Comments (171)

gregor wrote on January 30, 2007 4:43 PM:

John Webb for President.

None of the Obama and Hillary crap. Only Webb understand the nature of the game that politics has become after 14 years of Repubs at the helm.

FSE wrote on January 30, 2007 4:46 PM:

John Webb? Do you mean some combination of John Edwards and Jim Webb?

Peter Driscoll wrote on January 30, 2007 4:50 PM:

That's Jim Webb and he does have that insight that so many seem to lack. He speaks clearly because he sees clearly.

mparker wrote on January 30, 2007 4:58 PM:

It's "JIM" Webb.

Little experience or not, I would vote for him today.

I have heard him speak and I know he has read and understands the Constitution and holds it in the highest regard as well as the values that made the United States a great nation.

Unlike some who, sworn to protect it, have only worked to destroy it and our Country.

As Cicero said of such traitors, "a murder is less to fear."

postxian wrote on January 30, 2007 5:18 PM:

You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with Jim, da do da do...

Yes he "gets it"--I completely agree with gregor above. Webb's a strange mutant creature--a Democrat with a spine.

Farinata X wrote on January 30, 2007 5:25 PM:

Dear lord, I love this guy.

dmbeaster wrote on January 30, 2007 5:36 PM:

This is a very serious issue for reasons that are not abstract. This administration would love to argue that we have to stay in Iraq to counter Iranian aggression there (Plan B after the surge no longer provides any political cover), and also argue that the Iraq AUMF would apply to conflict with Iran because Iran has intervened in Iraq.

Bored George wrote on January 30, 2007 5:39 PM:

http://webb2008.com

Springbored wrote on January 30, 2007 5:42 PM:

Webb. It's just a higher level of atrios's "simple answers to simple questions..."

KW wrote on January 30, 2007 5:48 PM:

While I appreciate Webb's knowledge and experience, he's still a somewhat conservative guy. Don't put him up for President until you know everything about him.

Ron England wrote on January 30, 2007 5:51 PM:

We want the striaght and truthful answers. If the adminstration officals are unwilling to provide those answers to Congress under oath then it is Congress's responsibility and duty to charge them with Contempt of Congress, then impeach and remove them from office.

Jim Webb is the one to stand up make the Democratic Party get the spine the nation want and demands of them.

MD wrote on January 30, 2007 5:51 PM:

The guy writes a letter and you people want to vote him into the Presidency..hmm..

cliff wrote on January 30, 2007 5:52 PM:

Be careful how quickly you follow a one issue candidate. Beofre you throw democratic suopport for a presidential candidate like that, have you checked his past voting record. Webb, while a perfect candidate for this issue, I agree, has some strong republican background issues to be looked at.

Cirrus wrote on January 30, 2007 5:58 PM:

I am continually amazed by the urge to raise to presidential stature anyone who remotely gets things right at the moment. It seems to me the monkey in the Oval Office is a supreme example of where that leads.

Mind you, this is no comment on Jim Webb's abilities. Perhaps, though, we need him in the Senate more than we need him as President. I for one wish him all the support possible in his straight talk and demand for answers. He has a great knack for cutting through. Where is this ability best put to use? Why did he choose to run for the Senate?

We also must remember that strength and plain-spokeness are not policy positions. Policy positions on on-going war are not fiscal positions(at least purely).

I like what he is doing and where he is doing it. Let's cheer him on for this and hold the rush to White House.

JadedMarty wrote on January 30, 2007 6:01 PM:

I urge everyone to flood the Dept. of State w/ email & snailmails respectfully demanding an answer. It's not that I think it will force these criminals to respond, but I like to think it would at least make 'em a little nervous - imagine if millions of us demanded she respond.

Geeno wrote on January 30, 2007 6:03 PM:

Actually, everything I've read about Webb shows him to be something of an economic populist. He was a firm believer in unobtrusive government, and once upon a time, the Republicans could lay claim to that mantle (though, personally, I was never sure why), but as the econimic situation has become more dire and the right tries to shred the bill of rights, he became a democrat.

Simo wrote on January 30, 2007 6:05 PM:

"The guy writes a letter and you people want to vote him into the Presidency"

Hmmn...indeed. Obama and Webb- A couple of clear and thoughtful sentences and we're droppin' are panties and shoutin' "Come on in boys!" We are so desperate for a leader who isn't a bus-bench-photograp-advertisement for a real-estate agent.

JadedMarty wrote on January 30, 2007 6:05 PM:

I urge everyone to flood the Dept. of State w/ email & snailmails respectfully demanding an answer. It's not that I think it will force these criminals to respond, but I like to think it would at least make 'em a little nervous - imagine if millions of us demanded she respond . . . & I have to agree w/ the other posts - someone needs to convince this guy to run. The Dems sorely need a candidate who could actually win - doubtful if Hilliary or Obama can.

teh l4m3 wrote on January 30, 2007 6:07 PM:

Well it's pretty obvious what Webb's onto, and what many more Congresscritters ought to be thinking about: are they a coequal branch of government, or does Bush have powers that supercede theirs? I would expect this kind of response from any congressman or woman...

SkippyFlipjack wrote on January 30, 2007 6:19 PM:

Remember Wesley Clark. Boy we all loved him... for like a month.

Kathy wrote on January 30, 2007 6:22 PM:

Clark and Webb in '08!

adrian wrote on January 30, 2007 6:23 PM:

Webb has certainly been audible since he emerged as a legitimate challenger to George Allen. Irony is, as capable as Webb has proven to be thus far, he'd probably never have been elected if Allen hadn't managed to macaca himself so profoundly. I've been very impressed that this name I'd never heard until 4 months ago has become so immediately relevant to national politics and foreign policy debate.

Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2007 6:25 PM:

It appears this administration, indeed, the whole Repub party is "Macaca-ing" all over themselve. And the country.

Hank Essay wrote on January 30, 2007 6:27 PM:

Why do you think Team Chimp is trying to incite IraN inside IraQ right now?

It's to get around the very issue that Webb is trying to get at...they have no plans whatsoever to come back to Congress for an attack on Iran. And Webb and everyone inside that vile sick swamp on the Potomac knows it...

Ghost of Tom Joad wrote on January 30, 2007 6:34 PM:

To those that don't know ... Webb was a Dem once .. I won't go into all the detail unless someone wants me to email it to them .. but he is the real deal .. he is pro-choice .. and he believes you should be allowed to marry whom ever you want .. so yes .. he is more in line with the Dems

Dennis wrote on January 30, 2007 6:37 PM:

If this guy is for real, there's only one honest politician in Washington.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Jen wrote on January 30, 2007 6:41 PM:

I've met webb 5 times, work with someone that knew him in school, i've read everything there is to read about him. i'm a very very socially liberal person and except for our differences on gay marriage, jim webb is everything i believed him to be and i would vote for webb for president this very second and never regret doing it.

