Reagan administration official running as a Democratic candidate for Senate in Virginia. “It has distracted our attention, it has pulled our forces in, and we are now in a situation where we have 135,000 on the ground, which affects our ability to do a lot of things that we would be able to do otherwise.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/11/washington/11politics.html?ei=5094&en=9ebe45b4547106f4&hp=&ex=1155355200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

Mr. Webb said one of his main tasks in trying to unseat Senator George Allen, a Republican, was to try to disentangle Iraq from the war on terrorism. “They have tried to keep it together — they have to make it one in people’s minds in order to cover the strategic error of Iraq,” he said in an interview.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. As I posted in another thread on this same statement by Webb ......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2775729#2775742

I not only have but will continue to **enthusiastically** support Jim Webb. That said, I have some problems with this particular statement, as articulated in the post linked above.

[Duppers]

11. my thoughts also

Have you considered emailing your very valid points to Jim Webb?

But, as you said, it's Virginia voters and we live in a "militarized zone" here. ;)

[The River]

10. I Look Forward To Voting For Him

this November

Let's stop George Allens political career here and now!
We can't afford another GOP George in the WH.

[Toots]

12. Well a couple of things I disagree with

First there is no "War on Terror" Yes their are criminals running around the world wanting to do harm to America but that is a Law Enforcement and Intelligence problem Second he suggest we use every military option available. Does that include nuclear? I don't think the military should be involved at all. I don't think we should be invading foreign countries that have done absolutely nothing to America. This latest terror threat was foiled not with the military but with Law Enforcement units and that should be all that is ever needed. This military stuff is just fascist crap and I am 100% opposed to it..

[Toots]

13. Well a couple of things I disagree with

First there is no "War on Terror" Yes their are criminals running around the world wanting to do harm to America but that is a Law Enforcement and Intelligence problem Second he suggest we use every military option available. Does that include nuclear? I don't think the military should be involved at all. I don't think we should be invading foreign countries that have done absolutely nothing to America. This latest terror threat was foiled not with the military but with Law Enforcement units and that should be all that is ever needed. This military stuff is just fascist crap and I am 100% opposed to it..

[rndmprsn]

14. bravo!

dont take their shit sitting down anymore, stand up an challenge them...bravo mr webb