Right now, Sen. George Allen and challenger Jim Webb are debating on Meet the Press. I’m a few minutes behind from a few TiVo pauses, so if that doesn’t suit you try checking out Jon Henke’s liveblogging instead (or better, in addition to). Probably a good idea to check in there anyway.

So far, we’ve seen Webb argue that Allen supported the war in Iraq solely out of loyalty to the President, which Allen rebutted pretty well by pointing out the interests of the U.S. in showing national unity against our enemies. He did a not so good job answering Tim Russert’s question as to whether he would still support the invasion of Iraq, if he knew everything we know today. Next we get a semi-gratuitous swipe at the French, with Allen pointing out that even they supported the first Gulf War while Webb did not. Webb responds with a completely gratuitous swipe at Allen, a la “at least the French were in Vietnam, and you weren’t, nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah.”

The topic shifted to what to do in Iraq now. Allen made a strong case for how much improvement there has been in Kurdistan and the Shia south, and a so-so case for what we’re doing to stablize things in Baghdad, and implied we should pretty much forget about Anbar. Webb began with a semi-constructive discussion about what to do about Iraq now, given that we can’t unring the bell of having invaded in the first place. He then went gratuitous again, talking about how wonderfully Iran used to cooperate with the U.S. until that meanie Bush called it a part of the Axis of Evil. He then resorts to a class warfare version of the chickenhawk non-argument:

One of the things I’ve done is I’ve proposed a 5% tax break for all people who’ve served honorably in the military. And one of the reasons I have done that is if you go to the typical income of a veteran, it’s about thirtysomething thousand dollars, or so. It’s not a high cost program, and it’s targeted to people who’ve served. And one of the things that that would do, by the way, in my view, is to bring more people from across class lines into the military. One of the great problems we have right now, in discussing this war, is that very few people who have brought us this war have served, and very, very few of the children of these people who brought this war have served. If you have to wake up every morning, wondering about a loved one, you will look at wars like this much differently.

Russert’s next question focused on what Webb would do to get out of Iraq. Webb (mis-?)quoted Eisenhower, taking a swipe at the Bush Administration and implying that there’s no way to solve the problems in Iraq before 2009, but also correctly noted the futility of suggesting a date certain. Webb then channeled John Kerry, suggesting that the de facto Webb Administration will get our troops out by “get[-ting] the other countries in the region overtly involved in the diplomatic process.” Maybe the whole war thing could have beeen avoided by getting Saddam Hussein overtly involved in the process of holding democratic elections there. Then he finished by suggesting that our troops could operate from Kuwait and Qatar, then return to Iraq after Iraq has stabilized and no longer needs our troops there. O-kay.

Russert’s next question was directed to Allen. He began by quoting some rather inflammatory statements made by Iraqi parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani on July 13, 2006:

The speaker of [the Iraqi] parlianemnt acused “jews” of financing acts of violence in Iraq in order to discredit Islamists who control the parliament and government so they can install their “agents” in power…

“Some people say, ‘We saw you beheading, kidnapping and killing,’” [Speaker Mahmoud] al-Mashhadani said. “These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew. I can tell you about these Jewish, Israelis and Zionists who are using Iraqi money and oil to frustrate the Islamic movement in Iraq. … No one deserves to rule Iraq other than the Islamists.”

Russert then asked if we had created an Islamist fundamentalist state in Iraq. Allen replied that we had not, but seemed to be rambling a bit, first by perfunctorily deploring his words, then talking about Iraq’s recent meeting with neighboring Iran, and finally by reiterating how crappy Saddam Hussein was for paying the families of suicide bombers. That last point seemed to ramble a bit, but I guess there is a so-so argument in there: the former regime actively murdered Jews, while the current one merely blood libels them. Maybe that’s the best we can hope for in the Middle East, I don’t know. Allen further elaborates on how fledgling democracies can have a steep learning curve, and argues that the Iraqis have made decent advances on some fronts, and need to make more on others. I’ll take that. He ends by suggesting a system like Alaska’s where every Iraqi gets a share of the oil revenue, and therefore, has a strong incentive not to sabotage it.

Russert’s next question, also directed to Allen, focused on the $300 billion spent on Iraq, asking if the money could have been put to better use elsewhere in the War on Terror. Allen attempted to sidestep the question by pointing out that considerable spending has also occurred elsewhere. Russert got him back to the original question, and he objected, saying you can’t go second-guessing past decisions. Kinda like the “if you knew then what you know today, would you have invaded anyway” vs. “I didn’t know then what I know today, dammit!” exchange at the beginning of the debate.