Ayla wrote on January 30, 2007 6:43 PM:

"Conservatism isnt the enemy. Bullshit is the enemy." Thats part of a famous quote from a famous liberal, I forget who.

Anyway, the modern Republican party has turned "conservatism" into something that has no consistent ideology so the word's meaningless.

I like the way Webb talks. I desperately want the Democrats to have a candidate I admire. I don't feel that way about anyone in the race now.

SeattleBlue wrote on January 30, 2007 6:44 PM:

"Little experience or not, I would vote for him today."

Yeah, because those decades of experience with Darth Cheney and Rummsy really paid off?

Webb is something we haven't seen in a long while, a politican who could give a 'rats-a**" what the pundit class and the media thinks of him.

No wonder he scares the living crap out of the Wingnut mouthpieces like Laura Ingram.

I have live long enough to know the difference between triangulating focus group driven pols (like Hillary) and democrats of a different generation, folks like JFK or Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Webb reminds me of them, maybe he's a little too strong for today's politically correct "Democrat"
party...But, watch what happens if someone from the right pulls that "leave out the -IC" crap to Webb's face.

He won't have to ask his advisors HOW to respond, like Kerry or Hillary would.

He will probably bite their frickin heads off...

And, it would be the last time those insulting pricks tried it on him.....

c fitzgerald wrote on January 30, 2007 6:52 PM:

Pretty fucking impressive. Damn. Go Get Em

pbg wrote on January 30, 2007 7:05 PM:

Jim Webb: Restoring Honor and Dignity to the White House!

(and a helluva songwriter, too!)

ebw wrote on January 30, 2007 7:12 PM:

Jim Webb is a serious patriot. It's pathetic that Rice promised to provide a written response and then did not follow through. Rice is akin to Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, et. al. who will say anything, at a given moment in time, in order to get-away with telling the truth or being found out.

Let us support Webb by asking our respective representatives in the House & Senate to start asking similar questions. Also, what about the main-stream media hacks who cover-up for Bush & Co.

az5762 wrote on January 30, 2007 7:25 PM:

I'd like to echo a few comments made. 1) Bush has set the bar sooo low when we see a pol with some balls we do wannna drop the panties becuase it has been so damn long. 2) He has been a soldier and his kid IS a soldier. He has an honest rather than economic interest in how this all plays out. 3) He is an economic populist and I saw him quoted syaing he is NOT a one issue guy. 4) It's simply nice to see a Dem who is not a whiner just say, Give me a G-ddam answer. This WH has never had to do that . . . just answer. Amen.

gregor wrote on January 30, 2007 7:29 PM:

Sorry for incorrect name in the first post above.

Jim Webb, even if he is a single issue candidate, and the manner in which he conducted his campaign suggests that he is not, has shown that he has an appealing straight-forward approach to issues that the other Democrats definitely lack.

Anyone who won because a macaca was on his side cannot by definition be just a one issue candidate. Add to this the breadth of the themes he covered in his response to SOTU: econonomy, the interests of the middle class, and of course the Iraq war.

His formulation that we expect our leaders to accuratley assess the threats against the sacrifices that they want us to make before they send our boys to war was eloquent, clear, direct, and moving.

He has my vote.

JIM WEBB for President.

Forget triangulating Hillary and soothing and pleasing to everyone Obama. We don't need any of that.

jp wrote on January 30, 2007 7:33 PM:

Is it impeachment time yet?????? How long do we have to wait??? Bush/Chaney are not playing by the rules the rest of you play by. Isn't it apparent yet???? They see diplomacy and requests as weakness and are happy to string it all along. What do they have to do to be impeached ???? Can we take two more years of this crazyness??? If they are not impeached 2008 will be a lot worse. They have already shown they don't care what anyone else thinks.

Xanthippas wrote on January 30, 2007 7:35 PM:

I hope he sent that certified, or the next time they talk she's going to say "What letter?"

ahem wrote on January 30, 2007 7:48 PM:

Webb's hit the ground running -- though admittedly, being in the majority makes that easier. He recognised Condi's 'I'll write back' answer as bullshit evasion, and he's calling her on it. And my guess is that he'll ask Carl Levin to invite her back to the Senate if she doesn't reply.

elsie M. Paradise wrote on January 30, 2007 7:57 PM:

How great to have a real man in the White House instead of Bush and Cheney, those cowardly pantywaists.

Douglas Watts wrote on January 30, 2007 7:57 PM:

I admire Webb for his stalwartness, but the immediate cloying rapture to make him President is pretty naive and embarrassing.
Howbout let's have an election first? Can we do that?

Katie wrote on January 30, 2007 8:13 PM:

Jim Webb is one of the few people in Congress who is genuinely qualified to voice his opinions on the war. I don't know whether or not he's the ideal man for president, but I know for certain that as a person who opposes war except in very rare, absolute last tactic situations I'd feel a lot safer with a man like Jom Webb as Secretary of Defence or a similar role.

George E. Lowe wrote on January 30, 2007 8:15 PM:

Hi, Kudos for Senator Webb for asking the most important question facing Americans today: Can President Bush attack IRANIAN FORCES IN IRAN without getting NEW Congressional Authority for his New War? In other words can President Bush launch a "NEW EXPEDITION TO SICILY", by his own decisions? My not-so-modest suggestion: IF PRESIDENT BUSH makes war on IRAN-in-IRAN,as C-I-C, he ought to KNOW AHEAD of time, that he will be immediately IMPEACHED! Very worried in Stuart, George E. Lowe [WEBB FOR PRESIDENT!]

Stephen wrote on January 30, 2007 8:17 PM:

At a minimum Webb should be considered for a VP slot. How much more effetive would he be then that puke appologist who was so deferential to Cheney in the 2000 election but had no problem insulting and demeaning a fellow democrat in 2006 so he could save his sorry ass by running like a rat to the republics!

Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2007 8:18 PM:

Webb/Feingold 2016

What do you mean, why? Because both those guys have lotsa work in the Senate to take care of--and it's not at all clear the other 98 Senators are willing or able to drive home the point, the law, the Constitution.

Plus, somebody's gotta keep ~Clinton/Obama in check for the next eight years. And take the quality of Democrat administration up a full notch--or two, after that.

