Jim Webb's Pathetic Defeatist Response To The State Of The Union
Democrats Blister Bush Iraq Policy in Lightning-Focused Rebuttal
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 Ronald 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," said Webb, whose son is serving in the military in Iraq. "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 veto.
Part of Webb's Response included a statement that has me puzzled:
["The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military"]
How the hell does Webb know what the majority of the Military feels? He hasnt talked to the majority! He hasnt talked to at least 100,000 Troops. Who is he to make such an uninformed, misleading and outrageously WRONG statement? I think Jim Webb Has some explaining to do about this one. A "Correction" should be in order here also.
Story Here
Jim Webb's Response-Full Text Version
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Way to go jackass!! That was the most pathetic, misleading, absolutely wrong assessment of the Country and The War on Terror I have ever heard. There goes Bi-Partisonship. Screw That!! Maybe it's a good thing President Reagan has passed on because he would be so upset with your defeatist ass right now. Way to bring down Troop Morale. Why dont you on the left just start waving White Flags? I mean the Country and everything else has completely gone to hell as far as you are concerned. Geez you on the left are the whiniest bunch of little sissy's I have ever seen. AND YOU STILL OFFER NO PLAN!!!!! Reagan must be spinning.
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 Ronald 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," said Webb, whose son is serving in the military in Iraq. "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 veto.
Part of Webb's Response included a statement that has me puzzled:
["The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military"]
How the hell does Webb know what the majority of the Military feels? He hasnt talked to the majority! He hasnt talked to at least 100,000 Troops. Who is he to make such an uninformed, misleading and outrageously WRONG statement? I think Jim Webb Has some explaining to do about this one. A "Correction" should be in order here also.
Story Here
Jim Webb's Response-Full Text Version
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Way to go jackass!! That was the most pathetic, misleading, absolutely wrong assessment of the Country and The War on Terror I have ever heard. There goes Bi-Partisonship. Screw That!! Maybe it's a good thing President Reagan has passed on because he would be so upset with your defeatist ass right now. Way to bring down Troop Morale. Why dont you on the left just start waving White Flags? I mean the Country and everything else has completely gone to hell as far as you are concerned. Geez you on the left are the whiniest bunch of little sissy's I have ever seen. AND YOU STILL OFFER NO PLAN!!!!! Reagan must be spinning.
posted by Marie's Two Cents | 10:01 PM
31 Comments:
Did I mention Screw You Jim Webb?
Hi Marie,
You know I think that we should have a Liberal Hangin, I mean hang all Liberals up by the neck from the Washington DC Light Polls.
"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."
That has got to be one of the most pompous things I've ever read, even from Democrats.
For them, "bipartisan" means "their way or the highway".
As for the rest, as you say, Marie, they don't have a plan, yet they continue to pour on the verbal abuse.
They continue browbeating, even after gaining their congressional majority, because it's all they have to offer.
Hi Marie,
I'm guessing Jim Webb knows because he reads the news. You should try it sometime. It's fascinating.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003526245
You guys have really ramped up the hysteria. "Screw you!" to Senato Webb, a man whose entire family has honorably served their country in the military, and a man whose son is currently serving in the Marines in Iraq.
You don't like his politics, so you cannibalize him--if he were a Republican, you'd have made him a hero, but he's a Democrat who dares to criticize a man who has had 6 years to do whatever he wanted to win the war and pass any legislation he wanted. Who could have stopped Bush? The Democrats were out of power, remember? They couldn't pass gas in the legislature, never mind any resolution or legislation. Nada.
What has the president got to show for 6 years of dominance in the executive and legislative branches?
Social Security overhaul? The passage of the Defense of Marriage Act? The overturning of Roe v. Wade? Getting the country to stop what Bush called its "addiction to oil?" Turning around the disaster that is Iraq?
None of the above. None.
So Webb comes and criticizes him (as is his right as a senator and an American citizen) and you guys want to kill him. KILL HIM!
night rider so patriotically suggests that he should be hanged.
