Webb: "I Don't Think The Lack Of Courtesy Was Mine."
Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Jim Webb set the record straight about the charged exchange he had with President Bush about his son, who's stationed in Iraq. Key quote: "And in that particular situation, I don't think the lack of courtesy was mine." To watch the clip, click here.
Advertisement















Zing!
February 5, 2007 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Snap!
Jan Knaus
February 5, 2007 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even Peggy Noonan has written that Bush was out of line, so Webb's assessment can't really be disputed by any reasonable person.
February 5, 2007 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, Senator Webb shows not only the strength of his convictions but his masterful ability to articulate a nuanced position in an instant. Told he has less than a minute to respond to a baseless and hypocritical charge, in less than 5 seconds he recasts the entire exchange with the President regarding Webb's son in truthful and appropriate terms. Congratulations Senator Webb.
February 5, 2007 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fathers and Sons
aMike
February 5, 2007 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure I would use Peggy Noonan as an example of reasonable. Articulate, maybe. It does give Webb some cover on his right flank.
Too bad there's no footage of Bush's snippy response. We can only imagine.
February 5, 2007 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point isn't that Noonan is reasonable. It's that because she is a "conservative" columnist her comment can be viewed as a statement against her interests which makes Webb's assessment the only reasonable construction of what transpired.
February 5, 2007 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
Our other Dimwitcrat Senators (Reid, Clinton, Durbin, etc.) can take a page from Webb's 'combativeness'.
Webb did an excellent job of deflecting Wallace's 'parting-shot' trick to leave a bad impression with viewers of the junior Senator from Virginia.
February 5, 2007 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also detected a gleam of humor on his face when he realized he was going to hit this curve ball out of the park.
February 5, 2007 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It goes to show politics is like rock music: the more direct and sincere it is, the more effective it is.
...and I wouldn't call Webb "combative" just for being honest about his position.
...and Wallace is pretty much a total disgrace, from what I can tell. What a worm.
February 5, 2007 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
What people understand is: civil discourse, based on free speech, and lack of "self censorship," is Democracy in action, not combat. I don't think that our founding fathers and mothers would ever switch "political correctness" for Democracy.
Maybe the media learned something that day: Iraq is combat and, therefore, Bush is combative because it's his baby and he isn't being pro-life about the situation.
February 6, 2007 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely done! The Republican establishment as the majority has enjoyed putting alternative viewpoints into an oppositional position, thus allowing them to set the tone of discussion. Any challenges that are not sufficiently deferential are labeled "combative". I am relieved that we are finally seeing an atmosphere where the President and his party are forced to look at matters from a different perspective without a Stephen Colbert stealth attack.
Bush had better get used to hearing things he doesn't want to hear, and so do FoxNews viewers.
February 6, 2007 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Bush...isn't being pro-life about the situation."
You are a master of understatement!
I heard a story on NPR this morning about a soldier who died on January 25th. His pregnant wife was interviewed. The whole bio probably lasted all of 3 minutes, but I was so struck by her last quote:
"He was just a regular guy looking forward to a regular life."
She didn't call him a hero. She didn't say that he might have discovered something that would change the world. Just a regular guy robbed of his future.
How many regular guys will never hold their children; never laugh or cry again; and for what?
I am so sick of all this!
Jan Knaus
February 6, 2007 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't think the lack of courtesy was mine"
Care to explain?
Yes, someone invited me to his house and when I arrived, he said, "Hi, how's the wife and kids?" "Great weather we're having isn't it?"
I said, "Why don't you stick it up your ass?"
No lack of courtesy, that's the way I talk to everybody no matter how cordial the greeting might be.
February 6, 2007 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
#1 The White House isn't Dubya's, despite the fact that he has done more to sully its name than should ever have been possible for a temporary resident.
#2 George asked, "How's your boy?" and Jim replied he'd like to bring them home. If a person is worried about something (someone) he/she might answer a question in a way that conveys their concern rather than specifically answering the question as it was literally asked. Not rude. If Bush had ever been at war himself, or if his children had he might have understood. Obviously he didn't.
Would you have preferred "Well, I got an email at 0400 hours, and so as of that time he was still alive." Would that have been more polite?
It was the president who then rudely replied, "That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?" (bullying tactic, and certainly not a gracious host!)
To which Jim responded something about that being between his son and himself.
If the person who is responsible for your son needlessly being in mortal danger asks how that son is doing, your factually incorrect quote of "Why don't you stick it up your ass." would be a very tempting response. Bush was taunting him in my opinion.
