Post-Gazette Editorial – 1/26/07

This page was last updated on January 27, 2007.

Webb’s rebuttal: A senator raised on war schools the president; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; January 26, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The opposition reply to the State of the Union address Tuesday night was in some ways more eagerly awaited than President Bush’s message.”

[RWC] “[M]ore eagerly awaited” by whom? Anyone who has been paying attention knew that regardless of what President Bush said, the Democrat “rebuttal” would oppose it.

“Democrats had the wit to choose as their speaker freshman Sen. James M. Webb of Virginia. Mr. Webb is known already for his pointed criticism of Mr. Bush’s positions on issues, and he has shown himself to be ready to confront the president in person on issues he cares about, notably the Iraq war.”

[RWC] As a reminder, here’s what the PG thought of Mr. Webb back on December 4, 2006.

“The senator did not disappoint those who expected a pointed, snappy critique in his nine-minute rebuttal of the president’s speech. He was serious and intense in mien and delivery.”

[RWC] Mr. Webb could have been dressed up like Howdy Doody and – as long as he was anti-Bush – the PG would have found him “serious and intense in mien and delivery.”

“His first target was what he considers the White House’s demonstrated lack of interest in the economic well-being of ordinary Americans, as opposed to that of one of Mr. Bush’s core support groups, the rich. He cited the nation’s corporate CEOs who are being paid some 400 times what ordinary workers earn, drawing the contrast between the life of Wall Street and living standards on Main Street.”

[RWC] Did you ever note the people who push the “CEOs who are being paid some 400 times what ordinary workers earn” storyline never tell us why that’s significant? Also note the use of “workers” instead of “employees.”

What socialists want us to believe is highly paid executives are taking money from rank-and-file employees. That’s untrue. Company owners pay all employees, including CEOs, so if CEOs are taking money from anyone it’s shareholders. If shareholders cut executive pay, the money wouldn’t go to minute raises for employees; it would go to shareholders in the form of a minute dividend increase or to business investments.

Here’s another “did you notice.” Did you notice the very same people who whine about executive pay never speak about how much entertainers and many professional athletes make? I believe I know why; do you?

Here’s the bottom line. It’s none of the government’s business how much business owners pay their employees.

“He then turned to the Iraq war, a subject to which he brings unique credentials. His father was on active duty during the Cold War, the senator is himself a Vietnam veteran, he has a son who is a Marine infantryman fighting in Iraq. Mr. Webb said the president has mismanaged the war for nearly four years and that Mr. Bush took America into the conflict ‘recklessly,’ against civilian and military advice, throwing away the country’s money, reputation and the blood of its citizens needlessly.”

[RWC] When people like Mr. Webb and the PG allege “took America into the conflict ‘recklessly,’ against civilian and military advice, throwing away the country’s money, reputation and the blood of its citizens needlessly,” among other things they ignore the long lead-up to the war and the fact Congress passed the Iraq War Resolution. Lest we forget, at least three current or former Democrat candidates for president (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry) supported the war. In the case of Messrs. Edwards and Kerry, they portrayed Iraq as a bigger potential threat than did President Bush.

“Citing the examples of Republican presidents Theodore Roosevelt in the face of economic imbalance in America and Dwight D. Eisenhower faced with military stalemate in Korea, Mr. Webb said what was needed now was a quick exit from Iraq -- a withdrawal based on strong, regionally based diplomacy.”

[RWC] For good reason, neither Mr. Webb nor the PG told us the specific actions of Presidents Eisenhower and Roosevelt.

President Roosevelt’s actions had nothing to do with “economic imbalance.” Mr. Roosevelt simply pursued a policy to enforce the anti-monopoly provisions of the Sherman Antitrust Act passed in 1890, about 11 years before he took office after the assassination of President McKinley. None of this had anything to do with limiting the pay of company executives.

Mr. Webb and the PG were equally vague about President Eisenhower’s actions. First, though, here are a couple of reminders. The Korean War was a U.N. war in which the U.S. was the principal anti-communist military participant. Further, Democrat President Truman committed U.S. troops without consulting Congress.

Regarding President Eisenhower, truce talks began more than six months before he took office. Therefore, Eisenhower simply carried on the process started by the Truman administration. Finally, here’s an interesting tidbit from Encyclopedia Britannica. According to EB, “Eisenhower secretly informed the North Koreans and Chinese that he was prepared to use nuclear weapons and would also carry the war to China if a peace agreement was not reached.” Does this sound at all similar to Mr. Webb’s cut-and-run tactic for Iraq?

One last reminder. The Korean War never ended as no peace treaty was ever signed. We also saw what happened by leaving a country (North Korea) in the hands of a warmongering government. Do Mr. Webb and the PG really believe the non-end to the Korean War represents an example to be followed?

“He had it right, judging the results of November’s elections, and he said it well.”

[RWC] Mr. Webb could have mumbled his way through his speech, and as long as you could understand it was anti-Bush, the PG would have asserted, “he said it well.”