posted on January 25, 2007 10:27:58 AM new
I will try to find the text of Webb's EXCELLENT rebuttal to bushy's quivering, bland State of the Union speech in case you missed it..
It was eloquent, pointed, forceful, factual....everything bush's speech wasn't
posted on January 25, 2007 05:49:42 PM new
Please do, mingo. I missed his rebuttal.
_____________________
A person who is nice to you but rude to a waiter is not a
nice person. (This is very important. Pay attention. It never fails.) ~Dave Barry
posted on January 25, 2007 06:11:22 PM new
Oh, yes, PLEASE.
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
posted on January 25, 2007 06:16:12 PM new
I know it's kinda long and makes too much sense for the neocons...but the lefties will love it
""""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.
posted on January 26, 2007 12:36:42 AM new
Here's two of the parts I like the best...but it was ALL good !!
""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. ""
"""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. """
posted on January 26, 2007 10:30:11 AM new
As I have said myself....over and over again.
The BIG lie
"The President took us into this war recklessly. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable and predicted disarray that has followed...[The President must pursue] 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. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way." - Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, putting forth a muscular message of retreat in the Democrats' response to the SOTU address.
Editor's reply [the patriotpost.com]:
We understand that Mr. Webb is only a freshman senator and thus new to the hallowed halls of government, so let us suggest that he read up on the Constitution's separation of powers before he again embarrasses himself by laying claim to the Executive's war-fighting prerogatives.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 26, 2007 10:34:21 AM new
Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, in a nine-minute response from the Democrats, also chose his data selectively.
Trying to put a gloomy cast on a generally upbeat economy, he claimed that worker wages "are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth."
Webb would have been more accurate had he said "national income" rather than "wealth," but it's true that real wages (after inflation) are rising nicely after a long stagnation.
=======
In contrast to the President's upbeat description of the economy, Democratic Sen. James Webb of Virginia painted a rather bleak picture:
Webb: 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.
As previously mentioned, real wages (after inflation) are actually rising, and certainly not at "an all-time low."
When we asked what Webb was talking about, his aides cited a recent article by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, that cited "unprecedented income inequality."
Another liberal-leaning think tank, The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, using data from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis, found that wages and salaries as a share of all national income was at an all time low.
In other words, income from such things as stock, bonds and rents is rising faster than paychecks.
========
posted on January 26, 2007 10:52:23 AM new
Jim Webb has NOTHING to be be embarrassed about (unlike bush, his weak, quavery speech and Michelle (Slut) Bachmann).
posted on January 27, 2007 06:56:27 AM new
I know it will be difficult for you libs to read and understand Ben's article, but reread it several times if necessary to get it all.
Webb Of Venom
By Ben Shapiro
President Bush's State of the Union Address was no barn burner. The president was serious and thoughtful, and his speech offered little in the way of rhetorical fireworks.
But if President Bush's speech was unexciting, Sen. Jim Webb's, D-Virginia, purported rebuttal was disastrous. Webb decisively demonstrated why Democrats cannot be given charge of America's foreign policy.
President Bush acknowledged that American involvement in Iraq has not gone as planned; that the sectarian violence currently wracking Iraq was hardly our goal. Nonetheless, Bush provided a realistic perspective: "This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen, on this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle."
Sen. Webb's response, by contrast, sounded like that of a divorced woman complaining about her ex-husband's penchant for leaving up the toilet seat. Webb spent a full 400 words, or well over 25 percent of his speech, whining about the genesis of the war in Iraq. "This country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years," Webb stated. "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."
Webb went on to indict President Bush for taking "us into this war recklessly" and, by extension, losing "opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism" and spilling "the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve." "We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable -- and predicted -- disarray that has followed," Webb charged.
This is political chicanery at its most scurrilous. Webb rewrites history for his own purposes here. Democrats voted in favor of action in Iraq with open eyes, just as Republicans did.
The invasion of Iraq has been correctly characterized as the longest telegraphed punch in the history of warfare. It was openly debated for months, and that followed a decade of debate about what to do with Saddam Hussein. There was no reckless "rush to war." Nor was the war in Iraq a lost opportunity to defeat international terrorism. Al Qaeda is particularly active in Iraq, viewing Iraq as a central front in its war against Western civilization.
But Webb's most disreputable attack was his implication that President Bush cared less about the blood of our military men and women than Webb. Webb went out of his way to champion his military service, his father's military service, his brother's military service and his son's military service, all of which was perfectly normal and commendable. Then Webb crossed the line: "We owed [the national leaders] 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."
"Concern for our welfare." This is obscene. The idea that President Bush wrote off the lives of military men and women on a whim is an egregious slur. It is a direct slap at Bush's honor and a vile attempt to drag Bush's character through the mud.
But this is what today's liberals call "muscular liberalism." Commentators on the left raved about Webb's speech. Though Webb called for a "new direction" in Iraq, he offered not a single practical word about how to tackle the situation on the ground. Calling for "regionally based diplomacy" will not solve much in a region including the likes of Syria and Iran -- and it is certainly not "muscular."
What, then, makes Webb a "muscular liberal"? His absolute loathing for President Bush. Democrats believe that it takes more courage to obstruct President Bush and Republicans than to fight Islamism. Webb offered nothing but vitriol, and Democrats lapped it up.
President Bush is not a perfect president or a perfect man. But he is a man, not a child. On a night when President Bush spoke maturely about serious issues, Webb graphically illustrated that Democrats are simply angry adolescents not to be trusted with national security.
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
In January alone you made 14 posts that have 5 or less replies.
Looks like people on this board are all done with right wing new-con BULL ROAR lies.
You and LIAR_K probably think I am rubbing your noses in your bull roar that no one reads, that is not my intent. I just would like to see LIARS like you two face reality.
[ edited by bigpeepa on Jan 27, 2007 01:40 PM ]
Remarks at the Claremont Institute's annual Churchill Dinner
(To applause.) Good evening, and thank you very much for the honor of the Statesmanship Award at this annual Claremont Institute dinner in memory of Sir Winston Churchill—a tribute conceived in the name of a great man, bestowed by a great institute, and honored by great past recipients.
Tonight I would like to talk of our current crisis—not yet a catastrophe, but a real loss of confidence of the spirit. The hard-won effort of the Western Enlightenment of some 2,500 years that, along with Judeo-Christian benevolence, is the foundation of our material progress, common decency, and scientific excellence, is at risk in this new millennium.
But our newest foes of Reason are not the enraged Athenian democrats who tried and executed Socrates. And they are not the Christian zealots of the medieval church who persecuted philosophers of heliocentricity. Nor are they Nazis who burned books and turned Western science against its own to murder millions en masse.
No, the culprits are now more often us. In the most affluent, and leisured age in the history of Western civilization—never more powerful in its military reach, never more prosperous in our material bounty—we have become complacent, and then scared of the most recent face of barbarism from the primordial extremists of the Middle East.
