Love his sarcastic suggestion that "maybe we should send the military to the whole middle east".

How long?

Webb's laughing at Graham.  Great stuff.

I believe Sen. Graham just advocated for a military dictatorship.  Who decides our troops are going to war if not the people elected by voters?

I was hoping that the Senator would call him on the BS and let him know that it is Webb and Hagel representing the interests of the soldiers and Marines and their families and give that preposterous assertion the rightful dose of indignation and outrage it deserved.

"Somebody has to speak up for the troops."

"Read the polls, Lindsey"

Next, I want to see Webb take on Kagen and Kristol.

Of the 19,000 detainees, 135 are foreign and half of those are Saudi. Al-Qaeda in once again being use to scare Americans into supporting a failed policy by incompetent buffoons, aka the bush administration.

Notice that less than 1% of the detainees are foreign! We are fighting domestic insurgents and as Webb pointed out, it is the Iraqi locals behind the driving out of Al-Qaeda (with US support) from Anbar.

The people of Iraq will defeat Al-Qaeda and drive them from Iraq.

Webb speak up for those who have no power (our beloved troops) and speaks to the only thing that can now work in Iraq:  diplomacy.

Webb means business, and I thought he handled Graham's smug smears very well.  Oh Graham -- you're going to question whether Webb has gone to Iraq??????  Are you kidding me?  Does he truly think he sees Iraq for what it is when he goes with his 4-star entourage and protection?  Sick.

Once again, sooooo glad Webb is our Senator.

OMG, Hey Novak, maybe it has something to do with your cadaverous face and dour expression and advocacy on behalf of creepy, creepy people.

Still, it is clear that Lindsey Graham was not looking forward to facing Jim Webb on this subject.  Webb really performs with passion, reminding us why we fought so hard to support his campaign.

I thought Jim Webb HAD visited Iraq?

In a way more meaningful than any of these hamsters like Graham...by having a child in the middle of the fighting. Jim knows more about the troops than he will ever publicly disclose.

Best lines

"don't put political words in the soldiers mouths"
"so are the Saudis (killing Americans)" the home of Sunni inspired Al-Qaeda
"the people who want war with Iran and Syria", paraphrasing ,are the ones who are burning out the soldiers and Marines in Iraq.

There are probably many more that I can't remember at this time.

I know someone who went to Iraq with Cheney a few weeks ago, and he told me that when Cheney and his handlers were around everything was all rah-rah for the war and a bunch of talk about winning.  But this man later spoke to those same troops (members of the 82nd Airborne, elite troops), many of them told him of their unhappiness with the way the war was going, with the constant deployments, and with the sense that they were making little progress.  And even those who still supported "the mission" told him that they hated Bush.  He started asking every soldier he met about Bush, and every single one of them expressed hostility and/or disdain.  He was stunned.

what mom names their son lindsey? oops.

http://www.crooksand...

Lindsey Graham must be the only Republican foolish enough to think he can defend Bush's indefensible Iraq disaster, especially against Jim Webb.

The other highlight that almost slipped by us:
0:40:26 Bob Novak (smugly): "Republicans are very pessimistic about 2008, when you talk to them off the record.  They don't see how they can win this thing.  And then, they think for a minute, and only the Democratic Party with everything in their favor, would say that, okay, this is the year either to have a woman or an African-American to break precedent, to do things the country's never done before, and it gives the Republicans hope."

And then, the five white guys on the show just went on with the show.  Unbelievable.

Stupid Democrats, nominating the best candidates, regardless of race or gender.  Don't they think everybody's as racist and sexist as Bob Novak?  Apparently, Republicans do.

*"Graham is such a slimy little worm. How is it these ?people?, and I use the word in the loosest of contexts, are allowed to outright lie to the People the way they do? Graham knew he was lying, he was squirming in his seat like he was going to be struck by lightning any second."

*"This performance today by Webb almost assures him a number 2 spot on the Democrat ticket. And poor Lindsey Graham was lost when he ran out of the same old Republican talking points. I almost felt sorry for him."

*"I loved it when he said, ?excuse me, friend? and then put his hand on his shoulder. It was such a humiliting burn on Graham. It was like he was calming him down like you would a child who?s getting out of control. It also said, ?if you don?t let me talk, I?ma beat your ass!?

*"Lobotomy Graham was beating the bomb Iran drum to death on Meet the Press today and appears to be more rabid and delusional than bush.

