Up until the point he gave it, I was looking forward to hearing Jim Webb’s rebuttal (”Democrat response”) speech to President Bush’s State of the Union Address. I was looking forward to it because I actually expected the Democrats to finally share their views with the American people.
Let’s face it, the Democrats won the election. They won the election on the most transparently shallow party platform I’ve ever seen. Their platform consisted of one sole fuzzy point, which was to say “Hey, we’re not them.” We’re not the ones running the war in Iraq, we’re not the ones who started it, we’re almost as corrupt but not quite, and we’re not mean. We’re not George Bush.
The “We’re not Them” strategy worked to perfection. The Democrats won, but the non-platform left them without any mandate to accomplish anything. What I was hoping to see happen tonight was an opinion. A view. An argument that could be understood. I hoped the Democrats had grown past the election to set about the somber role of governing.
And I thought the selection of U.S. military veteran Jim Webb to give the response was a signal that they are ready. I expected goals and a strategy to achieve them. I expected Webb to articulate some view about a winning strategy in Iraq, the War on Terrorism, and our relationship with the world.
But no sir. What we got from Jim Webb tonight was a nothing speech. Oh it had words in it all right, but the words felt like they were randomly generated into the meaningless phrases that came forth from his mouth. There was no there there, no plan, to strategy for success, nothing. The Democrats “messageâ€? continues just as before, as if the Democrats were still running for Congress on a nothing platform. The speech was just another “We’re not Bush” speech.
And in the second half of the speech, Webb transgressed into the typical anti-American rhetoric we’ve seen from Cindy Sheehan’s anti-American liberal wing of the Democrat party. Jim Webb starts by erroneously claiming that Democrats had warned against the war in Iraq. That claim is patently false and he knows it. A majority of Democrats voted for the war. And he ducks responsibility entirely for the consequences.
He claimed that our Commander in Chief “recklessly� took us into action, saying nothing about the presumed recklessness of Democrats who voted for the war. Jim Webb shamelessly criticized our President at a time of war in entirely over-the-top rhetoric with men fighting under his command in the field.
Three paragraphs later, one is left staggering. That is one of the most pathetically defeatist speeches ever given by a politician on a national stage. The key paragraphs are highlighted in bold below.
And that’s what surprised me about Jim Webb’s failed opportunity. He delivered the speech that Cindy Sheehan herself would have delivered. He joined the anti-American crowd this evening, and for that I am sorely disappointed.
Jim Webb Rebuttal Speech Video
If you are looking for Bush’s video, that one is right here at the White House.
See also: Ankle Biting Pundits, Right Voices, Riehl World, Wizbang, Hot Air,
Full transcript of Jim Webb’s defeatist anti-American speech is below:
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.
[tags]jim+webb, speech, democrat+response, george+bush, president, state of the union, address, democrats, liberal, anti+american, defeatism, reaction, video, youtube[/tags]









January 23rd, 2007 at 8:50 pm
I hope it wasn’t a surprise to you. Jim Webb was an anti-American defeatist journalist before he got this gig in Washington.
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Funny how war heroes are traitors if they don’t agree with Bush. Families that have multiple generations of honorable military service to the U.S. are traitors if they don’t agree with Bush. A former Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Regan is a traitor because he doesn’t agree with Bush.
I’m a Virginian. We don’t stand last to anyone in patriotism. Screw you for dissing my Senator. Don’t tread on me.
Wake up you people.
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Thank you for usefully highlighting the comments about Iraq. It is unclear which sentence in those comments you disagree with. The first paragraph seems pretty factual. No opinions, just a statement of known facts. The second paragraph switches to opinions, but they are platitutes, the sort of opinions that all informed people share. The third paragraph opens with a couple of factual statements, and then switches to an endorcement of what sounds like the Baker-Hamilton recommendations (remember, bi-partisan opinions, unanimously recommended by that committee of experienced statesmen).
He was pretty kind. If Webb wanted to be nasty, he might have chastized Bush for (once again) linking his decision to invade Iraq with 9/11. That is dishonest, since Bush, when pressed on this, has admitted that he does not believe in such a connection (e.g. his debate with Kerry).
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:34 pm
[...] Webb’s response. (Sorry, couldn’t google the transcript.) [...]
