I was honestly underwhelmed by the whole thing... it seemed rather like warmed over points from previous SOTUs, with a few human interest stories thrown in there. I can't see much of any of what he's proposing, other than the surge/expansion of ground services, going very far.
Not very profound, thats for sure. Talk is cheap ... Im really sick of politics right now ... :icon_trou
I havn't had many opportunities to listen to Webb speak. I've read a few of his books and know his history. I consider myself on the conservative side of politics, but I really like the way he talks and a lot of what he has to say. He comes across as a believable guy. I was fairly impressed with his response. Anyone know how the Dems pick who gives their responses to the SOTUs? Are they pushing a more conservative Dem out in the spotlight to get away from the far lefties that always seem to be out there? Just a thought.
Politics, appearances, politics, appearances, and appearances ... and politics ... and what will get us the White House in '08??? Just like the Republicans .... I think Webb did well ... even though I think he's gone overboard lately with some of his hysterics during the senatorial campaign.
That senatorial race was a mess anyway On a somewhat related note, did anyone wonder where the Air Force Chief of Staff got to?
I noticed a more conciliatory tone on both sides of the aisle, which was refreshing. There is no need for politics to contain the amount of vitriol and such it has contained recently. I think Senator Webb made a very strong case WRT domestic policy. There is no reason we need "superstar" CEOs making millions off outsourcing our economy to India. Don't believe in any of that socialist nonsense, but every once in awhile the greedy get too far ahead off the backs of others and need to be smacked down. TR did it a hundred years ago and someone needs to do it now. But with regards to foreign policy, I was unimpressed. I don't think anyone disagrees that things could have gone better, but the President offered a clear second plan and the Democrats still seem to be offering what a speech teacher of mine once referred to as "glittering generalities." Though I do note that the Senator offered a much more conservative outlook on any eventual "redeployment" than has been the Democratic party line. I wonder if this is his personal take or if the higherups authorized him to extend that olive branch . . . And I will remind all that those on both sides of the aisle are our elected representatives; with concern for the UCMJ and general good taste, let's not let this political discussion go downhill please . . .
He's prepping the rest of the Army. Army has decided to get rid of their green dress uniform and go to the Army Blue for both officers and enlisted. Bad decision in my opinion--just like the beret for everyone in the Army.
I like the Army Blue uniform. Their green uniform doesn't look as sharp as the version they had around WW2.
I personally prefer the blue . . . It's the traditional color for all the armed forces on full-dress occasions (at least when we're not wearing chokers). Note the shoulder straps with rank which hearken back to the Civil War and earlier . . . something to be said for tradition.
I haven't seen too many officers in Army dress blues, but with their rank sewn there at the top of the shoulder (and on a thick-lookin' soldier, the thing looks as big as a yellow strip on the highway), my first thought was "Custer rides again..." May be old-school, but it's an improvement on the greens.
Webb? Webb is for sale. He's not the same person you read in his books or his biographies, and I know you know that Sir. That James Webb is dead and voters should view him as a "new" man on the scene with no reliable history.
That makes me sad ... so I can't think of him as a Vietnam Marine grunt officer anymore? What makes people flip like that? (I know, I know ... money and power, just to name a few) :weeping_1
Yes, it is unfortunatly a phenomenon when politicians come to DC. Many people who were good on the local level, when they get to DC, regardless of what they say or write become unthinking robots just toeing the party line. Regardless of which party they are in. I trust voting records more than what they say. They can say anything they like, but how do they VOTE.
As far as the political issues in the SOTUA are concerned, I fully agreed with Bush on nearly every issue. It's certainly not new to the SOTUA, but I think sending more troops overseas to get the job done is a bold, smart move. Giuliani was dead on when he talked about the Democratic response (for those of you that caught it). He stated that the democratic method to solving the problems in Iraq, although rational in some senses of the word, all rest upon a foundation of a retreat (in some fasion or the other, be it a phaseout or staged reductions). A reduction in US forces in Iraq is viewed by our enemies (Al Qaeda, Taliban, and fundamentalists in the Middle East) as a massive victory. In a sense, any reduction in troop levels is great news for them, 'we are starting to give up.' Bush's point on the power vaccuum in the Middle East made perfect sense. Leaving an unstable Iraq (with a government still struggling to stand on its feet in the opposition of insurgents and other malicious organizations in the area) would openly invite terrorist based organizations inward, possibly pulling the whole region into a chaotic war. In my eyes, by ordering more troops overseas, we just cranked up the heat, and demonstrated that we aren't giving up. If there exists any method to strike at the heart of our enemies' morale in the region, this would seem to be it. I think Webb, although a very well accomplished and credible, solely banked on the emotional (my father, me and my son have served, blah blah blah) appeal of bringing troops home to serve his argument. Politicians, including Bush do this all the time, but I wanted to at least hear some sort of alternate "democratic" plan for Iraq. "We miss our troops and need to bring them home to their families," is a very powerful and emotionally appealing argument, but I think focusing on it as a cornerstone of our strategy grossly neglects our responsibilities overseas, as well as the future of our homeland security. I haven't heard any sort of alternate method to win the war in Iraq from any dems. Simply "Bush is mismanaging the war." This country may not be too happy as a whole with the 'extensive' use of our forces over the past 6 years. But this country has gone almost 2,000 days without ONE terrorist attack on its soil. Someone is doing something right, thats for certain. We are bringing the fight to them. I say keep on kicking ass and taking names.
Concur. I could really get behind Giuliani if properly motivated. He might just be the centrist-conservative I've been dreaming about. Brett
The thing with the "surge" isn't that it's more troops - on average, it'll bring us back up to where we were before the reduction of troops back in December 2005: (image from the Brookings Institute) From LTG Petraeus' comments at his hearing yesterday, it's what's going to be done with the troops that is different, although I'm not entirely sure what's terribly different about it - more integrated training, perhaps, or going after the insurgency with renewed vigor - but that's about it. The heart of the opposition to increased troop presence is also the idea behind a reduction in ground strength in Iraq (and also the "four corners" strategem) - that the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraqi cities invites increasing attacks on both the troops and "their" interests - namely, the Iraqi govt. As such, removing or redeploying them represents a genuinely new strategy, whereas the "surge" smacks of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I find it impressive - bordering on willfully ignorant - that people "haven't heard" of any alternatives to "staying the course," since I count the Biden plan, the Iraq Study Group's plan, the Murtha plan, or many other lesser-known plans. Saying that "there has been no alternative" is bordering on the willfully disingenuous. And if we're pointing to duration between foreign attacks on American soil as a metric of success, the 1993-2001 period is looking pretty good as well.