FMArouet wrote on January 30, 2007 8:21 PM:

A THIRD CARRIER TASK FORCE HEADING TOWARD GULF?

Here is a snippet from navsource.org on the USS Ronald
Reagan and its task force. It sounds as though the Reagan
may be heading to the Gulf area to support the Stennis and
Eisenhower carrier task forces. Three carrier task forces mean a
lot of firepower. They would all be in place and ready
for action sometime in February.

The moon (new) and perhaps the weather should be ideal on
March 19 and on April 17. March would probably be better from the weather standpoint in new Centcom Commander Admiral Fallon's view. Fallon himself would no doubt want a couple of months to get up to speed before launching massive air and cruise missile strikes against Iran.

Here is the snippet:
"Coronado, California, January 4, 2006 — Two SH-60F
Seahawks assigned to the "Black Knights" of Helicopter
Anti-submarine Squadron Four (HS-4) provide security
alongside USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) while departing
her homeport at Naval Air Station North Island. This
was the maiden deployment for the Navy's newest
nuclear powered aircraft carrier, in support of the
Global War on Terrorism and maritime security
operations. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 2nd
Class Christopher Brown (# 060104-N-5060B-163)."

We are left with two questions:

(1) From now on, can we believe anything that the Administration or the Pentagon claims about Iranian activity in Iraq and the Gulf? Or will it all be sheer propaganda serving as a drumbeat for war?

(2) Will the House and Senate display some spine in pressing the
Administration and the Pentagon for verifiable facts regarding
Iranian activity and justifications for launching a war against Iran--unlike their craven performance before the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Corinne wrote on January 30, 2007 8:27 PM:

Well y'all should be jealous of me because he's my senator! LOL

However, as much as I love the guy I'm not ready to consider him president/vp material. He just got elected to the Senate, for pete's sake. We'd like to have him stick around long enough to do some real good.

I attended a town meeting where he was one of the speakers (he was invited a few weeks before he delivered the SOTU response) and he was fantastic. He received several standing o's from the crowd.

Condi didn't realize when she punted Webb's question that she was way out of her league.

It's true: You don't mess around with Jim.

r€nato wrote on January 30, 2007 8:27 PM:

impeachment is still not out of the question. If King George the Lesser tries to do a blatant end-run around Congress, he will force them to assert their authority. Let's hope Reid and Pelosi have the backbone to answer such a challenge.

Rick wrote on January 30, 2007 8:41 PM:

A friend not long ago asked me who my hero is. After some thought, I responded...Teddy Roosevelt...a commander who led from the front - even in combat...awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor...awarded the Nobel Peace Prize...a noted conservationist...explorer...'Trust Buster"...railed against inherited wealth and economic inequality...and he wrote 34 books. Hell, that's more than George W has read.

I greatly admire Jim Webb and the breath of fresh air he seems to be bringing to our country. Is anyone uncertain about where he stands? Or what his priorities are? He's a throwback to an earlier time and resembles TR - the last great Republican president...no matter what the "DittoHeads" say.

I for one want a President who has served our country...unlike the current disgrace who wants America to serve him.

corinne wrote on January 30, 2007 8:52 PM:

To the poster who mentioned the USS Ronald Reagan upthread:

NBCSanDiego.com reported Jan. 27 that the Reagan deployed to the western Pacific, along with its air wing and strike group.

The Reagan is being deployed while the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk undergoes scheduled maintenance in Yokosuka, Japan, according to a public affairs officer with Commander Naval Air Forces.

http://www.10news.com/news/10860030/detail.html

ProgManPogram wrote on January 30, 2007 9:03 PM:

Wow! I'm going to have to re-register dead relatives for the next election so I can vote for Mr Webb, Obama and Hillary all at the same time.
How about a three way co-presidency!
We'll really give those neo-cons what for.

Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2007 9:07 PM:

and Mike Dukakis!

Doug wrote on January 30, 2007 9:07 PM:

James Webb for President.

jimbo wrote on January 30, 2007 9:18 PM:

Here's my email:

Hey Condi, guess what, pussy, sycophantic republicans aren't running the show anymore. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION OR GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE!

xian wrote on January 30, 2007 9:19 PM:

Obama/Webb - the black/redneck fusion ticket!

(OK, African-American / Scots-Irish to the politically correct.)

antihostile wrote on January 30, 2007 9:28 PM:

----------

Dear Senator Webb,

The answer to your question is "Yes" and "So what the fuck are you going to do about it?"

Have a nice day,
Condoleeza Rice

cc: George Bush, Richard Cheney, Karl Rove, et. al.

----------

sly wrote on January 30, 2007 9:36 PM:

Now I understand why Bush nominated Adm. William J. Fallon to command U.S. forces in the middle east. The Navy is preparing for war with Iran.

Fallon, 62, is the first Navy admiral to be named to head Central Command (Centcom), which oversees U.S. military forces in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa. Military officials say he was chosen because of his diplomatic and strategic skills at a time when the United States has dispatched two aircraft carrier strike groups to the Gulf for the first time since 2003.

"The reality is, if you look at the Centcom area of responsibility, there's a lot of water there," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told reporters Friday, when asked why he recommended Fallon. "And as you look at the range of options available to the United States, the use of naval and air power, potentially, it made sense to me for all those reasons for Admiral Fallon to have the job."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013000099.html

Big John wrote on January 30, 2007 9:36 PM:

Jim Webb is way cool. So is Wes Clark.

It's called leadership: The ability to get people to put aside their differences and work toward common goals.
Churchill had it. So did FDR. So did Eisenhower as Allied Commander in WW2.

starwheel wrote on January 30, 2007 9:41 PM:

The Bush administration is going to order targeted strikes in the cover of night against Iran's 'nukular' facilities in retaliation for an alleged Iranian-backed attack on US soldiers in Iraq (without providing evidence of said attacks).

At the same time, Condi is going to have a hand-written note couriered to Senator Webb's office with a concise reply that simply says, "Yes".

The complicit media and DC punditry will bobble away parroting the administration's justification for the attacks.

What the Democrats do then will determine whether or not we live in a functioning democracy anymore.
Because right now this administration is acting like it could care less what their own people think.

crying grandma wrote on January 30, 2007 9:47 PM:

Count me as another vote for Jim Webb. Now!

Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2007 10:11 PM:

Re-read Sy Hirsch's (spelling?), article from spring of 2006 on Bush adminstration plan for Iran war. Easily found by Googling.

