Turban Durbin Expectedly Unrepentant
I was going to subject Dicky boy to another Gitmo-class fisking over the weekend on his comments in this WGN radio interview from last Friday, but never got to it. It's just as well, I suppose, since I predicted last week that Durbin wouldn't be changing his tune, and why:
And, sure enough....
So Durbin sees his job as smearing his own President and the armed forces he commands as Nazis, gulagists, and Khmer Rouge wannabes. That's a remarkable level of candor for a member of such a chronicly dishonest party.
As to Durbin's "so-called apology," that derisive description is way too generous:
That graf is far too ironic for observational cyncism to be repressed. Put another way, Durbin can't possibly be this obtuse. We know perfectly well what his "true feelings" are because he "misused and misunderstood" the historical parallels he referenced [case in point]. He knowingly and purposefully compared U.S. soldiers at Guantanamo Bay, and the Commander-in-Chief under whose command they serve, to Adolph Hitler, the Evil Empire, and Pol Pot. That's what he meant to say, he did precisely that, and he's going to continue to say it until, in his mind, George Bush is dragged out of the White House in chains just like Saddam Hussein was.
Likewise, his party will never cooperate - in "bipartisan fashion"! - with the Republicans in censuring him or ousting him from his seat altogether. Consequently it falls to the GOP to impose the censure, at least, unilaterally, if necessary.
As if....
Oh, there have been a few gestures from House Republican leaders, freshman 'Pubbie senators (Burr, Coburn, DeMint, Isakson, Martinez, Thune, and Vitter), Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and Senators Warner, Kyl, Sessions, and McConnell on the Senate floor last week. But scolding ain't gonna feed the bulldog, as it were, nor will Darth Queeg's smirking assurance that Durbin will "apologize within the next week." For, yes, the good of the U.S. Senate itself, this man must be censured and his anti-American slander officially and institutionally repudiated if there is to be any chance of mitigating the damage it has already done to our international standing and in encouraging the enemy to press its attacks in hopes of finally forcing us to cut & run.
Like Newt Gingrich over the weekend, Hugh Hewitt makes an outstanding case:
The corallary follows like the sunrise: Why should Turban Durbin?
UPDATE: Could Senate 'Pubbies actually be moving in this direction?
If I were in the Dem caucus, that last sentence would have me wetting my pants. The reason Dems are clamming up on Durbingate is because they don't want to look like kooks while at the same time not alienating the kooks in their base. A censure vote would force each one of them to choose. And a censure measure is also something where a filibuster would be the functional equivalent of a "nay" vote, which is why the six "red"state Dems up for re-election next year would almost certainly vote for cloture.
If the majority can act like the majority on this, Turban Durbin's attempt to "Vietnamize" the GWOT will be squashed flat - and his party can make its latest narrow escape from itself.
As to the business of a Durbin apology or resignation, let's get real. He will do neither, because he is without honor and as power-lusting as any other Donk. What he said on Tuesday evening wasn't a gaffe, it was a moment of frank candor. That's what he and his fellow bottom-feeders honestly think of the military and their own country when they're not in charge of it. You might as well demand that a Catholic renounce the catechism.
And, sure enough....
Hours after Senator Dick Durbin issued his so-called "apology" for comparing U.S. troops to "Nazis," the Illinois Democrat turned defiant over the blunder - declaring flat out that he has nothing whatsoever to apologize for.Translation: "My critics noticed my context and I'm having a devil of a time spinning it."
"It's not that my remarks were wrong or that there's any need for apology," Durbin told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Friday. "It's the fact that [my critics] have successfully twisted them out of context."
Durbin blamed conservatives for his troubles, saying that he refused to be "intimidated by the right-wing message machine."
"If I'm going to back off every time they decide they're unhappy with my statements, then I really won't be doing my job."
So Durbin sees his job as smearing his own President and the armed forces he commands as Nazis, gulagists, and Khmer Rouge wannabes. That's a remarkable level of candor for a member of such a chronicly dishonest party.
Durbin vowed to pursue his investigation into Nazi-like abuses perpetrated by U.S. troops, telling the paper: "We're going to continue to follow this [and] demand that the Administration be held accountable."Translation: If you think what I said last Tuesday was outrageous, you ain't seen nothing yet.
As to Durbin's "so-called apology," that derisive description is way too generous:
"I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood," Durbin explained. "I sincerely regret if what I said caused anyone to misunderstand my true feelings: Our soldiers around the world and their families at home deserve our respect, admiration and total support."
That graf is far too ironic for observational cyncism to be repressed. Put another way, Durbin can't possibly be this obtuse. We know perfectly well what his "true feelings" are because he "misused and misunderstood" the historical parallels he referenced [case in point]. He knowingly and purposefully compared U.S. soldiers at Guantanamo Bay, and the Commander-in-Chief under whose command they serve, to Adolph Hitler, the Evil Empire, and Pol Pot. That's what he meant to say, he did precisely that, and he's going to continue to say it until, in his mind, George Bush is dragged out of the White House in chains just like Saddam Hussein was.
