A Better Idea Than Censure?

[Tigermike 3,063]

A Better Idea Than Censure?

Shouldn't Democrats be asked to remove Dick Durbin from their Senate leadership?

by William Kristol

06/20/2005 12:00:00 AM

 

CONSERVATIVES (and, one trusts, many liberals) have been appalled by Sen. Durbin's comparison last Tuesday, on the Senate floor, between "what Americans had done to prisoners in their control" at Guantanamo and what was done by Nazis, Soviets, and Pol Pot. Conservatives (and, one trusts, many liberals) have also been appalled by Sen. Durbin's non-apology last Friday: "I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood." In other words, Sen. Durbin apparently still believes there could be a proper use and understanding of an "historical parallel" between American soldiers and Nazis.

So what, if anything, is to be done? Newt Gingrich, my friend Hugh Hewitt, and others have suggested that Sen. Durbin should be censured by the Senate. His comments are, to be sure, deserving of censure. But is this the best action to push for? For one thing, Democrats can explain that resolutions of censure have typically been reserved for ethics violations, not for meretricious statements--thereby perhaps succeeding in confusing the debate and wriggling off the hook. And asking for passage of such a resolution puts the burden on the Republican majority to act--which raises the possibility, maybe a probability, that the attempt will seem partisan if pursued, and if Republicans at some point back off, will then make them look weak as well.

Why not put the burden on the Democrats? When Sen. Trent Lott made a far less damaging, but still deplorable, statement two and a half years ago, his fellow Republicans insisted he step down as their leader. Shouldn't Democrats insist that Sen. Durbin step down as their whip, the number two man in their leadership? Shouldn't conservatives (and liberals) legitimately ask Democrats to hold their leader to account, especially given the precedent of Lott?

Senator Durbin is scheduled to join Democratic chairman Howard Dean at a big fundraiser at the National Museum of Women in the Arts in Washington, D.C., this Tuesday. I assume he will withdraw from that appearance. But if he cannot appear with his party chairman, one can ask how he can lead his party in the Senate? And if he does appear with Dean Tuesday night, and stays in his party's Senate leadership, doesn't that tell us everything we need to know about today's Democratic party?

link

[TrueBlue72 0]

If the demoncrats don't remove Durbin from his leadership posiiton, and possibly even if they do, the VOTERS of Illinois will have their say when his reelection time comes. The state of Illinois may be a "blue state" and liberal in many ways, but it is still middle America and not prone to anti-American sentiment that prevails in the socialist northeast and left coast states. I believe that with any sort of opposition, Senator Durbin will become former Senator Durbin at the next election. What I think would be appropriate, though, is for the citizens of Illinois to ask for a recall election and boot the punk out on his anti-American butt!!!

[TexasTiger 13,050]

A Better Idea Than Censure?

Shouldn't Democrats be asked to remove Dick Durbin from their Senate leadership?

by William Kristol

06/20/2005 12:00:00 AM

 

CONSERVATIVES (and, one trusts, many liberals) have been appalled by Sen. Durbin's comparison last Tuesday, on the Senate floor, between "what Americans had done to prisoners in their control" at Guantanamo and what was done by Nazis, Soviets, and Pol Pot. Conservatives (and, one trusts, many liberals) have also been appalled by Sen. Durbin's non-apology last Friday: "I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood." In other words, Sen. Durbin apparently still believes there could be a proper use and understanding of an "historical parallel" between American soldiers and Nazis.

So what, if anything, is to be done? Newt Gingrich, my friend Hugh Hewitt, and others have suggested that Sen. Durbin should be censured by the Senate. His comments are, to be sure, deserving of censure. But is this the best action to push for? For one thing, Democrats can explain that resolutions of censure have typically been reserved for ethics violations, not for meretricious statements--thereby perhaps succeeding in confusing the debate and wriggling off the hook. And asking for passage of such a resolution puts the burden on the Republican majority to act--which raises the possibility, maybe a probability, that the attempt will seem partisan if pursued, and if Republicans at some point back off, will then make them look weak as well.

Why not put the burden on the Democrats? When Sen. Trent Lott made a far less damaging, but still deplorable, statement two and a half years ago, his fellow Republicans insisted he step down as their leader. Shouldn't Democrats insist that Sen. Durbin step down as their whip, the number two man in their leadership? Shouldn't conservatives (and liberals) legitimately ask Democrats to hold their leader to account, especially given the precedent of Lott?

Senator Durbin is scheduled to join Democratic chairman Howard Dean at a big fundraiser at the National Museum of Women in the Arts in Washington, D.C., this Tuesday. I assume he will withdraw from that appearance. But if he cannot appear with his party chairman, one can ask how he can lead his party in the Senate? And if he does appear with Dean Tuesday night, and stays in his party's Senate leadership, doesn't that tell us everything we need to know about today's Democratic party?

link

164778[/snapback]

Bill Kristol, my former favorite TV pundit, and Neo-Con architect of the the Bush plan for the Middle East looking for distractions from his failed plans for Iraq.

Trent Lott comments brought no immediate outrage from any Republican. But Rove wanted Frist and saw an opportunity. There was no prinicple there.

[AURaptor 1,128]

Cynthia ( Jihad Cyndi ) McKinney here in the 4th GA Congressional District went even further back in 2002 in bashing Bush about 9-11, and it cost her a seat in Congress. Then she got reelected in 2004 after laying low for 2 years. While a Senator is a higher profile position than that of Congressman, I doubt much will come of it. Turban Durbin is who the Dems are these days.... having been hijacked by the Michael Moore- Al Franken - Moveon dot org zealots. As dispicable and wreckless as Durbin's comments are, in the end the Dems will keep him and it'll only help the GOP.

[DKW 86 7,449]

Bill Kristol, my former favorite TV pundit, and Neo-Con architect of the the Bush plan for the Middle East looking for distractions from his failed plans for Iraq.

Kristol a neo-con???

You have got to be kidding right? He is the fluffiest of the fluffiest Republicans. He criticizes Conservatives 24/7 and that is why he is the darling of the MSM.

Neo-con? For that Tex, you get the Kool-Aid Award for the Day.

Here's your sign...

[AUJarhead 70]

If the demoncrats don't remove Durbin from his leadership posiiton, and possibly even if they do, the VOTERS of Illinois will have their say when his reelection time comes.  The state of Illinois may be a "blue state" and liberal in many ways, but it is still middle America and not prone to anti-American sentiment that prevails in the socialist northeast and left coast states.  I believe that with any sort of opposition, Senator Durbin will become former Senator Durbin at the next election.  What I think would be appropriate, though, is for the citizens of Illinois to ask for a recall election and boot the punk out on his anti-American butt!!!

164798[/snapback]

Don't be so sure. The republicans in this state don't think. Although I say I live in St Louis, it's on the Illinois side of the river. I refused to vote republican in the last election (Keyes vs Obama), since I hardly believe that a radio DJ who lives in New York knows what's best for the citizens of Illinois. If he's the best that the Republicans can put up for Senate, I don't think the Democrats have too much to worry about.

[TexasTiger 13,050]

Bill Kristol, my former favorite TV pundit, and Neo-Con architect of the the Bush plan for the Middle East looking for distractions from his failed plans for Iraq.

Kristol a neo-con???

You have got to be kidding right? He is the fluffiest of the fluffiest Republicans. He criticizes Conservatives 24/7 and that is why he is the darling of the MSM.

Neo-con? For that Tex, you get the Kool-Aid Award for the Day.

Here's your sign...

164829[/snapback]

You're amazing. Utterly clueless, and still insulting while be absolutely ignorant of what you are talking about. He is a self proclaimed Neo Con. He's one of the top leaders. He criticizes real conservatives because he is a NEOCON. Research it. This will get you started:

Neoconservatives

They emerged from behind the scenes politically to change American foreign policy. But they've always been there, and Iraq is only one of their goals.

By Dick Polman

Inquirer Staff Writer

WASHINGTON - For seven long years, Bill Kristol agitated for a U.S. coup against Saddam Hussein, and argued that America should remake the world to serve its own interests. Few bothered to listen at the time. So how does he feel now?

In his office the other day, he grinned without smirking. That's how most of the hawkish defense intellectuals - better known as neoconservatives - are behaving these days. Although they're sitting pretty in wartime Washington, they're trying not to preen.

Kristol refuses to strut his stuff, because he knows how fast the high and mighty can be brought low in this town; after all, he was once Vice President Dan Quayle's chief of staff. Still, he can't resist contending that Sept. 11 made all the "neocons" look like prophets.

"We saw, earlier than most people, that the world was very dangerous, that America's drift during the '90s was very dangerous," he said Wednesday at the Weekly Standard, the Rupert Murdoch-financed magazine he edits that promotes the neocon credo. "We were alarmed; we tried to call attention to all that. So I don't want to say we feel vindicated, but we do feel our analysis was right."

The neocons - think-tank warriors and commentators, all of whom cite Ronald Reagan's moral clarity - are hot these days because they emerged from the political wilderness to alter the course of American foreign policy. And Iraq is just the beginning, as Kristol cheerily contended: "President Bush is committed, pretty far down the road. The logic of events says you can't go halfway. You can't liberate Iraq, then quit."

The neocons care little about domestic policy; they think globally. They don't believe in peaceful coexistence with hostile, undemocratic states; rather, they want an "unapologetic, idealistic, assertive" America (in Kristol's words) that will foment pro-democratic revolutions around the world, if necessary at the point of a gun.

The neocon assumption - that the American way is best for everybody, whether foreigners know it or not - is not shared by their numerous critics. Establishment Republicans, many of whom worked for Bush's father, worry that the fomenting of new "regime changes" will sow more global terrorism against Americans. Liberals simply say that the neocons have captured Bush's brain.

Historian Allan Lichtman said that regardless of whether one agrees with the neocons, "they are historically important, because, in the post-Cold War world, they are providing an intellectual justification for the continuation of the national security state."

Others talk darkly about a "neocon cabal" that includes a media empire (Murdoch also owns Fox News), policy shops (notably the American Enterprise Institute, home to many neocon scholars and Kristol's Project for a New American Century), and revenue sources (particularly the Bradley Foundation, which has helped finance the policy shops).

In a sense, it is tight-knit. The institute, Kristol's Project for a New American Century, and the Weekly Standard are all housed in the same Washington office building, a square slab of concrete 12 stories high. During Gulf War II, it was the place to be; every Tuesday morning, the institute hosted public "black-coffee briefings" led by Tom Donnelly, an institute scholar who once worked for the Project for a New American Century.

The neocons move between these groups and Bush's government. In 1998, the Project for a New American Century sent an open letter to President Bill Clinton, urging that he overthrow Hussein; 10 of the signatories now work for Bush. And when Bush spoke in February at the institute (Lynne Cheney, the vice president's wife, is a board member), he said that his team had borrowed 20 of its scholars.

Neocon Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser, was an institute scholar; so was John Bolton, who now has a key undersecretary post in the State Department. Today, the institute still has hawks who were hawks before the neocon label became hip; witness ex-Reagan Pentagon adviser Michael Ledeen, who, while puffing on a fat cigar the other day, said: "Americans believe that peace is normal, but that's not true. Life isn't like that. Peace is abnormal."

But is this a cabal? Networking is a way of life in Washington; Democrats do it, too. Max Boot, another prominent neocon (and a think-tank scholar who writes for Kristol's magazine), said: "The liberals have plenty of well-organized and well-funded groups. The problem is that they don't have any good ideas to sell, at least not on foreign policy. To judge from their recent antiwar invective, a large part of the party is still in cloud cuckoo land."

Marshall Wittmann, a close observer of the neocons and a friend of Kristol's, said: "The neocons are all about ideas. They understand how to promote those ideas. They get a lot of bang for the buck. It's the way they frame their arguments, and into whose hands they put those arguments. Also, while a fair number of conservatives shun the mainstream press, Bill participates in it."

In the '90s, the neocons were also relentless. Paul Wolfowitz, now the deputy defense secretary, was a Pentagon underling in 1992 under Dick Cheney when he drafted a document declaring that America should move against potential rivals, even if forced to act alone: "The United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated."

The document was deemed too radical; it was watered down. But four years later, in a foreign-policy journal, Kristol and colleague Robert Kagan tried again, writing that America, in pursuit of "benevolent global hegemony," should be willing to confront hostile countries and "bring about a change of regime."

But, as Kristol now recalls, "that article was pretty much ignored." So was his magazine's special issue of Dec. 1, 1997, titled Saddam Must Go. In fact, most Republicans didn't care; on Capitol Hill, they were talking about a lower U.S. profile in the world. And Bush, during his 2000 campaign, talked of showing "humility" abroad.

It was Sept. 11 that put the neocons in play; until that day, they had been castigating Bush for not being tough enough overseas. And now, looking back, they freely admit that Bush embraced their national-security strategy only because he had been jolted by events.

Gary Schmitt, a former Reagan administration intelligence expert who now runs Kristol's think tank, said: "Without 9/11, Bush might have been off wandering in the desert, in terms of foreign policy. He might have been looking for a minimal foreign-policy voice so that he could concentrate on domestic matters. So we [neocons] might not have been in a good position at all.

"Even now, do we feel triumphant? No. We've been around this town too long. Our job is to continue to push."

The neocon crusade for a democratic Middle East, abetted by American might, has just begun. Last week, Kristol's magazine rebuked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for refusing to commit himself to building a military base in Iraq, and tweaked Bush for being "too hasty" in praising Syria for its vow to expel Hussein's henchmen. The neocons, fearing that monetary constraints could hamper their vision, also want a defense budget much bigger than what the Bush team has proposed.