1. The article states that the alleged precondition for an attack against Iran was for "force protection" of our troops.

2. Condi Rice's testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee advered that "force protection" would not need additional congressional approval.

1+1=2.

Coaster wrote on January 30, 2007 10:24 PM:

How funny Jim Webbs first attack is a woman. Easy pickens for such a tough man's man. If she doesn't respond will he call for NO women in politics? What a smooth operater. Gee who would have known???

faith wrote on January 30, 2007 10:39 PM:

Thank you Mr. Jim Webb ! Love that letter ! I will be truly amazed if you hear a response from Dr. Rice. I hope and pray that you continue with the follow up. It could be quite illuminating for the American people if they discovered that Rice, Bush, Cheney, et al, had every intention of going to war with other middle eastern, sovereign nations. I vote to impeach the entire lot of them.

Jon wrote on January 30, 2007 10:46 PM:

for the last 5 years i've been asking myself, 'where are our statesmen'? maybe we've found one...

FMArouet wrote on January 30, 2007 11:17 PM:

Corinne:

Thanks for the link to the Public Affairs Officer's announcement that the Reagan and other ships are being deployed to the western Pacific.

I couldn't help but wonder, though, if the deployment is intended to place the ships conveniently within a manageable sailing distance from the Gulf, in case Bush/Cheney/Rice/Gates want to go into Iran with guns blazing by March 19th.

And if the Administration wants to push up such a schedule, there will also be a new moon on February 17th. The White House and Pentagon leakers seem to be spreading the anti-Iran propaganda and war-justifying rhetoric at a pace similar to their leadup to the invasion of Iraq. The MSM seem to be swallowing the leaks with their typical credulity and lack of serious follow-up and investigation. Tonight's report on MSNBC was practically hysterical.

--FMA

Bill James wrote on January 30, 2007 11:36 PM:

"Once a Marine, always a Marine"

To az5762
Mr Webb has never been a soldier, he was an officer of Marines, and his son is a Marine ( an enlisted infantry man aka "a grunt"). Webb was a grunt officer.

A retired Marine Gunnery Sergeant once informed me the Marine was broken down into two components: grunts and support.

Webb is clear thinker ready to continue doing his duty.

Plutodog wrote on January 30, 2007 11:44 PM:

JadedMarty said: "I urge everyone to flood the Dept. of State w/ email & snailmails respectfully demanding an answer. It's not that I think it will force these criminals to respond, but I like to think it would at least make 'em a little nervous - imagine if millions of us demanded she respond."

Far, far better I think would be to flood them with photos of our eyes -- just take a close-up of our eyes -- message sent, they don't have any excuses about having no time due to wading through a flood of snail and e-words.

"We're watching and waiting for you to respond to Sen Webb" only without the words. Imagine a mailbag and an inbox full of pictures of American eyes.

The Shameless Libertarian Capatalist wrote on January 31, 2007 12:03 AM:

Of course the man has credibility. He used to be a Republican and now he is a Democrat on the way to joining the only sane option available; Libertarians

Gonnuts wrote on January 31, 2007 12:06 AM:

Webb is the perfect man in the perfect spot right now. He's a lighting rod and he's fresh. Webb doesn't have to defend his past political record - there's very little there, but he is echoing what a vast majority of people feel. And he's doing it with a straight forwardness that resonates.

I don't care if he ever comes in first - he'll be the kind of person I'd bet on.

Kayla wrote on January 31, 2007 12:57 AM:

Grear site!

Scott L wrote on January 31, 2007 1:40 AM:

Maybe this guy can take the rest of Congress to class and teach them how to get answers to lead this country.

Jerry Weinstein wrote on January 31, 2007 1:41 AM:

WE, need to follow up and support this letter. Is there a listing for phone or email for Sec'y Rice? At the very least, we have her snail mail addy...

Jaiden wrote on January 31, 2007 2:04 AM:

I love you!!!!

Enrique wrote on January 31, 2007 2:06 AM:

Howdy Folks. I was wondering if anyone had any details on the Eastern re-union that is being held in Moncton in 2007. Cheers, Dan

cando wrote on January 31, 2007 2:19 AM:

Whatever his politics, Webb gives me hope. Too many Dems have been in DC too long. They dance around, their questions often seem to just miss the mark, there is too little follow up and much too little courage displayed. Webb is refreshing and serious. Cheney may think he presents, "Don't mess with me," but Webb is clear he will not be messed with. Hallelujah!

Carey wrote on January 31, 2007 2:19 AM:

Let's keep our eyes (and ears) focused on Jim Webb for the next year or so and consider a winning Democratic southern strategy: a John Edwards - Jim Webb ticket, and let events determine which one winds up at the top of the ticket.

Remember Clinton - Gore. Edwards - Webb will likely be much stronger.

Carey
A Virginian with North Carolina roots.

HeadofLettuce wrote on January 31, 2007 3:16 AM:

please note, my name is John Webb and I am running for president, thank you

Matt in NYC wrote on January 31, 2007 3:59 AM:

What you have to love is a senator smart enough to correct the Secretary of State's illiterate misuse of the word "loathe."

Is it 2008 yet?

jacktusco wrote on January 31, 2007 6:36 AM:

Its so sad that personal gain and tv exposure is moreimportant than US security. This guy is just another in a long line of self serving dems who appear to oppose the war for political gain rather than reason.
Jimbo,you are a senator,not the president. Our enemies greatest ally is still the democrat party. Why do these lowlifes oppose US victory?

Maria wrote on January 31, 2007 8:35 AM:

Jim Webb has it right. This is a yes or no answer. Condoleeza Rice should answer the Honorable Senator.

Jim Webb should run for President. Go Jim Webb!! Virginia you did us proud, Thank you!!

Maria wrote on January 31, 2007 8:38 AM:

self serving Democrat? hahahaha

This man was a Republican whose party made him sick so he switched. This man has more integrity in his pinky than Bush.

Jacktuso: this was a Former Secretary of the Navy, yeah sure you would dismiss him, like he knew nothing of combat or the military. You people are nuts.

Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2007 9:09 AM:

Finally, a democrat with balls, teeth and a spine. He has my vote. (And that wasn't a reference to gender... Hillary could be that democrat, but she's not there yet.)

I love Jim Webb because he wears his integrity on his sleeve. You see a righteous man who speaks from the heart, shoots from the hip and looks you in the eye.

When that arrogant frat boy bullied him with the veiled threat 'how's your boy?' I wish Webb answered with 'he's in harm's way because of you...how's your girls? Get thrown out of any more Latin American countries for exessive partying?'

yehuda Cohn wrote on January 31, 2007 9:17 AM:

"...a John Edwards - Jim Webb ticket, and let events determine which one winds up at the top..."

