The MSM NEVER Learns
I heard this earlier this morning over the radio, and now that I have read it, my blood is boiling even more. It is disgusting—absolutely disgusting—that a MSM outlet would turn around and support "Comrade" Richard Durbin for his remarks.
The Minneapolis Star-Tribune this morning printed the editorial below defending Durbin. If our readers will allow me, I would sincerely like to fisk this stupidity.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., set off a firestorm last week when he compared U.S. treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo to practices employed by Nazis, Soviets, Pol Pot and their ilk. His remarks were condemned by the White House, the Pentagon, the Christian Coalition, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Newt Gingrich (who called for his censure by the Senate) and by the entire right side of the talk radio/television/blog world. The heat got so bad that, late in the week, Durbin apologized if his remarks had been "misunderstood." They weren't, and Durbin should not have apologized.
Set off a firestorm? I do not think "firestorm" is an appropo description of the anger that rose in the hearts and souls of Americans. His words were anything but "misunderstood". We—AMERICA—got the message, and it is the same message this nation endured thirty-plus years ago in Vietnam. This is an attempt, by the Left in this nation, to destroy the resolve this nation has mounted in the face of a war that is described best as "Islam vs. Western Civilization". That comes from a close friend that minces little words, and has a keen mind in dealing with current events. There is outrage, and rightly so; it is beyond inappropriate to compare our troops to the thugs that worked for three of the most notorious mass murderers in history. I take personal offense to it as my brother does serve.
He saw what happened on 9/11, and realized that if he did not join and serve, who would? So he did what he believed his heart was telling him. He joined, and he serves today. And I worry every moment of every day over his safety. If he dies, I hold Sen. Durbin and his Democrat cronies in the Senate culpable. And yes, I would demand satisfaction, and the appropriate reciprocity.
Instead, the senator should have hit back hard, just as the Amnesty International did when its comparison of Guantanamo to the Soviet gulag was attacked. By caving in, Durbin did just what the orchestrated right-wing smear effort required to succeed: It made him the story rather than focusing further attention on the outrageous violations of international law and human rights being perpetrated in Guantanamo and elsewhere in the name of the American people.
Morons. Like Durbin was wrong, so was Amnesty International. They referred to Gitmo as a gulag; that statement is not just patently false, but it is ineptly moronic. It proves to people with a brain that they literally have no idea what they are talking about. Amnesty International felt that if they hit back, it would end all debate. The debate, my friends, never ended. There is no evidence to back up their claims. (As a law student, "evidence" means a lot to me.) They have nothing to present except allegations and bald-faced lies. They have proven nothing with their report; nothing that is substantiated.
The comments that were criticized came late in a long, thoughtful speech on the Senate floor in which Durbin reflected on the United States' obligation to be better than reprehensible regimes of the past. He talked at some length about mistakes American presidents made in previous wars (repealing habeas corpus during the Civil War, interning Americans of Japanese descent during World War II, taking over the steel industry during the Korean War), and he urged President Bush to recognize and rectify his mistake in prisoner treatment during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Durbin's entire speech is too long to reprint, but lengthy excerpts can be found on the page opposite.
The cop-out here is that it is too long to reprint. Show me where his comments were "expanded" and I will post them right here. Point being is that the main crux of his statements revolved around this allegation; one peddled by Amnesty International, and picked up by all the extreme Left in this nation. There is no justification for such a comment or a comparison. Durbin caved in? Really? When did I miss that? He did not apologize last week, and despite how the MSM will spin it today, he did not do so this afternoon. The apology was a non-apology, filled with crocodile tears, and more blame tossing. He refuses to accept his responsibility for his actions, and it seems he will not do so ever. So, until he is going, he deserves every beating he gets—verbally or otherwise. (No, I do not advocate violence on the man, but a nice verbal berating by a constituent would be rather amusing.)
Durbin was spot on in his assessment of Guantanamo. That's why he was so roundly attacked. He told the truth. And his message is of vital importance; the United States is better than this.The issue of whether Durbin's rhetoric crossed a line is small potatoes compared with the undeniable truth that American treatment of its prisoners has crossed many, many lines -- of morality, of international law, of practical benefit.
Spot on? Can the monkeys at the Strib (Jim Boyd) pull their head out of their asses enough to know that there has not been one—NOT A SINGLE DETAINEE KILLED OR SERIOUSLY HARMED—at Gitmo? Can they say as much for those that suffered under Hitler? We need not recount his atrocities. They are well-known. Can they say that about the approximately 20 million killed by Stalin and Lenin? How about the three million killed by Pol Pot? Not one prisoner in Gitmo has endured anything worse than humiliation, and I am grossly outraged over the insinuation that our troops are war criminals, which is what Durbin basically did.
And Durbin’s rhetoric is not small potatoes, as Mr. Boyd puts it. His rhetoric reflects the one of the main talking points of a political party that is apparently vehement against anything this nation may do to defend itself. This is the same rhetoric and ideology so prevalent during the Vietname War. The Left loves to bring up Vietnam, and compare it to this war. Neither can be compared. The deaths and casualties do not even rate a comparison. The only thing that is directly comparable to Vietnam is how the Left is acting and reacting, and Durbin displayed it perfectly last Tuesday. The MSM has been doing it since three weeks after Sept. 11th.
But instead of discussing what goes on at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and other prison camps, the right would prefer to get into a senseless argument about whether "we" are better than the Nazis or Saddam Hussein or the Soviets or Pol Pot or whomever a critic of Guantanamo might raise as a comparison. It's a tactic the group running Washington now has used again and again: They're quite deliberately changing the subject -- from Guantanamo to words spoken on the Senate floor.
We did not change the subject. We addressed the overall complaint. That being, a sitting United States Senator compared our troops to bloodthirsty dictators and thugs. That is what this has been about. Especially on the heels of the LGF post yesterday questioning the authenticity of the "memo" that Durbin used. The FBI agent in question has stepped forward and stated that they never reported such incidents at Gitmo. It sounds like Dan Rather did the digging for this memo. And today, the MSM has changed it from a memo—a point that Durbin himself made—to an E-mail he received from an anonymous FBI agent. Well, which is it? Was it a memo, or an E-mail? And I am sure Sen. Durbin would be willing to present that document to the press for them to report on; that way America knows—one way or another—whether he was lying.
It's not too late, as Durbin said of Bush in his speech: The senator should stop apologizing and keep up the criticism of the hellhole America's military has created at Guantanamo. He has no reason to be defensive; he's telling the truth. It's a truth Americans need to hear, and its tellers must resist intimidation.
No, he should issue a full apology; one that he means. Not some half-hearted pap that people expect from him. If he is not serious, then do not issue it. Further, I reemphasize that Durbin’s leadership position should be pulled. We within the GOP demanded Lott’s resignation for a lesser offense. (Granted, it too was egregious, especially when the information surrounding the comments came out.) But I still ask, why does an ass like Durbin get the pass. It is not right. He should be held to account for his actions. Censure is not enough. There is no room for a slap on the wrist, but there is plenty of room for his removal as the Minority Whip.
The Bunny ;)
I heard this earlier this morning over the radio, and now that I have read it, my blood is boiling even more. It is disgusting—absolutely disgusting—that a MSM outlet would turn around and support "Comrade" Richard Durbin for his remarks.
The Minneapolis Star-Tribune this morning printed the editorial below defending Durbin. If our readers will allow me, I would sincerely like to fisk this stupidity.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., set off a firestorm last week when he compared U.S. treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo to practices employed by Nazis, Soviets, Pol Pot and their ilk. His remarks were condemned by the White House, the Pentagon, the Christian Coalition, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Newt Gingrich (who called for his censure by the Senate) and by the entire right side of the talk radio/television/blog world. The heat got so bad that, late in the week, Durbin apologized if his remarks had been "misunderstood." They weren't, and Durbin should not have apologized.
Set off a firestorm? I do not think "firestorm" is an appropo description of the anger that rose in the hearts and souls of Americans. His words were anything but "misunderstood". We—AMERICA—got the message, and it is the same message this nation endured thirty-plus years ago in Vietnam. This is an attempt, by the Left in this nation, to destroy the resolve this nation has mounted in the face of a war that is described best as "Islam vs. Western Civilization". That comes from a close friend that minces little words, and has a keen mind in dealing with current events. There is outrage, and rightly so; it is beyond inappropriate to compare our troops to the thugs that worked for three of the most notorious mass murderers in history. I take personal offense to it as my brother does serve.
He saw what happened on 9/11, and realized that if he did not join and serve, who would? So he did what he believed his heart was telling him. He joined, and he serves today. And I worry every moment of every day over his safety. If he dies, I hold Sen. Durbin and his Democrat cronies in the Senate culpable. And yes, I would demand satisfaction, and the appropriate reciprocity.
Instead, the senator should have hit back hard, just as the Amnesty International did when its comparison of Guantanamo to the Soviet gulag was attacked. By caving in, Durbin did just what the orchestrated right-wing smear effort required to succeed: It made him the story rather than focusing further attention on the outrageous violations of international law and human rights being perpetrated in Guantanamo and elsewhere in the name of the American people.
Morons. Like Durbin was wrong, so was Amnesty International. They referred to Gitmo as a gulag; that statement is not just patently false, but it is ineptly moronic. It proves to people with a brain that they literally have no idea what they are talking about. Amnesty International felt that if they hit back, it would end all debate. The debate, my friends, never ended. There is no evidence to back up their claims. (As a law student, "evidence" means a lot to me.) They have nothing to present except allegations and bald-faced lies. They have proven nothing with their report; nothing that is substantiated.
