Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Jim Webb blows off Bush at WH reception
In Following His Own Script, Webb May Test Senate's Limits
By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 29, 2006; A01
At a recent White House reception for freshman members of Congress, Virginia's newest senator tried to avoid President Bush. Democrat James Webb declined to stand in a presidential receiving line or to have his picture taken with the man he had often criticized on the stump this fall. But it wasn't long before Bush found him.
"How's your boy?" Bush asked, referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq.
"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.
"That's not what I asked you," Bush said. "How's your boy?"
"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.
Webb was narrowly elected to the U.S. Senate this month with a brash, unpolished style that helped win over independent voters in Virginia and earned him support from national party leaders. Now, his Democratic colleagues in the Senate are getting a close-up view of the former boxer, military officer and Republican who is joining their ranks.
If the exchange with Bush two weeks ago is any indication, Webb won't be a wallflower, especially when it comes to the war in Iraq. And he won't stick to a script drafted by top Democrats.
"I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall," Webb said in an interview yesterday in which he confirmed the exchange between him and Bush. "No offense to the institution of the presidency, and I'm certainly looking forward to working with him and his administration. [But] leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is."
In the days after the election, Webb's Democratic colleagues on Capitol Hill went out of their way to make nice with Bush and be seen by his side. House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sat down for a lunch and photo opportunity with Bush, as did Democratic leaders in the Senate.
Not Webb, who said he tried to avoid a confrontation with Bush at the White House reception but did not shy away from one when the president approached.
The White House declined to discuss the encounter. "As a general matter, we do not comment on private receptions hosted by the president at the White House," said White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino.
Webb said he has "strong ideas," but he also insisted that -- as a former Marine in Vietnam -- he knows how to work in a place such as the Senate, where being part of a team is important.
He plans to push for a new GI bill for soldiers who have served in the days since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but not as a freshman senator. He has approached the Democratic leadership about getting senior legislators to sponsor the bill when the 110th Congress convenes in January.
A strong backer of gun rights, Webb may find himself at odds with many in his party. He expressed support during the campaign for a bill by his opponent, Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), that would allow concealed weapons in national parks. But an aide said this week that Webb will review Allen's legislation.
"There are going to be times when I've got some strong ideas, but I'm not looking to simply be a renegade," he said. "I think people in the Democratic Party leadership have already begun to understand that I know how to work inside a structure."
His party's leaders hope that he means it.
Top Democratic senators, including incoming Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), had invested their money and prestige in Webb before he won the party primary in June. His victory was also theirs, but now they have to make sure he's not a liability.
"He's not a typical politician. He really has deep convictions," said Schumer, who headed the Senate Democrats' campaign arm. "We saw this in the campaign. We would have disagreements. But when you made a persuasive argument, he would say, 'You're right.' I am truly not worried about it. He understands the need to be part of a team."
One senior Democratic staff member on Capitol Hill, who spoke on condition that he not be identified so he could speak freely about the new senator, said that Webb's lack of political polish was part of his charm as a candidate but could be a problem as a senator.
"I think he's going to be a total pain. He is going to do things his own way. That's a good thing and a bad thing," the staff member said. But he said that Webb's personality may be just what the Senate needs. "You need a little of everything. Some element of that personality is helpful."
Webb has started to put himself out front. On "Meet the Press" last week, he dispensed with the normal banter with host Tim Russert to talk seriously about Iraq and the need for economic justice in the United States.
He announced yesterday that he has hired Paul J. Reagan, a communications director for former governor Mark R. Warner (D) and a former chief of staff for U.S. Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.). It will be Reagan's job to help his boss navigate the intricacies of Washington and Capitol Hill without losing the essence of his personality.
"The relationships he has built over his long career will serve me well," Webb said in a statement yesterday.
Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D), who campaigned hard to get Webb elected, said yesterday that the first-time officeholder doesn't have the finesse of most experienced politicians.
"He is not a backslapper," Kaine said. "There are different models that succeed in politics. There's the hail-fellow-well-met model of backslapping. That's not his style."
But Kaine said that Webb's background, including a stint as Ronald Reagan's Navy secretary, will make him an important -- if unpredictable -- voice on the war in Iraq.
"There are no senators who have that everyday anxiety that he has as a dad with a youngster on the front lines. That gives him gravitas and credibility on this issue," Kaine said. "People in the Senate, I'm sure, will agree with him or disagree with him on issue to issue. But they won't doubt that he's coming at it from a real sense of duty."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112801582.html?referrer=emaila...
>>>"If the American public, especially civil libertarians like myself, could be more informed about how careful the government is to protect our privacy while still protecting us from attacks, we'd be more reassured," said Lanny Davis , a former Clinton White House lawyer who is the board's lone liberal Democrat.<<<
So let's see how careful they are. And lets get these questions answered too:
1. Why did it take a special government board a year to come to this conclusion? So the real program could be redesigned before displayed to the public?
2. Why did Bush lie about the details of the program? He could have said "I can't discuss national security issues in detail".
Bush........3 years after he personally ordered wiretaps without court orders:
"Moreover, the AP reports that Bush, in Buffalo in 2004, was asked about a remark he made at an appearance in support of the Patriot Act, the president said, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap," Bush said, "a wiretap requires a court order." He added, according to the AP: "Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/16671
No I don't and I don't know why you think so. All their comments are based on the present situation and on the assumption that we're staying put or even expand into a regional war. Reading the whole interview I don't know how you can come away not noticing that they are concerned about the war spiraling out of control with no good solutions regardless of troop levels.
Plenty of desperate excuses being floated out there now by Bush apologists who don't seem to have any kind of embarrassment threshold. It's the liberal press' fault, it's Murtha's fault, it's Kerry's fault. The whole Bush movement has become a pathetic joke which is destroying both the country and the republican party. Real republicans understand this and say the 2006 election was the best thing that could have happened to the party in a decade or longer.
What you base your conviction on I'll never understand but it can't possibly be from a wide variety of sources.
You believe what you just posted? That the only problem with Iraq is the liberal US press and that the terrorists are showing weakness since they are killing 3,000 civilians and only 100 troops a month? This has gone past delusional and the whole world look at you freaks now and shake their collective heads. There's no rational voice representing your side any longer which has the Saudis worried enough to summon the VP to Riyadh for a what's-going-on chat. First time in history for such a lecture.
"ROBIN WRIGHT: But this is clearly a reflection of the deep concern in the United States‘ closest ally in the Middle East and one of the most important in terms of our own energy needs, that they would summon a vice president. This is, in many ways, unprecedented."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15951792/
More comments by two pretty level headed observers, Robin Wright and David Gergen. Sobering stuff for anyone willing to listen.
"GERGEN: Well, I think what‘s changed are the facts on the ground. This is spiraling down so quickly, I think it‘s breathtaking how rapidly it‘s descending into chaos and—and just almost catastrophe now.
And I think it‘s knocking everyone‘s assumptions for a loop. Because people thought maybe this was containable, maybe there were ways you could do something here. But now it‘s changing so rapidly on the ground; the violence is escalating."
"ROBIN WRIGHT: I talked to a senior member of the Iraqi government, and I asked him. I said, “Is this a civil war?”
And he said, “It‘s worse than that. In a civil war, at least you can just—you can tell who is fighting who, and we can‘t tell that anymore.”
GERGEN: The other thing—the other thing, it seems to me, out of what Robin just said, is—is there is a real sense in the Middle East now that we are at a crisis point.
Indeed, it appears the president is, you know, steady on course and will not change. And I think the rest of the world is saying, “My God. The place is burning down. Are you not going to change course?” So I think we‘re in a very, very tense moment now."
I think Iraq may well be too late to salvage, but we have to salvage what we can to make sure we don‘t get a regional conflict, to try and minimize the damage. So that what is now a failure, as someone has said, does not become a catastrophe."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15951792/
>>>Who was correct in their assesment and reaction to the Nazi threat- Chamberlain or Churchill???<<<
Bush, like Churchill identified a dangerous enemy, said they can't be appeased and must be dealt with.......that's what you want to talk about? No problem. Churchill got beat up but ultimately defended his country from invasion by one of the most powerful military forces in the world while superpower Bush attacked and invaded a third world country with no relations to the enemy he had identified. A country with no army, no air force, no navy and no weapons except angry citizens armed with rifles and "improvised explosives" and he's in the opinion of every objective observer losing that war. I think that's a good start and you can take it from here.......the amazing story of how much alike Bush and Churchill really were.
What does anybody else's posts have to do with this question I asked you? Just answer it instead........do the best you can.
Tell me something et.......throughout the existence of mankind do you think more differences have been settled by:
a: warfare/physical violence
b: talking/diplomacy
Non-answers don't get better than that. Why bother at all?
>>>There comes a point in time where intelligent people realize that diplomacy just won't do any further good.<<<
I seem to have forgotten........when was the last time the Bush administration talked directly with Iran about anything?
>>>These people IRAN/Syria are the ones helping destabilize IRAQ by training the Shiite militias and we need to talk to them.... About what?<<<
Tell me something et.......throughout the existence of mankind do you think more differences have been settled by:
a: warfare/physical violence
b: talking/diplomacy
>>>Is there ANYONE as clueless as this man?<<<
Don't know if clueless is the word but what about those who still support him but can't explain why like a number of regulars here?
>>>You have NO idea what entitlement means until you look at that Family...But you never will acknowledge that..<<<
Actually I will acknowledge that so maybe you should have asked before losing control of yourself in public.
The sense of entitlement in the Bush family is enough to curb your appetite isn't it? Not only do they feel it's their birthright to run this country regardless of qualifications but they also feel it's their birthright to have their asses kissed regardless of how they perform. Bush 43 would probably gain 10% in the polls if he had the decency to come out and admit that a lot of people in his administration have made a lot of terrible mistakes and that's he's sorry. Obviously he's more likely to come out and say that the american people have made terrible mistakes in judging him and his policies which is why he is where he is and will leave office in disgrace.
>>>officials in Sarasota County say nearly 18,000 votes may never have been recorded<<<
"The official vote count in the battle for -- you won't believe this -- Katherine Harris' seat put Republican Vern Buchanan 369 votes ahead of Democrat Christine Jennings out of just under 238,000 votes cast.
But in Sarasota County, there was an "undervote" of more than 18,000 -- meaning that those voters supposedly didn't choose to record votes in the Buchanan-Jennings race. Jennings carried the county by 53 percent to 47 percent.
The Sarasota undervote in the congressional race amounted to nearly 15 percent. Kendall Coffey, Jennings' lawyer, pointed out that in the other four counties in the district, the undervote ranged from 2.2 percent to 5.3 percent. Put another way, roughly 18,000 of the 21,000 undervotes in the contest came from Sarasota County.
It's hard to believe that Sarasota's voters had a different view of the race from voters everywhere else in the district, considering that the undervote on the county's absentee ballots, cast on paper, was only 2.5 percent. The upshot: Any reasonable statistical analysis suggests that only 3,000 to 5,000 of Sarasota's undervotes were intentional, meaning that 13,000 to 15,000 votes that were actually cast were probably not counted."
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061124/COLUMNIST72/611240699/-1/Help0530
>>>Yes I think they are enjoying not living under Saddam...<<<
You think that's what's on their minds as they wade through blown up bodies in the streets.........if they dare venture outside anymore that is? Even the White House's own propaganda against Saddam Hussein is beginning to look like the good old times now that the Iraqi death toll from the US "liberation" is estimated at 600,000 in 3 1/2 years.
"Documented chemical attacks by the regime, from 1983 to 1988, resulted in some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.
Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030404-1.html
>>>Nothing could be a success in IRAQ in your eyes....<<<
Sure it could.........I just don't see it now. Do you? Do you think Iraqis seem to be enjoying the success of the invasion ?
>>>So the elections were a success, but the Democratically elected Gov't has been a failure...<<<
How do you call an election a success when political candidates could not be identified by name for fear of execution? Success to you is measured by the number of people surviving the trip to the ballot box? Maybe the elected government has been a failure because the election itself was a failure? Not a failure in terms of turnout but in terms of timing, psychology and civic underpinnings? Best I can say for the election is that they set a date for it and pulled it off on schedule.
>>>Isn't it a democratically elected Gov't?<<<
You can put up a ballot box anywhere and call it an election but what good is democratically elected government that never gains control of it's own citizens and the country as a whole? Iraq's government has been unable to carry out the people's wishes from the start which turns both the government and the election into failures.
Not that you'll give a damn but I can't take your snide bullshit any longer. For the record.......I will now try using the ignore function for the first time ever and your handle will be entered as the one to avoid. Why do you post here? Never a reasoned opinion about anything except.......the president must be supported unconditionally. You think that makes you a great american and I think it makes you disrespectful of the american way.
>>>Trust me they will go after Mccain when it will hurt the most. They will go after Hillary later too.<<<
Hillary for sure.......McCain, not so sure. His cozy relationship with the press is awesome. Sits down and breaks bread with liberals and conservatives all hours of the day whenever they ask him. As a result, most reporters don't have the guts to undress him. What % of americans know soft spoken, american father figure McCain wants another 30,000 troops sent to Iraq and then have all 180,000 continue into Syria and Iran? His ass kissing left and right along with his love for war creeps me out and I used to like him.
Always wondered where your handle came from yayaa. Wouldn't have guessed it but it looks like you got your inspiration from a radical Islamic terrorist.
"On December 24, 1994, at Houari Boumedienne Airport, Algiers, Algeria, four men dressed in Air Algerie uniforms boarded Air France Flight 8969 bound to depart for Charles de Gaulle airport, Paris at 11:15. Immediately the terrorists demanded that the passengers close all of the window shutters and empty their personal belongings into a black plastic bag. Twenty five year old Abdul Abdullah Yahia and three other members of the Armed Islamic Group (Groupe Islamique Armé, or GIA) brandished their AK-47, Uzi, automatic weapons and demanded cooperation from the 220 passengers and 12 flight crew."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_8969
>>>Let's face it .. we have no leader in the wh<<<
Yesterday:
"MIKE BARNICLE, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, you know Chris, I don‘t know what his message was. It was a staggering visit to Vietnam by the least curious person ever in the history of American politics. The president of the United States, who spent a total of 15 minutes, his first visit to Vietnam ever, 15 minutes outside of meeting rooms. He went to the POWMIA office in Hanoi. I‘ve been to that office. It‘s an extraordinarily interesting and dramatic scene.
Fifteen minutes he spent there and in his public statements he seems to have brought the same toxic brew of arrogance, ignorance to a historical war that changed this country forever that they bring daily to the war in Iraq. And you go out and cover these funerals, Chris, and you try and write about the people who have lost loved ones and you come to the conclusion that this behavior of this war that we‘re in by people in Washington, Don Rumsfeld, including the president of the United States, verges on the criminal at this point."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15850571/
Tough one, isn't it eddie? No Bush republican ever answered but you could be the first one to try.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=14985988
>>>I guess you and Rangel have something in common...Repeated calls for something going nowhere...One foot nailed down going in a Derisive circle... YOU HAVE TO LOVE IT....<<<
Like Bush calling for a constitutional ban on gay marriage?
"Laura Bush urged her husband not to use gay marriage 'as a campaign tool.' The vice president's daughter Mary Cheney -- who joined Bush at his 2004 inauguration with her lesbian life partner, Heather Poe -- slammed the president for 'writing discrimination into the Constitution.' Even Bush himself didn't have his heart in the fight: A friend of the family told Newsweek that the president's decision was 'purely political. I don't think he gives a shit about it."
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10533313/the_politics_of_fear
This just in: Politicians........Bush and Rangel included have been known to make legislative proposals they know are d.o.a. for the purpose of stirring debate.
>>>Women are NOT in combat arms. They never have been. Women are only allowed into combat service support and service support units.<<<
"Another of the first American woman to fly in combat in the '90s was Lt Col.Martha McSally, ranked as the top female Air Force pilot. Lt Col McSally was among the first women trained by the Air Force as a fighter pilot. During a 1995-96 tour of duty in Kuwait, she became the first woman in military history to fly a combat sortie in a fighter aircraft. She also flew more than 100 combat hours on an A-10 Warthog attack plane over Iraq in the mid-1990s, and served as a flight commander and trainer of combat pilots."
http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/pilots.html
>>>You're saying that Bush wants war simply because he's bloodthirsty<<<
I didn't say he wants it because he's bloodthirsty. I don't know why he wants it but it's clear that he does. I ask you again: The weapons inspectors in Iraq failed for 3 months to confirm any of the weapons Bush said we had to go to war to disarm. No signs of WMD at any of the "known" sites. Yet he pulled them out in order to start dropping bombs. If he as you suggest does NOT want war, would he not instead have been confounded, suspicious and maybe even hopeful that there were no weapons after all and that finishing the inspections may confirm that? The inspectors asked for another 3 months to produce their final assessment but were told to pack their bags and get out. Is that the hallmark of a patient leader willing to exhaust all venues to avoid war?
>>>IF you never listened, how do you know what thier political philosophy is and whether the majority agrees with them?<<<
Who doesn't know aa is left leaning? And whether you like it or not, the majority of the country voted for left leaning politicians relative to those in power........knowing full well the speaker of the house would be a communist from San Fransisco as some radio hosts have described her.
>>>I must have missed the election landslide.<<<
Gaining 30 seats in the house and 6 in the senate is a landslide no matter what the individual margins. Bush himself admitted as much.
>>>This country is still center/right<<<
I disagree. It's dead center with temporary swings in either direction. At the end, the pendulum always stops in the middle.
See........that's what I said. Things have to be easy for americans and they made it too hard to tune in. Internet access is all well and good but it won't reach the millions who listen in their cars commuting and the millions who listen while they work.
>>>to think that he wants to put American troops in danger longer than he thinks necessary is not a reality based argument<<<
He did that by starting the war in the first place. Putting troops in a war zone before it becomes a last resort solution certainly puts them in danger longer than necessary. Give me ONE good reason why he would chose to pull weapons inspectors out of Iraq so he could start the war - even as a large number of "slam dunk" WMD sites had turned out to be dry holes - unless he wanted the war at any cost.
>>>hardly anyone agrees with what they were spewing<<<
Don't know what they were spewing since I never listened but let me ask you this: If hardly anyone agrees with what they're spewing, why did those who share aa's political philosophy win the midterm elections in landslide fashion?
>>>I still listen .. to aa .. that is ...<<<
Never did and never could last I heard.......just like a lot of others in various corners of the country. AA's marketing always sucked imo and they never seemed to attempt to reach critical mass. Why would they not make themselves available to millions on Florida's west coast and a bunch of other metropolitan areas? Look at Rush and Hannity. Is there a trailer home or backwoods cabin in the entire country that can't tune in those screwballs on their am dial?
>>>You're not supposed to be pro-draft anymore<<<
Did I ever post an opinion either way here? Don't think so but I can and I'm for it in the interest of accountability. If there's anything more wasteful and damaging than needless war I can't think of it so if the draft makes citizens think harder about who they elect and if it makes those elected think harder about their constituents it can't be all bad. It didn't help those who fought in Vietnam but it probably served as a lesson to the country.
>>>Talk about starting an argument with a false premise-<<<
It's not a false premise at all. Find me a statement matched by action by the Bush WH that indicates they dislike war and want to end this war quickly and I'll show you 5 statements and actions that indicate the exact opposite. You can listen to what George Bush says and be sandbagged forever or you can watch what he does and stay enlightened. You made your choice and I made mine which is one reason we see things differently.
>>>How about that wacky Rangel- trying to bring the draft back?<<<
Why do Bush republicans think that's wacky? Doesn't add up. Their philosophy is that more war is better and the longer they last the better so why is increasing the pool of soldiers a wacky idea? Every military expert agree that the current supply of troops is tapped out and that's from fighting two wars with countries that don't even have military forces of their own. But ensuring future supply for future wars already on the drawing board is stupid????
Maybe Bush republicans really are chickenhawks as rumor has it and they prefer to watch the wars they demand from a recliner in front of their tv rather than having to participate through the draft. Or do they fear that the political landscape may change with the draft? Will parents with children be as eager to support a political party that talk more about war and terror than all other issues combined if battlefield duty no longer is a choice?
>>>In short, Republickens are short sighted blind, deaf, and otherwise delusional and in a STATE OF perpetual DENIAL.<<<
REAL republicans know it and admit it. Not enough of them though to do any good...
From the Los Angeles Times:
November 18, 2006
What shake-up? House GOP keeps its leaders
Despite calls for change after the party's midterm defeat, Boehner and Blunt win by wide margins.
By Richard Simon, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — After an electoral shellacking widely seen as a message for change in Washington, House Republicans on Friday decided to stick with much the same leadership team as they adjusted to becoming the chamber's minority.
The GOP lawmakers elected Rep. John A. Boehner of Ohio as minority leader and Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri as minority whip, rejecting challenges to each by conservatives.
The challengers offered themselves as better able to recommit the party to fiscal discipline, contending that the GOP had strayed from this tenet during its 12-year control of the House.
Boehner and Blunt won their races by resounding margins.
Boehner, the current majority leader, said he hoped to hold the minority leader's job "for as short a time as possible."
Job No. 1 for him, he said, would be to "earn our way back" into the majority — which probably would make him the leading contender for House speaker.
He said he would pursue a GOP rebound by seeking a return to the party's core principles, including lower taxes and smaller government.
"The rebuilding begins now," Boehner said.
As majority leader, Boehner has been No. 2 in the House GOP to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois.
Hastert, bruised by allegations that he ignored early warnings of the sex scandal that drove Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) from office, decided not to seek a leadership position after his party's election losses. That cleared the way for Boehner, who turned 57 Friday, to become Republican leader.
Blunt, 56, is the current majority whip.
The rank and file's decision to stick with Boehner and Blunt upset some conservatives who thought the party needed a shake-up after losing the House and Senate.
"We're still in denial, I guess," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who backed the bid by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) to topple Boehner.
In the closed-door vote, Boehner defeated Pence, 168 to 27.
Comments by some House Republicans indicated Boehner benefited from being a relatively new member of the party's top echelon — he became majority leader in February after former Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas was forced to give up the post amid legal problems.
Blunt defeated Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona, 137 to 57, in the contest for the House GOP's No. 2 spot in the Congress that convenes in January.
Flake and other conservatives pushing for a change of leaders said it would have sent a strong signal to disaffected Republicans that after the midterm results, "We got it."
Outside Congress, some conservative activists reacted harshly to the results of the leadership races.
"House Republicans have decided to reward failure," Richard A. Viguerie, a specialist in raising money for conservative causes, said in a statement.
Boehner supporters countered that he understood the need for change in the party's direction.
"We can't be like we were," Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) said. "We got in this rut by being more worried about money and power than the principles that brought us here … and everybody who gets elected today [as leaders] heard that loud and clear."
Boehner (pronounced BAY-ner) is a former chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce who worked with Democrats on the panel to pass major legislation.
As majority leader, he has won praise from some conservatives for trying to curb the controversial practice of earmarking — adding spending provisions for local projects to bills, often at the last minute and without public notice.
In campaigning for his leadership job, Boehner noted that as the minority, Republicans would no longer enjoy a number of political advantages, such as controlling the agenda and chairing committees.
"We'll need to be innovators instead of gatekeepers; to offer principled and creative responses to Democrat agenda items; to develop and communicate initiatives that our voters find compelling enough to return us to majority control," he said in a letter to colleagues. "We'll need to hold the Democrats accountable for their votes…."
He added: "We'll need to work harder at listening to each other, because without unity, there will be no success."
Rep. Adam H. Putnam of Florida was elected House Republican Conference chairman, the party's third-ranking leadership position. Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma was chosen to head the House Republican campaign committee; in that post, he'll assume the responsibility of trying to win back the chamber in 2008.
"We're going to have some fresh faces at the table," said Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), who briefly entered the race for minority leader but then dropped out. "And some of the old faces are going to have some fresh ideas."
