Steyn: Durbin Slanders His Own Country

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
…

Now let us turn to the ranking Democrat, the big cheese on the committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Leahy thinks Gitmo needs to be closed down and argues as follows:

“America was once very rightly viewed as a leader in human rights and the rule of law, but Guantanamo has drained our leadership, our credibility, and the world’s good will for America at alarming rates.”

So, until Guantanamo, America was “viewed as a leader in human rights”? Not in 2004, when Abu Ghraib was the atrocity du jour. Not in 2003, when every humanitarian organization on the planet was predicting the deaths of millions of Iraqis from cholera, dysentery and other diseases caused by America’s “war for oil.” Not in 2002, when the “human rights” lobby filled the streets of Vancouver and London and Rome and Sydney to protest the Bushitler’s plans to end the benign reign of good King Saddam. Not the weekend before 9/11 when the human rights grandees of the U.N. “anti-racism” conference met in South Africa to demand America pay reparations for the Rwandan genocide and to cheer Robert Mugabe to the rafters for calling on Britain and America to “apologize unreservedly for their crimes against humanity.” If you close Gitmo tomorrow, the world’s anti-Americans will look around and within 48 hours alight on something else for Gulag of the Week.

And this is where it’s time to question Durbin’s patriotism. As Leahy implicitly acknowledges, Guantanamo is about “image” and “perception” – about how others see America. If this one small camp of a few hundred people has “drained the world’s good will,” whose fault is that?

The senator from Illinois’ comparisons are as tired as they’re grotesque. They add nothing useful to the debate. But around the planet, folks naturally figure that, if only 100 people out of nearly 300 million get to be senators, the position must be a big deal. Hence, headlines in the Arab world like “U.S. Senator Stands By Nazi Remark.” That’s al-Jazeera, where the senator from al-Inois is now a big hero – for slandering his own country, for confirming the lurid propaganda of his country’s enemies. Yes, folks, American soldiers are Nazis and American prison camps are gulags: don’t take our word for it, Senator Bigshot says so. This isn’t a Republican vs Democrat thing; it’s about senior Democrats who are so over-invested in their hatred of a passing administration that they’ve signed on to the nuttiest slurs of the lunatic fringe. It would be heartening to think that Durbin will himself now be subjected to some serious torture. Not real torture, of course; I don’t mean using Pol Pot techniques and playing the Celine Dion Christmas album really loud to him. But he should at least be made a little uncomfortable over what he’s done – in a time of war, make an inflammatory libel against his country’s military that has no value whatsoever except to America’s enemies. Shame on him, and shame on those fellow senators and Democrats who by their refusal to condemn him endorse his slander.

Read the rest
 
More from Instapundit:

UPDATE: Roger Simon wonders if the Democrats are "breeding a new generation of Father Coughlins." Actually, I think it was bred 40 years ago; it’s just reaching maturity now.

BlackFive has collected some military reactions to Durbin, too. And here’s another from a Vietnam POW.

ANOTHER UPDATE: A call for the Senate to censure Durbin for his remarks. Reader Monica Moncrief remarks:

I find the censuring idea interesting since Senators would have to vote on it, and therefore take a position on the comments. It would be fascinating to hear the opposing Senators’ positions.

Yes, it would certainly put them on the spot. Meanwhile, Dave Kopel injects a note of critical reason lacking from discussions by Amnesty and Sen. Durbin.

MORE: More on censuring Durbin here.
 
It’s the soldier that he is slandering who gives him the freedom of speech that he is abusing.
 
I wonder if Durbin ever stopped to think what would have happened to him if he had been in Iraq under Saddam and had said such a thing. He would have had his tongue torn out…or worse. Hmmm…
 
40.png
geezerbob:
I wonder if Durbin ever stopped to think what would have happened to him if he had been in Iraq under Saddam and had said such a thing. He would have had his tongue torn out…or worse. Hmmm…
If Durbin can’t tell the difference between our troops harsh interrogations and the tortures by regimes like the Nazis or the Saddam regime he must be either appallingly stupid or hitting the sauce pretty hard. Having met the man, I don’t think he is either–so the only explanation is that he is only motivated by winning elections and hurting those with whom he disagrees/dislikes.

Since I doubt he actually believes what is coming out of his mouth, it is merely a political tactic, when his false words are used as more evidence we are “the great Satan” and to preach jihid, then it becomes “Durbin lied, soldiers died.”
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
He should resign immediately!
If his district doesn’t want him, they can get rid of him. Just like Tom DeLay. They weren’t put off by charges against him, and neither are Durbin’s voters.
 
40.png
geezerbob:
I wonder if Durbin ever stopped to think what would have happened to him if he had been in Iraq under Saddam and had said such a thing. He would have had his tongue torn out…or worse. Hmmm…
What does this have to do with anything?

Are you saying the obvious? That there are places in the world that do not enjoy the same freedom speech rights as Americans do? Wow! Big News!!
 
40.png
Richardols:
If his district doesn’t want him, they can get rid of him. Just like Tom DeLay. They weren’t put off by charges against him, and neither are Durbin’s voters.
Personally, I don’t care if he resigns from the House or not. He should resign from his leadership position in the Democratic Party (that is of course, assuming the Dems don’t agree with him…)
 
MARK STEYN HAS MUCH MORE ON DICK DURBIN:

Judging from the way he’s dug himself in, Dick Durbin, the Number Two Democrat in the US Senate, genuinely believes Gitmo is analogous to Belsen, the gulags and the killing fields. But he crossed a line, from anti-Bush to anti-American, and most Americans have no interest in following him down that path.You can’t claim (as Democrats do, incessantly) to “support our troops” and then dump them in the same category as the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge. In the hermetically sealed echo chamber between the Dem leadership, the mainstream US media, Hollywood, Ivy League “intellectuals” and European sophisticates, the gulag cracks are utterly unexceptional. But, for a political party that keeps losing elections because it has less and less appeal outside a few coastal enclaves, Durbin’s remarks are devastating. The Democrats flopped in 2002 and 2004 because they were seen as incoherent on national security issues. Explicitly branding themselves as the “terrorists’ rights” party is unlikely to improve their chances for 2006.

Indeed. Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: If you haven’t read it already, this piece by Tom Bevan on Durbin is a must-read.

Hat Tip
 
Further proof of MSM censoring:
Media Blackout as Cheney Blasts Durbin
Spefically:
But so far, at least, mainstream reporters have steadfastly ignored Cheney’s remarks - perhaps because they know that the VP’s reaction ratchets the story up to Defcon 3 level, and covering it would make it impossible for Democrats to continue their silence
It is time we hold the MSM accountable for their biased reporting.

PF
 
When Trent Lott made his comments, I was for his resignation as Majority Leader. Durbin not only made a stupid comment that warrants a resignation as Assistant Minority Leader, he grievously slandered our troops during a time of war on the Senate floor and ought to be censored or worse.

Of course, I am holding him to Republican standards.

By Democratic standards… we must attack the Republicans, being responsible for everything. :rolleyes:
 
“The Democrats flopped in 2002 and 2004 because they were seen as incoherent on national security issues. Explicitly branding themselves as the “terrorists’ rights” party is unlikely to improve their chances for 2006.”…

Ain’t that the truth…
 
HagiaSophia said:
“The Democrats flopped in 2002 and 2004 because they were seen as incoherent on national security issues. Explicitly branding themselves as the “terrorists’ rights” party is unlikely to improve their chances for 2006.”…

Ain’t that the truth…

They are heading that way now as well. Interestingly, Hillery isn’t.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top