When senators from opposing parties call each other “friend” and pat each other as they talk, there’s a fighting chance they’re angling to wring each other’s neck.
So it appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday when Democrat Jim Webb of Virginia and Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina testily exchanged views on President Bush’s Iraq policy and troop welfare. An impromptu troop surge debate turned into a temper surge.
“Just wash your hands of Iraq,” an animated Graham said to the war critics, including the Democrat seated to his immediate right. “History will judge us, my friend.”
“It’s been a hard month, Lindsey,” Webb commiserated, wearing a tight smile. “You need to calm down, my friend.”
This isn’t the first time Webb has been a jerk. And it won’t be the last.
I heard excerpts from this ‘exchange’. Any time Graham would try to talk, Webb would shout him down. And then would accuse Graham of trying to interrupt. Webb showed himself to be, as Newbie says, a jerk.
Peace
Jim Elliott
the dictionary describes a jerk as:
a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, or inconsequential person
the manner in which graham, lieberman, mccain blocked Graham the passage of an amendment sponsored by Webb that would have required soldiers to be given more rest at home after being deployed overseas. During the vote, Graham disingenuously claimed that if Webb’s bill passed, it would be “the greatest politicization of military action in the history of the country.â€
that is being a jerk on a whole other level than some Sunday morning talk show
Granted there are degrees of “Jerk-ness”. Not being a jerk in one area does not disqualify one from being a jerk in another. And not allowing person B to make a point in rebuttal (and accusing person B of doing what person A has been doing all along) on a debate show is plainly being a jerk in that arena.
Of course, the entire move at forcing Bush to withdraw the troops is nothing more than “politicization of military action” and taking away the consititutional power of the President to ‘wage war’ anyway.
In the arena of politics, there are a lot of people, duly elected, who are acting like “jerks” for no other reason than to bring down a President they don’t like. Not the best of reasons. Graham, McCain, Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, they are all doing their best to show their worst.
libraryjim, in the pantheon of naive, fatuous, foolish, or inconsequential behavior on the Iraq war – no one can come close to the behavior of Mr. Bush. from weapons of mass destruction to inadequate troop levels to “End of major combat” to insufficient post-invasion plans to adverse effect on global war on terror
the human and financial costs are truly astounding, as is the continuing dishonesty
The President is simply the CiC of the military. Whether war will or will not be waged is entirely up to Congress, the idea being that the decision should go to war should be made after legislative deliberation, not unilaterally by a president ordering troops into harm’s way, then daring Congress not to fund them.
The troops will be withdrawn, and it will be after the grunts start telling their lieutenants to go on their own [expletive] patrol.
Reactionary,
Actually, the Congress voted overwhelimingly IN FAVOR of going to war in Iraq. The President did not send them in ‘unilaterally’ without consulting Congress. In fact, Hillary Clinton said the evidence (which she says she examined apart from any political posturing) was so overwhelming that she could not vote any other way that YES for the invasion.
#6, the reality of the matter is that:
A) Re WMD:
1) EVERY Western intelligence service, believed that there were WMD in Iraq.
2) Russian intelligence reported the same finding and the Russians were all over Iraq as the major arms dealer to Hussain.
3) The UN too, were convinced that WMD existed in Iraq.
4) The US Senate and Congress too, also were convinced of the existance of WMD, based on reviewing the same evidence, as #8 states above. Mrs. Clinton cannot have it both ways, like Sen. Kerry tries to: “I voted against the war, after I voted for it”.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to believe that a regime that DID have WMD & a regime that HAD used WMD, still had them.
B) Re Major combat operations, as defined by organized military units in the field in opposition to our forces, WERE at an end, with the surrender of the Iraqi army. The growth of an insurrection, several months after major combat operations ended, has nothing to do with the reality that major combat operations had ended.
C) The insurgency has initiated a new phase of Counter Insurgency operations. This phase remains to be faced and it is only now, that the full surge is in place to meet that phase. If the reports from Iraq are any indication, particularly those posted on the milblogs, then the surge is definitely having a positive (from our perspective) effect on the bad guys.
D) I do not know if the Dems/radical progressives, etc., are more in favour of the US losing the war, rather than giving Pres. Bush their support for winning it, but by their politicization of the debate and attempts to mico-manage military operations, they seem to.
Scotsreb, the shameless manner in which Rover & Bush Regime politicized this war is stunning to me – the 2002 & 2004 political cycles hinged on the war as wedge, with troop movements times for maximize leverage.
In terms of micro-managing, it would be useful to have someone other than Cheney or his crony Rummy practice some oversight & responsibility for this fool’s errand of a war.
