It certainly is arguable whether or not Sadaam had to be taken out (though, not really, from a libertarian perspective). But what can’t be argued is that the administration sold the war under false pretenses. What can’t be argued is that Bush lied when he said he was trying to avoid war at the beginning of 2003. These facts are well documented. And I don’t know of any military experts who would describe the President’s actions as “Commander in Chief” as “competent.”

Webb should have shown as little respect to his fellow members of Congress who voted for the war as he did to Bush. This wasn’t just Bush’s war.

The members of Congress who voted for the war might have been stupid and gullible, but there’s no evidence they were as blatantly dishonest as the Bush administration.

And Fluffy in #63 above is spot on.

As far as Cheney and Leahy; Leahy had accused Cheney of war-profiteering then tried to gloss over it when Cheney came to the Senate. I expect that if charges such as that were leveled your way your response would have been similar.

People volunteer to be soldiers because they think defending the country is very important. They don’t sign up for risk and misery so that politicians can get into wars for fun, money, or religious hallucinations.

Every last event at the White House at which a camera is present is a symbolic exercise. The images depicting the demeanor of those present, their physical position, the actions they take, whether or not exact protocol is demanded, etc., all are consciously and deliberately designed to convey content. When members of Congress are present, part of that content is “Look at the happy family of American government, where everyone gets along.”

Webb’s action was a symbolic political event. There was almost nothing personal about it at all. If all Webb wanted to do was tell Bush he was a dick, he could have used email. Webb was withholding his hand in order to disrupt the staged imagery of the event. And it was completely effective at communicating what Webb wanted to communicate, since everyone noted what Webb did and wrote and spoke about it.

Personally, I think anything that disrupts the web of protocol built around the office of the Presidency is good. Refer to the “But For Ceremony” soliloquy in Henry V for more detail on why this is so. The President gets to act like a king in part because we treat him like a king. Treat him like some asshole blocking traffic, instead, and it changes things.

That leads them to act like courtiers – bowing, scraping, flattering.

You believed [falsely] that your testimony was your opportunity to present a reasoned and forceful argument about the rights of citizens. It was nothing of the kind. It was your chance to kiss some ass. The professional lobbyists understand this better than you, so your conduct stuck out and was notable.

I agree that Webb’s son knew what he was getting into, or at least should have known that the military has been used primarily for political purposes for the majority of its history. I don’t think Webb disrespected his son, but as for Bush, how much respect does a President deserve after he’s instigated a war under false pretenses and wiretapped citizens without warrants? I don’t know what Bush ever really earned in his life, but I’m sure it’s not respect.

Jim Webbs son enlisted in the marines well after september 11. He came from a military family. He knew wtf he was getting himself into, if he didn’t want to go to war he would have joined the peace corp. His dad was out of line and disrespected both the president AND his son. BTW, years later Webb ended up making up with the president.

Finally, I’m also a big believer in “respect for the office”, but respect is a two way street. I don’t think the general public has much respect for their congressional officers because a lot of those officers have zero respect for the office they’re holding. Same as putting on a uniform. If you don’t understand the values that uniform is supposed to represent, then you shouldn’t have it on.