The opposition response is often an exercise in triviality. For the last few years, powerless Democrats responding to Bush after he delivered his annual pablum dosage seemed meaningless.
Jim Webb set a different standard. Here's how he signed off:
Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.
Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves "as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other." And he did something about it.
As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.
These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.
Jim Webb's response was right on the mark.
Almost four years after this administration said the war was over, almost four additional years of bumbling, they now have a new strategy and are asking for more time.
Time's Up! Turn in your test papers to the proctor. Examination results will be determined by historians over the next 20 to 200 years.
More hypocritical BS. If the Democrats really want an end to the war in Iraq, they should put their majority where tyheir mouths are.
I'm not clear on the hypocrisy. Is it just that Congress has not yet wrested control of the Armed Services from the White House?
The president wants more troops, and has the ability to send them with existing funding. Congress (both parties) wants fewer troops, but won't strand troops in Iraq if the president foolishly sends them. That leaves a tricky situation, one that Congress is in the midst of working on.