I do not want the US to lose the war with radical Islam or with the tactic of terror. I regret that that the Bush Regime ignored that war to wage a mis-guided & poorly managed war. Our country & our military deserve far better.
libraryjim,
Notwithstanding Congress’s decision to go to war with Iraq, or whatever it was they declared, the decision on whether to remain at war is one that is solely for Congress.
Scotsreb,
The war has been won: the Saddam regime was deposed and the fanciful NBC threat eliminated. If US troops leave, the Shi’ite militias take the gloves off and the Sunni and Wahabbist insurgents are slaughtered in their beds. The insurgency then ends. So long as US troops stay and muzzle the Shi’ite militias, the insurgency will continue.
#10, that is simply projection. The shameless name calling as illustrated by your opening comment, the shameless politicking by dems to defeat the effort (Harry Reid: “The war is lost”, etc.) all speak to a virulent break-down in how politics is now being conducted in the USA.
It reminds me of the period 1850-1860. The ability to speak in a non confrontational manner, the ability to reach valid compromises through negotiations, all fled from the scene.
One thing to keep in mind, is that ALL wars go badly from time to time during their course. The US Army lost nearly 2000 KIA in an invasion rehearsal in May 1944, when German E-Boats bushwacked the troop transports. That incident was so terrible, the losses so severe, that they were not announced at the time, but merely rolled in with the invasion casualties.
Wars are best judged by the ending, not the chaos of their conflicts in mid-point.
#11, in answer to you, all I will say is remember the killing fields of Cambodia and the 2+ million deaths there. These deaths directly resulted from the full withdrawal of the USA from SE Asia. They are on the conscience of our Congress folk who pulled the plug. If you can live with a similar result with any sort of equanimity, you are a person of harder quality than I.
scotsreb – name-calling ? Would that be the manner in which the GOP has questioned the patriotism of anyone who questioned their plan ?
With every new day, some GOP leader draws the same conclusion that Majority Leader Reid has already stated
Scotsreb,
People are dying all over the world from atrocities. Again, if you find the fact of such omnipresent injustice unbearable, there are any number of outlets for your blood and treasure.
Incidentally, that is a rather simplistic recap of the events that led to the Khmer Rouge takeover of the Cambodian government. Pol Pot’s bloody regime was thankfully overthrown by the Communist Vietnamese government in 1979.
Al Qaida has stated that it is in Iraq to fight the US. That has been stated by several AQI leaders several times. If we don’t fight AQI in Iraq (where they are now), then where shall we fight them? How about we fight them over here in the US? Would that make everyone happy?
Bob – if you would simply look at the complexity of the situation and imagine Al Gore in the Whitehouse, you would see that many of the decisions by this President are the same ones or similar to the decisions of the past President – only with more force behind them. Have Bush and Cheny and Rumsfeld made serious mistakes in the execution of the Iraq war? Absolutely. In war, decisions become very difficult and it becomes hard to see the inintended consequences of your actions. We have lost fewer men in this war than in any other ground war. We are gradually clearing out Al Qaida and the sunni population is turning against AQ.
How we got here is important. But more important is how do we get out of the situation without making it worse. What is the most just (or least unjust) action that we can take?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Bob – the only one I hear questioning the democrats’ patriotism is the Democrats when they say: “Don’t question my patriotism.” I’ve never heard President Bush or anyone on his cabinet say: “Senator Reid is unamerican.” They may say: “Senator Reid’s plan (or lack thereof) is not in the best interest of either the United States or of Iraq.”
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Philip,
Al Qaida as you are thinking of it was a training school for Islamic militants in the Afghan wilderness. The US destroyed it during the invasion of Afghanistan. Some of its leaders remain in hiding along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
Al Qaida, i.e., “The Base,” is simply an Arabic name up for grabs by whoever chooses to take it. In addition to Al Qaida In Iraq, there is probably an Al Qaida In London. In all seriousness, I would not be surprised if there is an Al Qaida In Dearborn.
Phil,
If only Al Gore had been President for the last 6 years, or John McCain for that matter.
Al Qaeda is much more prominent in Afghanistan, Pakistan & Saudi Arabia than it is now or ever has been in Iraq. The myth that the Bush Regime screams about homeland safety is laid bare as empty when their own military reprts that Al Qaeda is now STRONGER than before 9/11.
In terms of questioning patriotism, honestly Phil, I actually tend to admire your honesty in most comments. Here is just a few of the Bush Regime’s tactics:
In 2002, losing three limbs in Vietnam didn’t save Georgia Sen. Max Cleland from attacks on his patriotism, with Rove morphing Cleland’s face into that of Saddam
In a 2003 speech, Rove said no issue better illustrated the philosophical difference between liberals and conservatives than national security. “Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war,” he said in a prepared text released by the White House. “Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.”
in the 2004 campaign, they worked to portray Mr. Kerry as undermining troops, demoralizing allies and being weak in the face of terrorist attacks. Speaker Hastert said he believed that Al Qaeda would be more successful under a Kerry presidency.
