home

Webb v. Graham

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 01:51:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I have been tough on Jim Webb due to his refusal to consider using the Spending Power to end the Iraq Debacle and I will continue to be, but one thing I always have believed is that Jim Webb, like Wes Clark, conveys confidence, even arrogance, when discussing national security issues that; something Democrats desperately need as a political matter. Webb does not cower to the nonsense spewed by Republicans with their talking points. Case in point:

< Let Them Eat Cake | The Politics of Iraq >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Webb v. Graham | 18 comments (18 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I've got to say (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:22:26 PM EST
    Graham is a smooth talker.

    He is. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Maryb2004 on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:35:29 PM EST
    And I didn't think Webb succeeded in making him look bad. Webb succeeded in getting his point out there, but he didn't make Graham look bad.  Because Graham never loses his cool and just keeps calmly repeating his delusional talking points.    

    Parent
    To be clear (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:41:59 PM EST
    My point was not that Graham looked bad. My point was that Webb looked "strong."

    Parent
    I know (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Maryb2004 on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:58:36 PM EST
    Webb did look strong.

    But he didn't diminish Graham.  Unfortunately.

    I've always found Graham interesting.  The most outrageous things can come out of his mouth and sound sincere and (if you're not really listening or thinking) reasonable.  People said that about Ronald Reagan but I was never once tempted to believe a word Reagan said.  He always sounded, to me, like an actor repeating lines.  Not Graham.  

    Parent

    I always think to myself that Graham must (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:46:48 AM EST
    smell delicious, like lavender soap or maybe a baby.  He has a quality about him that croons to my mothering side while beating on his little war drum.  I wish he sold credit life or Fuller brushes or something less of a detriment to the world.

    Parent
    Except for this morning. (none / 0) (#18)
    by manys on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 09:47:30 PM EST
    It isn't a zero-sum game. It's not all about one person's dominance diminishing another's. A good question to ask is, "what did they do with their strength?" Graham was rudely talking over Webb trying to keep Webb from being heard while Graham was speaking obvious talking points. It was practically a list he was reading off of, just to prevent someone with a different point of view than him from connecting with the people.

    Graham was the Bill O'Reilly of this exchange. Whether you think that is diminished or not by Webb's words is irrelevant.

    Parent

    Hahahaha. Ha. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 03:32:49 PM EST


    Parent
    What Great Theater (none / 0) (#1)
    by talex on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:07:39 PM EST
    that was. I was glad Pumpkin Head just shut up and let the two of them go at it at the end.

    What a contrast! A calm measured Webb making his points like a pro and Huckleberry Graham acting like an out of control ten year old waving his arms around with facial expressions to boot. Hilarious.

    Is was great how Webb just ripped apart every one of Huck's lies. The Right is getting desperate.

    For those who missed Bob Schieffer's Walter Cronkite Moment

    Webb does not (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:54:42 PM EST
    cower to the nonsense spewed by Republicans with their talking points.

    Including the nonsense that not funding the occupation is not funding the troops?

    The enormous progress made in Al Anbar (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 05:08:34 PM EST
    province only came about when American troops had basically given up on Al Anbar province in the interest of serving the surge in Bahgdad so that the surge could succeed.  Graham is not correct in attributing this huge success in Al Anbar to the surge other than we left Al Anbar to participate in the surge and because we pulled back and the insurgents abused the population the population STOOD UP and came knocking on our door for assistance.  Never ever was there a bigger advertisement for troop pull back and withdrawal to allow the Iraqis STAND UP than what happened in Al Anbar province.  Shame on Graham for misleading and Shame on Webb for not setting him straight on exactly how Al Anbar province HAPPENED.

    BTW (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 05:26:16 PM EST
    I know that was your wasy of holding Kagro to account.

    But I am not as tactful as you.

    the thread is a veritable cacophony of cheers for Balkin calling for impeachment and Kagro corrects no one. I notice he does not respond to you.

    I'm of two minds about it (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Maryb2004 on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 05:34:27 PM EST
    If he was making a legal argument for impeachment and using Balkin's writing to bolster it, I'd say he was dishonest.  But Kagro isn't making a legal argument.  He's trying to move opinion over to his side in favor of impeachment and/or solidify opinion in favor of that.  This is pure public relations. And so he didn't have a need to do anything but quote Balkin and let everyone draw the conclusion he wanted.  Of course he didn't respond to me - that wasn't part of the pr plan.

    But I felt compelled to point out the obvious.  

    I wasn't feeling particularly tactful. I just thought it had to be done but was a futile endeavor and I didn't feel like getting into an extended argument over it.  I'm tired of quasi-legal arguments at dKos. They are pointless.

    Parent

    I deleted my first comment (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 05:36:22 PM EST
    because, well it will do no good.

    BTW, this is funny in response to you:

    True (0 / 0)
    but it's a rather blunt, heavy weapon. . . .

    But impeachment is such a nuanced weapon. Honestly . . .

    Parent

    I have given up (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 05:41:46 PM EST
    interacting with Kargo when I can avoid it. He's derailed more threads than I can remember by picking pedantic fights.

    Parent
    I thought it was hilarious (none / 0) (#14)
    by Maryb2004 on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 05:49:19 PM EST
    I didn't see your first comment -- but I can imagine ...

    I'm not going to argue with Kagro for you.  I only comment with my own thoughts.  And only when I feel like it.  

    If you want to argue with him I guess you shouldn't have gotten yourself banned.  

    Tactful enough for you :)

    Gotta go.  Later.

    Parent

    No desire to argue with him (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 06:15:37 PM EST
    Was arguing with you . . .

    Parent
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#16)
    by Maryb2004 on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 09:36:34 PM EST
    But you shouldn't have picked up my comment and reprinted it here.  I'm glad you deleted it.  I didn't realize that was what you were referring to.

    Sorry for the cheap shot.

    Parent

    i had to turn it off (none / 0) (#17)
    by Stewieeeee on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 09:40:38 PM EST
    graham's voice was giving me a headache.

    Webb v. Graham | 18 comments (18 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment