PDA

View Full Version : Senator Jim Webb Responds For Dems on SOTU



chefmike
01-24-2007, 01:46 PM
Response To President Bush's State Of The Union Address From Senator Jim Webb (D-VA):

Good evening.

I'm Senator Jim Webb, from Virginia, where this year we will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown - an event that marked the first step in the long journey that has made us the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth.

It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President's message, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and healthcare for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.

Further, this is the seventh time the President has mentioned energy independence in his state of the union message, but for the first time this exchange is taking place in a Congress led by the Democratic Party. We are looking for affirmative solutions that will strengthen our nation by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, and spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth in the form of alternate energy programs. We look forward to working with the President and his party to bring about these changes.

There are two areas where our respective parties have largely stood in contradiction, and I want to take a few minutes to address them tonight. The first relates to how we see the health of our economy - how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans. The second regards our foreign policy - how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion that will also allow us to continue to fight the war against international terrorism, and to address other strategic concerns that our country faces around the world.

When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.

Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.

In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.

In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy - that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.

And under the leadership of the new Democratic Congress, we are on our way to doing so. The House just passed a minimum wage increase, the first in ten years, and the Senate will soon follow. We've introduced a broad legislative package designed to regain the trust of the American people. We've established a tone of cooperation and consensus that extends beyond party lines. We're working to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.

With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.

I want to share with all of you a picture that I have carried with me for more than 50 years. This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served our country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.

Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues - those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death - we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way.

We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us - sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.

The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable - and predicted - disarray that has followed.

The war's costs to our nation have been staggering.
Financially.
The damage to our reputation around the world.
The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism.
And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.

Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.

Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves "as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other." And he did something about it.

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.

These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

Thank you for listening. And God bless America.

chefmike
01-24-2007, 01:54 PM
:claps :rock2 :claps :rock2 :claps

White_Male_Canada
01-24-2007, 06:49 PM
Webb is a sick NAMBLA fag.

He writes about it, a grown man sucking a little boy`s pecker.

He then proves it by wearing his son`s boots.

One sick fuck.

Besides that the left keeps blathering about a "change of direction".
That would mean they wish for terrorists attacks on US soil,since there are none now. Higher unemployment, defeat in Afghanistan and Iraq,etc,etc.

It was General David Petraeus who asked for more troops to "clear and hold" the capital of Iraq. He literally wrote the book on the subject, having done it in other Iraq cities. Webb doesn`t know what he`s talking about,unless the subject is pedophilia 8)

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) asked Army Lt. Gen. David H . Petraeus during his confirmation hearing yesterday if Senate resolutions condemning White House Iraq policy "would give the enemy some comfort." Petraeus agreed they would, saying, "That's correct, sir."

chefmike
01-24-2007, 09:45 PM
I wonder why the novel that you and the busheviks keep trying to "swiftboat" Webb(a Former Secretary of the Navy) about just happens to be on the required reading list for Marine Officers? :lol: :P

I. THE FOLLOWING BOOKS ARE IDENTIFIED FOR READING BY THE RANKS OF
2NDLT:
- CLEARED HOT, STOFFEY
- CHANCELLORSVILLE, SEARS
- FIELDS OF FIRE, WEBB
- ON INFANTRY, ENGLISH AND GUDMUNDSSON
- RIFLEMAN DODD, FORESTER
- THE ARAB MIND, PATAI
- THE EASTER OFFENSIVE, TURLEY
- THE FACE OF BATTLE, KEEGAN
- THIS KIND OF WAR, FEHRENBACH
http://www.usmc.mil/almars/almar2000.nsf/0/aa2cb37ddee25a2785256fa20073e625?OpenDocument



And BTW-

It didn't work.

Webb was elected. 8)

chefmike
01-25-2007, 02:36 AM
Democratic response to Bush: You're no longer solely in charge

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Democrats blistered President Bush's war policy Tuesday night, challenging him to redeem the nation's credibility -- and his own -- with an immediate shift toward a diplomatic end to the bloody conflict in Iraq.

"The president took us into this war recklessly," the Democrats' chosen messenger, Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, said in response to Bush's State of the Union address Tuesday evening. "We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable -- and predicted -- disarray that has followed."

Webb, a Vietnam veteran who was Navy secretary during Republican President Reagan's administration, called for a new direction.

"Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos," said Webb. "But an immediate shift toward strong regionally based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq."

Bush offered no such plan in his speech before the most unfriendly joint session of Congress of his tenure.

Instead, the president focused on making the case that "failure would be grievous and far-reaching" and he defended his plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq in a short-term surge. He also issued a long list of domestic policy initiatives centered on such pet Democratic issues as energy independence and health care.

