My RSS Feeds
Jim Webb, Senator-Elect From Virginia, Confronts President George W Bush Over Iraq & His Soldier Son! Rangel Was Right! - RI10
Jim Webb,
Senator-Elect
From Virginia,
Confronts President
George W Bush
Over Iraq & His
Soldier Son!
Rangel Was Right!
- RI10
Jim Webb is not what Washington needs more of
By George Will
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
WASHINGTON -- That was certainly swift. Washington has a way of quickly acculturating people, especially those who are most susceptible to derangement by the derivative dignity of office. But Jim Webb, Democratic senator-elect from Virginia, has become a pompous poseur and an abuser of the English language before actually becoming a senator.
Wednesday's Washington Post reported that at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, Webb ``tried to avoid President Bush,'' refusing to pass through the reception line or have his picture taken with the president. When Bush asked Webb, whose son is a Marine in Iraq, ``How's your boy?'' Webb replied, ``I'd like to get them (sic) out of Iraq.'' When the president again asked, ``How's your boy?'' Webb replied, ``That's between me and my boy.'' Webb told the Post:
``I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall. No offense to the institution of the presidency, and I'm certainly looking forward to working with him and his administration. (But) leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is.''
Webb certainly has conveyed what he is: a boor. Never mind the patent disrespect for the presidency. Webb's more gross offense was calculated rudeness toward another human being -- one who, disregarding many hard things Webb had said about him during the campaign, asked a civil and caring question, as one parent to another. When -- if ever -- Webb grows weary of admiring his new grandeur as a ``leader'' who carefully calibrates the ``symbolic things'' he does to convey messages, he might consider this: In a republic, people decline to be led by leaders who are insufferably full of themselves.
Even before Webb's studied truculence in response to the president's hospitality, Webb was going out of his way to make waves. A week after the election, he published a column in The Wall Street Journal that began this way: ``The most important -- and unfortunately the least debated -- issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country.''
Well.
In his novels and his political commentary, Webb has been a writer of genuine distinction, using language with care and precision. But just days after winning an election, he was turning out slapdash prose that would be rejected by a reasonably demanding high school teacher.
Never mind Webb's careless and absurd assertion that the nation's incessantly discussed wealth gap is ``the least debated'' issue in American politics.
And never mind his use of the word ``literally,'' although even with private schools and a large share of the nation's wealth, the ``top tier'' -- whatever cohort he intends to denote by that phrase; he is suddenly too inflamed by social injustice to tarry over the task of defining his terms -- does not ``literally'' live in another country.
And never mind the cavalier historical judgments -- although is he sure that America is less egalitarian today than it was, say, 50 years ago, when only about 7 percent of American adults had college degrees? (Twenty-eight percent do today.) Or 80 years ago, when more than 80 percent of American adults did not have high school diplomas (85 percent have them today), and only about 46 percent owned their own homes, compared with 69 percent today?
But notice, in the second sentence of Webb's column, the word ``literally'' appears, the word ``infinitely.'' Earth to Webb: Words have meanings that not even senators can alter. And he has been elected to be a senator, not Humpty Dumpty in ``Through the Looking Glass.'' (``When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'') America's national economic statistics are excellent; Webb could actually tell us how much richer the ``top tier'' has become, relative to other cohorts, over a particular span. But that would require him to actually say who he is talking about, and that takes time and effort, and senators -- Webb is a natural -- often are too busy for accuracy.
Based on Webb's behavior before being sworn in, one shudders to think what he will be like after that. He already has become what Washington did not need another of, a subtraction from the city's civility and clear speaking.
George F. Will, a 1976 Pulitzer Prize winner whose columns are syndicated in more than 400 magazines and newspapers worldwide, is the author of Men at Work: The Craft of Baseball.
http://www.townhall.com/
Tabacco: Because Tabacco is honest, forthright and comprehensive, I sometimes publish bilge – this is often referred to as “an alternate viewpoint” or “the other side of the story”. I am not afraid to publish “alternate opinions” by people like George Will, who are basically political hacks and Propagandists.
I advise George Will to stick to Baseball!
Read the Comments below re President Bush & George Will’s opinions of Jim Webb!
If You Were In A Room With George, What Would You Do?
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/11/if_you_were_in_.html
ThinkProgress:
At a recent private reception, President Bush asked Sen.-elect Jim Webb (D-VA), “How’s your boy?” referring to Webb’s son Jimmy, who is serving in Iraq. Webb answered, “I’d like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President,” to which Bush responded, “That’s not what I asked you.” Webb “coldly” shot back, “That’s between me and my boy, Mr. President.” Webb later confessed that he was “tempted to slug” Bush.
But today, the-rather-pompous-himself George Will charges that "Jim Webb, Democratic senator-elect from Virginia, has become a pompous poseur and an abuser of the English language before actually becoming a senator," You're a damn liar, George Will. You omitted Bush's "pissy" remark to Webb. But more about that below.
I've been wondering how I'd have acted. I know the bile would rise up, my heartbeat would rise, and it'd be impossible to mask the look of contempt on my face.
