SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: longnshort who wrote (757945)1/23/2007 11:54:18 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Seems rational to me... can't speak to Shorty's degree of 'sanity' though....



To: longnshort who wrote (757945)1/24/2007 12:14:06 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 769670
 
Text of Sen. Jim Webb's S.O.U. response

By MarketWatch
Last Update: 9:25 PM ET Jan 23, 2007
marketwatch.com

---------------------------------
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - Here is the text of Sen. Jim Webb's speech, the Democratic response to President Bush's State of the Union address, as released by the Senate majority leader.
---------------------------------

Good evening.

I'm Senator Jim Webb, from Virginia, where this year we will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown -- an event that marked the first step in the long journey that has made us the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth.
It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President's message, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and healthcare for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.

Further, this is the seventh time the President has mentioned energy independence in his state of the union message, but for the first time this exchange is taking place in a Congress led by the Democratic Party. We are looking for affirmative solutions that will strengthen our nation by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, and spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth in the form of alternate energy programs. We look forward to working with the President and his party to bring about these changes.

There are two areas where our respective parties have largely stood in contradiction, and I want to take a few minutes to address them tonight. The first relates to how we see the health of our economy -- how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans. The second regards our foreign policy -- how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion that will also allow us to continue to fight the war against international terrorism, and to address other strategic concerns that our country faces around the world.

When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.

Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.

In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.
In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy -- that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.

And under the leadership of the new Democratic Congress, we are on our way to doing so. The House just passed a minimum wage increase, the first in ten years, and the Senate will soon follow. We've introduced a broad legislative package designed to regain the trust of the American people. We've established a tone of cooperation and consensus that extends beyond party lines. We're working to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.

With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.

I want to share with all of you a picture that I have carried with me for more than 50 years. This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served our country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.

Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues -- those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death -- we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way.

We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.
The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held Hostage to the predictable -- and predicted -- disarray that has followed.

The war's costs to our nation have been staggering.

Financially.

The damage to our reputation around the world.

The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism.

And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.

Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.

Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves "as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other." And he did something about it.

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.

These presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this president to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

Thank you for listening. And God bless America.



To: longnshort who wrote (757945)1/24/2007 12:16:25 AM
From: pompsander  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
I thought Webb did a fine job of presenting his alternative priority list. What is it you don't like, Shorty, about this decorated war veteran, father of a marine currently in Iraq, former REAL republican (under Reagan), and naval secretary.

Maybe it is that he is so differernt from George W. Bush.

I wonder what George Allen thought of Webb's performance?



To: longnshort who wrote (757945)1/24/2007 6:50:00 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Can't hide from war gone wrong

Wednesday, January 24th, 2007
New York Daily News
nydailynews.com

It was a historic State of the Union that just felt like one more manufactured event from this President, George W. Bush acting as if he wanted to talk about almost anything else before getting to a war he and his people manufactured.

The more he tries to defend his conduct of this war, the more he continues to stumble this badly and ask the rest of us to help prop him up, he really does the last thing anybody named Bush should ever want to do: gift-wrap the Oval Office for a Clinton.

"You understand that the consequences of failure [in Iraq] would be grievous and far-reaching," he says again last night, and acts as if it was some other President who didn't consider those consequences before picking this battle - and this battleground.

He tried to give us some grand, bipartisan vision of the future last night, about the economy and the environment and energy and even immigration. But the war would not go away. The war never goes away. It was as if there were some huge video screen behind him and all you could see was a constant loop of the escalating violence in Baghdad, as bad now as it has ever been. It is why the whole thing just sounded like more excuses in the end, from what has become such a sad excuse of an administration.

Of course Sen. Hillary Clinton is no sure thing to succeed this Bush the way her husband succeeded Bush 41, no sure thing to make it at least 24 consecutive years - think about this - when someone named Bush or Clinton will be running the country.

She is the big front-runner in the polls right now, the star of the moment whether you like her or not, whether you think the country is ready to elect a woman President or not. She also has to look no further than her own marriage to know how fast things can change in presidential politics.

Still: The longer this President stays in office, the better everybody in the game looks. That includes his predecessor and his wife.

To the bitter end, Bush tries to sell us an al-Maliki government that he clearly doesn't trust and an Iraqi Army that no self-respecting soldier anywhere would trust. Only no one is buying. Finally the Republicans have figured out that Bush might be taking them down with him. He gave away the House because of his stubborn handling of this war, he gave away the Senate. Now he is trying to give away the White House with both hands.

Sen. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are supposed to be the front-runners of their party the way Sen. Clinton is the front-runner of hers. You tell me how either one of them beats her or anybody else if people continue to see them carrying the President's coat on the war.

Sen. McCain served this country bravely and proudly. If he thinks continuing to align himself with this President, on this war, is some kind of brilliant move toward higher office, he should ask a distinguished soldier like Gen. Colin Powell how that worked out for him.

"Our coalition has learned from our experience in Iraq," George W. Bush says in his State of the Union. "We've adjusted our military tactics and changed our approach to reconstruction. Along the way we have benefited from responsible criticism and counsel offered by members of Congress of both parties. In the coming year, I will continue to reach out and seek your good advice."

Those words are from the State of the Union address he delivered one year ago
. Bush's approval rating was at 42% that night. Now CBS has him at 28%, though others have him slightly higher. When Watergate was at high tide, seven months before Richard Nixon resigned, his approval rating was 26%.

One year ago George W. Bush talked about working with the Congress when it was still controlled, all of it, by his own party. Last night he talked about reaching out to Congress again. Yet when he makes the unilateral decision to send more troops to Iraq, when he sends a number that wouldn't have been enough back in the summer of 2003, when we still had a fighting chance over there, he doesn't want to hear from anybody. Then his outgoing vice president, Cheney, goes on television and says that you can't run a war by committee.

Sometimes it is the entire Bush presidency that seems manufactured, one that keeps getting rewritten like his State of the Union. Now he proposes a "special advisory council on the war on terror, made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties. We will share ideas ..."

Now he wants to share ideas, after he sends another 21,500 American soldiers over there, and don't try to stop him. Now he wants to "cross the aisle when there is work to be done."

Now he wants to bring the country together in something other than this one shared idea: that the President has no idea himself how to get us out of Iraq, despite passionate rhetoric we have heard from him before.

"In the end," the President said of Iraq last night, "I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance of success."

You wonder what course of action finished second.