Before the 2006 election cycle, in front of the RNC, Karl Rove a searing attack on Democrats for their positions on terrorism, the administration’s eavesdropping program and President Bush’s effort to shape the federal judiciary.
And Mr. Cheney – wow – the number of times is astounding.
I have never questioned the patriotism of people in the Bush Regime – I have questioned their judgement, their motivation and the outcome of their failed policies.
“I have never questioned the patriotism of people in the Bush Regime – I have questioned their judgement, their motivation and the outcome of their failed policies.”
Aside from using the epithet “regime” (capitalized, no less!) I don’t see any animus coming from your towards President Bush.
How is what you are doing by questioning the judgement, motivaiton, and outcome of the Bush administration any different from questioning the judgement, motivation, and (projected) outcomes of those who want don’t want to fight terrorism with American troops? As for Cheny or Rove saying that AQ would be more successful under a democratic regime, they said nothing that Bin Laden hadn’t already said. He was very clear in 2004 in saying that those states that voted for Kerry would be hurt less than the state that voted for Bush. Can you guess who Bin Laden wanted to win the 2004 election?
As for questioning the Patriotism of people, how does the Bush administration stand on calling its political opponents “Hitler” or “Nazi” or “terrorists?” There have been several cases of groups that strongly support the Democrats in the Senate or House calling the Bush Administration a “regime” or “Nazis” or saying Bush is Hitler. Don’t dish out political abuse if you are not willing to take it.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#14, you may hold that my re-cap is *simplistic*, and it may be, but that said, it does not deny the accuracy of it.
#19, over this last weekend, Rep. Keith Ellison of Ill. and the only muslim in Congress, was speaking at a convention of atheists.
In it, he said that 9-11 reminded him of the Reichstag fire in Berlin. The inevitable conclusion from his speech, is that Rep. Ellison, Dem. Ill., has compared Pres. Bush directly to Hitler.
Accurate? I’m not sure the US withdrawal from Vietnam caused the rise of the Pol Pot regime. But again, your main error is in a simplistic analysis. With people fighting and dying all over the world, are US citizens morally obligated to enlist their children, pay every spare cent they have, and saddle future generations with even more tax obligations to relieve atrocities wherever and whenever they may appear? I doubt most proponents of the Iraq war have so much as foregone tax deductions during its pendency.
I live in Georgia and remember the Chambliss/Cleland election very well. It is a myth perpetuated by the biased that says Cleland’s patriotism was questioned. It wasn’t. He whines about it to this day but can’t cite any instances where it happened by Chambliss, his staff or anyone representing the Republican Party. His votes almost mirrored Ted Kennedy’s, and he lost because mainly because he’s liberal in a conservative state, plus he wanted to unionize Homeland Security.
Clinton was quick as well to send “our children” into other countries to fight their battles (even trumped up the ‘intel’ to do so). And it was under Clinton that terrorism was downgraded to a police matter and not national security.
Al Gore in campaign speeches in 2000 called forth the need to rid the world of Saddam and his WMD’s. In fact, it was largely intel gathered under Clinton’s intelligence agencies that led to our linking Iraq with Al-quida.
So why all the hatred of George W. Bush? He was following the trail to its logical conclusion. Has he made mistakes? Of course. But I’d rather have him in office than Algore!
Phil, the epithet (Greek — επιθετον and Latin — epitheton; literally meaning ‘imposed’) is defined as a descriptive word or phrase that has become a fixed formula. Regime is no more an epithet than re-appraiser or Democrat Party – it is a frame, just as death taxes are, or the coalition of the willing or even oversight.
Phil, you ask “Can you guess who Bin Laden wanted to win the 2004 election?” I have no clue, nor do you. I do know that both Clinton & Bush let him when they had the chance to snuff him out. And I do know that on countless occasions, Cheney & Rove have led the Bush Regime in misleading America, in hopes of maintaining the political power they have so abused.
Cleland’s opponent, Saxby Chambliss, who sat out Vietnam with a bad knee, aired a spot featuring unflattering pictures of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein … and Max Cleland. Chambliss charged Cleland, the Vietnam vet amputee, was soft on national security because he’d voted against creating the Homeland Security Act. In truth, Cleland co-wrote the legislation to create the Homeland Security Department, but objected to repeated attempts by the White House to deprive future Homeland Security employees of traditional civil service protection.
libraryjim, I am glad you would rather have the Bush Regime rather than Al Gore. You are aware that the majority of America disagreed with you in 2000. Your arguement that Bush acted no different than Clinton & Gore is actually sorta funny – you are really reaching when you assert – hey, they did it first. I teach my kids never to fight that way.