My daughter could tell you some stories. Like the time a man almost beat me up because I screamed at him in a big department store after he swung and hit his little girl hard on her backside. Cruelty and injustices can make me so furious, I have to speak up. Sometimes, my daughter, knowing full well I'm about to say something, will whisper, "MOM, don't!"
But if I had to be in a room with Bush, and I knew he'd love to get a photo of him and me making friends? No way would I play nice.
I think that Sen. Webb did the smart thing by trying to avoid Bush. Of course, immature bullies like Bush just can't stand being ignored.
Besides, Bush's aggressive remarks to Sen. Webb were plain rude. Especially while his own two AWOL brats are making the U.S. Ambassador to Argentina tear out his hair, and Argentinean police are worried for the brats' safety.
As Tristero at Hullabaloo blog snarked:
Talk about stunted social skills:
[...]
.. I want to focus entirely on the unspeakable callousness Bush displayed here.
Folks, political enemy or friend, that is no way - ever- for anyone to talk to the father of a kid who's in a combat zone.
This is the same man who reminisced about his hell-raisin' during a speech at the worst natural disaster in American history. This is the same man who, when, asked to name his greatest achievement while president, "joked" that it was when he caught a large fish in his fake pond on his Crawford estate - sorry, ranch. This is the same man who, when informed that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center in less than 10 minutes, sat reading "My Pet Goat" in a children's classroom. This is the same man who, in front of a supporter who he assumed wouldn't report it, mockingly imitated a woman about to be executed in his state.
Sickening.
Back to the smirky, entitled George Will. Josh Marshall nails the LIE and SPIN of his column today:
In [Will's] edited version, the President asked Webb "a civil and caring question," only to be met with "calculated rudeness."
And at Marshall's TPM Cafe, Greg Sargent attacks Will's lies:
George Will Distorts WaPo's Own Reporting To Smear Jim Webb
This has to be one of the rankest displays of journalistic dishonesty I've seen in some time on the part of any columnist, large or small.
Sargent compares Will's version of events with that reported in the Washington Post, then notes:
See what happened? Will omitted the pissy retort from the President that provoked Webb. Will cut out the line from the President where he said: "That's not what I asked you." In Will's recounting, that instead became a sign of Bush's parental solicitiousness: "The president again asked `How's your boy?'"
Will's change completely alters the tenor of the conversation from one in which Bush was rude first to Webb, which is what the Post's original account suggested, to one in which Webb was inexplicably rude to the President, which is how Will wanted to represent what happened.
Sargent then writes, "Paging Howard Kurtz: Do you consider your colleague's effort journalistically acceptable? I don't. This was a really bad one." As if Howie'll bring this up on his Sunday CNN show. I predict that'll happen only if Howie can spin this further into an attack on Webb.
George. The worse-than-ever viciousness and untruths of the Republicans' attacks on Democratic candidates were supposed to be over on November 8.
George. How Rovian of you to try to spin a father's direct concern about conditions in Iraq into an unfair attack on the man who elected to put us in the most disastrous, destabillzing, bloody venture in over 50 years.*
George. Jim Webb's son is a MARINE. That means he could well be in Anbar province, which the U.S. military has secretly declared an unwinnable territory, and where many young Marines like Webb's son are dying every week in a hopeless, undermanned, under-equipped mess.
So now, my daughter will surely point out, she'll have to worry not only what I'd say if I were in a room with George Bush, but also in a room with George Will.
Me, I'm itchin' for the chance. You?
:::::::::
* Bill in Portland Maine sets the historical record straight:
George W. Bush has not led the worst military operation in history after all. A respected military historian says Emperor Augustus was worse... 2,015 years ago:
To describe Iraq as the most foolish war of the last 2,014 years is a sweeping statement, but the writer is well qualified to know.
He is Martin van Creveld, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and one of the world's foremost military historians. Several of his books have influenced modern military theory and he is the only non-American author on the US Army's list of required reading for officers.
... Why President Bush "nevertheless decided to go to war escapes me and will no doubt preoccupy historians to come," he told one interviewer. [...]
In his eagerness for regime change in Iraq, Mr. Bush blundered into a trap from which in the short term there is no way out: the Americans will be damned if they stay and damned if they leave.
Meanwhile, ensconced in our nation's capitol, the "Nero" Georgie Porgies fiddle on, picking nits with real heroes like Jim Webb.
Before he launches another untrue, petty attack, George Will might benefit from reading Pat Lang's essay, “Webb’s Dog-Tags." Pat Lang describes a kind of terrifying heroism that the Georgie Porgies could never, ever muster.
Posted by SusanUnPC on Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 10:53 | Permalink
There are, of course, many other examples of Bush's rudeness, bullying behavior and plain lack of empathy.
For me, the one that takes the cake is Bush's phenomenally inappropriate stand-up routine at the 2004 WH correspondent's dinner; showing pictures of himself looking out the window and around his office for "the WMDs," as our guys were fighting and dying in Iraq, presumably because of the existential Iraq posed.