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Blog-hole, you continue the transparently useless and self-minimizing party line. Since you are with Webb, tell me what Webb actually wants to do? If I wanted to waste my time, I could have listened to a Cindy Sheehan speech. Since they don’t like Bush’s “plan”, what is the Democrat plan to winning a war, a war that they continue to consciously fund? You don’t really have any usable view to share, do you?
January 24th, 2007 at 4:03 am
Admittedly I fell asleep halfway through the State of the Union, so I’m going mostly by transcripts. I thought Bush was very kind to the Democrats. He gave Pelosi a wonderful welcome to the Speaker position. He sent well-wishes to those who were sick. (One of which, if he were to not complete his term, would turn things back to a Republican majority.)
He spent at least the first part of the address reaching across the aisle, explaining what he would like to see done, and being non-confrontational.
Yet in the rebuttal, which as you said really was not a rebuttal, it was all about attacks.
The Senator has every right to be proud of his service, and that of his father. There’s obviously a lot of military experience in his family.
How about if rather than going on the attack, he used some of that experience to form a PLAN to get us out of Iraq?
I’m sick of hearing all the mudslinging, no matter what side it comes from.
Even my 1 and 3 year old boys can figure out how to take turns with their toys. They can figure out how to work out solutions, without just sitting there screaming, “You’re a booger!” “No, YOU’RE a booger!” ‘Cause that’s not going to get them anywhere.
So I guess my preschoolers are better at problem-solving than these politicians!
January 24th, 2007 at 5:57 am
[...] Right Pundits [...]
January 24th, 2007 at 8:12 am
I am wondering if the author of this blog actually read the paragraphs they have so spitefully highlighted?
Saying things like the Democrats don’t have a plan, Cindy Sheehan, & “defeatist-left” are all just the standard short cuts to thinking, used and overused by all the divider-pundits on Fox News.
Nothing in the article above, nor on the rest of this site should be taken seriously.
January 24th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Farley: “… are all just the standard short cuts to thinking, used and overused by all the divider-pundits on Fox News.
Nothing in the article above, nor on the rest of this site should be taken seriously.”
Your comments are ad hominem, absent any solutions that you have to offer. This is a blog site, not a news service. Opinions are encouraged here, inlcuding yours. THat being said, I’m not sure how seriously I take your opinion either, but you are certainly allowed to voice it.
Virginian: “Screw you for dissing my Senator. Don’t tread on me.” Same goes with you. Your opinions are welcome, but we reserve the right to disagree. I will not, however, resort to using your same name calling back to you for dissing our (and your) president.
Blog-Hole: welcome back. I DO appreciate your insight, but I have to agree with McCain that Webb could have done a better job of articulating a position. I think the Democrats are still in campaign mode, or more correctly, have already opened the 2008 election. I think the voters are not happy with the rhetoric and no action (from either party) - I heard it at many doors this year in my own campaign. I doubt if the viewership was very high. I also think that if the Dems keep with their “I hate Bush” rhetoric, it will turn even more voters off.
There - that was a mature exchange, right Susan? Perhaps when they can type, we’ll bring your children in to mediate!
January 24th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Webb stated: Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.
I’m a bit confused here. Is this an “age of globalization” or not?
I hear all these complaints about American jobs being sent overseas, but what about the overseas jobs that are sent to the U.S.?
Oh this is too much to go in to detail here. I’ll go in to detail on my blog…
January 24th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
I see many demands here for detailed “positions”, so I am curious what “position” was actually articulated by your Mr. Bush? He offered a slogan about “victory”. Victory is an aspiration, not a plan or a strategy. What is his plan for victory and why should we have confidence in it? Perhaps because we *wish* that it will work? Sound planning it based on realistic expectations. Offering false expectations to the public is short-sighted and politically foolish since the message-bearers become discredited as facts on the ground become known. (This concept may confuse conservatives. It might help you to understand better if you substitute the phrase “biased liberal press” for “facts on the ground”)
To the extent that any plan has been revealed, it seems to start with an assault on Moqtada Sadr, who may be the only Shiite political leader who is not an agent of Iran. And it continues with the plan to crush the Baathist Sunni insurgents. And all of this is offered to us as a means of preventing the “threat” of increasing Iranian influence in Iraq. We plan to crush the least Iranian-influenced factions in the hope that Iranian-sponsored Shiite parties can pick up the pieces. The Sunni Baathists and the Shiite Sadrists are Iraqi nationalists. No other faction that matters can make that claim (certainly not the Kurds, or SCIRI, or the terrorist Dawa party, or the handful of al Qaeda terrorists in the country). It should be obvious that Bush is deceiving the public about some aspect of his current goals in Iraq.