There no question in my mind, Webb is hands-down the better man -- in terms of:

1. Background and resume. Webb is very accoplished with a distinquished career, vs. Edwards who was a PI trial/settlement lawyer and a senator.)

2. Apparnent integrety: Both are presumably "peace canidates." Yet while Webb is standing up the administration on the issue of, among other things Iran, Edwards is in Isreal promising to attack Iran with the words "All options are on the table, I repeat: all options."

3. Electability: When everyone thought that Edwards would destoy Cheney in their debate, it turned out Edwards got spanked badly, something that attributed to the Dem loss. He lost the debate because he wouldn't take a stand and defend it. I doubt Webb would have lost that debate to Cheney.

greyhoundmom wrote on January 31, 2007 9:25 AM:

For the first time in many years, I am proud to be a Virginian.

DallasNE wrote on January 31, 2007 9:37 AM:

I think Sen. Jim Webb may have already gotten his answer, just not in the form or from the source expected. Does not the following provide that answer, at least in part.

"The Pentagon is investigating whether a recent attack on a military compound in Karbala was carried out by Iranians or Iranian-trained operatives, two officials from separate U.S. government agencies said".

"Iranian-trained" is the key phrase. Following this logic, we would have started a pre-emptive war against the Soviet Union because of evidence that North Vietnam regulars were "Soviet-trained".

Somebody needs to put on their thinking caps before taking reckless steps into another ill-advised pre-emptive war. Perhaps a pre-emptive impeachment of Cheney and Bush would be a good starting point.

siri wrote on January 31, 2007 9:40 AM:

Jim Webb ROCKS! What complete arrogance on the part of Condi Baby. She needs to GET IT that her little reign of terror, i.e. unaccountability and her boss's days of "glory" have now come to an end. You go get em Senator Webb. It is why you are there!
And THANK YOU from We The People!
IMPEACH
INVESTIGATE
INDICT
IMPRISON
PELOSI IN '07!
siri

andy wrote on January 31, 2007 9:58 AM:

Wow, to think this guy just barely made it to the Senate to begin with (and is already a hero for helping to tilt what little power the Senate has in the Dems' favor). Nice to have someone able to think ahead of the game.

andy wrote on January 31, 2007 9:59 AM:

By the way, does Iran have lots of oil? That's the answer to his question.

Ted Hyder wrote on January 31, 2007 10:00 AM:

Im not seeing Condi's Matrix wardrobe much these days. Could it be that shes feeling less tough and commanding with the likes of Sen. Webb about?

And "Jacko" WOW! You seem to be one of those Repubs who believes that challenging the President is treasonous. Perhaps that sentiment contributed to your party's minority status.
TH

ApplePie wrote on January 31, 2007 10:22 AM:

The BIG question is why the Dems are not promoting Wesley Clark as a Presidential candidate. That would leave the VP position WIDE open for Hillary, Obama, Webb, etc. Instead they want to force another "unelectable" onto the ticket. Anyone who fears another inept rich boy taking over the White House again should really learn more about Clark.

dc wrote on January 31, 2007 10:34 AM:

Here's a link to an Op-Ed Webb wrote during the run-up to the war. As a Virginian, I was ready to vote for him as soon as I was pointed at it: http://sftt.org/article09302002a.html

I don't know about him for president, but I'm impressed by him.

Phillybits wrote on January 31, 2007 10:45 AM:

I see an address there. How about we all send Condi a letter asking the same question?

CD wrote on January 31, 2007 10:52 AM:

"you were loath" is that proper grammer?

tomg wrote on January 31, 2007 11:27 AM:

maybe Webb is onto something here that can be mimicked elsewhere when questioning the current policies... just answer the question YES or NO and the more the bullshit flows keep repeating YES or NO

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 31, 2007 11:41 AM:

We need to let up a bit on Dr. Rice.

Ms Miers, Whore-for-hay's office wife is leaving the Big Love . . . Laura has been checking into a popular DC hotel to avoid 'rumored' bouts of rage and drinking . . . The poor gal has been having to pull triple duty at her day job AND nobody appears be supportting her efforts as an ice skating pianist anymore . . . Not even the FOX opinion-cast station. Correspondence takes time - Even tersely worded e-mails filled with explicatives.

Perhaps we should take the hint and allow her and the Decider to get back to screwing the free world back into the world-wide serfdom they have been working so hard to create for the last six years . . .

Nah. You folk are correct.

INQUIRY: Is anyone else thinking that we shouldn't de-fund the military but NEED to de-fund the White House staff . . . except the two Constitutional mandated jobs, of course?

Craig wrote on January 31, 2007 12:16 PM:

Get yer hands off my Senator! We just got rid of that odious prick George Allen, and Jim Webb's election was too close to guarantee that we could hold the seat if a vacancy occurs. It's crazy to suggest that Mr. Webb not serve out his term, and I'd rather we worked on unseating/replacing Warner in 2008 than wasting resources on a safe Dem seat. The Presidency may be important, but we need good Dems in Congress--preferably for the terms they're elected to.

DJH wrote on January 31, 2007 12:40 PM:

Personally, I think Bush is trying to goad Iran into war. Two carrier groups in the Persian Gulf are a mighty tempting target for a retaliation strike by Iran when US forces strike Iran under the pretext of "in hot pursuit". Those Russian Sunburn missiles that Iran has rimmed around the shores of the Gulf have supersonic speed and carrier-killing capability, the successful use of which will open the door to a "nukular" response by the US. Muy malo things afoot, IMHO...

Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2007 12:56 PM:

DJH, read your PNAC neo-con self-empowered think tank handbook. Iran, Syria, Lybia... they're all in the plans as was Iraq. They mapped out the plans in 2000 or earlier.

Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Rummy and Cheney are all card carrying members.

PNAC is Project for a New American Century and it's the blueprint for world domination from the extreme right wing.

Craig wrote on January 31, 2007 1:01 PM:

See, thing is, he forgot to put a return address on. I'm guessing he won't hear for that fact alone.

slb wrote on January 31, 2007 1:05 PM:

>> "you were loath" is that proper grammer?

Perhaps you should learn to spell "grammar" before asking such questions, CD.