Why don't you all move to a Middle Eastern country. That's how the crazies deal with people who disagree with them.
They also chop off their heads.
night rider would be happy with that, I'm sure.
What's wrong with you guys, that you're so full of hate that you despise your fellow Americans more than you love your country?
No wonder we're in such a mess.
Anon,
Hi Marie,
I'm guessing Jim Webb knows because he reads the news. You should try it sometime. It's fascinating.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003526245
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I dont go to links posted by people to chickenshit to even leave a name.
Hard to believe this guy was Reagan's Navy Secretary. Talk about a turn coat. I couldn't stomach his entire response and cut the TV off!
It figures Mrs. Mean would lionize a man who writes books describing sexual acts with children.
Mrs Green,
You guys have really ramped up the hysteria. "Screw you!" to Senato Webb, a man whose entire family has honorably served their country in the military, and a man whose son is currently serving in the Marines in Iraq.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hysteria my ass!! He crossed the line with me when he LIED!!
Did you even listen to the Democratic response?
I valued his service and looked up to the man until last night. I Thank his Son for his Service to this Country, but Jim Webb just sank to a new low with me. He now joins the ranks of scumbag's Kerry and Murtha.
Anyone who dishonors our Military ever, but especially during wartime should be slapped around. And as a response to the State of the Union?
How in the hell does he know what the Majority of the Military feel? I know LOTS of people in the Military and not one of them feels the way he lead the American public to believe.
You don't like his politics, so you cannibalize him--if he were a Republican, you'd have made him a hero, but he's a Democrat who dares to criticize a man who has had 6 years to do whatever he wanted to win the war and pass any legislation he wanted. Who could have stopped Bush? The Democrats were out of power, remember? They couldn't pass gas in the legislature, never mind any resolution or legislation. Nada.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This hasnt got anything to do with his Politics, when he rolled out that statement that ["The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military"] he LIED!!
What has the president got to show for 6 years of dominance in the executive and legislative branches?
Social Security overhaul? The passage of the Defense of Marriage Act? The overturning of Roe v. Wade? Getting the country to stop what Bush called its "addiction to oil?" Turning around the disaster that is Iraq?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No child left behind, a booming economy, 95% of the Population working, the patriot act, creation of Homeland Security, etc.. Dont make me roll out what all Bush has got accomplished even seeing this Country throught the worst attack in American history, and the constant threat of terrorist attacks Bush has still got more accomplished in 6 years than your precious Democratically controlled Senate ever will.
So Webb comes and criticizes him (as is his right as a senator and an American citizen) and you guys want to kill him. KILL HIM!
night rider so patriotically suggests that he should be hanged.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
People post what they want around this place, I lost control long ago, that doesnt mean I agree with it, you ought to know you have been getting away with it for years!!
What's wrong with you guys, that you're so full of hate that you despise your fellow Americans more than you love your country?
No wonder we're in such a mess.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not full of hate, but I refuse to put up with outright lies by members of your party.
The constant misleading of the American public by the Lunatic Fringe of the left, I honestly thought we were on the road to bi-partisonship until that piece of crap divel Webb spouted lastnight.
If you didnt hear the Democrat response lastnight, then I suggest you go read it, it's attached to this story, the entire text of Webb's drivel.
That's what's wrong with this Country, turncoat's on our Military and assholes like Webb!!! AND THE NUTCASES THAT STICK UP FOR THEM!!
It figures Mrs. Mean would lionize a man who writes books describing sexual acts with children.
Please. Your silliness is showing.
Ever hear of Sophocles? One of the greatest writers in Western civilization who wrote a story about a man who killed his father, married his mother and fathered his own brothers and sisters.
I demand you write a screed on the pervert Sophocles and submit it to universities like Yale (Bush's alma mater), Harvard (Bush's alma mater), Stanford, Princeton, etc., and tell them how your sensibilities have been offended by this pervert, Sophocles and demand that they stop teaching him. Really, Mike, show us your, um, nads. Go for it!