Bush says that failure in Iraq would be catastrophic for the U.S., but he also says that our commitment there should not be open-ended. In contrast, most politicians worry about making sense. His Iraq war policy has been so horrible that his own father can not bring himself to publicly support his son.
The Baker-Hamilton position offered a concrete plan for getting the U.S. out of Iraq in a manner that distanced us as best as possible from the ongoing fiasco. They offered a realistic strategy for making the best of the situation. (The pro-war elements on the Baker-Hamilton commission caved in after visiting Baghdad, where the extraordinary security and safety precaustions for simple trips between the airport and the Green Zone proved to them that all Americans had been lied to about how well things were going there. The experience discredited in their minds all of those who had sought to reassure them about how well things were going there.)
January 24th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
The Democratic Response…
Senator Webb: IÂ’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 na…
January 24th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Bloghole - Let me try again. What is the Democrat plan again?
Webb disagrees with Bush’s plan oh-so vigorously, albeit conviently in the abstract, so he must understand Bush’s plan better than you. So what is he saying? and it isn’t Baker Hamilton — that isn’t in the speech. Just an anti-American rant which can only serve to demoralize troops and help enemies trying to kill the side he doesn’t want to win.
The reason you won’t answer the question is that you know the Democrats stand for defeatism just as they have stood for defeatism in every conflict of the last 50 years. For dilusionals like Webb and you who see America as the cause of every problem, that IS the plan. Webb’s plan is defeat, there is your answer.
Farley the Serious One - you are equally welcome to try to explain the Democrat position. Good luck.
January 24th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
“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.”
Sounds like Baker-Hamilton to me. And refreshingly reasonable and realistic.
p.s. And I am glad to hear that this is still being spun as a pro-war-Republican vs. anti-war Democrat issue (the FoxNews spin on the world). It means that the Republican pundits don’t yet realize that they are being dragged down the drain by Bush’s folly. The reality is that most conservative thinkers opposed this war from the beginning, but the president followed the advice of radicals and fanatics. The Republican political hacks fell into line and the rank and file clicked their heels and saluted - a testimony to the power of presidential leadership.
The conservative columnist William Lind wrote (Nov. 29 http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_archive.htm): “The fact that Washington is seriously considering sending more American troops to Iraq illustrates a common phenomenon in war. As the certainty of defeat looms ever more clearly, the scrabbling about for a miracle cure, a deus ex machina, becomes ever more desperate - and more silly. Cavalry charges, Zeppelins, V-2 missiles, kamikazes, the list is endless. In the end, someone finally has to face facts and admit defeat. The sooner someone in Washington is willing to do that, the sooner the troops we already have in Iraq will come home – alive.�
January 24th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
There is a plan that was constructed by a bipartisan committee called the Iraq Study Group, which got the attention of the Democrats but obviously not the president. Maybe this is the alternative “plan” you seem to be hard-pressed to find? Webb has already endorsed that, but Congress has little say in military operations. That would be up to the Decider-in-Chief. …unless the Kennedy bill gets passed…
January 25th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Webb referenced neither the Iraq Study Group nor the Kennedy bill. Rather than respond with what you hoped the Democrats would say, read Webb’s anti-American rant again and deal with it. That’s what we have on the table as the spokesman for the party last night.
January 25th, 2007 at 4:28 am
Blog-Hole: William Lind also believes that the whole world would have been better off if the south had won the civil war because he has a dim view of the US - he is an apologist too: http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/2003/030109WL.asp
Funny - Joe Citizen used William Lind to support one of his postions - you aren’t going soft on us, are you Blog-Hole?
January 25th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
MBT: Lind is a conservative, so I don’t worry about agreeing with him on everything. Nevertheless, his Civil War post is pure tongue-in-cheek:
“If the North had turned left, as the United States has during this century, Northerners who didn’t care for that development could cross the Mason Dixon line and become Southerners. That’s an option more than a few of us Yankees would appreciate having, even if it did mean having to eat grits.”
But if Rightpundits wants to continue pushing the idea that opposition to the war is a “liberal” position and that our foreign policy will be in the hands of the same radicals and fanatics who gave us this war if Republicans win in 2008, then all I can say is that the more people that you convince of that, the better will be the electoral chances of the Democrats.
