Monday, June 20, 2005

Durbin Is No Victim But He Is A Spokesman Speaking For His Party

Hugh Hewitt has an article in the Weekly Standard on Durbin that does a deep analysis of what Durbin said, why he said, why a Democrat said it, and what convictions drive the number two Democrat leader of the Senate to spew such vial:

Hugh's Durbin Read

This I think captures the essence of the Hewitt piece and the Durbin actions that deserves to be "Censured":

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.

Well said Hugh, I think your right on the money. I've posted on the ghost of Vietnam many times on my blog as being one of the driving forces of the DNC and the MSM's coverage of the Dems.............................................