Jim Webb’s Foot-in-mouth disease: Exhibit Fourteen

I must admit that I expected Senator Webb to add another installment to yours truly’s long-running series of posts tracking his historical and policy errors, but even I was shocked by the depths of ignorance to which he fell on the Senate floor yesterday.

In his attempt to justify his decision to contradict his earlier opposition to a withdrawal timetable (thanks, Virginia Virtucon), Webb let loose this stunner (Sacramento Bee):

There will be very little motivation for al-Qaida to continue in Iraq once we have left.

Are you kidding me?!

Here are some “motivations” for al Qaeda of which, perhaps, our geopolitically challenged Senator was unaware.

A new safe haven: After more than five years of being forced to run and hide in the Afghan-Pakistan mountains, Iraq would be a bonanza for al Qaeda. The idea that a-Q would simply abandon it because there are far fewer Americans to kill is ridiculously naive.

Iraq’s oil fields: Does anyone seriously think al Qaeda will pass up an opportunity to seize resources on which it can exponentially expand its terrorist network and operations? To ask that question is to answer it.

A chance to claim victory: With their earlier victory in Somalia has been largely reversed, al Qaeda has no place where they can claim they fought off the “infidels” anymore. Give them Iraq, and they’ll be able to call themselves the “strong horse” once again.

Webb’s statement reveals a very deep flaw about the Democrats’ entire outlook on the WBK War. Webb (and I doubt he’s alone in the Democratic caucus) seems to believe al Qaeda is merely reacting to America’s policy decisions. If we stand down in Iraq, so the theory goes, they will, too. This is yet another sign that a Democratic president will follow similar logic in Central Asia, and pull us out of Afghanistan.

However, al Qaeda is not merely interested to killing as many Americans as it can find. Osama seeks to rebuild the Arabian Empire of old (with a resurrected Ottoman Empire thrown in), and Iraq would be an excellent geographical and economic base of operations for them. For Osama’s deputy (or successor if he’s dead) – Ayman al-Zawahiri – victory means nothing less than One World under Sharia. That would make Iraq somewhat less important geopolitically, but far more important economically.

We have to remember al Qaeda started this war, and they won’t end or minimize it on our say-so.

Webb also added one more statement that revealed his utter ignorance of the world around him:

. . . the Iraqis themselves are quite capable of standing up to al-Qaida without our help. They don’t want al-Qaida in Iraq.

Now, I would certainly agree that Iraqis do not like al Qaeda, but the Afghans didn’t like it either, and that didn’t stop Osama from getting in with the tyrannical Taliban and benefiting from its rule by fear, and in fact it took an American military involvement to bring that reign of terror to an end.

In time, of course, the Iraqis will be able to “stand up to al Qaeda,” but if they could do it now, I suspect they would have told us. The day folks like Sheikh Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi of the Anbar Salvation Council announce, “you guys can go home, we got this,” I’ll listen, but I need to hear it from him, not a Senator who doesn’t think al Qaeda will stay in the first place without Americans to fight.

By the way, Senator, if you are right in your assumption that al Qaeda would have “very little motivation” to stay in Iraq after we’ve gone, why would Iraqis need to stand up to them? Perhaps because even you know that notion is specious?

Well, it passed . . .

. . . and it’s headed for a veto (Senate vote).

Guess I got that one wrong.

Scratch one name from the list of endorsees (due to retirement)

I can not explain why I was so slow on the uptake, but I’ve finally noticed that Melanie Rapp is not running for re-election. For that reason – and that reason alone – she is off the right-hand column list of endorsees.

I’ll take this opportunity to once again invite folks to send me anti-tax candidates (unless some people, I do not consider that moniker pejorative) you think are worthy of a place on the list.

Awaiting Exhibit Fourteen

As I expected, the House passed the WBK War funding/Iraq withdrawal/pork bonanza bill. I’m still holding out hope that it will stumble in the Senate. Closer to home, though, I’ll be very interested to hear what Senator Webb has to say. Is exhibit fourteen coming?

Also, I’d love to hear if Webb agrees with his “lost” leader, Harry Reid. To get an idea of how a real leader talks, take a look at this.

This is what I get for not checking my e-mail

Wouldn’t you know it. Less than five minutes after I post my updated endorsement of John Van Hoy, and I find in my Inbox a message sent by the Van Hoy campaign over an hour ago with their website address: http://www.vanhoy4senate.com/.

Why I still support John Van Hoy (and why you should, too)

Well, things have been quite entertaining in the 28th State Senate District since I last made my views known. Back then, we had only one Republican candidate, John Van Hoy, although it looked like some others would jump in. Indeed, three have – Richard Stuart, John Myers, and Joe Graziano – and all are making themselves known – Stuart by the endorsements of John Chichester and Bill Howell (Free Lance-Star, h/t Virginia Virtucon), Myers by the endorsement of SWAC Girl, and Graziano by an unnamed blogger who sings the candidate’s praises via comments in every post (s)he can find (note to whats-his/her-name: that’s no criticism; your dedication is a sight to see). Despite all of this, I’m sticking with Van Hoy.

Stuart is the easiest to dismiss. I take it straight from the Chich’s mouth (FLS) “He said he’s backing Stuart because Stuart’s fiscal philosophies are in line with his own.” Stuart himself would “never say never” on tax hikes, which means I will always say never with him in a Republican nomination contest.

As for Myers, while his military service in Iraq is certainly admirable, his views on taxes are an anathema (Free Lance Star):

Myers said he’s a social conservative but a “fiscal realist”–he doesn’t like taxes but believes that taking a “no tax” pledge is akin to promising to cut state services.

With all due respect, that is a nonsensical statement.