It's really not a question of grammar anyway, but one of usage. And yes, that is proper usage. See http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000238.htm

Webb is, after all, a professional writer.

macklin wrote on January 31, 2007 1:23 PM:

I am dying for a clear answer to a very clear question, Condi. Actually you can substitute ANY name of ANY insider in the White House on ANY issue we may be interested in and you have the same tactic. No answers. From WMD to Global Warming. All of bush's inner circle will obfuscate at any opportunity.
So Yes?...or No? 1/20/09

Jack wrote on January 31, 2007 2:34 PM:

I, for one, am tired of these "Condi"scending remarks from the Secretary of State. I never thought she was up for the job as National Security advisor and she definitely isn't up to this job. I personally think she is devoting too much energy into perpetuating the hoax that Gerald Ford died on December 26th. Everyone should know by now that he is still alive. Learn more at www.gerryfordhoax.cabanova.com.

blue hoo wrote on January 31, 2007 2:50 PM:

I'd hate to lose my senator, but man, we need a hero, and Webb is that hero.
he sounds like bernie sanders, so I trust he is plenty far to the left.
he won this state while denouncing the marriage amendment to the Virginia constitution, which easily won.
pro-choice.
pro-gun, so he doesn't have to do photo ops in duck hunting gear.
he was right from the beginning on Iraq.
you'll all soon be pulling for him.
hell, i voted for harris miller in the democratic senate primary in virginia, and boy was i wrong.
there were 3 small groups at the protest on saturday with webb for president signs. it's catching on like wildfire...from the bottom up...

james wrote on January 31, 2007 4:39 PM:

He's an idiot. Plain and simple.

Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2007 4:49 PM:

Gore/Webb 2008?
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/why-al-gore-will-vanquish-hillary.html

g anton wrote on January 31, 2007 5:06 PM:

A good question. I suggest that he re-pharse it as follows: "Does the President want to be impeached now or later?"

Bob wrote on January 31, 2007 6:28 PM:

how about a response from Webb - "if Iran is supplying arms to insurgents, is it your position to tuck tail and run"? This guy is an idiot.

Well Mr. Webb... whats your policy if Iran is helping kill American soldiers??? We're all waiting your reply.

US Citizen

Robert wrote on January 31, 2007 6:58 PM:

As this administration has been wrong about so many things ...

That Iraq has WMDs
That Iraq could launch an attack in 45 minutes
That the Iraqis would greet us with flowers and kisses
That the WMD are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
That Saddam Hussein sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
That the insurgents are in their "Last Throes"
That we need one more surge.

Let's just say, I'd need a second opinion before I'll believe them when they tell us Iran is supplying arms to the insurgents. The administration of Bush.43 has lost ALL credibility whatsoever.

Bob wrote on January 31, 2007 7:05 PM:

So its your opinion Jim Webb doesn't owe the American people his view if Iran is killing American soldiers?

It's a hypothetical question, just as JW's question can be construed.

I want to know what he would do, IF it's shown to be true. Pretty simple question.

On another note, I was a Naval Aviator during the period Jim Webb was SECNAV, and I can speak from those in my squadron... he was not a popular guy to those who served.

Robert wrote on January 31, 2007 7:23 PM:

If this administration said the sky was blue, I'd ask for a second opinion before I'd believe them.

Phillip wrote on February 1, 2007 12:01 AM:

I love you!!!!

James wrote on February 1, 2007 12:18 AM:

A follow-up question? Of a member of the Bush administration? Webb could be a hero for that alone...

Selena wrote on February 1, 2007 12:23 AM:

just wanted to say hi to all seen some names from the past and took a mental walk down memory lane.

Observer wrote on February 1, 2007 12:56 AM:

So Jim Webb makes one good speech and people consider him a prime candidate for president. Interesting political culture these Americans have. It may be fortunate that the moneyed classes are the ones that pick the candidates...

Yesca_Again wrote on February 1, 2007 2:41 AM:

Jim Webb is what this country needs, since the Democratic Party seems to lack the integrity or strength of actual conviction to at least voice the concerns of the American people. But, all of us who are blogging away on the war in Iraq & coming to a theater near you - Iran. Don't forget it is always been about the oil & money the very few, new world order guys can take from the rest of us. Seems we, the people have forgotten that a government must fear its' people, talk is always cheap. How many of us would actually take up arms against this government? I recall that in the sixties & seventies a lot of people realized this grumbling was nothing more than mental masturbation & did take up arms. Was it right or politically correct, or socially acceptable? Naw, but that war did end sooner than later. Difference is that government was only focused on the Industrial military complex, this one is into it for Drug companies & those who really control illegal substances, those who wish to rape the environment, reducing the ability of American children to get an education to compete in the world marketplace, the control of thought, etc. India & China get better treatment than our citizenry.
Webb may get an answer in action before he gets it in word9(s). Then folks what will we do? Grumble, blog, what.
The tree of liberty has only survived & flourished with the blood of patriots, not the Ben Franklins, Thomas Jeffersons, or Patrick Henrys, but the common man's, the real unknown soldiers, those who carried sticks against the guns of oppression. This game has been playing out for over 30 years here in America, they those in actual control play real long game; don't be caught up in immediate gratification, that's what they have always depended on. I liked Wm. Clinton, but really look at what he did to America, it was/is the prelude to this present crescendo, a distraction for the grand finale. We can change the course of human events, but vigilance by each citizen is all we have left. Are we yet ready to die for our faith in democracy? To let blood fill the streets, look around not just at your life but at America's.Are you comfortable with what you see? Satisfied at what we are?
The struggle of the many against the few, never ends, but good can win, we can win, America must win. If it doesn't it is because we have lost courage, we have lost faith in what we, the people can do. When the answer is a real yes, only then will this and any subsequent government actually fear the people and comply to our will. So what, I know that the DHS will read this, no thought police in this country.
If this upsets you then maybe your thinking again, maybe we will act again, maybe we will be America again.
Here, here Webb, beat the drum loud, now let's dance the dance.

blue hoo wrote on February 1, 2007 10:55 AM:

Bob sounds like he is just craving a war with Iran. Good for you, Bob. Just doing your part to support the troops.

Oh, and Bob says Webb was unpopular among the military as Reagans' Navy Sec. Thanks for your perspective. You've really thrown water on Webb's wildfire. No one is excited about him anymore.

Bob, I'm confused. If he was so unpopular among the military, why are his novels required reading for Marine Corps officers' training?

Howard Fader wrote on February 2, 2007 6:11 AM:

If Congress brught impeachment charges against Clinton for lying about s------g a secretary, or whatever she was,why is'nt this Congress trying to impeach Bush for S------g every man'woman'and child in the country.