He kept talking over Webb like a redneck schoolyard bully and would not adress Webb?s points that the troops need more time off and that over half of the foreign fighters are Saudis.

Should we bomb Saudi Arabia and Iran?"

The problem is that the U.S. under George W. Bush HAS NO COHERENT STRATEGY for the Middle East.  It never has. 

To the extent that this administration and its apologists have a strategy it is not for Iraq or for the U.S.  Their objective seem to be to bleed the American taxpayer and the military for another 18 months, so that it can dump a catastrophe of its own making on the laps of someone else. 

Why waste another 18 months?  Why doesn't Bush just resign?  By refusing to engage with reality he is effectively capitulating American interests to the benefit of our adversaries.  Al Qaeda has no better friend than George W. Bush.

I assume you have heard of blow back. I assume you know why Bin Laden wanted to strike us. I assume that you have read intelligence reports that indeed our invasion and occupation of a Muslim country has indeed created more "terrorist" and an explosion of terrorist attacks around the globe.

You are so naive to think all this exists in a vacuum. You are naive to think that our policies, the mistaken, wrongheaded, misguided, flawed, erroneous policies of bush and the neocons has NOT created blow back that has lead to that explosion of terrorism around the globe.

You insult our intelligence and all common sense to offer the weak argument that because terrorism has occurred in the past as an excuse to absolve bush and the neocons for what has metathesised into the face of current terrorism.

Everything that smart people like Jim Webb predicted would happen with this "unjust" war has occurred. None of your apologist blather for bush can change that fact. They are the biggest bunch of bunglers of all time. We have killed tens of thousands while suffering speakable costs in blood an treasure in bush and the gop's war and occupation on and of Iraq.

The people calling for withdrawal are saying that the U.S. is incapable of forcing the Iraqis to accept a democratic government.  In my view that is a realistic assessment.  Hell, even a good Iraqi friend of mine no longer refer to himself as Iraqi but as a Shiite.

Yes, people voted in 2005 in record numbers, but they voted based on sectarian loyalties.  Overwhelmingly Sunnis opposed the new Constitution, and overwhelmingly the Shiites favored the pro-Shiite Constitution.  If you understand just a little about the ethnic make-up of the country, then you'll see that there's a real problem there.

The Shiites (55% to 60% of the population) who control the levers of power have shut out the Sunnis (about 25% of the population) out of the government.  They have made no serious effort at achieving reconciliation on key issues -- in fact they are about to go on a one month vacation here in a couple weeks, just like the President. 

The Kurds who make up the remaining group (about 25% of the population) feel like they can get by regardless of what happens.

In a very real way there is NO Iraq today, just as there is NO Yugoslavia today.  If people are serious about Iraq, they need to stop talking about what kind of democracy we can create in Iraq, because that's not our decision to make.  When even the Iraqi prime minister says: "You can go now" what is the take away that you have when you hear that?

The problem is that there is NO Iraq anymore.  And the problem is that the dominant groups within Iraq see no incentive to do the heavy lifting related to building a functioning national government.  Each side is pursuing its sectarian interests and taking American military weapons and money, because we our leadership isn't dealing with reality as it is.

People who think that things MIGHT change in 10 to 20 years and are willing to do so at any cost, are employing the same type of rationalization that ensures casinos stay in operation.  A person doesn't continue to lose in a casino because they lack the "stomach" to get back in the black.  The lose money because they don't understand how casinos operate.  The same is true of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Bush and his bunch are gamblers who can't bring themselves to admit they're losing money and just leave the casino.

If you want a substantive debate on how to extricate ourselves from the bush/neocon disaster of Iraq, that is fine. However, your post did attempt to exonerate them from the disaster they did create with a bunch of historical jibberish. I suggest that you listen to the people who were right in 2002 and early 2003 and not the same bunch of ideologues that go us in the mess to begin with.

I am offended that you use simplistic slogans like winning and losing an "lost our stomach" when discussing Iraq. We lost when we went in, you apparently did not/have not realize(d) that, and our mission now is to leave in the best possible terms leaving behind the best possible situation. I assume you are not wanting to occupy Iraq for the next 50 years as has been recently proposed by the bushies.

You are correct that a comprehensive approach is required, yet fail to acknowledge that colossal mistake our invasion and bungled occupation was in the first place.

And as to my original reply, read your history on why we have problems with Iran, Bin Laden and many countries in the Middle East. We have problems because of our policies and not for stupid slogans like they hate us for our freedoms crap.