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
You're funnier than a room full of chimpanzees.
Oh, and calling "Mrs. Mean" instead of Mrs. Green--you are just too clever by half, Mike. Your incisive wit is just, well, underwhelming.
Heh.
Marie,
I went to that link posted by anonymous so you wouldn't have to, and here's what it said:
Poll for Military Papers Finds Troops' Support for War Plunging
By E&P Staff
Published: December 29, 2006 11:25 PM ET
NEW YORK It's often written or said in the media that, despite public opposition to the Iraq war here at home, military personnel strongly back President Bush's handling of the conflict. But a poll for the Military Times newspapers, released Friday, shows that more troops disapprove of the president’s handling of the war than approve of it.
It came on the day that at least four more Americans died in the war, pushing the monthly total to 107, the high point for the year -- and the total figure to 2,997, near the milestone of 3,000.
Barely one in three service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the new poll for the four papers (Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Times). In another startling finding, only 41% now feel it was the right idea to go to war in Iraq in the first place.
And the number who feel success there is likely has shrunk from 83% in 2004 to about 50% today. A surprising 13% say there should be no U.S. troops in Iraq at all.
This comes even though only about one in ten called their overall political views "liberal."
The annual mail survey was conducted Nov. 13 through Dec. 22. Among the respondents, two in three have deployed at least once to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Nearly three-quarters of the respondents think today’s military is stretched too thin to be effective.
"The poll has come to be viewed by some as a barometer of the professional career military," the Military Times wrote on Friday. "It is the only independent poll done on an annual basis. The margin of error on this year’s poll is plus or minus 3 percentage points."
Seems like Senator Webb was not lying.
Mrs Green,
Here we go with another poll.
And 41% isnt a majority either!
And you know how polls are conducted, the questions phrased to suit the individual conducting the poll and such.
PLEASE!!!
I find any poll taken today subject to question since as of today those that are serving in the Military either re-enlisted after 9-11, or enlisted after 9-11, and knew perfectly well what they were in for and they would be supporting the war on terror by signing up at all. Basically they all said "Send Me"
THAT'S WHY I DONT BELIEVE POLLS!
Either way Jim Webb purposely set out to decieve the American people lastnight, and has lost my respect. And President Reagan would have been appalled at that response coming from his own Secretary of the Navy under his administration.
You can go back in my archives and look at the Video of the Troops with Sean Hannity when he went to visit them, and they made it abundently clear that they wanted Sean to let the American people know that what they were seeing on tv was NOT going on all over the Country, and they werent being duped, and they didnt feel the way some in the Congress had described them to be.
That's straight from the Troops mouths!!
Not to mention Webb said "Bush sent us recklessly into this war" when it was signed into law by Clinton to begin with!!
The hypocracy on the left never seems to fail!!
Mrs Green
There is no way I believe in anything that you or any other Leftist says.
That poll was done by E&P the oldest Leftist Rag for a paper there is.
As far as Jim Webb goes, If I had been there in person when he said the things that he said, I would have smacked him upside his head so hard it would have made his eyeballs spin.
night rider,
I feel your pain. I know how it feels to be in the minority. It makes one really, really angry and unwilling to face reality.
Look at the nice things in your life. Forget politics for a while, it can poison your outlook and make you hate your fellow Americans.
For at least the next 6 years, Senator Webb will be a very important person in American politics, whether you want to punch him or not.
End of discussion.
Hi Marie,
I am really surprised that J_G didn't chime in on the conversation?
Well I would like to continue what Mrs Green was discussing from the previous topic about Civil Rights if that is ok with you Marie.
Americans celebrate “Juneteenth” – when in 1865 slavery finally ended throughout the entire United States. Sadly, few people know that Juneteenth was a high water mark for African- Americans. Soon after that great day, the Democratic Party defeated the Reconstruction policies of the Republican Party, postponing the civil rights movement until the 1950s.