Newly installed majority Democrats welcomed his overtures of bipartisanship but weren't interested in changing the subject.

"Unfortunately, tonight the president demonstrated he has not listened to Americans' single greatest concern: the war in Iraq," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a joint statement. "We will continue to hold him accountable for changing course in Iraq."

In a speech written himself and previewed by senior Democratic officials, Webb challenged Bush to support the House-passed minimum wage increase and nurture an economy that restores the middle class. And he said Democrats would work with Bush to promote energy independence.

But he chose harsher rhetoric for what he framed Bush's abuse of the public's loyalty, trust and welfare in the rush to war.


"The war's costs to our nation have been staggering," he said. "Financially. The damage to our reputation around the world. The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism, and especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve."

Democrats also hammered home a message that achieving bipartisanship must be as much a part of Bush's agenda as proposals on the war, energy independence and health care. "We hope to begin working with him to move our country in a new direction," Reid and Pelosi said in their statement.

"If he does, we will join him," Webb said. "If he does not, we will be showing him the way."

The speech capped the Democrats' effort to have the first, most frequent and last words on the president's annual address.

Seated in the gallery above the chamber was a reminder of a key factor in the Republicans' loss of congressional control and the lone veto of Bush's presidency. Actor Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson's disease, attended as the guest of Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I., who is a quadriplegic, Langevin's spokeswoman said.

Both men have health problems that some scientists believe might someday be cured or treated by embryonic stem cell research. Bush last year vetoed a bill that would have allowed taxpayer money to speed up those studies, arguing that public funds should not be spent on research that destroys budding human life.

Fox then appeared in several campaign commercials for candidates that support the bill, sparking a controversy and helping tilt the election in the Democrats' favor. The House earlier this month passed the same bill by a margin far short of the two-thirds majority required to override a second.

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company

01-25-2007, 02:56 AM
TL;DR

White_Male_Canada
01-25-2007, 02:58 AM
Jim Webb claimed that “the majority of our military” does not support “the way this war is being fought”. This is the poll that is being cited as evidence of his claim:

“Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. […]Just as telling, in this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003.”

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php

However, if you read further, you’ll find that only “13 percent said we should have no troops” in Iraq.

More importantly, though, is this:

* the poll is only “of active-duty military subscribers to the Military Times newspapers” and * the “results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole”.

Finally, it’s worth contrasting Webb’s current rhetoric against Iraq with his previous claims of popular support for the war in Vietnam:

The majority of the American people never truly bought the antiwar movement’s logic. While it is correct to say many wearied of an ineffective national strategy as the war dragged on, they never stopped supporting the actual goals for which the United States and South Vietnam fought. As late as September 1972, a Harris survey indicated overwhelming support for continued bombing of North Vietnam – 55 percent to 32 percent – and for mining North Vietnamese harbors – 64 percent to 22 percent. By a margin of 74 percent to 11 percent, those polled also agreed that “it is important that South Vietnam not fall into the control of the communists.”


The most important sentence in that survey, nor the timeframe:

“Almost half of those responding think we need more troops in Iraq than we have there now.”

The survey was conducted between Nov. 13 and Dec. 22. The increased troops and strategy change wasn’t known to those surveyed - although Webb’s sentence construction implies that it was.

In fact, this was at a point when Rumsfeld had just been shown the door (Nov. 8 .) and in the middle of the Iraq Study Group’s presentation (Dec. 6). Yet with all that negative news, half said we need to INCREASE troops. This is what the President eventually proposed.

Is that an Inconvenient Truth that Webb managed to leave out? 8)

PS: The Military Times is a Gannett publication with Gannett's trademark leftist tilt. In other words,useless paper,useless poll. 8)

White_Male_Canada
01-25-2007, 03:08 AM
" ...he was a stiff and unsmiling candidate in Virginia and he's been married three times. The problem with the populist theme is that Democrats have no real remedies for the effects of globalization on the middle class. And they are not yet entirely clear on what should be done in Iraq."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16779514/site/newsweek/

chefmike
01-25-2007, 03:43 AM
WMC reduced to quoting "liberal" Newsweek...LMFAO.

Desperate times indeed...

Libby turning on Rove...

And McCain being the GOP candidate in '08 must really have your wacko panties in a twist...

The pendulum has swung.... 8)

chefmike
01-25-2007, 03:48 AM
TL;DR

That's pretty deep for you, TFool!

Attaboy!

White_Male_Canada
01-25-2007, 07:50 AM
WMC reduced to quoting "liberal" Newsweek...LMFAO.