Astonishing
Posted by: Wonderin | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 11:03
The initial reports also omitted that Webb tried to avoid Bush and Bush ran him down. I can't help wonder if Bush wasn't smirking when he asked Webb how his son was. It would be completely in character for Bush to do something like that.
Posted by: hit_escape | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 11:43
If someone had punched Bush in his nine-year-old nose we, and Bush would be in much better shape.
But being the spoiled son of the head of Zappata Drilling .... gave little George the path to be a life long horse's ass.
Posted by: Colorado Bob | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 11:46
shrubco is the worst offender of not answering the question (okay, maybe Rummy is worse). Imagine the response if it was pointed out that these idiots didn't answer the question.
I am proud that Webb is me next Senator. If it had been me, I'd have been wrestled down to the ground by the Secret Service, after saying something like "He's well, supporting the country. When will your 2 little bastards quit partying and start performing some useful public service?" while choking the little weasel.
Posted by: Ill Do Chay | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 11:53
ADD this to the mix:
"I've gotten a tip on the background to this confrontation, and it appears that Webb may have under reacted.
" *** As President Bush is well aware, a couple of weeks before this dinner the tank riding next to Jimmy's in Iraq was under fire and three marines died. *** "
http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/doh/2006/11/nls_exclusive.html
So Bush KNEW about the incident as he needled Webb.
F--king ass.
And George Will calls Jim Webb a "boor"?
More outrage:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/30/113736/44
Posted by: SusanUnPC | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 12:02
As loathsome a toad as W is, we normal mortals still owe some small respect to the office of POTUS.
After a season in the SE Asian Conference, I had a patronage job as an elevator operator in the Capitol.
It was 1971, and there was no human being I despised more than Nixon.
Twice the MF'er rode in my elevator, and twice I was polite to the MF'er because, at least for the time being, he was POTUS.
Webb might well have answered, "He's delighted with the election, sir."
But I suspect that W was his usual snotty, smart-mouthed, haven't-a-clue, Alpha Male-among-peckerwoods self and that his tone and demeanor were more than Webb could stomach.
Or, it could have just been two government assholes (W and Webb) interacting per their respective imperatives.
Whichever condition attached, it provided some lightness on a dull news day.
Posted by: Horton Heath | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 12:15
Horton, your story is very interesting. But I think you've bought the George Will spin that Webb was in any way rude to Bush. Please check out the original WaPo story. In this part, it's made clear that Webb politely avoided the man, which is his due. It was Bush who aggressively sought him out -- at an event with dozens of NEW members of Congress.
"At a recent White House reception for freshman members of Congress, Virginia's newest senator tried to avoid President Bush. Democrat James Webb declined to stand in a presidential receiving line or to have his picture taken with the man he had often criticized on the stump this fall. But it wasn't long before Bush found him."
The full WaPo story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112801582.html
Posted by: SusanUnPC | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 12:33
Bush was unbelievably rude to Webb. He's supposedly asking Webb how his son is. But when Bush hears an answer he doesn't like, he responds with a haughty: "That's not what I asked you."
Sometimes we have to go with the answer we get Mr. Preznit. Suck it up, you jerk. Unbelievable. The images I have of Bush that make me incredibly angry are: 1) Bush reading My Pet Goat for 7 minutes while the nation was attacked 2) Bush joking with his millionaire campaign donors about the missing WMD 3) Bush playing guitar while New Orleans drowned, then saying "No one could've predicted..." you fill in the blanks.
I doubt I could've shown the same restraint Jim Webb did with the Imperial Catastrophe-nator. Webb handled it really well and rises in my esteem daily. If it'd been me, God, I would've wanted to call Bush every name in the book.
Posted by: Leslie | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 12:59
it's george bush. who cares? he gets no respect from me regardless
Posted by: lester | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 13:07
Were I to meet GWB, I'm sure I wouldn't have anything nice to say.
What's wrong with Bush? "That's not what I asked you"? wtf? How about, "I understand how you must feel; I want them all safely home as soon as possible, too."
Posted by: Dan | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 13:19
I didn't read all 33 plus pages of comments following Will's column at the WaPo website, but enough to know he didn't win any hearts or minds. Maybe attention is all he could expect? Like the most obnoxious ads - they make you look!
Looking back to Reagan's second term, one could see symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease earlier than publicly acknowledged. What will the obvious-in-hindsight diagnosis be for the current occupant? Good enough to avoid a criminal trial at the Hague?
Posted by: GR3 | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 13:32
Btw, Congressional Quarterly has a nice list of all of the new members of Congress + short bios:
http://www.cqpolitics.com/new_members.html
Posted by: SusanUnPC | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 13:42
It strikes me that if the President would've had the grace to say, "So would I" to a concerned father's answer, this incident would've ended differently. What a revealing moment.
Posted by: Retired | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 13:50
I think this story is important. Here's why:
All the publicity this little incident got, and now the George Will column (+ the countless blog posts about his B.S.) have me thinking that the GOP is gunning for Jim Webb.
After all, he left the fold. And he beat a sure winner.
