Webb Makes Another Great Committee Appearance

By: Catzmaw
Published On: 1/11/2007 3:22:33 PM

Today while wandering the roads of Northern Virginia I was able to listen to about an hour and a half total of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing featuring Condoleeza Rice but could not write anything down, so once again I invite correction, elucidation, or addition to what I have here. 

Senator Webb was the very last one out of twenty one committee members to ask a question.  I was wondering what he'd come up with, as the major points about the increase in troop levels, etc., had already been covered at length.

Senator Biden introduced Webb by complimenting him on his great patience and also noted that he has extensive experience in the issues being covered.  Webb replied jokingly that he would be brief as he knew he was the last thing between Biden and lunch and between Secretary Rice and the door. Hee.

Senator Webb said he was going to make a point to which it was not necessary for Secretary Rice to respond, and then he would pose a question.  He also said that Condi is welcome to visit him any time to talk - "the door is open" - and he also extended "best regards" to the President.  The rest follows ....
He noted that a major factor in his and others'  opposition to the war was that it would empower Iran.  The empowerment has come to pass, and in fact Iran's power in Iraq is probably the greatest it has been for 200 years.  He suggested that this situation is somewhat reminiscent of the situation back in 1971, when China, then a rogue state, had an American war on its border, and President Nixon flew to Beijing and started the process toward a rapprochement between the U.S. and China. He pointed out that there are two ways to go with Iran.  One is the informal behind the scenes type of diplomacy we occasionally do with Iran, and the other is to step forth as the major diplomatic actor and to challenge Iran to come to the table.  He said "it would be a bold move for President Bush to fly to Tehran" and initiate talks.

He then asked his question, saying first that at the Pentagon during Reagan's tenure the President's powers vis a vis authority to launch military actions was well understood, but in examining the language of the resolution passed in support of the Iraq war it would be possible to extrapolate out from that language that its reference to direct versus indirect threats might be thought by some to imbue the President with the power to launch a preemptive attack without Congressional approval.  He asked Condi point blank whether this was the administration's interpretation of that resolution.  I would have loved to see her face on that question, but can only say that after a pause she replied that she could not answer that question in testimony and would prefer to make one in writing.  He said that was fine, and he looked forward to seeing it. 

I believe there may have been followup regarding under what circumstances the administration would consider a threat, direct or indirect, to be so significant as to warrant an attack, but was too busy yelling encouragement at my radio to process what he said. 

Webb's questions concluded, Biden took over and thanked Condi for coming, yada yada, then picked up Webb's football and ran with it (yep, too many Allen speeches) and said that he and the rest of the members of the Committee were looking forward to the answer, too, and that if the administration tried to assert its right to launch a preemptive attack on Iran without Congressional approval it would set in motion a constitutional crisis with the Congress opposing the President. 

There was then a little colloquy where Biden referred to when the troop increase came, and Webb pointed out that a number of Marine units in Anbar province (Jimmy's included, perhaps?) have already been told their tours are extended, and that in effect the surge Anbar has partially taken place. 

There was more, but this is what I can remember an hour after hearing it. 

Have I mentioned yet just how impressed I am with our new Senator? 


Comments



Thanks (KathyinBlacksburg - 1/11/2007 4:23:09 PM)
From those of us not near CSPAN this afternoon, thanks.  I saw Condi's face during a brief segment over the lunch hour and the look on her face I won't soon forget.  She has surpassed the level of her own previous incompetence.  She wants to respond in writing?  Who is she kidding?


Senator Johnson spoke (kevinceckowski - 1/11/2007 6:47:15 PM)
today, breaking news coming out right now from the hospital he is at.

http://news.yahoo.co...

Thank God!



There was some great sparring going on (beachmom - 1/11/2007 4:33:16 PM)
in that committee room.

At this link, you can see Kerry give it to Condi:

http://video.msn.com...

You can also watch Hagel who's very good, too.



Great stuff (Catzmaw - 1/11/2007 5:25:10 PM)
Thanks for posting this.  I think it will probably be re-run on C-Span2 some time this evening, possibly around 9-ish.  I've even found Committee re-runs on after midnight on C-Span2, but there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason in the re-run decision. 


Answer: It already is a Constiutional crisis (Bubby - 1/11/2007 4:34:40 PM)
Rice didn't answer because she knows that her boss is already in the danger zone. No one but the President and his court jester (Tony Snowjob) are going to respond Webb's question. That is, 'respond' not 'answer'. 

Webb asked the question because he knows he will be stonewalled on the answer.  That will give him and the FR Committee the rationale to call other witnesses and develop their own findings.  They are building the knowledge base for a confrontation - one fact at a time. 



Even the Repubs got in a few licks (Catzmaw - 1/11/2007 5:22:58 PM)
I heard most of Chuck Hagel's questions and he was clearly losing patience with Condi's dissembling and spinning.  He declared the Iraq war "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam," and could barely curb his irritation with her.  Chuck may be a dyed in the wool Republican, but he and Webb have been together on the Iraq issue for a long time.  ... And they said Webb couldn't play well with others.