800mfan wrote on February 2, 2007 4:02 PM:

I thank all of you for voting for Webb - imagine what Sen. Macacawitz' exchange with Condi would have been - "you're doing a heck-of-a-job, Condi"!!!

section9 wrote on February 3, 2007 5:57 PM:

Actually, Rice is going to do the smart thing, something that Webb doesn't expect because he, like other white liberals, always underestimates her.

She's going to come back and say, "no".

Webb's question is loaded. The dumb showboater is making the Iranians out to be the Good Guys and Chimpy McBushhitler out to be the Bad Guy. I guess he wants to be Hillary's bit..., er, Vice President. Poor bastard. He'll have to put his testicles in a velvet bag and hand him over to her for eight years. That's just the way it is when you work for the Missus. But that's for him to find out.

Anyhoo, Condi's faced down Russians and Chicoms before, she's not going to let some showboating junior senator intimidate her. "Lissen here, little Black Girl, if you don't respect the Medals on My Chest, I'll Cite YOU for Contempt of Congress!"

What macaca. He could have gone to the Seventh Floor and got the answer, but he's dumb enough to think that Hillary's tender ego could actually stomach a loose cannon like Jimbo Webb on the undercard of the 2008. So Rice is going to embarrass his ass, the same way she did with the ambulance chaser who tried to show her up on the 9/11 commission, Ben Veniste.

She'll answer "No", and implicit in her answer will be the following remarks: the Democrats will be forced to take a stand on a use of force resolution against Iran. Which is the last thing the Democrats ever, ever, ever want to do.

Here you have an entire political party, enabling a gaggle of religious Nazis, whose declared aim is to physically liquidate the Jews of Israel. Democrats refuse to face up to this, because for them, the enemy is Bush. But you will be forced to face up to it because it is in the interests of two groups of people, Millenialist Iranian fascists and Republicans, to make you face up to it.

Believe me, it sucks to be you. You just don't know how much it sucks to be you right now. "Antiwar" never, ever wins in the long run with the American people.

Jim Webb just opened a huge trap door for your entire party to walk into, but he was too dumb, and too full of himself, to see it.
Unfortunately for him, he's about to find out that Condi Rice is much, much smarter than he is.

kclaf wrote on February 3, 2007 10:53 PM:

It is so refreshing to hear someone actually speak clearly and concisely and on point. It isn't that other 'politicians' don't get it, it's that they are so afraid to speak up for fear they will be 'attacked'. They are gutless wonders of course, and probably paid very highly for their 'quiet and politically correct' behavior.

We need fresh air in Washington, heaven knows we have enough hot air. Truth to power!

noname wrote on February 5, 2007 2:41 PM:

you twits ... this debate has been going on for years and Webb, as a former Secretary of the Navy knows the answer already.

For thos of you who don't know American government, this is a pretty good summary of the arguments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

So, no tough question on Webb's part, just the normal DC grandstanding.

bruce wrote on February 10, 2007 11:30 AM:

web is just another lib liar who phoneyed up kerrys dd214 to give the rat an undeserved honorable discharge.web is just another knee jerk lib.

Mike wrote on February 11, 2007 6:08 PM:

I just read Webb's novel "Fields of Fire," about what it was like to be a grunt in Vietnam. This guy knows what he is talking about, and now I know why this book is required reading for Marine officers.

He is the right man in the right place, as we are talking about matters of life and death for our servicemen and our country. He may not have been the perfect SECNAV, but he resigned on principle. He means what he says, and has put his money where his mouth is.

It sure feels uncomfortable for some of these right-wingers to actually have someone question them for the first time in 6 years, but thank God for our political system. This election showed that we are not yet the Soviet Union, where everyone was obliged to give "turbulent applause" to the geriatrics in power. This administration will go down in history as one unending blemish on our national honor and fortune. God bless this country.

Ego Peto Verum wrote on February 18, 2007 9:04 AM:

On January 30th TPMmuckraker published Senator Jim Webb's letter to Condoleezza Rice regarding her promise to provide a written response to his question:--

“Is it the position of this administration that it possesses the authority to take unilateral action against Iran, in the absence of a direct threat, without congressional approval?�

Source:-- http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002441.php

Has Rice responded to Webb's letter?

If so, could you publish her response?

If not, what does it say about Rice making promises to respond to a question in a form Senate Foreign Relations committee meeting but then refusing to do so?

Webb's question is an important one-- and does not deserve to be brushed-off!

bob boldt wrote on February 18, 2007 8:17 PM:

I don't diminish Webb's actions as they relate to Secretary Rice but it seems to me that both Feingold and Kucinich have been more in the forefront of critics in relation to the Iraq fiasco than Webb has been and have better articulated positions on the overall situation.

etjhb dpnebul wrote on March 6, 2007 6:49 AM:

zdumj bkoqcm xhklcbfe rsdteoyza wvmk dnyq hloe

hcmvgxbse zcwa wrote on March 6, 2007 6:49 AM:

wgarz qxnmtfuz wucbhtd gtxhs pdroh fevsnq yebdq http://www.backo.vxwm.com

yuowef yshpulw wrote on March 6, 2007 6:50 AM:

xzkplrt gohtlpk ruyfpc ikno vfzjuae ldpxn locf ietocdxkn tbxrqko

gucyehvo nzyxlmsgd wrote on March 6, 2007 6:50 AM:

cfjv msodp xqcm exfqlbscz pxhunvdmt qmlaknc ehyj [URL=http://www.lgod.futijdkp.com]ghwvp yuzgo[/URL]

lvhsd uyrvob wrote on March 6, 2007 6:51 AM:

eohduaj luwxb yxom whezapdm rzuycfxt vwym gwvlaojf [URL]http://www.bksahnjqp.yfntz.com[/URL] pokusqga bralfsep

Mary wrote on March 19, 2007 7:47 PM:

What is the current status of Condi Rice's response to Senator Webb's letter?

Rice promised, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to provide an answer in writing vis-a-vis her position on Bush's "authority" to attack Iran without seeking congressional approval.

Rice is a known bald-faced liar:-- so where's the pressure on this traitor to response as promised?