Then they think that Webb has a reputation for getting so pissed, he says things that'll reflect badly on him.
This is a campaign to shoot Webb down. To push him into shooting himself in the foot. And this is just the beginning salvo.
Posted by: SusanUnPC | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 14:16
There is a distinction between civility and decency. People like George Will say the most indecent things -- full of lies, calls for endless war, and even genocide -- and because they say such things in a civil tone, they believe it is evidence of their superior nature.
But the line between civility and servility is fine. George Will may be civil, but he is not a decent human being. He is little more than a servile toady, reminiscent of the eunuchs of some old oriental court, famous for their catty sniping and backstabbing, striving ever to get closer to power, to lie at the master's feet like some kept and pampered dog.
Jim Webb may or may not have been civil (I can't tell without having heard his intonation), but he is a decent man. He also has an authenticity that acts as armor against the petty snipings of the George Wills of the world.
With Bush, and with Will, we are dealing with the civility of evil. There is no moral imperative to react to evil with civility. Arguably, there is a moral imperative not to.
Of course, Will's entire argument is a lie, a twisted distortion that stands truth on its head. It was Bush who was uncivil, as well as indecent.
And is it an act of civility to call a man a "boor"? Is it an act of civility to twist the truth in an attempt at character assassination?
I think not. In fact, George Will is neither civil nor decent.
Posted by: shargash | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 14:31
shargash, I don't recall Will being so incensed over the incivility during the campaign to impeach Clinton. There were plenty of very nasty things said about the POTUS, and there was no hue and cry that it was an insult to the dignity of the office. If you ask me, George W Bush is an insult to the integrity of the office.
Posted by: Ill Do Chay | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 14:38
Susan said, "This is a campaign to shoot Webb down. To push him into shooting himself in the foot. And this is just the beginning salvo."
I think you are right, Susan. Washington has become the American Versailles, and there is little that scares the court more than a man of integrity. They must corrupt or discredit him.
I have a feeling, however, that they are not going to be able to dispose of Jim Webb as easily as they disposed of Howard Dean. If Webb can take the heat, the attacks will serve only to increase his stature. The attackers may well be honing a future president of the US.
Posted by: shargash | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 14:39
You are absolutely right, Ill Do Chay. Republicans are about as civil as a pit bull going after a small rodent.
However, it is important to understand that Will's cause is not civility. It is servility. The Republicans have ruled for 6 years by convincing the Democrats to be servile. Their formula for power is to attack like a pit bull while persuading the other side to cringe in fear in response.
That is why they hate the blogosphere so much. We are uppity, and there is nothing the aristocracy hates or fears as much as uppity peasants. They will always emphasize to us peasants the importance of being civil. Because through civility lies servility, and that's what it's all about.
Posted by: shargash | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 14:47
Bush has no class. That's why he couldn't say the decent thing to a worried parent. It IS a very revealing snapshot of Bush's character, or lack of.
Sure Susan is right and Bush knew how close Webb's son came to injury or death too. The GOP probably is gunning for Webb, Pelosi and all the Dems. Then you get these Bush sycophants like George Will carrying water for him by lying. One of the wonderful things about blogs, and their growing power, is their ability to punch holes in this bullshit.
Posted by: Leslie | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 15:34
My own personal response to Mr. Bush would be, " Mr. Bush, you are an idiot sir, and living proof that there exist exceptions to Darwin’s law. Now if you will excuse me, I'm in the middle of crafting legislation to impeach you and excise your damnable ass from the office of the Presidency."
Posted by: Sheerahkahn | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 15:54
my response would be "yo yo fuggit about that man, I'm askin : what do you think of these so called gangstas who ain't even seen no part of the life they talk about in they rhymes? whatchoothink about that man?"
Posted by: lester | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 16:26
More:
"A word about Mr. Will. His most famous words in his distinguished career occurred when Ronald Reagan was meeting with Gorbachev, and Will attacked Reagan and essentially compared Reagan to Neville Chamberlain, for negotiating with Soviets. Not the most brilliant columnist-call in the history of opining from the cheap seats.
"Jim Webb is going to be outstanding, brilliant, spectacular, a sensational addition to the U.S. Senate. He charged into combat with bullets flying in his face, and emerged with medals on his chest. He knows how to win wars, when to fight wars, how to avoid wars, and why war is not made for cocktail party warriors or editorial board tea parties. ..."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brent-budowsky/outstanding-jim-webb-is-_b_35259.html
Posted by: SusanUnPC | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 18:24
More AMMO against George Will:
"Yesterday's mendacity was nothing for George F. Will, however. He has been a disgrace to his once-honorable profession for a long time. His sleazy behavior in years past helped pave the way for the debased media of today.
"The Carter/Reagan debate, and Will's role in it, changed journalism forever. Will went on national television that year to comment live and "objectively" on Ronald Reagan's debate performance - without disclosing that he was working for the Reagan campaign and had helped Reagan prepare for that very debate - using stolen property...."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/george-f-will-his-unet_b_35251.html
Posted by: SusanUnPC | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 18:32
In the unlikely event that I found myself in a room with GW, I think I would turn my back to him until he left. If it became obvious that he was not intending to leave, I would walk away from him out of the room. Hopefully, I would not have to address him, or even look at him.