Allen does make a decent point, though, namely that running a 2006 campaign on what should/shouldn’t have been done in 2003 is rather pointless; better we should debate what we should do now. On that, Allen argues that his position is barely distinguishable from Webb’s. Webb replies “That’s absolutely not true,” only to quickly switch the subject back to what we should have done in 2003. He then claims, implausibly, that we could have taken out Saddam without invading the country as we did. Russert had to prod him to get back to the question of what to do now, and Webb said we need a clear statement from the Administration that we don’t seek a lpermanent presence in Iraq (kinda like the ones we’ve gotten already?!) and to find some mystical way to get the countries surrounding Iraq (including Iran?!) to take charge of its future. Webb appeared genuinely surprised when Allen responded that he didn’t want any permanent bases in Iraq, either. Ultimately, Webb ended up proving Allen’s point - they can disagree till the cows come home over what we should have done 3 1/2 years ago, but when it comes to what to do in the future, their principal disagreement seems to be not over whether or not we should stay there indefinitely (both candidates agree with the Administration that we shouldn’t), but over whether the interim period can be handled by moving more of our troops from Iraq, where they hate us, to other nearby countries in the Middle East, where they also hate us, but which are within striking distance of Iraq, which is the country we’re really interested in stabilizing. Whatever.

The next question was the “torture” bill, which President Bush supports but Virginia’s other Senator, John Warner, opposes. Russert asked which side of the issue Allen comes down on. Allen repeatedly refused to say which we he stands on it for now, but stressed the usefulness of the interrogations, on the one hand, and of preserving the Geneva Conventions, on the other. Allen appeared to draw a distinction between waterboarding, which the bill would presumably allow, and the much crueler and more controversial tactics like cold rooms, sleep deprivation, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Russert then provided a commonly quoted but uncommonly silly statement by Colin Powell:

The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to these doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk if we ever went to war against Canada, Great Britain, Geneva itself, or anyone else who could reasonably be expected to abide by the Geneva Conventions right now.

Or something like that; I’m typing rather fast so I may have mixed up the quote slightly. Sen. Allen appeared to be more interested in denying that the rest of the world doubts our moral basis than in asking, with all due respect to the rest of the world, who cares what they think? He did stress, however, the importance of winning the fight, presumably whether the world backs us or not.

Webb, unsurprisingly, sided with the Democrats in opposing the torture bill. Having Virginia’s other Senator among the four “Republicans” against it gives him some cover there. He then recycles his own version of the chickenhawk non-argument, sort of:

What you’re seeing here is a split between the theorists who have controlled so much of the policy in this Administration, persons who have never been on the battlefield, who have never put a uniform on, who are looking at this in a totally different way from people who have had to worry about their troops and themselves possibly coming under enemy hands. This is a very easy issue for me to decide.

Equally easy for me, I suppose, if it could be shown that every single individual who has ever had to put a uniform on, and who has had to worry about himself or his troops being captured by an enemy, agrees with Jim Webb on this point. I rather doubt that. More likely, Webb has violated the saying, often (apocryphally?) attributed to Einstein, that we should make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. Webb goes further off the ledge, arguing that John McCain’s torture in Vietnam - a signatory to the Geneva Convention, which rationalized that all of our troops were “war criminals” rather than POWs - is somehow proof that our troops will be endangered if we do anything seen as abrogating the Geneva Conventions. Allen could have pointed out what a dumb argument this was, given that the Geneva Conventions didn’t do a f’ing thing for McCain, but instead appeared committed to the view that the Geneva Conventions protect the U.S., somehow. Then came the break.

Following the break, Russert began with a question for Webb, asking him to explain his “women can’t fight” piece from the November 1979 Washingtonian, particularly in light of retired Commander Kathleen Murray’s allegation that she and other female mid-ship(wo-?)men were subjected to hazing as a result of Webb’s article, which was repeatedly brandished and quoted by male upperclassmen while she was in the academy. Russert also noted that Webb had issued a “sorry you’re too stoopid to appreciate my brilliance” non-apology, and asked for a more forthright one in its place. The exchange was as follows:

Russert: Now, you issued a statement saying “To the extent my writing caused hardship,” you were sorry. And Ms. Murray has sent me a letter saying that’s not enough. It’s not “to the extent that my writing caused hardship,” the content of the article is just plain wrong, and Mr. Webb should say that.

Webb: This article was written from the perspective of a Marine rifle platoon and company commander, and to that extent, I think it was way too narrowly based. Uh, I don’t think that …

Russert: Was it wrong?

Webb: I don’t think it was wrong to participate in the debate at that time. This … it’s been 27 years, it’s a magazine article, and it’s something that if I’m going to say I’m fully comfortable with the roles of women in the military today, I’ve been all around the world, at the request of many women commanders. This issue was vetted twice in Senate confirmation hearings, 1984, 1987, and both times I expressed my views on women in military billets, and when I was Secretary of the Navy, on my own initiative I put together a task force where we ended up opening up more billets, operational billets, to women than any Secretary of the Navy…

Russert: [Incomprehsible] … you said the Naval Academy is “a horny woman’s dream,” you regret that.