If collaborative, and not collaborationist, is really what they meant, then, with all due respect, these by now very senior citizens have zero idea how the contemporary corporate media functions. 

There are few comparisons that can be made between World War Two and the disaster in Iraq that cast the Bush regime, and those that support it, in anything but the poorest light imaginable.

By April of 1943, just one year and four months after the attack on Pearl Harbor, our military had tracked down and killed the author of that attack, Admiral Yamamoto.  Where?s Osama?

In less than four years after Pearl Harbor, we and our allies had utterly vanquished both Germany and Japan and had already begun implementing what may have been an even more significant accomplishment than the fighting itself, the post-war transformation of these two totalitarian states into the great bastions of democracy and the economic powerhouses that they are today.  Mission Accomplished!

Oh, and by the way, all this was accomplished by a progressive Democratic administration.

Al Qaeda's presence is more widespread in North Africa and the Middle East thanks to the Iraq invasion.  Al Qaeda has also returned to its pre-9/11 operational strength along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.  The loss of moral authority has created greater sympathy for violent attacks against the U.S. even among those who are unlikely to actually carry out the attacks in the Middle East.  U.S. policies vis a vis supporting authoritarian regimes has put the lie to our stated values as well.

The reality is that our policies--especially as they relate to Iraq--have been a major contributing factor to Al Qaeda's continuing appeal among the radical fringe.  Our continuing presence won't improve those realities. 

I also think it is wrong to state that Al Qaeda is the gravest threat to the safety and security of the American public as this administration is wont to do.  These ideas don't square with reality. 

More people will die because of the lack of health insurance (almost 50 million) within the next decade, or in car accidents, or even perhaps due to lack regulatory laws in reference to international trade (e.g. our food supply with China), than due to another terrorist attack. 

These are all risk factors that can be increased or reduced based on priorities at the top. 

I am saying this in the full awareness that there is a strong probability that Americans will have yet another attack on the home front sometime in the future.  I also realize in personal terms what the fallout from a terrorist attack means for a family.  Still, I'm an not blinkered by the rampant fear mongering that is being sold by the right to maintain power and line its pockets. 

The questions as far as they relate to Iraq are:

1. Do we need 160,000 troops plus another 120,000 or so contractors in a support role to take on 5,000 or so Al Qaeda members in Iraq, or could we perhaps do it just as effectively with say 40,000 troops? 

2. Given that there is no working Iraqi government, and that the only people who think of themselves as Iraqis anymore are 25% to 30% and almost exclusively Sunni -- how can the U.S. create the type of government that IT wants, if the Iraqis themselves are determined to fight this one out amongst themselves?  Nothing is going to magically change in 5 to 10 years.  Once the U.S. is gone -- or at least extricates itself from refereeing the civil war -- the sectarian war will begin.  In all probability it will get ugly.  In the meantime we should be talking to the neighbors to mitigate against a larger scale problem.  We should also be making contingency plans -- as we should have been even before the invasion -- for the best national strategy in the likely event that neighboring nations continue to fight their proxy war in Iraq (as is currently happening).

3. What consequences does staying in Iraq have for other strategic priorities?  How does the U.S. position benefit from a 40% decrease in military readiness since 2003, and a $120 billion a year burn rate benefit our interests on a global level?  As rich as this nation its, our resources are not unlimited.

One of the biggest canards that I keep hearing is that this is some "battle of wills".  It isn't.  No war of self-preservation since perhaps the bronze age has been won simply because one side had more "will" on its side.  Wars are won when national resources are intelligently put in the service of realistic objectives.  Neither of those conditions are present in Iraq right now -- at least as far as the U.S. is concerned.  We will need a continuing presence, albeit in smaller numbers.  But we also need that presence to be integrated into a regional and national strategy.  It currently is not.  That problem is unlikely to change as long as Bush is in power, and it will only be undermined by broadening the war to include Iran.

One of the impediments to doing what it takes to put America back on top is the fantasy of American military power, itself an extension of one of our nation's core myths, the can do American able to vanquish any impediment or foe. 

That we can change the tides of history with brute force, either by proxy or through direct American intervention, was turned on its head long ago by the Communist revolution in China.  The fall of Saigon some twenty-five years later confirmed the uselessness of thinking that military power can subdue the inexorable onrush of history's tides.  No one took that lesson to heart, certainly not the C- Yale history major and silverspoon princeling nor the very embodiment of revolving door sliminess and Washington insiderdom, Dick Cheney.

Trillions of dollars have been spent creating the most powerful military force in the history of mankind, yet that military cannot subdue a fly-bitten, rusting hulk of a country with 25 million sorry ass inhabitants.  So, apart from continuing to enrich the defense industry, what is the point of maintaining a force structure that consumes the lion's share of this country's resources?  What is the point of twelve carrier groups cruising the world's oceans in desperate search of a mission?  What is the point of newer and more expensive fighters like the F22 or F35 when there's not a single nation on earth who can put a plane into the air against the fighters we already have?

What impact would the $ 12 billion a month being poured into the sands of Iraq have on America's future if it were instead being spent on a Manhattan-type project to achieve a breakthrough on alternative energy?  Does anyone doubt that we have the talent to achieve that?

What this country lacks -- apart from the estimable Senator Webb and a mere handful of others -- is the brave leadership to get us there.

Again, the root cause of what's wrong is the lazy, jingoistic and ethnocentric electorate who elect yada yada talking heads from either the tweedledee or tweedledum political parties.  The brave speakers of truth to power -- be it Congressman Paul or Mike Gravel or Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich -- are marginalized, mocked and reviled.  The people of this country deserve what they get.

Does anyone doubt that Osama has already set in motion another strike that will likely dwarf 9/11?  What happens then?

It appears this country has a long way to go before it hits bottom.

As far as occupations go this is a whole nother bag.  I think the "onrush of history's tides" is a little too over the top.  I would say that a colonial occupation--even if the occupier doesn't view it in such terms--requires a lot more energy and a commitment of resources than is worth the time or effort.  There are better ways to co-opt adversaries and turn them into allies--or to at least keep them in check.  In those cases where nation-building is required, we're better off having a lot more "burden sharing" ala the former Yugoslavia than with phony "coalitions" along the lines of this most recent Gulf War.

As far as Al Qaeda goes, in terms of large scale terrorist attacks, the most likely scenario seems to be attacks along the lines of what happened to the British in 2005 and Spanish faced in 2004 (e.g. attacks on public transportation).  We should do what we need to do to mitigate against that possibility.  Nuclear facilities, and other infrastructure here in the U.S. need to have security in place.  There is nothing that we can do to prevent a suicide bomber from walking into a crowded area and detonating him or herself.  In terms of probabilities my chances are still about as good of being killed by that outcome as by being hit by lightning or getting hit by a speeding car while crossing the street.  Possible, but not probable.

The prospect of a "dirty bomb" I see as the most over-hyped risk out there.  Even if Al Qaeda was to pull this off, we're looking at several hundred deaths -- and perhaps some long-term health risks due to radiation poisoning.  More people are likely to be killed by the explosive detonation than by the disbursement of low-grade nuclear material.  I'm sure cable news coverage though will make it seem like it's Hiroshima all over again.

The most ridiculous one is the high-grade nuclear weapon with a sophisticated detonation device.  Maybe in 20 to 50 years this will become a realistic possibility, but even if Islamic militants get their hands on a nuke in Pakistan, the greatest risk is likely to Pakistan itself, because I doubt India would wait around to make a risk assessment.

It would be accurate to say that healthcare spending accounts for a large part of federal spending, it is not correct to say that it accounts for more spending than Social Security and Military spending combined.

The overhyped Sadaam links to Al Qaeda, on the other hand, have nothing to do with our intelligence services and everything to do with Cheney's staffers fitting the facts to prove their theories.  They were just flat out wrong.  There was evidence of contacts between the Sadaam and Al Qaeda in the 1990s, but there were never any operational links.  Neither side trusted the other, which is frequently what happens when two megalomaniacs consider forming a partnership. 

The situation in Iraq now is obviously very complicated.  It's a lot more complicated than simply saying "it's the central front on the war on terror" or that it's just about "Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda".

In the south and center of the country you have a predominantly Shiite population that is backed in large part by Iran.  These Shiite militias are not a unified force and would very likely come into conflict in the event of a civil war.  The major faction in the center of the country is headed by Sadr; in the south you have the Badr brigades who have very close ties to Iran.  The Shiites, for the most part, have not been in direct conflict with the U.S. since 2004.  The Shiites have undermined U.S. aims by killing Sunnis in Baghdad and surrounding areas which has helped foment an unstable environment; they have also done very little on the political front to bring about reconciliation with the Sunnis.  The major Shiite leaders actually don't seem to have much interest in accommodating the Sunnis in a national unity government, because they figure, if it comes down to a fight, they will end up on top.  So why compromise? 

