Casey and Webb both voted against the Iraq withdrawal Bill? Anyone know why?

[saracat]

I thought Webb was the anti war darling.

[TwilightGardener]

1. There's no way Webb would have voted to cut funding--nor Ben Nelson,

or any of the more conservative Dems. I don't support it either.

[Catchawave]

2. Va Beach Dems has the press release from Webb:

http://www.vbdems.org/?p=1219

[IA_Seth]

3. Webb's Statement...

“This is a very difficult time for those of us who have long known that the war in Iraq was a strategic error of monumental proportions, but who also understand the practical realities of disengagement. A majority of this country believes that we need to readjust our Iraq policy and to get our combat forces off the streets of Iraq’s cities. A majority of our military believes that this Administration’s approach is not working. A majority of the Congress believes that we need a new approach.

(snip)

“With respect to the approaches that have been taken recently, let me first say that I am cynical about the stack of benchmarks that have appeared in recent bills, laying down a series of requirements to the Iraqi government. The reality is that the Iraqi government is a weak government. Like the Lebanese government twenty years ago, it has very little power, and it is surrounded by a multiplicity of armed factions which have overwhelming power in their concentrated areas of activity. Too often, the benchmarks that we, in our splendid isolation, decide to impose, are little more than feel-good measures, giving us the illusion that we are doing something meaningful. And just to make them more illusory, the language we send over on benchmarks and other policies such as unit readiness and length of deployment are couched with waivers, so that the President can simply ignore the language anyway. What does this do? How can we continue these actions and then claim to the American people that we’re really solving the most troubling issue of our era? Some of these discussions remind me of what Mark Twain once wrote, saying that the government in Washington is like two thousand ants floating down the river on a log, each one thinking they’re driving it.

“Secondly, let me say that I admire the intentions in the bill that my colleague Senator Feingold introduced earlier today. However, I could not vote for that bill, because an arbitrary cutoff date for funding military operations in Iraq might actually work against the country’s best interests in an environment where we have, finally seen some diplomatic efforts from this administration. Recent initiatives from Secretary of State Rice, Ambassador Crocker, and Admiral Fallon, the new commander of the Central Command, hold out the hope, if not the promise, that we might actually start to turn this thing around. Admiral Fallon has publicly stated that we must deal with Iran and Syria. Ambassador Crocker at this moment is arranging a diplomatic exchange with Iran. Secretary of State Rice has cooperated at the ministerial level in an environment where her Iranian counterpart was also at the table. And importantly, Admiral Fallon mentioned during his recent confirmation hearing that it is not the number of troops in Iraq that is important, but the uses to which they would be put. There is room for movement here, as long as the movement occurs in a timely fashion. An arbitrary cutoff date would, at this point, take away an important negotiating tool. Let’s just hope that they use the tools we are providing them in an effective manner.

(snip)

http://www.vbdems.org/?p=1219
-----------------------------------------

I recommend reading the rest of his statement to understand the context. As much as I'd like it to be possible to get this passed, I think he is correct. What we need is a focus on regional diplomacy, not an out-and-out removal of our troops.