Democratic Response To SOTU

[Annie]

Turn tail and run...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070124/ap_on_go_pr_wh/state_of_union_democrats

Democrats slam Bush war policy

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 11 minutes ago

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Avatar4321]

if these obstacles were so predicted, why didnt Democrats suggest ideas to avoid them when they came up?

 

[Annie]

if these obstacles were so predicted, why didnt Democrats suggest ideas to avoid them when they came up?

Please do not intimate that you are taking Webb seriously? He's a poseur.

 

[Emmett]

Turn tail and run...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070124/ap_on_go_pr_wh/state_of_union_democrats

It is comforting to know though that the AP has such non biased writers such as Laurie Kellman to provide this type of balanced and accurate reporting.


"smiley face puking on itself"

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

I still don't see why Jim Webb, of all people, was chosen for this. He's a nOOb.

Maybe it's because he has "a son fighting in Iraq" but if President Bush dares to ask Webb about him, Webb gets his panties in a bunch.

His response was really nothing but another liberal bitchfest that Bush's plan is a miserable failure in Iraq, no matter at least he has one, and that their answer is socialized medicine and increased spending on "education".

 

[Avatar4321]

I still don't see why Jim Webb, of all people, was chosen for this. He's a nOOb.

Maybe it's because he has "a son fighting in Iraq" but if President Bush dares to ask Webb about him, Webb gets his panties in a bunch.

His response was really nothing but another liberal bitchfest that Bush's plan is a miserable failure in Iraq, no matter at least he has one, and that their answer is socialized medicine and increased spending on "education".

Its because every experienced Democrat voted for the war.

 

[Bullypulpit]

if these obstacles were so predicted, why didnt Democrats suggest ideas to avoid them when they came up?

Methinks they did make a suggestion. Don't invade Iraq.

 

[Annie]

Methinks they did make a suggestion. Don't invade Iraq.

Not quite true, they voted for the war.

 

[Avatar4321]

Methinks they did make a suggestion. Don't invade Iraq.

That isnt exactly what they said in the vote. In fact, the president didn't even need a separate Iraq authorization vote because the post 911 authorization for the use of force against any nation that President determined supported terrorism more than granted him the authority to do so. But the Democrats insisted on having a second vote just so they could claim to have voted for it and supported it. So he gave them what they wanted.

So the difference isnt that they didnt want to go to war, its, to put it crudely, the fact that they dont have the balls to see any of their decisions through.

 

[Hobbit]

That isnt exactly what they said in the vote. In fact, the president didn't even need a separate Iraq authorization vote because the post 911 authorization for the use of force against any nation that President determined supported terrorism more than granted him the authority to do so. But the Democrats insisted on having a second vote just so they could claim to have voted for it and supported it. So he gave them what they wanted.

So the difference isnt that they didnt want to go to war, its, to put it crudely, the fact that they dont have the balls to see any of their decisions through.

Actually, congress doesn't need to vote at all to give the President authorization to use force. The Constitution gives him that power. Congress just has the authority to declare war.

 

[trobinett]

Actually, congress doesn't need to vote at all to give the President authorization to use force. The Constitution gives him that power. Congress just has the authority to declare war.

Oh, and lets not forget the power that Congress has to bitch, and scream at every opportunity. To stall, withhold funding, be a complete pain in the ass to every plan or suggestion that the President or his Cabinet might have.

Nor the Congress's right too call black, whatever the President call white.

Or Congress's right to help the enemy of this great nation AGAINTS the President.

Or the Congress's right to help establish international treaty, and make statements of fact to the world media on behalf of the administration, in a time of war.

And lastly, Congress has the right to change their mind every twenty four hours, or more often if necessary to further harass the President.

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

Webb had better watch out. He was a Naval officer awhile back as was Jimmuh Carter. History repeats. History repeats.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) was the first to hit upon the secret that unlocks the mystery in his response to the president’s State of the Union Address. The key is to convince oneself, and the American people, that the troops don’t support the mission either.


During his Sate of the Union rebuttal, Sen. Webb said this: (my emphasis)

Quote:
The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military
.

Now, Webb is tricky. He doesn’t actually say that the troops don’t support the mission, but that is the clear and I believe intentional implication of his statement. Essentially Webb is saying that the troops don’t want to continue the fight, so the Democrats are justified in denying them the reinforcements that the president has ordered. But, let’s examine that charge in a little more detail than the Senator was willing to give.

Senator Webb wasn’t willing to provide a source for his claim, but Jonah Goldberg posted a reader e-mail at National Review Online yesterday that did it for him. (emphasis in original)

Quote:
Last night – despite the fact that Bush is changing the way the war is being fought — Jim Webb claimed that “the majority of our military” does not support “the way this war is being fought”. This is the poll that is being cited as evidence of his claim:

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

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


The e-mailer goes on to point out that the poll is taken only of active-duty Military Times subscribers. In other words, it isn’t actually a poll of the military, or the active-duty military, or of soldiers in Iraq. It is a poll of a very small subset spread out over each of these groups. Yet, Sen. Webb uses this poll result to claim that a majority of, “the military,” no longer support, “the way in which the war is being fought.”

Well then, what do they support? If Sen. Webb would have kept reading his source, he would have found that, “almost half of the respondents think that we need more troops in Iraq that we have there now.” This is, of course, the exact prescription that President Bush has proposed. Furthermore, this poll was published on December 29th, 2006, almost two weeks before the troop surge was announced. I’d be willing to bet that a similar poll, conducted the night of the State of the Union, would yield an even higher percentage of troops supporting the president’s plan. For that matter, a poll of military members actually serving in Iraq right now would most likely yield an even higher level of support.

Sen. Webb doesn’t let the facts get in the way of a good excuse. He is perfectly happy to leave the impression that not even the military supports the president’s plan. He has to be. For this is the way in which he finds political cover for his position and that of his party. This is the way in which Democrats can claim to support the troops but not the mission. After all, if even the troops don’t support the mission, why should anyone else? Expect to hear this poll result get a lot of play in the Senate and in the reporting surrounding the debate next week.

Democrats have gone so far out on the limb in opposition to the Iraq War that they can no longer allow it to succeed. Success in Iraq would mean almost certain annihilation for them at the polls in 2008. There would be no spots along the victory parade route for them. The birth of a free and stable Iraq would do more damage to the Democratic Party’s defense and foreign policy credentials than even the 1972 George McGovern presidential campaign. To prevent this, they have politicized every aspect of this war. Now, they are attributing their own defeatist attitude to the troops in an attempt to appear responsive to them.


http://www.redstate.com/stories/the_parties/democrats/how_to_support_the_troops_but_not_the_mission

History repeats.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think the real evidence of how the troops feel about the war is the reenlistment rate, which is higher than ever.