That leaves Graziano. To be fair, Graziano is showing himself to be a fairly good right-winger (he even sends up Myers – without naming him – in this Virginia Virtucon interview). However, he simply doesn’t have Van Hoy’s history in the district. Graziano has run two races in Stafford (Supervisor in 2003, County GOP Chairman in 2004), and lost them both. Van Hoy, by contrast, led the Stafford GOP Committee for over a decade, and has served on several local organizations in the area. Stafford knows him very well, and the nominee will need to be as well-known in Stafford as humanly possible.

The fact is, Albert Pollard will be a strong candidate. I don’t think he’ll be as strong on the Northern Neck as he was before (remember, he did not run for re-election as a Delegate after voting for Mark Warner’s tax hike in 2004), but he’s no slouch out there. We need someone whom Stafford voters know as one of them, with a long history of local involvement. Van Hoy has that; Graziano doesn’t.

So, in the choice between two good candidates, I have to go with the one I feel has the best chance against the tax-hiking Pollard. That person was and is John Van Hoy.

With the new Iraq withdrawal bill pass the Senate?

Now that the Congressional Democrats have released the conference committee’s version of the WBK War funding/Iraq withdrawal/pork bonanza bill (New York Times), just about everyone is assuming a presidential veto – except me.

I’m not sure this bill will even reach the President’s desk.

I do believe the House will pass the bill, but I think the Senate is an open question right now. The last bill (which on the Senate side only requested a withdrawal timetable – this version demands one) squeaked by, 51-47. Already, at least one of those 51 (Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska) is getting skittish (Michael Barone – CBS), while another (Arkansas Democrat Mark Pryor) says he’d prefer a “secret” timetable (Southwest Times Record). Now, I’m not friendly to secret timetables (and I don’t think they would stay secret for very long), but that might be enough for Pryor to switch his vote. At 49-49 (the new numbers if Pryor and Nelson switch), the bill fails, even without Dick Cheney’s tie-breaking “no” vote, and I haven’t even considered Gordon Smith, the Oregon Republican who voted for the earlier version but may bolt on the firm deadline (the other GOP Senator who “crossed” – Chuck Hagel – will probably vote for anything that keeps him MSM’s favorite Republican).

Moreover, if the bill does indeed fail in the Senate, the Democrats’ political position would collapse in a heap of rubble. The Democrats desperately want the President to veto the funding bill, on the assumption that they can shift the blame to him for “not funding the troops.” Personally, I think they’ve forgotten how much hey they made with Clinton’s budget veto in 1995, but we should remember that neither Dick Gephardt (1995 House Minority leader) nor Tom Daschle (Senate Minority leader during that time) are around to counsel the current leadership. That said, if the funding bill goes awry on the Senate floor, the blame would be laid squarely at the feet of Democrats so eager to pick a political fight with the President that they couldn’t get a bill through Congress. The mandated withdrawal momentum may even recede just enough to get a “clean” funding bill through.

What this reminds us is that the politics of the WBK War are still, and will always be, in flux. The 1995 budget fight shows this yet again. In July of 1995, Bob Dole had a nine point lead on President Clinton in a CNN poll, largely due to the budget issue. Two months later, Clinton had erased that lead, and never trailed Dole again, thanks in large part to his seizing control of the budget issue. Obviously, the parallel is far from perfect, but it is informative: the President can do many things to restore his political position – and he can get plenty of help from unsuspecting Democrats. The latter may yet come through for him.

Richmond area Delegates endorse Blackburn

SWAC Girl over at Bloggers 4 Sayre has the terrific news, along with this perfect quote by Delegate Bill Janis:

On two separate occasions we have come to the brink of shutting down state government because the leadership in the Senate would not allow us to pass a bi-annual budget unless the House of Delegates acquiesced to their demands for over a billion dollars in new spending. I need a Senator like Joe Blackburn in the 12th District who I can work with and make sure that we can keep taxes low on our constituents (emphasis added).

The tax revolt lives, if only in the areas where voters can give it life through primaries like this.

Uh, Senator Reid? Did you sleep through the President’s January speech?

Senate Majority Leader (for now) Harry Reid embarrassed himself once again in a speech ripping President Bush today. Reid is not happy that the president refuses to agree with him that Iraq is “lost” (Virginia Virtucon). Reid pulled out Vietnam references, psychobabble, and soothing words for the peace-at-any-price voters. However, what really established Reid as completely out of touch was this whopper of a line:

Looking beyond Bush’s expected veto, he said, “If the president disagrees, let him come to us with an alternative. Instead of sending us back to square one with a veto, some tough talk and nothing more, let him come to the table in the spirit of bipartisanship that Americans demand and deserve.”

An alternative?!

The President already has presented an alternative. He presented it way back in January; he’s implementing it now; and by most accounts, it is achieving results. Reid, by contrast, has rejected that alternative out of hand at every single interval.

If I were Reid, I’d be very careful from here on out. There is a reason Reid is doing this kabuki dance on timetables and mandatory withdrawals as part of the war funding: if Reid tries to cut off funds altogether, Joe Lieberman will switch from “Independent Democrat” to “Independent who supports the Republicans.” While Nancy Pelosi has more room to maneuver, Reid is one mistake away from losing the Senate majority, and incurring the unrelenting wrath of his entire caucus (minus Lieberman).

The closer the day of fiscal reckoning comes, the more likely Reid will be unable to continue his antics and be forced to choose between giving in to the president or giving in to his base (and handing the Senate over to Mitch McConnell). If Reid were a principled statesman, he wouldn’t worry about this; but he isn’t a principled statesman – as anyone can see from his tap-dance on another issue.

Things still awry at BNN

The latest Virginia Influence Index is out, and once again, the good folks at BNN have some problems.

Namely, yours truly is number 13, ahead of Bacon’s Rebellion, Ward, and Q&O.

This can’t be right.