Jim Webb MIA on Iraq

Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday interviewing freshman Senator Jim Webb of Virginia: Fox News partial transcript here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250201,00.html Chris Wallace exposed the irrationality of the latest Democrat voice on Iraq. Webb continues down the same trite and untrue path trod by many a "let's quit before we win" Democrat before him. There is much to criticize in Webb's lengthy rambling "non-answers", but I thought these two were particularly feeble. WALLACE: But let me ask you about that, this idea of yours, of regional diplomacy. What makes you think that Iran or Syria would have any interest in helping us out in Iraq? WEBB: I think they're — I think if you break those two countries apart and look at them, I think there are reasons for them to come to the table on both. And I'm not saying that we are — we should be going to them on our knees or that we should be giving up on certain conditions. But it is in their interest. First of all, with Iran, if you look at what happened after the Afghani invasion in '01, Iran directly participated in the round of talks that resulted in the Karzai government. We had India, Pakistan, other countries in the region, and Iran was a direct player in that. Webb totally fails to explain how it is in Iran's interest to help us or Iraq. More importantly, he trots out the fact that Iran "participated" in the talks that resulted in the Karzai government, but fails to note or appreciate that those talks succeeded only after a military victory over the Taliban. I can see how Iran might participate in a fruitful or cooperative way in Iraq, but only after we secure a military victory over the "insurgents". Next Wallace "ambushed" Webb with his own words about Viet Nam: WALLACE: Okay. You, as you point out, fought in Vietnam where you won the Navy Cross. And back in 1985, you had this to say. Let's put it up on the screen. "If I had one lesson that stands out in my mind, it is that you cannot fight a war and debate it at the same time." Senator, why not? What's the problem, especially for our troops, when we're trying to fight a war and debating it at the same time here at home?(emphasis added)

WEBB: Well, the difficulty that we have right now — there are so many people trying to make a direct parallel between Vietnam and Iraq, on both sides of the issue, by the way. You have the people who are opposed to the Iraq war saying this is just another Vietnam. You have the people who supported the Vietnam war, many of them — I supported the Vietnam war. I still support what we attempted to do in Vietnam — trying to draw direct parallels, and there are no direct parallels. WALLACE: Let me ask you directly my question.(translation: you didn't answer it yet) WEBB: Right, I'm getting to your question. But I need to be able to, you know, put my experiences on the table so that people can understand what I'm saying here. Webb still doesn't answer the question. Chris Wallace asks him directly two more times, but Webb just rambles on droning away...........
(sorry, I nodded off) Then Wallace tries twice more from the other direction, using the confirmation of General Petraeus as an example, but Webb still has no answer. Alas, like all Democrats, Webb hews to the Ingsoc party line, "We have always been at war with Eurasia", and refuses to simply admit he has changed his tune. If it's not the Crusades, it's the cartoons.