January 25th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
The war in Iraq has in many ways turned out to be a “roach motel” for terrorists. I shudder to think what the US would be like with these terrorists free to roam. I doubt we would be having this debate.
Fortunately, there are still some leaders in this country who are more concerned with leading and the best interests of the US than pandering for votes.
January 26th, 2007 at 2:40 am
Ok - if the Democrats win in ‘08, so what? A Democret-”led” government in the U.S. would face the same world situation as a Republican one. Is that what it’s all about then? Just gaining control in the U.S.? Does the issue of Muslim extremeism suddenly end ’cause a Democrat is in the White House in the United States? The war we’re in wasn’t one “radicals and fanatics”, George W, or Republicans in general got us in. The war were in is a war unlike any other. It is a war of cultures and worldviews. You can pull the shades and not look, but that doesn’t mean things stop happening outside the house. We can pretend that there is no danger because it’s so unpleasant to face the ugly reality of it, but the ugly reality won’t change whether we face it or not. In fact, the folks who would like to see the US destroyed would vastly prefer we don’t face up to what’s goin’ on, easier that way. “Radicals and fanatics” didn’t give us this war (of which events in Iraq are an important part, despite mistakes we’ve made there), this war has been brewing and growing for decades ,and certain factors affecting it, for centuries. Events facing this country are beyond what political party is in control in the United States. If the Democratic party says generally “Nah, theres no problem, the only threats there are are from those wacky, deluded neocon wingnuts”, and the Republican party in general at least recognizes that there is threat and tries to at least begin to address it (although with, in my opinion, some frustrating missteps) which better serves the interests of the United States? Each of the 3000+ people we’ve lost in Iraq and the many wounded there is a tragic case, to be sure. However, that’s nothing compared to the kinds of huge casualties some people say they would like to inflict on Americans. I’d like to point out that the folks who declare how much they’d like to kill and maim Americans don’t seem to care about those peopls’ politics. Is it going to take a really bad event where a lot of people get hurt (not just those “bloodthirsty, warmongering, what-did-they-ever-do-to-you-wouldn’t-hurt-a-fly peaceful Middle East country invadin’ Republicans) to make the country realize that there just may be a problem? Unfortunately, I think it just might.
The Baker-Hamilton suggestion that we talk to Iran and Syria about helping with Iraq. Sounds nice, but talk about what? Neither wishes us well at all in Iraq. Iran in particular just loves to see the US in a tough spot. Both of them have proven by thier actions that they sure don’t wish us well. What would we be able to give them that they would want to help us with Iraq, anyway? (Except to leave Iraq so they can take it after the Iraqis kill as many of each other as they can? Now that’s a humane course of action for us, huh?) Iran and Syria want us to have a hard time in Iraq, they don’t want to help us there. They’ve both really shown that by thier very anti-US actions. Talking to them would be futile.
I don’t think Lind was Tongue-in-Cheek with his article on the South winning the Civil War. I suppose different people may interpret things differently, but I saw that as his mostly serious opinion.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:22 am
IM1 - rose colored glasses - if the Dems put them on, the mean nasty people who want to harm us will go peacefully away. I only wish it were true. I agree - the Lind article was serious, not tongue in cheek.
Thanks for your post!
January 26th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
IM1 writes: “The war we’re in wasn’t one “radicals and fanaticsâ€?, George W, or Republicans in general got us in. The war were in is a war unlike any other. It is a war of cultures and worldviews. You can pull the shades and not look, but that doesn’t mean things stop happening outside the house.”
Radicals and fanatics! We invaded a country that had not attacked us and did not want war with us, pushed by a President who seemed to believe that God commanded him to invade Iraq (”Freedom is God’s prescious gift to mankind,” an original claim that left theologians scratching their heads).
Ex-pentagon official and Republican advisor Michael Ledeen wrote in The War Against the Terror Masters (back before we invaded Iraq):
“First and foremost, we must bring down the terror regimes, beginning with the Big Three: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. And then we have to come to grips with Saudi Arabia. … Once the tyrants in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have been brought down, we will remain engaged. …We have to ensure the fulfillment of the democratic revolution. … Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.”
…and he goes on to define America’s “historic mission”:
“Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. … [W]e must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”
Does this remind you a Leon Trotsky? Or maybe Jonah Goldberg writing in the National Review (again, back back before the invasion):
“The United States needs to go to war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with someone in the region and Iraq makes the most sense”
and…
“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business.â€?
Radicals and fanatics!