Go to A Distant Drum of the Coming Revolution
- Add a comment
- Go to Durbin apologizes . . . or does he?
Good stuff, everyone!
Welcome, Loud-n-proud! Your point about letting the Iraqis fight for their own freedom is highly problematical. First off, the victims of a totalitarian state like Baathist Iraq do not have the ability to fight for their freedom. They are unarmed and under the boot of a military dictatorship. The desire for freedom is there, but not the power or means to win it.
Second, the comparison to the American Revolution fails. First, unlike the Iraqis under Sadaam, the Americans had guns, for both defense against Indian attack and for hunting. Second, they were in a better position to rebel because the British government was across the Atlantic and had a substantial time delay in reacting to the situation here.
As for supporting the troops by bringing them home, the whole idea of supporting them is to support them in the performance of their duty and their mission.
Durbin’s and other such remarks do indeed endanger them by inflaming opinion against them, here or abroad. Ask any Vietnam veteran who was called a baby-killer how it felt to be hated at home because pf the inflammatory rhetoric of opponents to the war.
Twodog, we know who’s really beating around the Bush. I haven’t heard of any such polls either. I understand Durbin has lots of union support, but I’ll bet my lunch that a lot of rank-and-file union members are pretty disgusted with him.
Kingmi, see my new post about Karl Rove for more discussion on the contrast you bring out.
posted by
WriterofLight
on June 25, 2005 at 10:42 AM
| link to this | reply
WoL, Get the difference between what he said and our side --
"The Republican leadership priority is to have our troops hunt down, kill or capture terrorists before they try to attack us again at home," said Ron Bonjean, spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois.
"The Democratic leadership priority is to actively engage in the politics of division and distraction that can undermine our national security in favor of a left-wing agenda," he said.
posted by
kingmi
on June 23, 2005 at 4:53 PM
| link to this | reply
Loud -n- Proud
I wonder when anyone, while old Sadam was around, applied at the local courthouse for a weapons permit? If I remember right, those pesky insergents, those blood thursty terrorists, you know the folks that kicked the Brits on out of here, and killed off a bunch of my folks, near all of them, for they were through, grew up with weapons, and I do believe that's why they managed to get the job done, back in the 1770's.
posted by
twodog
on June 22, 2005 at 8:56 PM
| link to this | reply
Winteroflight
Come on, stop beating around the bush, tell us what you really think. I can only say, I agree. Dubin lives by words, he was reading a prepared statement, and knew exactly, word by word, what he was saying, and what the words were ment to convey. Oh, by the way, have you seen any polls lately on how the folks in Illinois feel about their Senator? I haven't, and I've looked for them. You don't think the main stream media has decided not to poll on this one, do you?
posted by
twodog
on June 22, 2005 at 8:52 PM
| link to this | reply
Good opinion-giving everybody -- not one name called!
posted by
kingmi
on June 22, 2005 at 8:28 PM
| link to this | reply
What really endangers our troops...
The words of Durbin, either the statement, or his apology are not what endangers our troops. They are endangered because they are in Iraq. If you really supported our troops, you would be asking Bush to bring them home. He had no business sending them to begin with as the majority of Americans now agree.
Saddam wasn't a great guy, but if the people of Iraq really wanted freedom, they would have done as we did in 1776 and fought for it themselves. Anything else is like buying a car for a rich kid, it won't be appreciated. We should not be risking the lives of our citizens for the freedom of theirs.
posted by
Loud-n-Proud
on June 22, 2005 at 8:23 PM
| link to this | reply
Anti-Bush, or inflamming world opinion?
Thanks for the comment, kingmi, but I had to read it a couple of times to make sense of the first couple of sentences. You may be right, he may not have realized the impact the statements would have. But given the riots over Fictionweek's false allegations of Qu'ran abuse, I cannot imagine him being unaware of the possibility. Be that as it may, he most certainly meant them to be "anti-Bush."
posted by
WriterofLight
on June 22, 2005 at 8:16 PM
| link to this | reply
WoL, I disagree with you insofar as Durbin knew that his statements would
be anti-Bush. I do not think he intended to exacerbate the conflagration of anti-America world opinion. However, I agree with you that he knew undermining the president and the troops, full well, in a time of war, would disempower USA, weaken the war effort, and inexorably cost young American men and women to die. Even if he did this unknowingly, I still call that criminal and unpatriotic; done for political gain. That's another instance of AlGoreKerryDeanism.
posted by
kingmi
on June 22, 2005 at 8:08 PM
| link to this | reply