Webb is a grown up and so didn't bite. He has more dignity than that. In fact he has more dignity than the Decider-In-Chief can dream of.
Jan Knaus
February 6, 2007 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jan, I regularly find myself conceding to one point or another of yours. Yes, it is factually incorrect to say that Webb told the President to stick it up his ass.
Your number one....a temporary resident, such as a renter, by law, when refering to a temporary resident as his home or his house in court can refer to his abode as his house and not be considered to be referring to it as the house he owns. Factually correct, but silly that this is the best you got.
As to the remainder of your response, your characterization of the President inviting someone to a reception and then asking about his son as a "bullying tactic" is laughable.
He asked a polite question, Webb responded in a confrontational and impolite way. When Bush tried a second time to offer an olive branch to Webb, Webb said, "that's between me and my boy". He was basically saying, How's my boy?...none of your frickin' business.
If you still want to characterize the confrontation as Bush bullying Webb, I am sure the body language and facial expressions and tone of voice that we were not privy to, can be gleaned from the fact that Webb later said he was so angered by the President's familiar and friendly greeting that he wanted to Punch the President in the face.
Webb is an ass and I think he realizes now that his attempt to make himself sound like a tough guy has now solidified his image as a Senator as someone not well suited for what most Americans prefer to think of as traditional decorum in the August body of the Senate.
February 6, 2007 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"his attempt to make himself sound like a tough guy"
You have attached this description to the wrong combatant.
If you will, contemplate the scenario of Bush being fitted for his costume in anticipation of his role in Operation Mission Accomplished: Happy Rainbows Everywhere!
Now THAT'S laughable.
February 6, 2007 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I believe you are deliberately being dense. I wasn't implying that Bush was renting the White House, but that it is everyone's house. An invitation from the White House is not as personal as an invitation to say, Crawford, Texas. Bush was the host. He behaved boorishly (as usual). You and I disagree (as usual)
If Dubya was offering Webb an olive branch, it is the first one he has offered anyone during his entire Presidency, much to the detriment of our country and the world. If I had seen any inclination on his part to EVER offer a kind word, or olive branch, or empathy of any sort, I might believe you. The actions of his whole life give the lie to your assertions.
Sorry, TJ, but you are defending a dope who thinks he is an alpha dog and behaves like one. The video of Webb does nothing to support your silliness. Have you seen the videos of Dubya talking (to Tony Blair) with his mouth full, and food falling out of it? How about the one when he gave the finger to the camera and everyone in a room? Or when he (playfully, but aggressively) scared the shit out of the Chancelor of Germany by grabbing her shoulders from behind? I could go on, but it gets so boring and repetitive to list Bush's bad manners and stupidity and general personal meanness.
Decorum of the Senate? You mean like when Cheney told an esteemed Senator to go fuck himself? Is that what you mean? Like that? What quote can you give of Webb's that proves your point.
PS: This time, don't use phoney quotation marks.
Jan Knaus
February 6, 2007 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to agree that the combativeness was Bush's doing, not Webb's. I agree because Webb's response was not a direct challenge to the President in any way. A man of enough mental sharpness to hold the country's highest elected office should have come up with, "I agree, Senator. As soon as the job is done, we'll bring 'em all home."
All Bush's response revealed was his inability to deal with unscripted situations and his willingness to get testy when he actually has to think. I don't even agree with Bush's policies, but even I know how to deal with the situation to his advantage. That's politics. If you can't deal with opposing viewpoints in their various forms, you have no business in politics.
February 7, 2007 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
He did deal with it. He dealt with a showboating ass who was so unhinged that he claimed he wanted to punch the president. Do you remember the last time a Senator said sincerely that he had lost control of himself so much so that he wanted to physically assault the President? Been a while? Webb is a showboating ass that lost it and now realizes it paints an ugly image of him.
I've seen Vice President's shoot lawyers, but this confronation is clear cut.
February 7, 2007 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And while there might very well have been many senators and congressmen who wanted to punch Bill Clinton's lights out while he was in the Oval Office, Clinton was a deft enough politician to handle confrontation without turning it into brinksmanship. And I never even voted for the man.
February 7, 2007 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I think you know I was joking, but if you want to bring that up. I thought poorly of the VPs behavior when he said that to Leahy, but lets face it, Senators and even Bill Clinton use cuss words in private conversations. Do you want examples of Clinton cussing people out or other unmentionable behavior that is done in private. Clinton even cusses out world leaders. His wife cusses like a drunken sailor.
