[richlevy]

I caught most of the interview of Jim Webb by Chris Wallace this morning (transcript here). I will say it was one of the most brutal interrogations of a politician I have seen in recent years. Considering how many politicians these days, especially high ranking ones like Bush and Clinton, force preconditions on questions, this seemed to be a no holds barred interview.

Wallace asked some tough questions. I think he was acting as a proxy for our own UG. Webb firmly answered back some tough questions, even insisting on addressing what he felt were insinuations built into the questions.

There were a lot of good moments in the interview. Here are a few.

WALLACE: So in the absence of a diplomatic agreement — and we'll get to that in a moment. In the absence of that, is all this talk from Democrats about troop caps and withdrawals irresponsible?
WEBB: I don't think it's irresponsible. I think what has been irresponsible has been the administration coming forward with solutions or so-called solutions that simply go back to the well again and again to the military without addressing the elephant in the bedroom.
And the elephant in the bedroom is dealing with Iran and Syria. And we're getting that across the board. We even get it from the Baker-Hamilton report. We had them in front of us a few days ago, and I asked them about that.
What actually would be the procedure for the United States government to reach a point where there was a diplomatic umbrella so that we could then begin withdrawing our troops?
You're not going to do this simply by sending more troops in again and again, the way that we've been doing, and addressing a situation that even the National Intelligence Estimate has said is probably worse than a civil war.
This isn't even sectarian violence anymore. There are so many components to it that it's chaos. And if you're a military person on the street, there's only so much you can do.

WALLACE: Let me ask you directly my question.
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.
The way that this war has been defined is a 20-year war. In fact, I got mail at the beginning of this war when I was opposing it, before we went in, basically saying you need to sit down and shut up because you're being disloyal to a president.
But when do you start talking? Twenty years from now? And particularly in a situation now where the — all the conditions that are being predicted if we withdraw from Iraq — and basically, by the way, they're saying precipitous withdrawal, and no one is saying that — are the conditions that those of us like myself were predicting would occur if we went in and are on the ground.
Empowering Iran? That's one of the reasons I said we shouldn't go in. Being less able to fight the war against international terror — we were saying that. Focus on international terror, don't focus on this. Loss of American prestige around the world — we had the world with us before we went in. Economic disadvantages — we're going to put, what, $800 billion more into this war if we keep going?

The interview also touched on economics, and whether the Dems are out to punish the rich. Webb brought up the income disparities. IMO, he could also have brought up the fact that that $800 billion war bill is currently unfunded but that the interest paid will probably offset government services.