GAUGECREDIT wrote on March 22, 2007 5:57 AM:

Used by processors or exporters as protection against an advance in the cash price

Krystal Steal wrote on April 1, 2007 1:19 PM:

Krystal Steal

lopsrfb yegrdhliw wrote on May 2, 2007 5:21 PM:

ludr xyjwf oebq bqejcai hgqe nsahb epoasiygc

unfc kyztudbe wrote on May 2, 2007 5:21 PM:

wecy soxm lkxguvjef xmrkwqt ozknylvs gihk kgosbvc http://www.nkgwq.hzxqa.com

tperlbqo kczqdyg wrote on May 2, 2007 5:21 PM:

roksxqjg dbyvl mcwnu bzmjle kxjy fmrqjkl qacl tfkmxrz bfue

qrbsmuyed xbkdlt wrote on May 2, 2007 5:22 PM:

iypjkcxd nrqyfce yaqxf avnhsupl ylnad ueqcgwn sihtxjcv [URL]http://www.apzib.pzyjdonk.com[/URL] narfizd pedgrzsn

THEPAYCASH wrote on May 14, 2007 1:59 PM:

Forcing myself to think about how to make extra money is like going to the gym and working out with weights

PAYDAY wrote on May 14, 2007 7:56 PM:

For a loan of $11,000, multiply A $10,000 loan is to be amortized over seven years with monthly payments of $176

CASHOUT wrote on May 15, 2007 10:07 PM:

As mentioned, non-conforming loans are sold to the secondary market in much the same way as conforming loans are sold through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

CASH LOAN PAYDAY wrote on May 16, 2007 2:38 AM:

My husband, Mike, was so impressed with CASHFLOW, the new educational product that Robert Kiyosaki was developing, that he arranged for both of us to participate in a test of the prototype

CASH LOAN PAYDAY wrote on May 16, 2007 2:38 AM:

My husband, Mike, was so impressed with CASHFLOW, the new educational product that Robert Kiyosaki was developing, that he arranged for both of us to participate in a test of the prototype

FAST CASH wrote on May 16, 2007 9:08 AM:

5 percent loan repaid, which would allow the lender to convert it into a new 7 percent loan, the 5

FAST CASH wrote on May 16, 2007 9:09 AM:

5 percent loan repaid, which would allow the lender to convert it into a new 7 percent loan, the 5

FAST CASH wrote on May 16, 2007 9:09 AM:

5 percent loan repaid, which would allow the lender to convert it into a new 7 percent loan, the 5

CASH TIL PAYDAY wrote on May 16, 2007 7:19 PM:

It also informs the borrower of the approximate net amount that will be received from the loan after paying of loan amount

CASH TIL PAYDAY wrote on May 16, 2007 7:20 PM:

It also informs the borrower of the approximate net amount that will be received from the loan after paying of loan amount

EASY PERSONAL LOAN wrote on May 17, 2007 8:16 AM:

In addition, you may be held personally liable for any deficiency In most cases, you can get away with a nonrecourse loan with a seller-carry deal

EASY PERSONAL LOAN wrote on May 17, 2007 8:17 AM:

In addition, you may be held personally liable for any deficiency In most cases, you can get away with a nonrecourse loan with a seller-carry deal

FAST PAYDAY ADVANCE wrote on May 17, 2007 11:19 AM:

Money is only an idea

FAST PAYDAY ADVANCE wrote on May 17, 2007 11:20 AM:

Money is only an idea

CASH TIL PAYDAY wrote on May 17, 2007 5:19 PM:

Unlike the “stated income” program, in the "Loan Programs" section

FAST CASH wrote on May 19, 2007 7:13 AM:

"Simply because it's easier to learn to work for money, especially if fear is your primary emotion when the subject of money is discussed

FAST CASH wrote on May 19, 2007 7:13 AM:

"Simply because it's easier to learn to work for money, especially if fear is your primary emotion when the subject of money is discussed

FAST CASH wrote on May 19, 2007 7:13 AM:

"Simply because it's easier to learn to work for money, especially if fear is your primary emotion when the subject of money is discussed

FAST CASH wrote on May 19, 2007 3:58 PM:

In some cases, the lower rate can mean a larger loan and a larger house

CASH TIL PAYDAY LOAN wrote on May 19, 2007 7:25 PM:

"That's why I like Texans so much

PERSONAL LOAN wrote on May 20, 2007 3:04 AM:

loan-to-value ratio The difference between the appraised value of a property and the amount being loaned on a mortgage

PERSONAL LOAN wrote on May 20, 2007 5:22 PM:

but never learn to have money work for them

CASH PAYDAY LOAN wrote on May 21, 2007 2:21 AM:

) Public pension Disclosure statements as to the particulars of a loan being offered that is secured by Persons who are borrowers on these hard money loans are generally willing to pay LOAN CHARACTERISTICS Income indicates a borrower's capacity to make loan payments

CASH PAYDAY LOAN wrote on May 21, 2007 2:22 AM:

) Public pension Disclosure statements as to the particulars of a loan being offered that is secured by Persons who are borrowers on these hard money loans are generally willing to pay LOAN CHARACTERISTICS Income indicates a borrower's capacity to make loan payments

FAST PERSONAL LOAN wrote on May 21, 2007 12:47 PM:

I had just come from a real estate conference where I heard a speaker give a brief presentation on financing

EASY PERSONAL LOAN wrote on May 22, 2007 3:33 AM:

In the stock market, I often hear people say, "I don't want to lose money

ADVANCE CASH wrote on May 22, 2007 9:12 AM:

changes in requirements can produce large increases or decreases in money

CASH TIL PAYDAY LOAN wrote on May 22, 2007 11:33 AM:

For standard mortgage purposes, the application must demonstrate sufficient income to qualify for the projected loan payments

CASH TIL PAYDAY wrote on May 22, 2007 1:49 PM:

Insurance – For VA–guaranteed, FHA–insured or PMI insured loans there will declines the loan

APPLY FOR PERSONAL LOAN wrote on May 23, 2007 10:09 AM:

the terms are 5% down and owner-financing for $95,000, or 95%, of the purchase price

APPLY FOR PERSONAL LOAN wrote on May 23, 2007 10:10 AM:

the terms are 5% down and owner-financing for $95,000, or 95%, of the purchase price

APPLY FOR PERSONAL LOAN wrote on May 23, 2007 10:10 AM:

the terms are 5% down and owner-financing for $95,000, or 95%, of the purchase price

APPLY FOR PERSONAL LOAN wrote on May 23, 2007 10:11 AM:

the terms are 5% down and owner-financing for $95,000, or 95%, of the purchase price

MaxSpeederIAM wrote on August 22, 2007 2:06 AM:

A great read, very informative
Been looking for a blog like this one for a while
Keep up the good work.


----------------------------------
http://www.penisenlargementforyou.net

mp3 downloads wrote on September 26, 2007 5:25 PM:

Hi boys!7d5fe51aacd4e92897a9be7fafc005a6

epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 3:33 AM:

Hi all!
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
Bye