Posted by: keepinon | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 18:35
I'd take a bj a day in the Oval office for a thousand years over one more day of moron.
Posted by: Sky-Ho | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 19:42
Remember those spanking paddles that looked a bit like a cricket bat? The ones with the wholes drilled in them? I'm sure I could get some help holding the brat down to do what Babs never bothered to do.
Posted by: politicky | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 19:48
James Webb could have said, at least MY SON is not a public embarrassment to this country, BTW have the twins returned from their latest exploits in Argentina?
BTW as for Bush, I would just fart in HIS face and tell him it was the best compliment I could give him.
Then walk away.......
Posted by: clif | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 20:05
Last Year I got an invitation to a white house dinner. (It’s a long story)
I spent several days mulling my response to meeting Prez. Bush during our picture together.
I have only met one president in my life. My father introduced me to JFK when I was like 12 years old. To this day he remains my lifelong hero. A man of courage, strength, foresight and true American leadership.
With respect to the office..I would have said " My President, I appreciate your leadership during the dark hours of 9-11. But it is time for you to sit down. Your time has passed and we need new leadership to carry on in the great American tradition. You have become a polarizing figure for our nation." I would have been scared and awed but that's pretty much what I would have said. A few days later I received an email from my Congressman's office to send a check for 50,000 dollars for dinner and a picture with Mr. Bush. Oh you mean It's all about money? (Like I didn't know, but I thought for some strange reason I was special..kindof like Glenn Greenwald thinks he is so special) Well I declined..Not for lack of funds..But for lack stupidity. Alot of good a one-line statement would really mean to this man.
Have any of your comments mattered in the last 6 years to this president? And those comments were free my friends.
Let us look for a great leader in 2 years that will lead us out of this wilderness. I have faith we will..I have faith in America and all my fellow citizens that we will.
There will be a Bobby Kennedy that will rise from the ashes.
Posted by: billy missle | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 21:26
When citizens go looking "for a great leader," they often get what they deserve.
Posted by: anonymous | Thursday, 30 November 2006 at 23:35
Why would any caring, concerned American care what gwb said?
Posted by: tomasdelsol | Friday, 01 December 2006 at 00:17
I wonder if the SS would stop anyone? it is their job, but this administration has sent down a command for incompetence in all things they touch. so maybe they will step out of the way if carville comes in and tries to get him. after all, they won't have to answer to anyone. there would be a medal for them, given pre mortem. why waste time?
Posted by: oldtree | Friday, 01 December 2006 at 00:17
oldtree, apparently the SS is right in line with the shrubco incompetence meme. We're talking about the twins; one of them had their purse and cell phone stolen in Argentina. I don't know if it was Jenna or not-Jenna, but really, the prez's (wife's) children getting robbed? Where the HELL were those SS guys?
Posted by: Ill Do Chay | Friday, 01 December 2006 at 08:11
Whew, I don't know for sure, but it doesn't seem like there's much respect on this thread for the Occupant of the Oval Orifice. Sure he's just Total Dick's Jerry Mahoney, but it's the position not the man even though he's a gate mouthed ignorant dufus lout. Know what I mean?
If I was in a room with the National Embarrassment in Chief, I'd try to offer him some appreciation of the difficult Presidentin' job he's got and encourage him to strive for greater achievement things like. You know, try to be more positiveness that negativityness and in his outlookbase like.
For instance, I'd start off asking, "How's that deceitful war of aggression going? Mission Accomplished yet?" And then he'd blither on about purple fingers, them standing up/us standing down and self-financing. And then I'd smirk and say, "Heck of a job, Bushie." And he'd see the 5 watt night light going on in that thing he calls a mind and start to get pissed because he'd suspect I was joshing him and he'd start dissing me for him losing the war and Congress and stuff.
And then I'd say, "No. No. No. I'm your pal, Bushie. Really I am. Why just the other day some folks were saying you ain't fit to sleep with the pigs, but I stuck up for you." And then he'd get that puzzled look on his face like when he tries to do long division in his "mind" and then he'd smile and give me a hug and we'd be pals again. Then he'd go on, refreshed and encouraged, to afflict some other poor fuck with his presence.
Then I'd probably lift a few things (paperweights, art objects, silverware, momentos, etc.), but not too much so's I wouldn't get nabbed, and leave. Then I'd probably sell them at a flea market. Mission Accomplished.
Posted by: Pvt. Keepout | Friday, 01 December 2006 at 09:18
Well, judging from George Allen's record, the right thing to do is spit on Bush's shoe.
Posted by: Salmo | Friday, 01 December 2006 at 15:52
It distresses me that a completely unsourced post by Ben Tribbett (NotLarrySabato) has been reprinted uncritically by Kos (front page!), Jane Hamsher, and now here. The story of "three marines killed when a tank next to Jimmy Webb was hit" is not only false but very easily shown to be so. Why didn't anyone's bullshit detector go off?