An important fact which most history books ignore is that Abraham Lincoln’s 1864 running mate was a Democrat, Andrew Johnson of Tennessee. And so after Lincoln’s assassination, it was a Democrat who would be President of the United States for the first four years after the Civil War. That first President Johnson did all in his power to prevent African- Americans from experiencing Lincoln’s “new birth of freedom.”
It was in Texas where slavery finally ended. On June 19, 1865, U.S. troops commanded by General Gordon Granger landed at Galveston and brought some important news that the Democrats running the state had refused to tell their slaves, that they had been legally freed more than two years before by the Emancipation Proclamation. Granger's famous General Order Number 3 read: “The people of Texas are informed that in accordance with a Proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and free laborer.”
General Granger then traveled around Texas to inform the African-Americans, still being held as slaves by their Democrat masters, that they were in fact free. Granger was a zealous advocate for full civil rights for African-Americans. Too zealous, it turned out, for President Andrew Johnson. On August 6, 1865, just seven weeks after his arrival, President Johnson relieved Granger from command in Texas. That same month, Johnson removed all African-Americans serving in the U.S. Army occupation forces.
Any officer in the U.S. Army who exerted himself too much in defense of African-Americans was out of a job. For this reason, Johnson dismissed the conscientious Phil Sheridan, who had sent General Granger to Galveston, from command in Texas and Louisiana. Sheridan’s replacement was General Winfield Hancock, who then allowed white supremacist thugs a free hand. So impressed were former rebels with the performance of Hancock that he would receive the support of the Solid South when he became the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate in 1880.
President Andrew Johnson campaigned against ratification of the 14th Amendment and vetoed the Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was he who quashed Republican attempts to provide “forty acres and a mule” to emancipated African-Americans. Andrew Johnson vetoed a bill to extend voting rights to African-Americans in the District of Columbia, saying he wanted a completely “white man’s government.” And in Johnson’s racist mind, the civil rights hero Frederick Douglass was “a damned scoundrel.”
Southern Democrats (the former Confederate rebels and President Johnson) exercised almost complete control over the post-Civil War South for two years after Appomattox. The Democrat state governments set up by the Andrew Johnson administration quickly reduced African-Americans to near slavery with the infamous “black codes.” Not until March 1867, when they attained two-thirds majorities in Congress, were Republicans able to override Johnson’s vetoes and enact their Reconstruction policies, beginning with the Reconstruction Act of 1867.
Unfortunately, the two-year delay before the onset of Republican Reconstruction had enabled the Democrats to strengthen their grip on power and on African-Americans in the South. As soon as they were back in power in the southern states, Democrats closed down most of the public school system that Republican administrations had established for African-Americans as well as poor whites. Democrat terrorist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia denied African-Americans their right to vote. In the South, where dozens of African-Americans had held elective office while Republicans were in power at the state level, the restoration of Democrat rule meant the exclusion of African-Americans from politics for nearly a century.
I was out enjoying my vacation today so I didn't go online until just now.
I watched the President's State of the Union Address last night. It was standard fare with the exception of having to watch it with Nancy Pelosi blinking her eyes every two seconds which I found quite annoying. People that do that are usually very nervous and unsure of themselves or are lying. I'm a supervisor of railroaders so I know these things.
I also watched Jim Webb with his standard democrat response of class warfare and second guessing of the President on the war. I have said and I will continue to say that if you are a veteran and want respect for your service you have it already from most of America. Of course I say most because if you are from Nancy Pelosi's district there is no respect for your military service there.
Anyway if you expect to retain that place of honor because of your service you must maintain the dignity and honor that you showed when you did serve. Jim Webb has abandoned that dignity and we have every right to criticize him for his foolish speech and undignified way he delivered it.
I have no repect for anyone that spends more time trying to tear this country apart with divisive speeches and it would benefit the entire nation if only the democrats would spend as much time and energy pitching in their support instead being an obstructionists then we would be able to finish our mission and get on with the other things that need to be done.