Desperate times indeed...

Desperate indeed. Even your liberal left-wing media are admitting you have NO PLAN.



Libby turning on Rove...

Do try keep abreast of the facts junior. Fitz knows,so does Libby`s lawyer. The source of the leak is Armitage, not Rove AND the judge has stated Plame`s status as an employee is IRRELEVANT !


And McCain being the GOP candidate in '08 must really have your wacko panties in a twist..

How many Senators have gone on to be POTUS? McCain has a 0% chance of winning .


The pendulum has swung....

Sure has. Need another vivisection of your pedo Webb?

Here you go:

Amid signs the "surge" is already working, President Bush embraces Ronald Reagan's strategy for winning the Cold War. Meantime, Democrats embrace Neville Chamberlain in their response.

When asked what his strategy was for dealing with the Soviet Union, Reagan said it was simple: "We win. They lose." President Bush, noting in his State of the Union address that "the consequences of failure would be grievous and far-reaching," presented a similar plan for Iraq with "the goal of victory."

"Victory" isn't a word you find in the Democratic lexicon these days, and it wasn't in the Democratic response by freshman Sen. James Webb of Virginia. It wasn't on his lips when he cited President Eisenhower speaking of the stalemate in Korea: "When comes the end?" Webb opined that Eisenhower took "the right kind of action" by "ending" the Korean War.

But if Korea ended with a successful peace, why do we still have tens of thousands of troops there, and more based in Japan, and on Okinawa? Does Webb suggest we withdraw from Japan and South Korea until these countries "step up" and defend themselves?

Think about that Korean analogy for a moment. Gen. Douglas MacArthur advised that there was no substitute for victory. But we settled for less, and now face a North Korea that has starved millions of its people to develop nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. Pyongyang is now working closely with Iran as Tehran develops the means to nuke Israel.

For the Democrats, it's about ending the war in Iraq, not winning it. Webb didn't mention Somalia, where the withdrawal of U.S. forces by Hillary Clinton's husband had "grievous and far-reaching consequences." Osama bin Laden saw it as a confirmation of American weakness as he planned 9/11. How would abandoning Iraq be perceived?

When Webb spoke of "the lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism," was he thinking of Somalia? Was he thinking of the missed attempts to kill or capture bin Laden in the Clinton years, or our failed responses to the attacks on our African embassies, Khobar Towers or the USS Cole?

Interestingly, the "surge" plan that Bush proposes and Democrats condemn as "escalation" seems to be working. A military intelligence officer has confirmed a report that, in preparation for reinforcements, al-Qaida in Iraq is, uh, redeploying its forces.

The Iraqi paper al-Sabah reports that Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who replaced Abu Musab al-Zarqawi when we achieved a victory in the war on terror by killing him, has ordered his forces to withdraw to Diyala province, north and east of Baghdad, with the order saying that to remain in Baghdad would be a no-win situation.

Last Friday, Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Iranian-subsidized militia, the Mahdi army, has been an instigator of violence and an impediment to stability, ordered the 30 lawmakers and six cabinet ministers he controls to end their boycott of the government.

As correspondent Jack Kelly reports on RealClearPolitics.com, Mahdi army militiamen have stopped wearing their black uniforms, hidden their weapons and abandoned their checkpoints.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has dropped his protection of the Mahdi army, consenting to the recent arrest of Abdul Hadi al-Durraji, al-Sadr's media director. Some 400 of al-Sadr's supporters have been arrested in recent days.

Tactics change in the middle of wars. Just ask Abraham Lincoln. There are surprises and things that don't go as planned. Ask Ike after the Battle of the Bulge. Patton didn't ask, "When does this end?" All we and President Bush are asking is give victory a chance.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=254535734285940

chefmike
01-25-2007, 10:00 PM
Senator John Warner(R-VA) on Webb's response:

"We agree that a failed state in Iraq presents a threat to regional and world peace, and I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues in the coming days to offer the president our best thinking on a new military strategy and on how the Iraqis must deal with their own sectarian violence.

My colleague Jim Webb delivered a heartfelt message, and, through his personal reflections, earned the respect of military families across America."


Senator Warner is also a former Secretary of the Navy

***

Conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan:

It was, I think, the most effective Democratic response in the Bush years. He managed to bridge economic populism with military service and pride: a very potent combination. He did so with a sense of responsibility. The message, in short: "Lead us toward responsible redeployment in Iraq - or get out of the way." And he said it with testosterone and authority - more authority than this president now has.