By filtering the Fatality Details database at icasualties.org for 'place of death'=Al Anbar province, it can be quickly seen that there have not been three deaths from the same unit during the time Jimmy Webb has been deployed (early September), much less three deaths within a few days, as this story would require.
NLS is notorious among Virginia political blogs for passing on rumors and garbage info, as well as the occasional genuine scoop.
I debunked the story in comments at NLS and at Kos, but encountered the whole story too late in the cycle to have much of an effect (comments closed at the FDL post, e.g.). Now that Kos and FDL have run with it, it's taken on a life of its own.
Posted by: Nell | Friday, 01 December 2006 at 16:36
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/11/if_you_were_in_.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112801582.html
In Following His Own Script, Webb May Test Senate's Limits
By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 29, 2006; A01
At a recent White House reception for freshman members of Congress, Virginia's newest senator tried to avoid President Bush. Democrat James Webb declined to stand in a presidential receiving line or to have his picture taken with the man he had often criticized on the stump this fall. But it wasn't long before Bush found him.
"How's your boy?" Bush asked, referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq.
"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.
"That's not what I asked you," Bush said. "How's your boy?"
"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.
Webb was narrowly elected to the U.S. Senate this month with a brash, unpolished style that helped win over independent voters in Virginia and earned him support from national party leaders. Now, his Democratic colleagues in the Senate are getting a close-up view of the former boxer, military officer and Republican who is joining their ranks.
If the exchange with Bush two weeks ago is any indication, Webb won't be a wallflower, especially when it comes to the war in Iraq. And he won't stick to a script drafted by top Democrats.
"I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall," Webb said in an interview yesterday in which he confirmed the exchange between him and Bush. "No offense to the institution of the presidency, and I'm certainly looking forward to working with him and his administration. [But] leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is."
In the days after the election, Webb's Democratic colleagues on Capitol Hill went out of their way to make nice with Bush and be seen by his side. House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sat down for a lunch and photo opportunity with Bush, as did Democratic leaders in the Senate.
Not Webb, who said he tried to avoid a confrontation with Bush at the White House reception but did not shy away from one when the president approached.
The White House declined to discuss the encounter. "As a general matter, we do not comment on private receptions hosted by the president at the White House," said White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino.
Webb said he has "strong ideas," but he also insisted that -- as a former Marine in Vietnam -- he knows how to work in a place such as the Senate, where being part of a team is important.
He plans to push for a new GI bill for soldiers who have served in the days since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but not as a freshman senator. He has approached the Democratic leadership about getting senior legislators to sponsor the bill when the 110th Congress convenes in January.
A strong backer of gun rights, Webb may find himself at odds with many in his party. He expressed support during the campaign for a bill by his opponent, Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), that would allow concealed weapons in national parks. But an aide said this week that Webb will review Allen's legislation.
"There are going to be times when I've got some strong ideas, but I'm not looking to simply be a renegade," he said. "I think people in the Democratic Party leadership have already begun to understand that I know how to work inside a structure."
His party's leaders hope that he means it.
Top Democratic senators, including incoming Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), had invested their money and prestige in Webb before he won the party primary in June. His victory was also theirs, but now they have to make sure he's not a liability.
"He's not a typical politician. He really has deep convictions," said Schumer, who headed the Senate Democrats' campaign arm. "We saw this in the campaign. We would have disagreements. But when you made a persuasive argument, he would say, 'You're right.' I am truly not worried about it. He understands the need to be part of a team."
One senior Democratic staff member on Capitol Hill, who spoke on condition that he not be identified so he could speak freely about the new senator, said that Webb's lack of political polish was part of his charm as a candidate but could be a problem as a senator.
"I think he's going to be a total pain. He is going to do things his own way. That's a good thing and a bad thing," the staff member said. But he said that Webb's personality may be just what the Senate needs. "You need a little of everything. Some element of that personality is helpful."
Webb has started to put himself out front. On "Meet the Press" last week, he dispensed with the normal banter with host Tim Russert to talk seriously about Iraq and the need for economic justice in the United States.
He announced yesterday that he has hired Paul J. Reagan, a communications director for former governor Mark R. Warner (D) and a former chief of staff for U.S. Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.). It will be Reagan's job to help his boss navigate the intricacies of Washington and Capitol Hill without losing the essence of his personality.
"The relationships he has built over his long career will serve me well," Webb said in a statement yesterday.
Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D), who campaigned hard to get Webb elected, said yesterday that the first-time officeholder doesn't have the finesse of most experienced politicians.
"He is not a backslapper," Kaine said. "There are different models that succeed in politics. There's the hail-fellow-well-met model of backslapping. That's not his style."
But Kaine said that Webb's background, including a stint as Ronald Reagan's Navy secretary, will make him an important -- if unpredictable -- voice on the war in Iraq.
"There are no senators who have that everyday anxiety that he has as a dad with a youngster on the front lines. That gives him gravitas and credibility on this issue," Kaine said. "People in the Senate, I'm sure, will agree with him or disagree with him on issue to issue. But they won't doubt that he's coming at it from a real sense of duty."