Webb: Well, I do regret that. You know I’ve said, there’s many pieces in this article that if I were a more mature individual I wouldn’t have written. And I’ve tried to say that, and I’ve tried to show by my conduct when I had positions in government, that I am open to assisting women to succeed in all the areas where that’s possible.

Shorter Webb: My opponent may apologize a million times for one silly, off-the-cuff comment about a species of monkey he’s never heard of, but I’ll be damned if I apologize for anything I’ve ever said or done, even in print.

Russert then went on to point out that as recently as 1997, Webb had written an article in the Weekly Standard, alleging a “war on military culture,” in which Webb wrote, “Political and military leaders must have hte courage to ask clearly in what areas our current policies toward women in the military are hurting, rather than helping, the task of defending the U.S.” Russert asked Webb for an example of which current policies toward women are hurting the defense of the U.S. Webb dodged the question, arguing the political process instead. Russert got Webb to admit that women can command male units effectively, but Webb refused to admit that this meant he was wrong in 1979; instead he claimed we finally got to the point where his opponents wanted us to be in 1979. Nice way to have a cake and eat it, too. I’m hoping he’ll also say that in 1979, the Naval Academy really was a horny woman’s dream; it’s just not like that today, after Jim Webb has been the Secretary of the Navy. But then Russert asks him to clarify, has he really not changed his views on women in the military between 1979 and now? No, “I have not say that.” O-kay.

Russert’s next question was directed to Sen. Allen, who in a 1995 interview with American Enterprise magazine had made a somewhat more polished argument against admitting women to the Virginia Military Institute:

If “[VMI] admitted women, it wouldn’t be the VMI that we’ve known for 154 years. You just don’t treat women the way you treat fellow cadets. If you did, it would be ungentlemanly, it’d be improper.

Allen explained the differences between the curriciulum at VMI vs. Virginia Tech at the time (the latter was co-ed), but acknowledged that a co-ed VMI has worked, and that he and others were wrong to have opposed it. Like his opponent, and unlike his own performance with mi caca, he didn’t dwell on the wrongness of his past views, but unlike his opponent, he did acknowledge it after some prodding by Russert. Allen stressed the difference between writing an article criticizing women in the academy years after they were admitted, on the one and, and Allen et al. attempting (paternalistically) to protect women from getting there in the first place. Webb then chimed/whined in about how he wasn’t allowed to speak for years while at the Naval Academy, and then repeated the wonderful stuff he’d done during his brief stint as Secretary of the Navy. Allen then asked Webb directly what he had to say about his past comments on the “witch hunt” of Tailhook. Webb responded, in a somewhat defensive tone and looking neither Russert nor the camera in the eye, with an otherwise decent explanation:

The Tailhook issue was a very complicated issue, and what was happening on that was the leadership of the Navy was not standing up for its own culture. They were allowing their culture to be torn apart, rather than .. you know, I went on Nightline, right after Tailhook, and I was asked what I would have done, and I said if I had been present at Tailhook, I would have relieved the senior officer present present in that corridor. What they’ve done is they took one incident in one corridor and tried to damn the entire culture of the Navy, and that was wrong.

Fair enough, but dude, you really need to look the camera in the eye, not off to an angle. That look just screams, “I’m lying!” even if you’re not.

To his credit, Russert made it 44 minutes into an hour long debate before bringing up mi caca, and asking Allen what he meant by “welcome to America” and the “real” Virginia. Allen repeated for the umpeenth time that his statement had been thoughtless, but again insisted he intended nothing racial or ethnic by it. He repeated his prior statment that at the time of the exchange, he had no idea what “caca” is, and that his reference to “real America” and “real Virginia” were intended to draw a contrast to Hollywood, not to Fairfax County.

Russert then went on to discuss Allen’s past opposition to a King holiday and his proclamation of Confederate History Month. I guess that makes sense to attack both positions, as Montgomery, AL is not terribly far from Virginia, while Virginia has nothing at all to do with Confederate history. Allen responded by bringing up football. Webb responded by bringing up Karl Rove. O-kay. Then, while discussing affirmative action he went out to left (no, actually, far right) field, arguing that the Civil Rights Act should be pared down to the point of merely prohibiting the incidents of slavery per the Thirteenth Amendment.

Russert asked Allen for a commitment to serve a full 6-year term if elected. No dice. Then he asked both candidates what kind of role models they are by chewing tobacco, given the widely-publicized risk of secondhand slobber.

UPDATE: Dean Barnett thinks Webb won the debate. Not sure why, frankly, but YMMV.