The Shameless
Who needs a preamble?
Senator Pat "Leaky" Leahy (D-VT):
Sounds a lot like Turban Durbin's pathetically puerile defense of Howie Dean week before last, doesn't it? Only even sillier, since Durbin's seditious slander was uttered on the Senate floor before the C-SPAN cameras. Kinda hard to take that "out of context," isn't it, Senator?
But Leahy couldn't just leave it at defending the indefensible - he had to add his own chapter to the treacherous tome:
Hmmm. Liberation from a murderous aggressor tyrant and terrorism sponsor; rebuilding of the country's infrastructure; a chance at democratic self-governance; and assistance in fighting the assymmetrical Islamist invasion from Iran via Syria. Yeah, that's some "damage" tally.
This is why, though Durbin definitely merits censure and ouster, there will be no shortage of other such voices to take up the slack he would leave behind. He's just the latest poster boy for left-wing extremist treachery.
Others are conspicuous by their deafening silence:
1) What the Dem message on Gitmo is supposed to be - i.e. that our (entirely false and trumped up) "abuses" are at odds with our "values" and make us "look bad" to the "rest of the world." In essence, that we should quit the GWOT in order to prostrate ourselves for the favor (and amusement) of our enemies and fair-weather "friends." Or, to distill it even further, to return to the very same "anti-terror" policies that left us wide open to the 9/11 attacks in the first place.
2) How Durbin bleeped up that message by "Deanizing" his rhetoric and making himself and his party the public focus instead of the Bush Administration.
3) Just how deep Durbin stepped in it and how popular his words were with the Dems' Sorosian/Frankenoid/Moore-on base. Given her presidential ambitions, Hillary doesn't dare endorse it publicly. But if she, or any purportedly "responsible" Donk, does the right thing and condemns what he said, the fever swamp crazoids will tear them limb from bloody limb.
I agree with those who maintain that Durbin didn't say anything the vast majority of Democrats don't already think. But for those Dems who aren't lunatics, they're not far from being hostages to their own crypto-Marxist base.
It's almost ironic in a sense, because if there would be a better opportunity for Mrs. Clinton to garner her "Sister Souljah moment" and make some serious inroads into the "red" states, I don't know what it would be. And she alone of all elected Dems has the prestige, insulation, and blackmail archive, to take such a self-serving stance and make it stick.
Maybe she's keeping her triangulation powder dry for a year or two from now when it might do her White House lusting more good. But she would be well-advised to reconsider, while she still has a national platform from which to launch that bid. At this rate, the Democrat Party might be little more than a burned-out husk by the time the next presidential cycle rolls around.
Senator Pat "Leaky" Leahy (D-VT):
Vermont Senator Pat "Leaky" Leahy tried to spin his way out of the Democrats' Nazi-gate scandal yesterday - after Illinois Senator Dick Durbin compared U.S. troops at Guantanamo Bay to soldiers in Hitler's Third Reich - by saying his colleague was "misquoted" in the Wall Street Journal.
Asked whether he objected to Durbin's characterization of GI's as "Nazis," Leahy told WVMT Vermont's Charlie & Ernie radio show, "First of all, with Senator Durbin, I'd be very careful about taking quotes off the Wall Street Journal editorial page. They are notorious for taking quotes totally out of context," he added, "even making them up."
Sounds a lot like Turban Durbin's pathetically puerile defense of Howie Dean week before last, doesn't it? Only even sillier, since Durbin's seditious slander was uttered on the Senate floor before the C-SPAN cameras. Kinda hard to take that "out of context," isn't it, Senator?
But Leahy couldn't just leave it at defending the indefensible - he had to add his own chapter to the treacherous tome:
Unfazed by his error, Leahy blasted the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq, suggesting that the U.S. had done just as much damage to Iraq as Saddam Hussein. [emphasis added]
Reminded of the Iraqi lives that have been saved since Saddam's fall, Leahy shot back - "We could also think of the tens of thousands of Iraqi lives that have been lost since the fall of Hussein."
Hmmm. Liberation from a murderous aggressor tyrant and terrorism sponsor; rebuilding of the country's infrastructure; a chance at democratic self-governance; and assistance in fighting the assymmetrical Islamist invasion from Iran via Syria. Yeah, that's some "damage" tally.
This is why, though Durbin definitely merits censure and ouster, there will be no shortage of other such voices to take up the slack he would leave behind. He's just the latest poster boy for left-wing extremist treachery.
Others are conspicuous by their deafening silence:
New York Senator Hillary Clinton ducked questions yesterday about her colleague Dick Durbin's charge that U.S. troops at Guantanamo Bay conducted themselves like "Nazis" - but she did offer Durbin some tactical support by calling for a new probe into prisoner abuse by American GIs.Here we see a number of things.
"I think that there is a lot of reason to be concerned about what's going on there and the unfortunate image that it portrays to the rest of the world about our country and our values, our legal system," Clinton told NBC's Today show.
"I would very strongly urge that we appoint an independent commission and that independent commission quickly look into all of these allegations and come up with recommendations," she added.
Later in the day, Clinton was asked specifically about Durbin's "Nazi" characterization of U.S. guards at Guantanamo.
According to the Washington Times, Mrs. Clinton "declined to comment, saying she had not heard Mr. Durbin's speech. When a reporter read the passage to her, she declined again."
1) What the Dem message on Gitmo is supposed to be - i.e. that our (entirely false and trumped up) "abuses" are at odds with our "values" and make us "look bad" to the "rest of the world." In essence, that we should quit the GWOT in order to prostrate ourselves for the favor (and amusement) of our enemies and fair-weather "friends." Or, to distill it even further, to return to the very same "anti-terror" policies that left us wide open to the 9/11 attacks in the first place.
2) How Durbin bleeped up that message by "Deanizing" his rhetoric and making himself and his party the public focus instead of the Bush Administration.
3) Just how deep Durbin stepped in it and how popular his words were with the Dems' Sorosian/Frankenoid/Moore-on base. Given her presidential ambitions, Hillary doesn't dare endorse it publicly. But if she, or any purportedly "responsible" Donk, does the right thing and condemns what he said, the fever swamp crazoids will tear them limb from bloody limb.
I agree with those who maintain that Durbin didn't say anything the vast majority of Democrats don't already think. But for those Dems who aren't lunatics, they're not far from being hostages to their own crypto-Marxist base.
It's almost ironic in a sense, because if there would be a better opportunity for Mrs. Clinton to garner her "Sister Souljah moment" and make some serious inroads into the "red" states, I don't know what it would be. And she alone of all elected Dems has the prestige, insulation, and blackmail archive, to take such a self-serving stance and make it stick.
Maybe she's keeping her triangulation powder dry for a year or two from now when it might do her White House lusting more good. But she would be well-advised to reconsider, while she still has a national platform from which to launch that bid. At this rate, the Democrat Party might be little more than a burned-out husk by the time the next presidential cycle rolls around.
posted by JASmius at 12:24 PM
<<< Home