The Sunnis are a little more unified; however, you still have differences here.  Some are aligned with Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia (foreign fighters from Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Jordan, Morocco, Libya and other nations).  Some are former Baathists who can't accept the idea of a Shiite dominated Iraq, and many are Sunnis who have banded together as a matter of self-preservation as a form of defense against Shiite death squads and the prospect of a Shiite dominated Iraq. 

You also have some tribal chiefs in Anbar who have been siding with U.S. interests this year (although as Webb pointed out it would be wrong to really say that they are "on our side".  Only in so far as Al Qaeda is concerned).

In the north we have the Kurds.  The Kurds are interested in grabbing the oil fields in Kirkuk and are giving the Turks some concerns .  The Turks are concerned that Kurds might separate from Iraq and create problems for their own Kurdish population, who they have been at war with for the better part of the past 20 years and on and off for the past 100.  There is some concern that if the Kurds break away from Iraq that the Turks might invade.

All of these problems are compounded by competing interests that other neighboring countries have.  The Saudis, Kuwaitis, Jordanians, Egyptians, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen are Sunni, and don't want to see a Shiite dominated Iraq emerge--especially one that is aligned with Iran.  The Saudis, Bahrain, and UAE in particular are concerned because they contain significant Shiite populations (a significant minority in an oil rich area of Saudi Arabia, and a majority population in Bahrain).  They are concerned that an empowered Shiite population in Iraq might generate independence movements within their own borders. 

Iran sees this as an opportunity to expand its influence in the region and control a significant amount of the oil supply.  Ironically outside of Israel and Turkey, Iran is probably the most democratic, and the most attuned to American culture (everything is relative here).  It is also a natural adversary of Al Qaeda, which draws its ranks from Sunni Muslims.  This should raises a whole set of questions when Bush says our biggest threat is Iran AND Al Qaeda.  These two forces are natural enemies, so which is it?  If we weaken the position of one, we strengthen the position of the other.

I haven't even touched on Syria.  Syria once had close ties with Sadaam the Sunni, but now that Sadaam is gone they have established closer ties with Shiite Iran. 

If you're confused, that's a decent response.  Perhaps we'd be better off if Bush was too, because he might start asking the right questions. 

The entire region is a mess of ethnic ties and rivalries which predate the creation of an Iraqi state--that's the reality that we're running up against.  Because of oil and Israel and to some extent Al Qaeda, we can't cut our losses entirely, but the way that we're going about this business right now just makes absolutely no sense.

If you want to do some digging of your own, I would recommend spending a few evenings reading Baker-Hamilton and the Iraq review by the International Crisis Group, which was released around the same time http://www.crisisgro....

No one really knows how things will shake out when the U.S. leaves Iraq.  I think the odds say that the neighboring countries will step up their involvement through proxies, but no one really knows.  It is certainly not in the interests of the countries in the Middle East to have a full-blown war. 

As far as Musharraf goes, the U.S. has to walk a fine line.  He doesn't have any popular support, he has bad relations with the tribal areas (where Al Qaeda is located) and if it weren't for the military he would be out of power.

Having said that, something needs to be done along the border region.  If Musharraf is able to reduce the capacity of Taliban and Al Qaeda outposts this would be in the U.S.'s interests.  Long-term the best possible outcome would be if Musharraf cedes power to another democratically elected leader and peaceable leaves office.

I am sure that India is watching this one closely.  Over the past few years they have been able to achieve a degree of peace with Musharraf.  If Islamic militants were to gain possession of Pakistani nukes, I don't think the Indians would wait around to see what the militants might do with them (the U.S. probably wouldn't either).  I think this is still a very remote likelihood.  The militants are a significant minority within the country, but they have even less support than Musharraf among the general population.

The Christian Science Monitor has a good run down on this one: http://www.csmonitor...

As a general policy I think it's a bad idea for the U.S. to throw its weight behind military leaders.  It makes us come across as hypocrites, and it will damage our relations with Pakistan in the event that a democratic leader comes back into power.  I don't think it would necessarily be the end of the world if Musharraf loses power -- in the near future (the next year to two years) -- this actually could be a good outcome for Pakistan.  As far as U.S. interests are concerned, hopefully we can take advantage of the Pakistani military intervention to go after some of the Al Qaeda training camps.  Obviously this is one of those things that would need to be done without any fanfare.

Even though Musharraf is not liked by the population, the U.S. right now has about as much standing among ordinary Pakistanis as the militants.  Direct military involvement by the U.S. if it made it to the headlines would probably do real damage to Musharraf's ability to hold onto power -- even given the current circumstances.

This situation is a little less complicated than Iraq, but still it seems like it can go a number of different ways.  Obviously something that we should be paying some attention too.  The biggest concern though is as far as ordinary Pakistanis and India are concerned.

As a bit of a side note, the current problems are partially the making of the Pakistani intelligence services.  Throughout the 1990s and up until the present they have supported groups like the Taliban with madrasas in the tribal areas.  These tribal areas were safe havens for Afghanis who had fled Afghanistan during the war with the Soviets and the civil war which followed after the Soviet withdrawal.  During the 1990s the Pakistani intelligence services also supported these groups because they wanted to be able to exert influence inside Afghanistan and limit the influence of Iran.  In fact things got so bad in 1999-2000 that Iran almost went to war with the Taliban in Afghanistan (the U.S. took care of the problem for the Iranians when they removed the Taliban in 2001-2002).

To the best of my understanding Al Qaeda was not operating in the Pakistan tribal areas until after the U.S. invasion.  Many of their recruits made passage to Afghanistan through Pakistan; however, the Pakistanis, to the best of my understanding were not supporting Al Qaeda directly. 

It's also worth pointing out that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are not entirely identical.  The Taliban have a local interest--control of Afghanistan; Al Qaeda is a group with much broader ambitions.  The Taliban worked with Al Qaeda in the late 1990s because they were united in their fight against different ethnic groups located in the north of Afghanistan.  And also because Al Qaeda provided financial assistance to the Taliban.  The Taliban gave Al Qaeda a free reign to run their training camps in exchange.

As far as Afghanistan goes, I can't say how this one will play out either.  At least on a first-glance look, I think this might make things a little easier for the U.S.  One of the biggest challenges for us has been our reluctance to undercut Musharraf's authority by going into these tribal areas across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.  The current situation might remove some of those concerns on both the U.S. and Pakistani side (at least as far as Musharraf is concerned).  I would caution that I'm just giving you my best non-professional guesses on this one.  I've spent a lot more time understanding the Iraqi dynamic than the one in Pakistan-Afghanistan, but I'm sure there are a number of factors that I'm not taking into consideration.

At least as far as Pakistan is concerned, I think it is a remote possibility though that militants will get their hands on Pakistani nukes.  Anything can happen, but there are a number of factors that are working against the militants in this regard.

And now the Bushies are trying to palm off the failures of their policies on the "incompetent" Iraqi government, hinting at replacing Maliki. Just as we encouraged the coup that replaced Diehm (or was it Nguyen? It's been a while) in Vietnam. That did not work either. As far as those tribal leaders in Anbar that Senator Graham spoke so knowingly about, it is absurd to say they are supporting America now, as Webb pointed out. I have no doubt they will be using the arms we lavish on them against each other and the Shiite folks in the Baghdad "government" the first chance they get.

-  Sen Graham was being a general pain in the neck by talking over Webb, yes, but I feel like it was a retaliatory tactic.  Graham only did that after Webb started talking over Graham first(, which honestly Webb had to do because Russert was letting Graham go on endlessly.)  It went back and forth, and I can't say either senator won many style points in that fracas.  Points on content merit are another story altogether.  Clearly, Webb made several unexpectedly powerful points, like the aforementioned "move the whole army to the middle east" argument, that permanently knocked Graham into "automatic talking points mode". 

-  Someone mentioned above that Graham forcefully bent every answer of his to some pre-scripted talking point.  Look at the first few answers from Webb.  I'm pretty sure he did the same thing.  Everyone does it, on every show, everyday.  Some interviewees loosen up and get real after a few questions and some stick to the rehearsed points, but from what I can tell you can't point the finger at Graham yesterday and not do the same to Webb. 

Personally, I'm a huge fan of Webb and his injection of this Kicking Ass attitude, for lack of a better phrase, into the Democratic party, and despite this post, I actually loved watching him yesterday.  But if he's going to excel in the world of debate and diplomacy, I think he's going to need to keep working on his (admittedly much improved) eloquence.  I, you, they, he all know that he can physically stomp an opponent into the ground, but wordlessly implying "I'm going to throat-punch you" whenever things get dicey doesn't always get the proper point across.  And, frankly, I think it also betrays his considerable intellect and wisdom.