***

chefmike
01-25-2007, 10:09 PM
January 24, 2007
Senator Webb Supports Biden-Hagel-Levin Resolution on Iraq War

Washington, D.C. - Senator Jim Webb of Virginia today announced his support of the bi-partisan Senate Resolution sponsored by Senators Joseph Biden (D-DE), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Carl Levin (D-MI), which calls for a change of direction in the Iraq war.

"We're looking for a way to encourage responsible conduct in this administration," noted Senator Webb. "It's become all too clear that the Congress must take the lead on this."

"It is inverted political logic for people to say that we need to continue in this direction for the good of our troops," Webb continued. "I believe this resolution will help stabilize their rotational cycle and serve notice to this administration that it needs to be more responsible when sending units overseas. We are not continuing this war on behalf of our troops. There are fighting it, often at great sacrifice, on our behalf."

The bipartisan resolution, S.Con.Res.2, states that "the U.S. strategy and presence on the ground in Iraq can only be sustained with the support of the American people and bipartisan support from Congress?. It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by increasing U.S. troop presence in Iraq."


Senator Webb, a Marine Corps veteran of the Vietnam War and former Secretary of the Navy, serves on the Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, Joint Economic and Veterans Affairs Committees.

White_Male_Canada
01-25-2007, 10:46 PM
Senator John Warner(R-VA) on Webb's response"We agree that a failed state in Iraq presents a threat to regional and world peace, and I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues in the coming days to offer the president our best thinking on a new military strategy and on how the Iraqis must deal with their own sectarian violence.

Warner=RINO


Conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan:

It was, I think, the most effective Democratic response in the Bush years. He managed to bridge economic populism with military service and pride: a very potent combination. He did so with a sense of responsibility. The message, in short: "Lead us toward responsible redeployment in Iraq - or get out of the way." And he said it with testosterone and authority - more authority than this president now has.

Conservative !? Sullivan is an HIV postive homosexual. Any wonder he likes Webb . 8)

chefmike
01-26-2007, 12:15 AM
LMAO @ you, paleface.


I would have thought that you, Tom Foley, Ted Haggard, Andrew Sullivan, Jeff Gannon, and the rest of the log-cabin busheviks all travel in the same circle(jerk)s.

I guess you don't get invited to the A-list circle jerks, paleface...

Maybe you should move to DC.

It's right out of Mark Twain-

'A Canadian Queer In King George's Collapse'.... :lol: :P

White_Male_Canada
01-26-2007, 01:31 AM
Senator Webb Supports Biden-Hagel-Levin Resolution on Iraq War

And that has the force of law ? The ChickenChickens are such gutless wonders they dare NOT try pass their propaganda as law. 8)

You embarrass yourself repeatedly, yet do not even realize it. Not realizing it ,you come back for more, not knowing just how moronic your posts really are.

So thick is the left it has to be repeated over and over:

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) asked Army Lt. Gen. David H . Petraeus during his confirmation hearing yesterday if Senate resolutions condemning White House Iraq policy "would give the enemy some comfort." Petraeus agreed they would, saying, "That's correct, sir."

chefmike
01-26-2007, 11:43 PM
You still don't get it, do you?

The American voters registered their contempt for the busheviks and their lies in November.

Those that you grovel for not only lost the election, they barely escaped being tarred and feathered.

The pendulum has swung for you and your ilk, paleface.

Better luck next time.

White_Male_Canada
01-27-2007, 01:45 AM
You still don't get it, do you?

The American voters registered their contempt for the busheviks and their lies in November.

Those that you grovel for not only lost the election, they barely escaped being tarred and feathered.

The pendulum has swung for you and your ilk, paleface


You don`t get it. Only 40% of eligible voters bothered to vote.So,some people voted in the mid terms for the democrats. Duh, since 1862, there have been 36 midterm elections held during the first or second terms of an administration. In 33 of those 36 elections, the opposition party gained strength in the House.

A CNN poll found that 54 percent of Americans believe government is doing too much while only 37 percent want government to do more. The results of this election reflect that attitude. Among the Republicans who lost their re-election bids a surprising number were political moderates who advocated a more activist government. Several Republican members of the appropriations committees, which have been on a spending binge, also were not re-elected

What was the `Rats` plan to win the war on terrorism ?

See junior, in the end you have nothing. Your ChickenChickens did not even have the guts , when voting counted, to "register " the "contempt" the voters had on Gen. Petraeus by voting him and his plan down on more troops to secure amd hold Baghdad. Your ChickenChickens voted for him 81-0 :lol:

The left and the democrat party has staked their entire future on a US loss and defeat in Iraq. Hilariously silly position to take.

And what was the plan the voters voted for in regards to the `Rats` plan to win the war on radical islamic terrorism?