The GOP leadership elections came the day after House Democrats nominated Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco to be speaker in the next Congress and chose Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland to be majority leader.
richard.simon@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/wireless/avantgo/la-na-leaders18nov18,0,2730908.story
>>>WHere did you see any outrage expressed by me?<<<
Phony outrage is a figure of speech that describes how Bush republicans instead of dealing with real issues turn insignificant bullshit into big deals they say every real american should be disturbed by. So long as you redistribute that kind of trash you're as guilty as the authors imo.
>>>There is clear evidence that the the program did exist and was a pricnipal aim of saddam<<<
There's also clear evidence that everyone knew the program was primitive and nowhere near as advanced as Bush had us believe. Certainly not advanced enough to call it "clear evidence of peril" which makes Bush a liar.......but what else is new.
>>>If you believe that, if left unchecked, he WOULDN"T have been working actively towards nuclear capability it's YOU living in denial<<<
It wasn't unchecked. Weapons inspectors were on the ground and were given full access to all sites they requested but were ordered out by Bush before they could finish.
"But as we went into more inspections in January, then I became... and we didn't find any weapons, I became more skeptical. And of course when Mr. El Baradei of the IAEA reported that the famous contract on import of uranium oxide was a forgery, there was an accumulation of indications that evidence was shaky. So we became doubtful."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/blix_3-17.html
Get with the program eddie. Phony outrage doesn't work anymore. Even the bottom of the barrel morons seem to have awoken now and understand that they've been rolled and played for fools for 12 years. One national crisis after another starting with Bill Clinton being unfaithful, Al Gore lying about the internet, John Kerry ordering swiss cheese with his philly sandwich, Iraq attacking us with nuclear bombs and now we're supposed to be angry about John Edwards shopping at Wal Mart.
How does your crowd keep this sewage flowing in the face of everything else that's surrounding you? I don't get it. Some kind of primitive defense mechanism or just old fashioned desperation? Whatever it is it sure as hell isn't normal.
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America.
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
Another pick:
....the men who ran the Republican Party in the House of Representatives for the past 12 years were a group of weirdos. Together, they comprised one of the oddest legislative power cliques in our history."
Weird and odd......no shit but what about stupid? Today, 10 days after a history book worthy loss of 30 seats and the majority in the house these "odd" men voted to leave almost its entire house leadership in place and by landslide margins at that. Same exact culture as the Bush WH. Failure and stupidity must be recognized and rewarded.
GOP Picks Boehner As House Leader
Shortly afterward, Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., won a 137-57 vote to keep his post as whip, which will be the No. 2 GOP job when Republicans become the minority party in January. Blunt is currently the No. 3 House Republican; he defeated Arizona conservative Rep. John Shadegg despite sentiment for fresh leadership faces.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/17/politics/main2192836.shtml
>>>The Dems are going to have to get real nasty if they ever think they will see those documents<<<
or in plain english.........forget about ever seeing those documents.
>>>Just listen to any call-in program - radio or TV - and you'll hear the intel level of the avg voter.<<<
Or look at some poll numbers. This one was taken......not 2 years ago but 2 months ago. The only conclusion you can draw here is that about 40% of the population simply create their own reality based on what they want it to be which in this case is in direct defiance of what both Bush and Cheney have told the american people repeatedly for 2 years now. And these poll numbers refer to Bush/Cheney supporters. Are these supporters creating their own reality in order to vindicate their failed leadership?
"Half of American voters (50%) say there is no link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terror attacks, while 46% believe there is a connection. However, just 37% of respondents in the poll agreed that Saddam was connected to the attacks and that the Iraq War was justified as retribution for his involvement,"
http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1169
>>>I hate George Bush.<<<
So how do you feel about the 56 million americans who reelected him in 2004? He couldn't have carried on without them. George Bush kept no secrets about his politics, his stupidity and his overall ineptitude during his first term and yet those countrymen of yours didn't have enough sense to kick his nasty ass out of office and cut the country's losses. Took another 2 years for those morons to figure out what the rest have known since he took office 6 years ago but now all they could do is take it out on his puppets in congress. If there's a more ignorant electorate than the american anywhere else in the free world I'd like to know which one that would be. 45% turnout and of those only a fraction has a clue of what's at stake. We're exactly where we deserve to be imo.