Class warfare as Jim Webb espoused is just another one of those negative wedges democrats use when they have no useful input and are reaching to prop up policies that the American have rejected time and time again like the take over by the government of our healthcare system just for an example.
Marie is right about Jim Webb though his speech has signaled to the rest of the country that the democrats have no intention of working with the people and their President.
The democrat plan for us; to try and shove socialism down our throats for own good. I went and bought a new gun today to celebrate.
I can't add anything to L_B's excellent comments, she pretty much covered it. What kind of gun did you buy?
Love your blog
So glad to have found it
Will definitely be back
From a transplanted 80s Dukakis era Democrat now living in London
I am not so quickly dismissive of the poll. I saw the direct poll, and not the one provided by anon, although that article has not misrepresented the results.
As Marie rightly notes, however, a lot can be influenced by how the question is framed. As one person interviewed on the radio said last week, he can make you answer anyway he wants, by how he frames the question.
I think this is reflected in some of the perplexities of this latest poll, itself, as exmplified here:
While approval of Bush’s handling of the war has plunged, approval for his overall performance as president remains at 52%.
The poll also found that while the personnel believe the public has a positive view of them, they are convinced the media do not — only 39 % said they think the media have a favorable view of the troops.
“Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of those surveyed said the senior military leadership has the best interests of the troops at heart. And though they don’t think much of the way he’s handling the war, 48 percent said the same about President Bush… And only 23 percent think Congress is looking out for them.”
People that do that are usually very nervous and unsure of themselves or are lying. I'm a supervisor of railroaders so I know these things.
So, a supervisor of railroaders determines, by the rate of eyelash batting, that Nancy Pelosi was either lying or nervous while Mr. Bush delivered his SOTU speech.
If I remember correctly, the only talking Madame Speaker did was in introducing the president. It was Mr. Bush who spoke on Tuesday night. But, because I was concerned with what he said and not how many times he batted his rather pretty eyelashes, I have no idea if he was lying or not.
If he blinked, say, half as much as Ms. Pelosi did, does that mean, according to your logic, that he was lying only one half as much? What about one quarter as much?
What if he blinked as much as he did during the first Kerry/Bush debate in the fall of '04? People did count his blinks then, as I recall, and Bush wildly out blinked Mr. Kerry!
Aha! Then we must infer, by your logic of course, that Bush was either lying or nervous. Which was it? Bush was accustomed to speaking in front of crowds, and he is certainly a self-assured man, so he must have been lying. Heavens! Our president lying? I need a fainting couch.
You guys are getting sillier by the minute.
And reaching for your gun because you're p.o.'d over who's the majority in Congress sounds exactly like what the Sunnis and he Shiites would do to solve their differences.
We're Americans, for godsake. All of us. No matter how much I disagree with the policies of the opposing party, my first response it NOT to grab for a gun.
What is wrong with you.
Of course I say most because if you are from Nancy Pelosi's district there is no respect for your military service there.
And lb, that is the nuttiest of all. How could you possibly know how every person in Nancy Pelosi's district thinks? Can you back that statement up with hard evidence? It doesn't seem that you are interested in truth, only in spreading hatred, lies, and discord among your fellow countrymen.
If that is how you love your country, God help America.
CJ at A Soldier's Perspective gave me his analysis, which I've posted.
Marie, you sure do have some very hysterically funny people over here. Your friend Mrs. Green did not notice that Mrs. Pelosi did not appalud or understand the words of our President when he mentioned the word "victory" and she is to called Speaker of the House of Representatives.
It is quite obvious that the district this woman, Nancy Pelosi, represents is anti-military when they refused the highly deccorated warship USS Iowa an honored place in the harbor of San Francisco with the words to the US Navy that having the ship there would send the wrong message.
I like everyone that respect freedoms, all of them, understand now is the time to go a purchase that firearm for it may be too late in a little while with both houses of Congress controlled by democrat gun-grabbers just waiting to pass restrictive gun laws in the face of our 2nd Amendment rights to Keep and Bear Arms.