The comments that were criticized came late in a long, thoughtful speech on the Senate floor in which Durbin reflected on the United States' obligation to be better than reprehensible regimes of the past. He talked at some length about mistakes American presidents made in previous wars (repealing habeas corpus during the Civil War, interning Americans of Japanese descent during World War II, taking over the steel industry during the Korean War), and he urged President Bush to recognize and rectify his mistake in prisoner treatment during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Durbin's entire speech is too long to reprint, but lengthy excerpts can be found on the page opposite.
The cop-out here is that it is too long to reprint. Show me where his comments were "expanded" and I will post them right here. Point being is that the main crux of his statements revolved around this allegation; one peddled by Amnesty International, and picked up by all the extreme Left in this nation. There is no justification for such a comment or a comparison. Durbin caved in? Really? When did I miss that? He did not apologize last week, and despite how the MSM will spin it today, he did not do so this afternoon. The apology was a non-apology, filled with crocodile tears, and more blame tossing. He refuses to accept his responsibility for his actions, and it seems he will not do so ever. So, until he is going, he deserves every beating he gets—verbally or otherwise. (No, I do not advocate violence on the man, but a nice verbal berating by a constituent would be rather amusing.)
Durbin was spot on in his assessment of Guantanamo. That's why he was so roundly attacked. He told the truth. And his message is of vital importance; the United States is better than this.The issue of whether Durbin's rhetoric crossed a line is small potatoes compared with the undeniable truth that American treatment of its prisoners has crossed many, many lines -- of morality, of international law, of practical benefit.
Spot on? Can the monkeys at the Strib (Jim Boyd) pull their head out of their asses enough to know that there has not been one—NOT A SINGLE DETAINEE KILLED OR SERIOUSLY HARMED—at Gitmo? Can they say as much for those that suffered under Hitler? We need not recount his atrocities. They are well-known. Can they say that about the approximately 20 million killed by Stalin and Lenin? How about the three million killed by Pol Pot? Not one prisoner in Gitmo has endured anything worse than humiliation, and I am grossly outraged over the insinuation that our troops are war criminals, which is what Durbin basically did.
And Durbin’s rhetoric is not small potatoes, as Mr. Boyd puts it. His rhetoric reflects the one of the main talking points of a political party that is apparently vehement against anything this nation may do to defend itself. This is the same rhetoric and ideology so prevalent during the Vietname War. The Left loves to bring up Vietnam, and compare it to this war. Neither can be compared. The deaths and casualties do not even rate a comparison. The only thing that is directly comparable to Vietnam is how the Left is acting and reacting, and Durbin displayed it perfectly last Tuesday. The MSM has been doing it since three weeks after Sept. 11th.
But instead of discussing what goes on at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and other prison camps, the right would prefer to get into a senseless argument about whether "we" are better than the Nazis or Saddam Hussein or the Soviets or Pol Pot or whomever a critic of Guantanamo might raise as a comparison. It's a tactic the group running Washington now has used again and again: They're quite deliberately changing the subject -- from Guantanamo to words spoken on the Senate floor.
We did not change the subject. We addressed the overall complaint. That being, a sitting United States Senator compared our troops to bloodthirsty dictators and thugs. That is what this has been about. Especially on the heels of the LGF post yesterday questioning the authenticity of the "memo" that Durbin used. The FBI agent in question has stepped forward and stated that they never reported such incidents at Gitmo. It sounds like Dan Rather did the digging for this memo. And today, the MSM has changed it from a memo—a point that Durbin himself made—to an E-mail he received from an anonymous FBI agent. Well, which is it? Was it a memo, or an E-mail? And I am sure Sen. Durbin would be willing to present that document to the press for them to report on; that way America knows—one way or another—whether he was lying.
It's not too late, as Durbin said of Bush in his speech: The senator should stop apologizing and keep up the criticism of the hellhole America's military has created at Guantanamo. He has no reason to be defensive; he's telling the truth. It's a truth Americans need to hear, and its tellers must resist intimidation.
No, he should issue a full apology; one that he means. Not some half-hearted pap that people expect from him. If he is not serious, then do not issue it. Further, I reemphasize that Durbin’s leadership position should be pulled. We within the GOP demanded Lott’s resignation for a lesser offense. (Granted, it too was egregious, especially when the information surrounding the comments came out.) But I still ask, why does an ass like Durbin get the pass. It is not right. He should be held to account for his actions. Censure is not enough. There is no room for a slap on the wrist, but there is plenty of room for his removal as the Minority Whip.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:17 PM
1 Comments:
Another well written blog. I've said this before and I repeat myself. I detest the anti war protesters. Don't I recognize their "right" to speak out? I saw what the result of protesting does. It wounds and kills our troops. The protesters emboldens the enemy to fight harder. They give aid and comfort to the enemy. senator durbin is in the class of people. What he says on the senate floor is a privilege and not a right. When the intended consequences are known, death and injury, that makes him a traitor. He should be expelled from the senate. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home