When Biden was closing the meeting he told Secretary Rice that of the 21 members of the Committee, Democratic and Republican, only one or two had shown any approval for the President's current course of action, and he invited her to take that back to the White House.



Great post (Terry85 - 1/11/2007 6:12:52 PM)
Thank you.


The current difficult policy with Iran (novamiddleman - 1/11/2007 6:21:19 PM)
Our current policy is unless Iran verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities there will be no talks.  It's sort of hard to go and talk to them with this statement out there. 

It's all part of the problem of Iran holding too many cards with the Nuclear issue AND having power over the actions of the Shias. 



It's really stupid policy (beachmom - 1/11/2007 6:31:44 PM)
America wants Iran to drop enrichment, but then says the only way they'll talk to Iran is IF they give up enrichment.  That's the opposite of what diplomacy is about.  Why would anyone enter negotiations if one of their leveraging issues has to be elminated before the talks start?

Cowboy diplomacy is what it is and it's useless and has made us less safe.



Right on the money (Catzmaw - 1/11/2007 6:37:27 PM)
I have heard this type of policy referred to as asking the party to bid against himself.  Iran has so far seen no incentive from us to negotiate, but Bush is saying he won't negotiate with them unless they give him the incentive to do so by curbing their nuclear (or nucular) program.  The Iranians are thinking "what's in it for us?", to which the answer is nothing, so they have no incentive to give us an incentive to talk to them.  No wonder Bush was a failure as a businessman.  He doesn't understand elementary principles of negotiation.


CONsumed all day (kevinceckowski - 1/11/2007 6:39:56 PM)
with this bloody war.  We have been taken for a ride for so long, we thought we did not know how to answer the tough questions.  We have suddenly come alive and are asking some of the hardest questions this Nation has put forth to an Administration in 30 some years.  The War Powers Act of 1973 came up quite a bit in many of the emails I read at our Webb yahoo site.  The issue of Benchmarks also came up, just what are they?  On a BBC site and interview, they quote Condi as saying Al Maliki is "working of borrowed time."  OOUCH!  Would love to read the transcripts of that one.  Al Maliki was interviewed as saying he would love it ever so much if his time was up, if he could just throw in the towel and that he regrets he ran for office in the first place.  Boy!  Is George Bush going to have to supervise a THIRD election?  Will Bush like the next ruler any better?  The WaPost today stated that the issue of a stable government (wish I had my paper to get an exact quote, second page of the article,near the bar charts, etc.) is not the first item on the list, if it is on the list for success any longer anyway.  The first item on the list is SECURITY. What does that mean?  Surely nobody wants a dictator again or 3-4 small Iraqs (KurdRaq, SuunRaq, ShiitRaq and well you get the picture), but maybe that is okay for them to call it "victory" or "success".

Finally as I mentioned earlier today NPR had a story on the radio at like 0610 were they were interviewing some Kurds in the north of Iraq.  The conversation was basically the Kurds saying they were not sure if they wanted to defend parts of Iraq, namely those sections run by Arabs.  Excuse me!?##*$W)@)  Like, this is your country and well you want it or not? My blood was boiling after hearing that. Do they know how far and how much time and money and sweat and tears, etc. we have given for their country?  WHAT A MESS. 

The hard questions have to be asked and I am glad Senator Webb and the rest of the Senate are finally asking those questions.



Read the Q&A with Condi here: (beachmom - 1/11/2007 6:43:13 PM)
I just put it up:

http://vbdems.blogsp...



War with Iran? (kevinceckowski - 1/11/2007 8:18:27 PM)
Is that what all this is about? If we don't win in Iraq, we shoot ourselves in the foot about going to war with Iran?  After reading the transcript, Condi's statements about how the Administration has come a very long way with Iran and they still won't listen, is she saying this Administration wants to go to war with the next Axis of Evil, aka Iran?  I get a real creepy feeling about her dancing words tonight.  I hope we are not heading down that path.

It is coming out on Yahoo right now too about all the changes to Reserve status, from 12 months to 2 sets of 24 months.

Also new numbers about how Gates wants to expand the services, making a huge military machine once again.

Get your duct tape and canned goods ready folks. Something is brewing down the road, my opinion only, but the hair on my arms are standing up.



Just in over the AP wire (mkfox - 1/11/2007 7:31:02 PM)
Webb (along with Obama, Kerry, Tester and Landrieu) have opposed the Senate Democrats' version of an earmark reform bill because it's not as strict as the House's version.


Good, give em hell Jim! (kevinceckowski - 1/11/2007 8:06:25 PM)
Let's get tough!

And I just read a statement Condi made before the committee today.  She will not say that we WON'T attack Iran.  What are they thinking?  Do they want the entire region to go up in smoke? Provaction can be bitter/sweet. I think her trip tomorrow will be telling and there is no final word if she even plans to visit Al Maliki.



Hoorah! (JPTERP - 1/11/2007 8:33:25 PM)
Thanks for the heads up on this.  The Houston Chronicle has a good story on this.  Way to go Jim!

http://www.chron.com...



Big Jim! Senator Webb I mean (fix_it - 1/11/2007 8:48:55 PM)
Go Senator Webb! We have a rising star in our Senator.
An answer to the bushco machine.