Monday, July 16, 2007

Sen. Jim Webb vs. Sen. Lindsay Graham

In this clip from "Meet the Press," we have Sen. Jim Webb vs. Sen. Lindsay Graham on issues revolving around our war in Iraq. Who do you think won this round? It has been reported that senior Senator John Warner has contacted senior Whitehouse officials including Karl Rove and told them there is a need for the President to change course in Iraq before it ruins the image of the Republican Party - He said that "the President's legacy is at stake." I think it's obvious that this President doesn't care so much about any legacy let alone his own or even that of the United States.

Many Presidents before G.W. Bush worked hard to raise the honor and respect of our great nation, unfortunately we take a step backwards every day Bush is in office. Opps, I guess I'm supposed to be unbiased - sorry, that slipped.

1 comment:

JLS said...

I actually believe that Senator Lindsey Graham won that battle. Both parties are playing politics. On one side you have the pro-war politicians, on the other the anti-war politicians, but both sides come together in treating the troops as pawns in a much larger game than the Iraq War. The anti's are going to say they want to leave "for the love of our troops" while the pro's scream to stay in Iraq "for the love of the troops." I don't believe any of these people truly love any of the troops (except for Webb, but only because one is his kid). They see them as means to an end.
Now lets get into the horrible mistruths of the interview. First, I dont believe that the average troop joins just because he loves his country. I think the first reason he joins is because he doesn't have a better alternative. Second, Many democrats supported the immigration bill. Hell, Kennedy sponsored the bill for god sakes. In the end when the final vote came, most republicans denounced the immigration bill and their same-party-president like the two senators from GA. So it isn't like the pro's ALWAYS side with the president. Third, I don't ever remember the President putting a timetable on anything which is why I can't comprehend Webb's accusing the President about Iraq's parliament controlling all regions of the country by December.
I would like to point out one great point by Graham: Congress agreeed with the President's surge. Now two weeks later they want to withdraw all of the troops. People are going to begin to believe the Republican's old motto: "Democrats are soft on Nation Defense", causing the democrats to lose congress and the White House. Especially now that claims-warning of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil have surfaced.
The Democrat led congress hasn't met any of their benchmarks they set during their campaigns which caused congress to turn hands. They have been unsuccessful and even downright incompetent except when it comes to breaking promises, yet they have the audacity to demand Iraq's parliament create a democracy over night. I mean hell it took America how long to become a sovereign nation?
Congress hold out on one promise and wait to see what the General says in September. Quit being dastardly and start trying to solve problems rather than finding someone to blame for your own inability in getting the job done. Democrats thought they were being sent on a crusade to end the reign of President Bush, but they have done nothing but add to the befuddlement of our national government to the point that is unrecognizable.