He even blows up and loses composure in public, look at that explosion with Chris Wallace last year, polls showed that most people thought he made a mistake.
The incident with Cheney was a private conversation when Senate was not in session in a response to lies Leahy said about Cheney. Cheney was not the one that made it public. Leahy's people did.
Webb, took a private conversation of a President in a formal setting where the President asked how his son is doing. Webb is the one that made it public to project an image about himself, that in the end makes Bush look magnaniomous and Webb like a publicity seeking ass.
February 7, 2007 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your passive/aggressive posting is tiresome. I can see why you take Bush's side in this one.
Leahy did not make the exchange with Cheney public. The press that was in attendence did. It wasn't nearly as private as you claim it was. Alternatively, Webb never threatened the President nor insulted him. While Webb's response was not a direct response to the President's question, it wasn't a complete tangent, either. A politician who understands the art of diplomacy and statesmanship could have handled it easily without generating a fuss.
Given this administration's track record on diplomacy and statesmanship, it really comes as no surprise. Apparently Bush is only willing to talk to people who bow and scrape before him, or paste on phony smiles and tell him what a bang-up job he's doing.
February 7, 2007 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is an example of the coverage"
"...According to congressional aides, Leahy said hello to Cheney following the taking of the Senate group photo on the floor of the chamber...."
The Press was there, it happened, the Aides talked to the Press, the Press ran with it. Cheney did not run to the press to talk about it.
Webb ran to the press also. Webb absolutely intended it to be an insult or he would not have followed up by saying he wanted to punch him in the face. Your characterization as merely an indirect response, is a joke. Bush did handle it diplomatically and privately. The fuss generated was solely by Webb intentionally making it a public story. Webb is a hack, a showboater and an ass, and even his own party is quietly saying he should be smarter about the image he wants to project. Too late.
Regarding Presidents being able to handle situations diplomatically and "only willing to talk to people who bow and scrape before him", I guess you think Clinton was a model of constraint when an American citizen in a crowd told him "You suck" and Clinton personally asked that he be arrested, and he was.
So much for free speech and using the power of the state to get even.
February 7, 2007 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not having much love for Bill Clinton, I'm inclined to ignore this response. It's clear to me that you are trolling. But before you tow just enough party line to hang yourself, I'll give you a chance to prove yourself.
I've managed to find all kinds of blog entries and right-wing punditry articles, but not one credible news source for that story. Can you provide a single link to a newspaper or independant news source article (not one that poses as a news source) in which this claim is substantiated as you describe it?I have a hunch it is like the Dan Quayle urban legend in which he supposedly said he would love to travel to Latin America, but didn't speak Latin. There are lots of rumors and anecdotes, but hard news reports of it don't exist. Why? Because it didn't happen. It was a piece of rumor that got snapped up and proliferated to the point where lesser minds came to believe it was true because so many other people came to believe it was true.
So please, no alamogirl, or other non-news websites. Only a real news account of the situation in which the Clintons sicked the Secret Service on a protester, whose only act was to yell, "You suck!" AP or UPI would be fine, but a credible newspaper that checks its facts would be better.
February 7, 2007 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've already explained that you will not accept any link that is anything other than Left wing media, so why bother. If Richmond times-dispatch, Worldnet daily, Cato institute, Rocky mountan news, Free Republic, and the Washington times are not good enough for you for a lightly covered story from 1o years ago, then you are obviously wanting to live in a liberal media bubble. Here is one link to what you call an unreliable source.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16541
I suppose Dennis Byrne of the Chicago Sun-Times made it up In 1993, when he reported William Kelly of Chicago was arrested for shouting to Clinton asking where was the middle class tax cut. He was put in shackles and locked up in jail.
If you want to setup a question where you are already telling me you are in a media bubble, then no amount of references will matter.
February 7, 2007 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
TJ,
I never asked for anything left wing. I asked for something reliable. If in your mind the media is all left wing, you and I have nothing more to discuss. Put down the Kook-Aid and start using your brain as you pretend to. I visited the URL you provided and received a 404 error. Do you really know how to research anything? You would much rather believe a bunch of raving lunatics without any journalistic standards than give an inch and admit where your side comes up short.
If you want to give me a specific citation of the Byrne article (date, vol. issue...ANYTHING) I'll be glad to look it up. Otherwise, I'll just assume you either pulled this from your foggy memory or directly from your own ass.
Find something other than trolling to do.
February 7, 2007 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink