George Will Column

George Will calling anyone a "pompous poseur" just bent the needle on my irony meter. Give us a warning next time.

 

I read this George Will diatribe this morning and laughed so hard I cried! Imagine...ANY republican calling any democrat to the mat for rudeness for any reason when the repubs wrote the book. Furthermore making this transparent attempt at divisive propaganda a defense of a looser of a president after the 8 years of neocons smearing Bill Clinton and beginning the same smear campaign against his wife is laughable and demonstrates why non supporters of the regime can't take any of them seriously. Don't get too concerned about this. I read 5 neocon rags daily and they are as disorganized and out of lockstep as the dems. Half of them are blaming each other for losing so big, half say 'anything but Bush' and half are still lamely trying to blame the ills of the world on a party which has not been in majority power for 12 years. They're crushed, defeated and glum. All they can do is revert back to making up something out of nothing. Sounds like our resident turkey.

 

When working in Washington DC or a state capitol one of the first rules of protocol taught is "First you make friends, then you work on issues."

You first follow cordial and diplomatic protocols and establish a working relationship (even though superficial). You then follow through with a working relationship. Save the heated arguments for down the line. While many attempt to work on "political expediency," those who succeed long-term, recognize you need to act in a mature and professional manner, regardless of the situation.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-ephron/...rs_b_35248.html

his 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.

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.

George Will thinks this is bad manners.

I don't.

I think it's too bad it doesn't happen more often.

 

"...when Bush walked up to Webb to ask about his son, a Marine serving in Iraq, Webb hinted at the campaign criticism.

"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb said, according to a description of the conversation by several people familiar with the exchange. Webb confirmed the account this week.

"That's not what I asked you," Bush replied. "How's your boy?"

"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb responded."

_______________________________________________________

As much as I dislike Bush 43 (I consider him definitely the President most damaging to US foreign policy interests in living memory, if not in the last century, and a sorry excuse for a Republican,) people should maintain civility at social gatherings.

Having said that, while Webb's initial response may be considered inappropriate, the "That's not what I asked you" retort from Bush may also be considered rude. But the final response from Webb ("That's between me and my boy") is certainly un-called for.

Webb is in public office and should behave accordingly. Strong statements are for debates on the floor, or in the media. Openly showing personal animosity at a social event is rude, unnecessary and it achieves nothing.

What's next, a shoving match a la Obrador? (Obrador is the self-proclaimed "leader" of Mexico's "parallel" government, who should probably be arrested and tried for his call for the elected government's overthrow.)

 

While I don't disagree with the previous post, I think any even pretending at civil discourse in professional politics completely died after Dick Cheney told a senior senator to love himself (not in those exact words) on the senate floor (ironically, the same day the senate passed the "Defense of Decency Act").

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black2006 @ Dec 1 2006, 05:46 PM) [snapback]356505[/snapback]</div>

I disagree. Pretending cordiality, in any setting, toward a demonstrated human monster amounts to tacit condonement of the monster. Finding yourself nose to nose with Hitler at a cocktail party in Berlin in 1944, would you have buried your disgust and smiled and said, "Hey there, good fellow, how's tricks?" This isn't to compare Bush to Hitler, mind, Hitler wasn't a man out of his depth and so the comparison wouldn't be fair. I simply use Hitler as an extreme to make the point that insincere social conviviality can be just as corrosive as abject un-social acts, since it conveys the impression to the miscreant that his monstrosity is of such triviality it's not even enough to disrupt having a good time at a cocktail party.

As to achieving nothing - I wouldn't be so quick to discard an event significant enough to inspire a whole column from a respected columnist, itself loosing an eighty page avalanche of rebuke heaped on the columnist, this thread and whatever other countless discussions and articles have been sizzling ever since as "nothing." And since the overwhelming weight of the response favors not being a hypocrite, even at cocktail parties, we may see a little less of it going forward, and monsters a little less apt to get away with their depravities. One can always hope, anyway.

Thanks, Webb, for some refreshing honesty for a change.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Dec 1 2006, 06:46 PM) [snapback]356524[/snapback]</div>

Somehow you forget, that no matter how much YOU may dislike Bush, he is still the elected President of the US, and Webb is also an elected representative. Elected representatives have to work, sit on the same committees, and in the same sessions, with other representatives elected by different constituency, who sometimes hold very different political viewpoints.

Have you stopped to think that others may see someone like Hillary Clinton as a "monster?" Presumably, we live in a civil society. Webb has every right to debate aggressively on the floor, or on Meet the Press. There is a time and place for everything.

Or, would you think it better, if our esteemed representatives throw a few punches at each other, every time there is a contentious issue? If you do, remember to cast your vote for the burliest candidate of your party

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black2006 @ Dec 1 2006, 07:50 PM) [snapback]356548[/snapback]</div>

Ok, so Bush goes out of his way to track down Webb and feign concern for his son. When Webb redirects Bush to the most important issue of the election, and of paramount importance to him and his family, Bush refuses to reply to that issue. Do you really think Bush gives a rat's hind end about Webb's son? I think Webb's response was appropriate. He was civil and made his point.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black2006 @ Dec 1 2006, 10:50 PM) [snapback]356548[/snapback]</div>

So, how do you feel about Cheney's remarks to Senator Leahy on the Senate floor? Restoring honor and dignity, oh yes, indeedy.

 

I might be able to go along with the politeness thing if Bush and Co hadn't made a habit of throwing it out the window for the past few years. They are hardly deserving of diplomacy, being so deficit in it themselves. Again, Webb, being a military man, might be expected to show due deference to this current commander in chief. Except that this commander in chief has ignored the advice of the military from the start of the Iraq process. Remember Shinsheki recommending 450,000 troops? Remember Colin Powell's former doctrine of overwhelming force. Remember how we staffed the occupation not with state department professionals, but with Republican party loyalists. Remember how long it took Bush to fire Rumsfeld. This, from the "CEO president," when a manager with Rumseld's record of failure would have been canned long before. Remember, this is the president who won't attend the funeral of Webb's son should it be necessary. Bush, in fact, has worked so hard to earn the kind of response Webb gave him, it would have been impolite to let politness obscure it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Dec 1 2006, 08:08 PM) [snapback]356555[/snapback]</div>

If this is a question, the answer is, that I think Cheney was a dick and his responses and conduct was inappropriate (Leahy was simply making a joke that Cheney didn't want to hang out with the Democrats.)

But if you think, that somehow what Cheney did, justifies Webb's "That's between me and my boy," I have to disagree. It seems that for some, this has turned into rooting for the "home team" and "you let them have it, Johnny." Whatever..., tune in the recent coverage of the Mexican Congress, if this kind of thing turns you on...

I suppose, some here would rejoice if the following came true))

http://www.newyorker.com/shouts/content/ar...040726sh_shouts

 

What Webb did wasn't impolite. He didn't yell at Bush, didn't call him names, didn't even directly question our being in Iraq. Plus, he knew Bush didn't really give a damn about him or his boy, so he actually have a much politer response than I would have had I been in the exact same position.

Besides, Bush is one to complain about rudeness.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black2006 @ Dec 2 2006, 04:20 AM) [snapback]356606[/snapback]</div>

Turn me on? Hardly. Just rather surprised to see everyone with their panties atwist over this tempest in a teacup after the last six years of the boors we've had in office. Bush probably should have moved on after the "I want them home" response instead of pressing the issue, but that would mean having some tact or something.

 

It reads to me as if Bush was the one seeking a confrontation:

 

Webb was too civil. I would have preferred:

shrub: How's your boy ?
Webb: In Iraq
shrub: That isn't what I asked. How's your boy ?
Webb: It isn't the national guard, junior.