Likewise, his party will never cooperate - in "bipartisan fashion"! - with the Republicans in censuring him or ousting him from his seat altogether. Consequently it falls to the GOP to impose the censure, at least, unilaterally, if necessary.
As if....
Oh, there have been a few gestures from House Republican leaders, freshman 'Pubbie senators (Burr, Coburn, DeMint, Isakson, Martinez, Thune, and Vitter), Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and Senators Warner, Kyl, Sessions, and McConnell on the Senate floor last week. But scolding ain't gonna feed the bulldog, as it were, nor will Darth Queeg's smirking assurance that Durbin will "apologize within the next week." For, yes, the good of the U.S. Senate itself, this man must be censured and his anti-American slander officially and institutionally repudiated if there is to be any chance of mitigating the damage it has already done to our international standing and in encouraging the enemy to press its attacks in hopes of finally forcing us to cut & run.
Like Newt Gingrich over the weekend, Hugh Hewitt makes an outstanding case:
Senate Majority Leader [heh] Bill Frist and Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter should move this week to initiate a censure resolution of Illinois Senator Dick Durbin for his remarks on the Senate's floor on June 14, 2005. Not only did Durbin's remarks injure America's position in the world, provide an enormous propaganda victory to the enemy, and slander the United States military, they also represent an escalation in the political rhetoric of the left, which is designed to undermine the public's confidence in the military, the Administration, and the war. The censure resolution will oblige every senator to go on the record about how they view the American military as we enter the long phase of the war....Senate Pachyderms should ask themselves just one simple, straightfoward question: could one of them survive an equivalent public upchucking? Only then should they allow Trent Lott into the meeting.
Durbin's remarks should not be allowed to be edited away with an apology. The American electorate does not believe the conditions at Guantanamo are "torture." They do not agree that the criminal conduct of Abu Ghraib is illustrative of the American military. They do not worry that we are being overly inclusive about the population at Gitmo. They do not believe that any part of what America been about since September 11 is in any way connected with the Nazis, the Stalinists, or Pol Pot.
They are disgusted over this slander of the military, and they deserve a vote on whether Senator Durbin's argument deserves anything except complete and quick condemnation by responsible members of both parties intent on supporting the war, the military, and the country's defense.
Dick Durbin hasn't been misunderstood, as his Friday web statement claims. He isn't the victim of a right-wing media, as his Friday interview argues. Dick Durbin has been perfectly understood. All of his words have been read and listened to, in their original context and in his original delivery.
Durbin stands with the Michael Moore left, the Howard Dean attack-America-first caucus, and the international chorus that assigns the responsibility for the jihadists to American overreach in the world.
The election of 2004 might have been the occasion when the Democratic leadership took account of where American public opinion stands on this war. That leadership rejected the results of November because those results rejected them. In response they have upped the rhetoric, intent on a replay of the anti-war movement and rhetoric of the late '60s and early '70s, hopeful of converting Bush to Nixon, and of driving American power back to its own shores. The tactic of demonizing the American military worked then, so it is being replayed now. If this rhetoric is not checked, it is only a matter of time until we have a new John Kerry discussing the "Genghis Khan" tactics of the American military operating in the Middle East.
Durbin's slander was simply a rhetorical bridge too far, but for both the man and his party there are no regrets and no apology. Not one senior Democrat has condemned Durbin's statement. Not one Democratic senator has asked for a caucus meeting.
The difference between 2005 and the Vietnam era, however, lies in the public's appreciation of its soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, founded in no small part on the public's recognition that the consequences of a collapse of American will in the new millennium will not be millions dead in Europe or Asia, but more Americans dead in America.
Censure Durbin because he deserves it, and the country's defense demands it.
The corallary follows like the sunrise: Why should Turban Durbin?
UPDATE: Could Senate 'Pubbies actually be moving in this direction?
Arizona's United States Senator Jon Kyl confirmed on my show a few minutes ago that the GOP leadership in the Senate had sent a letter to Harry Reid with a copy to Dick Durbin demanding that Durbin apologize for his remarks and strike them from the record. If Durbin refuses, Kyl noted, there are "other options." [quotes added]
If I were in the Dem caucus, that last sentence would have me wetting my pants. The reason Dems are clamming up on Durbingate is because they don't want to look like kooks while at the same time not alienating the kooks in their base. A censure vote would force each one of them to choose. And a censure measure is also something where a filibuster would be the functional equivalent of a "nay" vote, which is why the six "red"state Dems up for re-election next year would almost certainly vote for cloture.
If the majority can act like the majority on this, Turban Durbin's attempt to "Vietnamize" the GWOT will be squashed flat - and his party can make its latest narrow escape from itself.
posted by JASmius at 4:57 PM
<<< Home