Staff writer Peter Baker contributed to this report.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/lindorff
War Signals?
by DAVE LINDORFF
[posted online on September 21, 2006]
As reports circulate of a sharp debate within the White House over possible US military action against Iran and its nuclear enrichment facilities, The Nation has learned that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have moved up the deployment of a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast. This information follows a report in the current issue of Time magazine, both online and in print, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1.
As Time writes in its cover story, "What Would War Look Like?," evidence of the forward deployment of minesweepers and word that the chief of naval operations had asked for a reworking of old plans for mining Iranian harbors "suggest that a much discussed--but until now largely theoretical--prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran."
According to Lieut. Mike Kafka, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Second Fleet, based in Norfolk, Virginia, the Eisenhower Strike Group, bristling with Tomahawk cruise missiles, has received orders to depart the United States in a little over a week. Other official sources in the public affairs office of the Navy Department at the Pentagon confirm that this powerful armada is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21.
The Eisenhower had been in port at the Naval Station Norfolk for several years for refurbishing and refueling of its nuclear reactor; it had not been scheduled to depart for a new duty station until at least a month later, and possibly not till next spring. Family members, before the orders, had moved into the area and had until then expected to be with their sailor-spouses and parents in Virginia for some time yet. First word of the early dispatch of the "Ike Strike" group to the Persian Gulf region came from several angry officers on the ships involved, who contacted antiwar critics like retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner and complained that they were being sent to attack Iran without any order from the Congress.
"This is very serious," said Ray McGovern, a former CIA threat-assessment analyst who got early word of the Navy officers' complaints about the sudden deployment orders. (McGovern, a twenty-seven-year veteran of the CIA, resigned in 2002 in protest over what he said were Bush Administration pressures to exaggerate the threat posed by Iraq. He and other intelligence agency critics have formed a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.)
Colonel Gardiner, who has taught military strategy at the National War College, says that the carrier deployment and a scheduled Persian Gulf arrival date of October 21 is "very important evidence" of war planning. He says, "I know that some naval forces have already received 'prepare to deploy orders' [PTDOs], which have set the date for being ready to go as October 1. Given that it would take about from October 2 to October 21 to get those forces to the Gulf region, that looks about like the date" of any possible military action against Iran. (A PTDO means that all crews should be at their stations, and ships and planes should be ready to go, by a certain date--in this case, reportedly, October 1.) Gardiner notes, "You cannot issue a PTDO and then stay ready for very long. It's a very significant order, and it's not done as a training exercise." This point was also made in the Time article.
So what is the White House planning?
On Monday President Bush addressed the UN General Assembly at its opening session, and while studiously avoiding even physically meeting Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was also addressing the body, he offered a two-pronged message. Bush told the "people of Iran" that "we're working toward a diplomatic solution to this crisis" and that he looked forward "to the day when you can live in freedom." But he also warned that Iran's leaders were using the nation's resources "to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons." Given the President's assertion that the nation is fighting a "global war on terror" and that he is Commander in Chief of that "war," his prominent linking of the Iran regime with terror has to be seen as a deliberate effort to claim his right to carry the fight there. Bush has repeatedly insisted that the 2001 Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force that preceded the invasion of Afghanistan was also an authorization for an unending "war on terror."
Even as Bush was making not-so-veiled threats at the UN, his former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, a sharp critic of any unilateral US attack on Iran, was in Norfolk, not far from the Eisenhower, advocating further diplomatic efforts to deal with Iran's nuclear program--itself tantalizing evidence of the policy struggle over whether to go to war, and that those favoring an attack may be winning that struggle.
"I think the plan's been picked: bomb the nuclear sites in Iran," says Gardiner. "It's a terrible idea, it's against US law and it's against international law, but I think they've decided to do it." Gardiner says that while the United States has the capability to hit those sites with its cruise missiles, "the Iranians have many more options than we do: They can activate Hezbollah; they can organize riots all over the Islamic world, including Pakistan, which could bring down the Musharraf government, putting nuclear weapons into terrorist hands; they can encourage the Shia militias in Iraq to attack US troops; they can blow up oil pipelines and shut the Persian Gulf." Most of the major oil-producing states in the Middle East have substantial Shiite populations, which has long been a concern of their own Sunni leaders and of Washington policy-makers, given the sometimes close connection of Shiite populations to Iran's religious rulers.
Of course, Gardiner agrees, recent ship movements and other signs of military preparedness could be simply a bluff designed to show toughness in the bargaining with Iran over its nuclear program. But with the Iranian coast reportedly armed to the teeth with Chinese Silkworm anti-ship missiles, and possibly even more sophisticated Russian anti-ship weapons, against which the Navy has little reliable defenses, it seems unlikely the Navy would risk high-value assets like aircraft carriers or cruisers with such a tactic. Nor has bluffing been a Bush MO to date.