If it comes down to a defense with force, that is exactly what the 2nd Amendment was written into the Constitution for. Americans have always been brave enough and dedicated enough to freedom by force and shedding their blood in the name of freedom. Until the "Hippie or 60's generation" that is. Those contemptable people expect everything to be handed to to them like they are royalty and fredom is automatic. What a ludicrous outlook. Freedom is kept by maintaining constant vigilance. I guess they didn't teach that to the wine and cheese crowd.
It appears that talking or having a "chat" does not work when someone is trying to take your rights and your freedoms away from you. There is no political solution in Iraq as Mrs. Green aludes. the only way to defeat the enemies of freedom is to destroy them.
Marie, I linked to your post over at my place but I don't know how to use this link to post feature.
Marie, The thing that bothers me most about the official democratic response to the President's speech was that he called for negotiation to end the hostilities in Iraq.
Has he even been paying attention? has the democrats been paying attention?
Negotiation is impossible with those who will not negotiate. The only thing those terrorist animals respect is violemce. The only way to end this thing is to kill more of them than they do us.
It appears that talking or having a "chat" does not work when someone is trying to take your rights and your freedoms away from you.--LB
Who exactly are the people "trying to take your rights and freedoms" away?
There is no political solution in Iraq as Mrs. Green aludes. the only way to defeat the enemies of freedom is to destroy them.--LB
Actually, I've never said that because as people in the administration have said, the only solution left is a political one.
You and the poster named "Mark" speak of destroying the enemy.
Who is this enemy in Iraq? The Sunnis and Shiites who kill eachother and who kill American soldiers? How exactly will we kill all of them? That would mean wiping out those people to whom we gave the beautiful gift of liberty.
Do you hope to show them how freedom works by destroying the Sunnis and Shiites. How would our military know who's a friendly Sunni and Shiite and who is not?
It's easy, isn't it, to say "destroy" them when you have no idea of what you are saying.
Who is the enemy you wish to destroy?
January 26, 2007 8:30 AM
Mark said...
Negotiation is impossible with those who will not negotiate. The only thing those terrorist animals respect is violemce. The only way to end this thing is to kill more of them than they do us.
Nice easy words, Mark. There are one billion Muslims in the world and a very large amount of them live in the ME. How do you propose we kill more of them when they outnumber our military over there? Nuke them? That would certainly kill a lot of them. But we'd have to get our troops home before we nuke and contaminate the place, doncha agree?
Why don't you and everyone here who wants to kill and destroy the enemy urge your government to do what is necessary to destroy them?
Tell me how, exactly you propose to kill more of them than kill us.
Or are your words chest-thumping threats to make you feel good?
Mrs. Green asked..."Who exactly are the people "trying to take your rights and freedoms" away?
Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Edward Moore Kennedy, John Kerry, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and the rest of the democrat party that currently hold the office Of United States Senators. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Murtha and a majority of those in the democrat party that are holding the office Of United States Representative in the House of Representatives.
If you are not aware of that Mrs. Green than you have not taken the time to read the party platform in relation to the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution nor have you taken the time to do research on how your representavies vote and words they speak regarding this all important issue.
Also, it becomes very tedious to have to constantly explain who the the enemy is and why they are being fought. I will for your benefit Mrs. Green explain things to you once again.
The enemy has been and will continue to be those that try and inflict upon the democracies of the world the tyranical imposition of a radical fundamentalism known as Radical Islam.
Those that would prevent the establishment of a democratically elected republic in Iraq are the enemy and must be destroyed at this point. If the enemies will throw down their arms and come to the table to participate in democracy and help in forming a stable self sustaining government then all will be the past. If the enemy continues to kill and resist this objective of establishing this stable and self sustaining government then it has come to the point where they must be phyically destroyed. Whether that entails physiclly killing them or physically pushing them beyonfd the borders then that is what must be done.
The enemy has given the fledgling government of Iraq and her allies no other choice burt to use physical violence to oust the enemy in order to bring back stability and order. This is how things have always worked and to deny these methods are sometimes called for is to stand the history of the world and man on it's head.
Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Edward Moore Kennedy, John Kerry, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and the rest of the democrat party that currently hold the office Of United States Senators. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Murtha and a majority of those in the democrat party that are holding the office Of United States Representative in the House of Representatives.
If you are not aware of that Mrs. Green than you have not taken the time to read the party platform in relation to the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution --JG
I read the 2004 Democratic Party platform, and nowhere, NOWHERE is the 2nd Amendment even mentioned. And, there is no way any of the people you mentioned could change the 2nd Amendment without a change to the Constitution.
Here is the Democratic Party Platform from 2004:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docs/platforms/D2004platform.pdf
Please give me evidence where any one of the people you cite propose to amend the Constitution to change the 2nd Amendment. Don't give me paranoia, give me facts. I want to see where any one of the people you mentioned proposed that the Constitution's 2nd Amendment be changed. If you cannot produce such evidence, then I have to believe that you maliciously spread lies. And for what reason may I ask?
As for the Islamists, they are formidable, to be sure, but the Russians were worse. And we lived with the very real threat of nuclear annihilation for years. The Commes really did have nuclear weapons.
They are gone and we're still here.\
Don't you believe we will be able to prevail over the Islamists as we did the Soviets?
If not, why not?
You've got to be kidding me right Mrs. Green. You don't believe in the second amendment anymore than Hillary Clinton or the country's top gun grabber Chuckie "I hate guns" Schumer.
Now remember what I have said before Mrs. Green about my background with firearms. I am a member of the NRA since 1975 and a certified firearms saftey instructor that fought the Clintion gun wars of the 90's.
Remember that we, as in NRA members were instrumental in kicking the democrat party to the curb in the 94 elections just after they passed the now defunct assault weapons ban and the Brady bill. I guess you needed to be reminded because it's been 14 years since the democrat party has been able to even introduce any new gun control measures attempting to limit the right to keep and bear arms.
Even slickster Willie was afraid of us and acknowledged our might in a speech right after the election and it was a bitter defeat for the democrat party and slickster Willie. He never tried to go after us after that very bitter defeat for him and his democrat party. His planned disarming of the citizens came to swift and bitter defeat. Slickster Willie was bitterly defeated by armed and vocal Americans. That's why he stopped trying after that great loss and very very bitter defeat for Bill Clinton and his democrat party, remember that Mrs. Green? We were all proud of defeating Bill Clinton and the democrats at the NRA it was very disheating to those gun grabbers and a very, very very bitter defeat for them. Freedom through vigilance I think is the appropriate phrase
Dear JG,
You did not answer my question to you on providing evidence that the Democrats you mentioned proposed to introduce a Constitutional amendment to abolish the 2nd Amendment.
I have to take that lack as an admission on your part that you are in error on that piece of disinformation.
Instead, you went on a harangue about how the NRA and the Republicans defeated Bill Clinton. What I got from that is your visceral hatred of Clinton, not any discussion on why you hold the belief that Democrats want to abolish the 2nd Amendment.
It is difficult to discuss anything with someone who will not stay with the subject, but rather goes off on a personal diatribe over matters that are not under discussion.
The Brady Bill, was introduced by Mrs. Brady, who is the wife of a man who was a loyal member of Ronald Reagan's administration, and who was also shot in the head during Mr. Reagan's assassination attempt. Mrs. Brady was not a member of the legislature in the Democratic Party.
JG said:
You've got to be kidding me right Mrs. Green. You don't believe in the second amendment anymore than Hillary Clinton or the country's top gun grabber Chuckie "I hate guns" Schumer.
I can only attribute that rant to more of your visceral hatred of anyone who is a Democrat, and not to any factual evidence, since you cite none.
Tell me exactly what you know about my views on the 2nd Amendment? Please do. I'm curious what you know since I've never discussed them with you.