Bob, you said, that’s not at all Your arguement that Bush acted no different than Clinton & Gore is actually sorta funny – you are really reaching when you assert – hey, they did it first. I teach my kids never to fight that way.”
That’s not at all what Jim said. Also, Cleland’s patriotism was NOT questioned. As I said before, he wanted to unionize Homeland Security, period. Saying it’s “attempts to deprive future Homeland Security employeed of traditional civil service protection,” is very disingenuous. We all know what it means to unionize something, and people can recieve appropriate benefits without being in a union, as you well know. I find it disturbing that many of the Democrat talking points are echoed in terrorist videos and letters. I don’t think for one minute they would prefer to have a Republican in office. I’d be willing to bet real money on it.
Alli B, unfortunately we are betting our lives.
In terms of Cleland, we certainly see it differently. Take a look at this ad – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKFYpd0q9nE – it is Bush league politics.
In terms of unions, you & I clearly disagree. Having Cheney’s cronies run everything – now that has surely meant that a few rich men get most of the money.
The hypothetical of who our enemy wants in office is so easy for both sides to use. The reality is that the Bush regime’s fools errand in Iraq has allowed radical Islam the time & cover to re-build.
Bob, once again, the ad doesn’t question Max’s patriotism, which is what people are continually claiming. His voting record is, just as anyone else’s, fair game and completely relevant. If you want to believe it’s hypothetical whether terrorists favor Democrats over Republicans, you are in complete denial. Your words “cronies,” “Bush league politics”, “regimes” and “fools errand” show your utter lack of objectivity. It’s clear you have your mind made upt, and no one is ever going to convince you of anything.
Alli B, it may surprise you that I have voted for GOP candidates.
2 terms with Bush as gov & 6 yrs of a Bush pres – I’ve had all the convincing I need, thanks.
Actually, the counting and recounting and recounting of the ballots by the press and politicians in Florida still gave “W” the election. The majority of people did not disagree. However, it’s not the people who elect the president of this country. It’s the Electorial College — and they have no mandate to follow the dictates of the popular vote (although this time they DID, however three times in the past, they disregarded the popular vote to elect a candidate to the office).
to be clear libraryjim, 543,816 more americans preferred Al Gore
Bob, really, get over it. Dwelling on the general vote count versus the electoral college shows petulance and a sour grapes attitude. Besides, there was another election in 2004 which could have removed Bush but didn’t.
Bob – first, it’s time to “Move On.” It was not that the majority of Americans preferred Al Gore – there were approx 543,816 more votes cast for Al Gore that George Bush. There were several dynamics that affected the vote in 2000. First was the media calling states before the polls even closed in the state – in particular, Florida was called for Gore before the polls closed in the western (and more conservative) part of the state. That may have cause several thousand people that would have voted for Bush to not vote, thinking their vote did not matter. Likewise campaigns were not run on the popular vote model, they were run creating a majority of the electoral votes. You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
[i]You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game.
[/i]
But, Phil, that’s just what Democrats and liberals do — change the rules in the middle of the game to force a win for them, even if they have clearly lost. That’s their number one play!
No advocating changing rules here.
President Bush’s top counterterrorism advisers acknowledged Tuesday that the strategy for fighting Osama bin Laden’s leadership of Al Qaeda in Pakistan had failed, as the White House released a grim new intelligence assessment that has forced the administration to consider more aggressive measures inside Pakistan.
“It hasn’t worked for Pakistan,” said Frances Fragos Townsend, who heads the Homeland Security Council at the White House. “It hasn’t worked for the United States.”
It’s too bad the ‘main-stream’ press only reports the bad news, what about 5% of the totality in Iraq? R Lee Emery devoted an entire segment of “Mail Call” (I think it’s on ‘On Demand’ ep. 9??) to the ADVANCES we have made in Iraq: water purificators in all villages; streams and wells purposely poisoned or rendered unfit for drinking by Saddam cleaned up or filled in; schools opening; sewer systems running; hospitals where Iraqis are being treated to the same levels of health care U.S. soldiers/personnel receive (and training Iraqi’s in that same medical practices); girls attending schools and now college.
I urge everyone to watch it if they can, and if not, call someone who can tape it and send it to you.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
That sould be episode [b]99[/b] I put in an extra “?” instead of the second “9”.