Commentators and analysts across the political spectrum are focusing on Bush's talk about dialogue, with many claiming that he is climbing down from confrontation. On the right, David Frum, writing on September 20 in his National Review blog, argues that the lack of any attempt to win a UN resolution supporting military action, and rumors of "hushed back doors" being opened in Washington, lead him to expect a diplomatic deal, not a unilateral attack. Writing in the center, Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler saw in Bush's UN speech evidence that "war is no longer a viable option" in Iran. Even on the left, where confidence in the Bush Administration's judgment is abysmally low, commentators like Noam Chomsky and Nation contributor Robert Dreyfuss are skeptical that an attack is being planned. Chomsky has long argued that Washington's leaders aren't crazy, and would not take such a step--though more recently, he has seemed less sanguine about Administration sanity and has suggested that leaks about war plans may be an effort by military leaders--who are almost universally opposed to widening the Mideast war--to arouse opposition to such a move by Bush and war advocates like Cheney. Dreyfuss, meanwhile, in an article for the online journal TomPaine.com, focuses on the talk of diplomacy in Bush's Monday UN speech, not on his threats, and concludes that it means "the realists have won" and that there will be no Iran attack.
But all these war skeptics may be whistling past the graveyard. After all, it must be recalled that Bush also talked about seeking diplomatic solutions the whole time he was dead-set on invading Iraq, and the current situation is increasingly looking like a cheap Hollywood sequel. The United States, according to Gardiner and others, already reportedly has Special Forces operating in Iran, and now major ship movements are looking ominous.
Representative Maurice Hinchey, a leading Democratic critic of the Iraq War, informed about the Navy PTDOs and about the orders for the full Eisenhower Strike Group to head out to sea, said, "For some time there has been speculation that there could be an attack on Iran prior to November 7, in order to exacerbate the culture of fear that the Administration has cultivated now for over five or six years. But if they attack Iran it will be a very bad mistake, for the Middle East and for the US. It would only make worse the antagonism and fear people feel towards our country. I hope this Administration is not so foolish and irresponsible." He adds, "Military people are deeply concerned about the overtaxing of the military already."
Calls for comment from the White House on Iran war plans and on the order for the Eisenhower Strike Group to deploy were referred to the National Security Council press office, which declined to return this reporter's phone calls.
McGovern, who had first told a group of anti-Iraq War activists Sunday on the National Mall in Washington, DC, during an ongoing action called "Camp Democracy," about his being alerted to the strike group deployment, warned, "We have about seven weeks to try and stop this next war from happening."
One solid indication that the dispatch of the Eisenhower is part of a force buildup would be if the carrier Enterprise--currently in the Arabian Sea, where it has been launching bombing runs against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and which is at the end of its normal six-month sea tour--is kept on station instead of sent back to the United States. Arguing against simple rotation of tours is the fact that the Eisenhower's refurbishing and its dispatch were rushed forward by at least a month. A report from the Enterprise on the Navy's official website referred to its ongoing role in the Afghanistan fighting, and gave no indication of plans to head back to port. The Navy itself has no comment on the ship's future orders.
Jim Webb, Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan Administration and currently a Democratic candidate for Senate in Virginia, expressed some caution about reports of the carrier deployment, saying, "Remember, carrier groups regularly rotate in and out of that region." But he added, "I do not believe that there should be any elective military action taken against Iran without a separate authorization vote by the Congress. In my view, the 2002 authorization which was used for the invasion of Iraq should not extend to Iran."
To those of you, who are more concerned with etiquette and politesse than death, genocide, imperialism, war & peace, war profiteering, war crimes, presidential misconduct, violation of presidential oath of office, and felonious behavior, to name a few of George W. Bush’s transgressions, I suggest you read George Will and not bother with this column. Undoubtedly, you want war in Iran to follow the war in Iraq!
To the intelligent among you, who believe that list of presidential transgressions supersedes etiquette and politesse, I raise my glass in a toast to you! Remember when Jimmy Carter, Jessie Jackson & a few other brave souls used the funeral eulogy for Coretta Scott King to scold George W. Bush to his face, these same “Hacks” wrote how lacking in etiquette that was and how disrespectful that was to Mrs. King. Of course that was garbage (French pronunciation please “gar’-baje”). George is so well insulated that one must use whatever opportunity is available to lambaste that immoral man, whose address is 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. I believe Coretta Scott King would have approved of those eulogies. Tabacco cheers them and anyone, who confronts George W. Bush over his malevolencies.
However, I shall not answer that question myself:
Occasionally I do curse; but expletives have not yet been codified, which could express my feelings about that question. And were I to answer it honestly, I’m certain the Cointelpro arm of the FBI would soon be knocking on my door. And I don’t believe I would be able to write this Blog from Guantánamo or Abu Ghraib.
What was Congressman Rangel RIGHT about? Rangel is introducing Conscription back to America so the Rich & Powerful can serve in Bush's Wars also. Rangel said that if Congress had to risk the lives of their own children, they would not be so Quick to Vote For War - Jim Webb is one such proof of Rangel's wisdom!
Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness!
In 1981's 'Body Heat', Kathleen Turner said, "Knowledge is power".
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization)
free elections mean PRIVATE secret ballots, similar to you're voting
booths......