Here's George Will standing up for all that is good and true... except he leaves out one thing... Bush's "That's not what I asked." He also throws in a (sic) there as if Webb is so stupid as to confuse "him" and "them" when it's clear he deliberately said "them." And by the way, when did Will jump all over Bush for his use of the King's English? The soft bigotry of low expectations I guess. _______________ Already Too Busy for Civility By George F. Will Thursday, November 30, 2006; A23 That was certainly swift. Washington has a way of quickly acculturating people, especially those who are most susceptible to derangement by the derivative dignity of office. But Jim Webb, Democratic senator-elect from Virginia, has become a pompous poseur and an abuser of the English language before actually becoming a senator. Wednesday's Post reported that at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, Webb "tried to avoid President Bush," refusing to pass through the reception line or have his picture taken with the president. When Bush asked Webb, whose son is a Marine in Iraq, "How's your boy?" Webb replied, "I'd like to get them [sic] out of Iraq." When the president again asked "How's your boy?" Webb replied, "That's between me and my boy." Webb told The Post: "I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall. 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." Webb certainly has conveyed what he is: a boor. Never mind the patent disrespect for the presidency. Webb's more gross offense was calculated rudeness toward another human being -- one who, disregarding many hard things Webb had said about him during the campaign, asked a civil and caring question, as one parent to another. When -- if ever -- Webb grows weary of admiring his new grandeur as a "leader" who carefully calibrates the "symbolic things" he does to convey messages, he might consider this: In a republic, people decline to be led by leaders who are insufferably full of themselves. Even before his studied truculence in response to the president's hospitality, Webb was going out of his way to make waves. A week after the election, he published a column in the Wall Street Journal that began this way: "The most important -- and unfortunately the least debated -- issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country." Well. In his novels and his political commentary, Webb has been a writer of genuine distinction, using language with care and precision. But just days after winning an election, he was turning out slapdash prose that would be rejected by a reasonably demanding high school teacher. Never mind Webb's careless and absurd assertion that the nation's incessantly discussed wealth gap is "the least debated" issue in American politics. And never mind his use of the word "literally," although even with private schools and a large share of the nation's wealth, the "top tier" -- whatever cohort he intends to denote by that phrase; he is suddenly too inflamed by social injustice to tarry over the task of defining his terms -- does not "literally" live in another country. And never mind the cavalier historical judgments -- although is he sure that America is less egalitarian today than it was, say, 50 years ago, when only about 7 percent of American adults had college degrees? (Twenty-eight percent do today.) Or 80 years ago, when more than 80 percent of American adults did not have high school diplomas (85 percent have them today), and only about 46 percent owned their own homes, compared with 69 percent today? But notice, in the second sentence of Webb's column, the word "infinitely." Earth to Webb: Words have meanings that not even senators can alter. And he has been elected to be a senator, not Humpty Dumpty in "Through the Looking Glass." ("When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.") America's national economic statistics are excellent; Webb could actually tell us how much richer the "top tier" has become, relative to other cohorts, over a particular span. But that would require him to actually say whom he is talking about, and that takes time and effort, and senators -- Webb is a natural -- often are too busy for accuracy. Based on Webb's behavior before being sworn in, one shudders to think what he will be like after that. He already has become what Washington did not need another of, a subtraction from the city's civility and clear speaking. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901267_pf.html
georgewill@washpost.com If you'd like to let Mr. Will know how you feel about his article. I'm wondering if Mr. Will wrote a similar article after deadeye's explicative to a dem senator on the floor of the senate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-ephron/bad-manners_b_35248.html "Bad Manners" I always love it when people in Washington attack people for bad manners. According to George Will, newly-elected Virginia Senator James Webb was guilty of bad manners when he was asked by President Bush how his Marine son was doing in Iraq, and responded instead by saying that he hoped the troops would be home soon. "That's not what I asked you," said Bush. "How's your boy?" "That's between me and my boy," Webb replied. Will writes: "Webb certainly has conveyed what he is: a boor. Never mind the patent disrespect for the presidency. Webb's more gross offense was calculated rudeness toward another human being - one who, disregarding many hard things Webb had said about him during the campaign, asked a civil and caring question, as one parent to another." This is truly Washington, in case you wonder what Washington truly is. Washington is a place where politics is just something you do all day. You lie, you send kids to war, you give them inadequate equipment, they're wounded and permanently maimed, they die, whatever. Then night falls, and you actually think you get to pretend that none of it matters. "How's your boy?" That, according to George Will, is a civil and caring question, one parent to another? It seems to me that it's exactly the sort of guy talk that passes for conversation in Bushworld, just one-up from the frat-boy banter that is usually so seductive to Bush's guests. George Bush once said to someone I know, "How old is that seersucker suit anyway?" and my friend (who should know better) went for it lock stock and barrel. So finally someone said to George Bush, Don't think that what you stand for is beside the point. Don't think that because you're President you're entitled to my good opinion. Don't think that asking about my boy means that I believe for even one second that you care. If you did, you'd be doing something about bringing the troops home. George Will thinks this is bad manners. I don't. I think it's too bad it doesn't happen more often.
kos on Will: "See? The disrespect isn't Bush's, who rudely tossed aside a parent's wish that his son come home from Iraq, a mere week after a tank next to his son's was destroyed killing three marines. Webb doesn't have the luxury of having his kids doing a Girls Gone Wild tour through Argentina." This goes right to the heart of Will's BS characterization of Bush as "one caring parent to another."
all these attempts, whether in this thread by mc rimmy, or by george will, kos, or the puffington host, are BS. it doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum you're from, or how you attempt to spin it, it was a private exchange, and incredibly unimportant in the grand scheme of things. can't we all just shut the **** up about who was ruder, and get back to the important stuff, like outing gay congressmen?
It's unimportant relative to, say, the debacle of a morass of a quagmire of the war itself and all the people that die daily in it for no reason at all but Bush's arrogance, yeah. But it's hell of sweet that the American people and their elected representatives are finally standing up to that *******.
LOL. This, from a guy who's spent the last four or five years equating criticism of the president's policies to anti-American support for terrorists.
no, i was equating hoping for our defeat in iraq as a way of "proving" you were right with support for the terrorists.
all anti war protestors believed iraq war cannot be won from the start and not messing with iraq is already a victory as is for the US.. thats what we hoped for.. while people like you hoped for America's defeat by going into Iraq and helping the terrorists be stronger..
i can't know what was/is in your heart mark, but you and your batty friend have spent an awful lot of time here advocating policies that would produce exactly that.
Bush's policies in Iraq have made us weaker, have created more terrorists and enemies to our country than they have killed or captured, have created an absolute disaster in Iraq by virtually everyone's accounting (D, R or I) to which no one can even imagine a good resolution and have cost us an incredible amount of money and, far worse, many, many American lives and even more Iraqi ones. And you have supported not most but EVERY SINGLE ONE of those policies. You were wrong. You continue to be wrong. And the fact that I and mark and so many others told you that from the beginning doesn't mean we wanted the US to lose -- it means we knew when you didn't that it was stupid as hell to be there in the first place and that it is stupid as hell to stay. We will eventually pull out of Iraq. Everybody knows that now but Bush, you and a few other nutjobs. And every death between now and then is on his hands on yours.
Actually since you're the one who, on thousands of occasions, serially and wholeheartedly voiced his support for a war and the way it was being conducted and lashed out repeatedly at all critics of any detail, no matter how big or small, as unpatriotic fellow travelers - YOU are the one who has advocated failed policies, both ex ante and ex post regardless of how ill thought out or inconsistent, that many knew were destined to fail at the time (but were branded as thoughtcriminals, by you, for doing so). Simply put, before, during and after: You were an advocate of failure. Playing armchair kissinger four years later and saying "well really there were just a few tactical mistakes, it was really the TIMES fault!" doesn't get you off the hook, especially since you're the Numbah One D&D Stunnah when it comes to making moral judgments and assigning blame. Nobody bears more responsibility for the debacle than the people who conceived, sold, and conducted it, under the self admitted delusion of being able to "create their own reality" - with full knowledge of the risks beforehand. Any suggestion otherwise is a joke (which mirrors almost every single judgment made about Iraq by the administration and its Basketball BBS PR adjunct.
For the record, basso and fellow Bush-Cheney junta allies, I do not want to see you fail. I want to see you succeed. What is really annoying about comments like basso's is the simple-minded and intellectually lazy way that these so-called neocons/bushbots deal with criticism. If you dare to criticize their approach - in any fashion - you are automatically against them. And, if you are outside the administration, then you are automatically unqualified to have an opinion. It never seems to occur to these Bush folks that the people who highlight potential issues may actually be concerned that they will not succeed unless these issues are addressed. But no, it is so much easier to manufacture enemies - that way you have something external to blame things on when programs run into trouble.
