Reaping

The Democrats have only begun to pay for Senator Richard Durbin’s slander of the military.

Soldiers from Massachusetts and Hawaii who work at the U.S. military detention facility at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, gave visiting home-state senators a piece of their mind last week.

Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, and Daniel K. Akaka, Hawaii Democrat, met with several soldiers during a visit led by Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican. [SNIP]

Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, last month invoked widespread military outrage when he compared Guantanamo to the prison labor systems used by communist tyrant Josef Stalin, Cambodia's Pol Pot and Adolf Hitler.

"They got stiff reactions from those home-state soldiers," one official told us. "The troops down there expressed their disdain for that kind of commentary, especially comparisons to the gulag."

But, of course, neither of them has anything to say about it in public, not, at least until they’ve had the chance to get the talking points straight with Senators Clinton, Schumer, Reid, etc.

Both senators made no mention of the incident in press statements after the visit. Mr. Kennedy, in his statement, said that he is "impressed with the courtesies and professionalism of the men and women in our armed forces."

I wonder whether Senator Kennedy came away from the visit with a certain brown substance on his perennially red nose.

Blackfive says:

[W]hat [politicians] are going to find, to the Democrats' dismay, is that there will be an awful lot of war heroes coming home...and they just might run for office. Democrat or Republican. Independent or Libertarian.

For example, Illinois has had a lot of Soldiers and Marines deployed in the War on Terror. The Mad Ghosts (2/24 Marines) that I featured here often are from Chicago. I'm sure you'll find some of them interested in the possibilities of removing Durbin from office. [SNIP]

For those of you serving, think about who represents you. Are they doing the job that they were hired to do? If not, you may want to follow Rusten Currie's lead. [Look out, Maxine Waters!]

And Austin Bay says:

The press and bloggers need to either get transcripts of the interviews or — better yet– let’s get some of these soldiers on-line to tell us what they told their senators. Just imagine the headlines and obliterative outrage if Repubs touring Gitmo got an earful from the troops.

I know that there are a few active GIs who read this blog. Spread the word and find out who the participating guys/girls were. I’d be quite happy to give them a forum here.

(Thanks to Instapundit)

Comments

[Charles]

Yep; Some politicians are going to find out that those in the U.S. military are not the uneducated folks that those on the left often assume them to be. I hope many of the returning military personnel do become involved in politics. We could use some voices of reason and sanity.

I also hope that more of them enter journalism. The MSM could certainly use a viewpoint that is not often found in Journalism School, one that only former military personnel bring to the table. And given the number of Milblogs out there and the scope of writing talent it would be a huge lose if the MSM didn't take advantage of this.

But the pessimist in me says that many on the left, both politicians and the MSM elite, will miss out on this. I hope that I am wrong.

[Mike Boelter]

{I also hope that more of them enter journalism. The MSM could certainly use a viewpoint that is not often found in Journalism School, one that only former military personnel bring to the table.}

I doubt very much that will be happening anytime soon. Most GI's coming back and going to college go into technical fields and avoid the soft subjects.

Personally the only folks I saw going into Journalism were the ones who found being an English Major too rigorous.

[justin]

Well, what Durbin said will be far less damaging to our forces than what Tancredi said. Durbin was saying the US should be better than people who torture (and we should). Durbin's comments may have been over the top, but they were correct. Two years ago, I would have laughed in someone's face if they would have told me that the US would have tortured and killed prisoners. Unfortunately though, that happened, and if Rumsfeld was any kind of responsible leader, he would resign.

[baldilocks]

What Durbin said was a lie, and, therefore, by definition, not better.

[justin]

To clarify, Durbin never compared our Gitmo etc. to Pol Pot. He asked a question--if you had heard that these abuses happened, and did not know who perpetrated them, who would you think did it? I agree with his answer--Pol Pot, the Gulag etc. That's not to say that Gitmo and Abu G are anywhere near as bad as those places. Why are conservative so mad at someone who criticizes torture, but are not mad at the administration who condones it?

[baldilocks]

Whatever, Justin.

[justin]

"What Durbin said was a lie, and, therefore, by definition, not better."

I'm not sure what you mean. What lie did Durbin tell?

[justin]

Here is exacty what Durbin said. Where is the lie?

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

[Charles]

Justin, you said:

'Durbin's comments may have been over the top, but they were correct.'

How are his comments correct? Are you saying that every one would come to the same conclusion?

Read his comments again, as posted by you above:

'. . . you would most certainly believe . . .'

Are you trying to tell me that he or anyone else has the right or the assumption to tell me how and what I would think?

Well, I got news for you. Not everyone sees the same facts and comes to the same conclusions. That's what makes us individuals and therefore fully human.

You might fully agree with him, and you are entitled to. However, MY conclusion when I hear folks like Durbin is someone 'playing' politics - going for that sound bit, if you will, to get him/herself in the news; And at our military personnel's expense no less!

BTW, a responsible leader is one who handles the situation correctly. Calling for one's resignation everytime something happens that the caller doesn't like or is not happy about just makes the caller a shrill meaningless voice. Durbin did NOT handle the situation responsibly and has become, like some many others, nothing but a shrill meaningless voice. That is something HE should resign for.

Justin, read your own comments again:

'. . .To clarify, Durbin never compared our Gitmo etc. to Pol Pot. He asked a question. . '

I repeat:

'NEVER COMPARED'?

I think you are now just engaging in empty rhetoric here, Justin. Isn't this statement by you the same as Bill Clinton's saying that it depends upon what your definition of 'IS' is? How is this NOT comparing our military to those evil regimes mentioned? Simply because he phrased it in the form of a question?

BlackFive and Baldilocks are onto something here. With former military entering into the political arena we just might get some of the anti-military politicians (and their followers) to shut up and have to deal with the real issues in a rational adult fashion. Wow!, That would be nice for a change, wouldn't it?

[Silicon Valley Jim]

A side benefit of this should, but probably won't, be the elimination of the "chickenhawk" argument. Those in the military sure seem to like those of us who want them to win and don't immediately believe the worst of them better than those who want to bring them home before they've won and immediately believe any report of bad behavior, no matter how ill-substantiated. You won't hear the epithet "chickenhawk" from anybody to whom I owe my safety.

[Silicon Valley Jim]

A side benefit of this should, but probably won't, be the elimination of the "chickenhawk" argument. Those in the military sure seem to like those of us who want them to win and don't immediately believe the worst of them better than those who want to bring them home before they've won and immediately believe any report of bad behavior, no matter how ill-substantiated. You won't hear the epithet "chickenhawk" from anybody to whom I owe my safety.

[Justin]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the near future political arena is unlikely to be inundated with ex-military. The sad fact is, that less people from all walks of life are serving as in the past. How many young politicians coming up now have ever served? Not many. The political career track now is to go to law school and work for a think tank or something. Our next presidential election may be one of the first times when no candiate has served in the military (e.g., Hillary versus Giuliani).

"Those in the military sure seem to like those of us who want them to win and don't immediately believe the worst of them better than those who want to bring them home before they've won and immediately believe any report of bad behavior, no matter how ill-substantiated. You won't hear the epithet "chickenhawk" from anybody to whom I owe my safety"

Dude, what's up with that? Liberals want the military to win too. Do you have any evidence that democrats don't support the troops? Probably not. So maybe check the petty insults.