Here's a Democrat I think is great and I'm glad he won in November, and I wish him the best future in the Democratic Party:
Gun Rights
Jon Tester strongly believes in our Second Amendment rights. As a gun owner and custom butcher Jon made his living with a gun for 25 years. As a legislator Tester voted repeatedly to protect gun rights. In the United States Senate, Jon will stand up to anyone — Republican or Democrat — who wants to take away Montanans’ gun rights.
Also, John Kerry has been a hunter all is life (I don't think he's ever shot anyone in the face).
You really ought to calm down and get a hold of those emotions.
No one's going to take your guns away from you.
Mrs. Green, You are either incredily naive or you are just pulling my leg. Democrats and the democrat party do not believe in the private ownership of firearms and that has been part and parcel of being a democrat since at least 1968 when they imposed the 1968 Gun Control act on the American people.
democrat party leaders will not come out and say they want to change the constitution or the 2nd amendment sao what they do is try and change the intepretation of the words.
democrat leaders also know the wrath they will incur by people like me if they do try and impose new gun laws on us. So I guess Bill Clinton's bitter defeat was a message to them huh?
Sarah Brady is a contemptable woman that paraded her husband around to audiences in a shameful display preying on people for their sympathy in order to badger the Clinton adminstration into passing that piece of crap legislation with her lobbying organization called Handgun Control Inc.
This is a completely ludricrous argument Mrs. Green to say that democrats given a chance wouldn't take away every single gun they could through registration schemes, limits on purchases, bans on certain types of weapons, gunshow purchases and any other kind of trick they could think of to stop Americans from owning firearms and you know that is the truth.
I don't have to prove anything, it's right in front of your face. What would you have to do to go purchace a handgun and get a permit to carry it concealed in your democrat party controlled state of Massachusetts? End of Story!
"...democrat leaders also know the wrath they will incur by people like me if they do try and impose new gun laws on us. So I guess Bill Clinton's bitter defeat was a message to them huh?"--JG
What bitter defeat do you refer to? He did get elected twice. And remains a very popular American. There's not a trace of bitterness in him, so far as I can tell, but I do detect that in what you write. Why is that? If President Clinton had suffered such a "bitter defeat" then you should be joyous. That's not coming through in you postings.
"This is a completely ludricrous argument Mrs. Green to say that democrats given a chance wouldn't take away every single gun they could through registration schemes, limits on purchases, bans on certain types of weapons, gunshow purchases and any other kind of trick they could think of to stop Americans from owning firearms and you know that is the truth."--JG
Again, I don't know what you are referring to, since I never made that argument. Maybe someone else did, but it certainly wasn't me. You set up strawmen and then knock them down. Why?
I don't have to prove anything, it's right in front of your face. What would you have to do to go purchace a handgun and get a permit to carry it concealed in your democrat party controlled state of Massachusetts? End of Story!
Our gun laws in Massachusetts are based on what the state legislature and the people of Massachusetts decide. The majority of people in our state voted not to have Massachusetts citizens walking around with concealed weapons. This is how a democracy works. We also have the right NOT to bear arms, if we so choose.
The 2004 Democratic platform affirms the 2nd Amendment right of Americans to own weapons while supporting the extension of the assault weapon ban and closing the "gun show" loophole. The Republican Platform contains a strong affirmation of the right to own guns. The platform supports instant background checks and the timely destruction of gun purchase records.
During the 2000 Presidential campaign, President Bush indicated his support for a trigger lock requirement, raising the age limit, and requiring background checks at gun shows.
In April 2004, the Senate again voted for handgun locks.
http://www.newsbatch.com/guncontrol.htm
As you can see there is support for some gun control measures even on the part of President Bush and his party.
I hope you direct your anger and threats toward him and other Republicans who dared trample on your 2nd Amendment rights.
Look, JG, I and many other people like me don't want to take away your guns--you of all people who know gun safety, etc. I have many hunters in my family.
I don't agree with machine guns being sold to the general public, and that doesn't make me someone who wants to impinge on your 2nd Amendment rights. And criminal background checks are not unreasonable.
Post a Comment
<< Home