And if people overseas don't like the more imperious America, the neocon response is basically: So what? Boot said: "Being number one will always elicit a certain amount of resentment; lots of people outside New York hate the Yankees, just as lots of people outside Dallas have always hated the Cowboys. That doesn't mean the Yankees and Cowboys can't go on winning."

Kristol shrugged, "We're going to get criticized for being an imperial power anyway, so you might as well make sure that the good guys win.

"But there will be obstacles, and I'm worried about them. Iraq is going to be messy, there's no easy solution to North Korea, and there are risks in confronting Iran. Some things can go wrong. But it's always better to err on the side of strength. The pressures will be great, but this is what it means to live in a genuinely historic moment."

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/sp...iew/5778521.htm

It's genetic:

Kristol is the son of Irving Kristol, considered to be one of the founders of the neoconservative movement and Gertrude Himmelfarb, a Victorian scholar.

http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-kristol

Educate yourself just a bit before attacking.

[DKW 86 7,449]

You can charaterize an ham sandwich as a Neo-con if you want to.

Lets read what he writes: http://www.infomanage.com/politics/republi...708e228434b.htm

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, watching Sunday morning television March 28 from his home in Pascagoula, Miss., was so upset by ABC's "This Week" that he switched it off. What bothered him was Bill Kristol, the program's designated conservative Republican.

Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard, and that weekend, his influential magazine's lead editorial (co-authored by Kristol) declared that "Republicans should be supporting" the NATO attack on Yugoslavia and indeed be "pressing for additional policies that will lead to victory."

On television that Sunday, Kristol went further. "Republicans have been misled by their ... hatred of Bill Clinton" in voting against the bombing of Kosovo, he said.

Asserting that they "should basically be supporting the president," he added: "I am worried about the Republican Party. They so dislike Clinton that they're in danger of becoming knee-jerk isolationists."

This is a neo-con?

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen122999.asp

Kristol is an extremely intelligent, well-connected and pithy observer of politics -- and honest as the day is long.

I have to say mea culpa on some of this. Kristol was just the warmest and fuzziest of furballs in my eyes. I have watched and read him many times and he always appoeared to be the softest of conservatives. He still does in many ways. I do not think of him now as a Neo-con, not in the "evil in his eye" stereotype of the most Libs. BUT his parental lineage, and some of his quotes, possibly taken out of context, seem very over the top to me, even now.

You want to come clean on any Dems now?

[TexasTiger 13,050]

You can charaterize an ham sandwich as a Neo-con if you want to.

Lets read what he writes: http://www.infomanage.com/politics/republi...708e228434b.htm

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, watching Sunday morning television March 28 from his home in Pascagoula, Miss., was so upset by ABC's "This Week" that he switched it off. What bothered him was Bill Kristol, the program's designated conservative Republican.

Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard, and that weekend, his influential magazine's lead editorial (co-authored by Kristol) declared that "Republicans should be supporting" the NATO attack on Yugoslavia and indeed be "pressing for additional policies that will lead to victory."

On television that Sunday, Kristol went further. "Republicans have been misled by their ... hatred of Bill Clinton" in voting against the bombing of Kosovo, he said.

Asserting that they "should basically be supporting the president," he added: "I am worried about the Republican Party. They so dislike Clinton that they're in danger of becoming knee-jerk isolationists."

This is a neo-con?

Sure is.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen122999.asp

Kristol is an extremely intelligent, well-connected and pithy observer of politics -- and honest as the day is long.

I have to say mea culpa on some of this. Kristol was just the warmest and fuzziest of furballs in my eyes. I have watched and read him many times and he always appoeared to be the softest of conservatives. He still does in many ways. I do not think of him now as a Neo-con, not in the "evil in his eye" stereotype of the most Libs. BUT his parental lineage, and some of his quotes, possibly taken out of context, seem very over the top to me, even now.

You want to come clean on any Dems now?

164852[/snapback]

I once liked Kristol for his general honesty. I think his ego has taken a beating over the last couple of years and he has been pretty deceitful at times lately. Still, he always struck me as someone who I wouldn't mind as a neighbor.

When I called him a neocon, I wasn't referring to some hyped-up stereotype. It is an ideology and he certainly adheres to it. That plain and simple.

Come clean on Dems? Clarification, please.

[DKW 86 7,449]

Come clean on Dems? Clarification, please.

Never mind, you are totally incapable of telling the truth anyway.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Come clean on Dems?  Clarification, please.

164853[/snapback]

As the article says, "When Sen. Trent Lott made a far less damaging, but still deplorable, statement two and a half years ago, his fellow Republicans insisted he step down as their leader. Shouldn't Democrats insist that Sen. Durbin step down as their whip, the number two man in their leadership? Shouldn't conservatives (and liberals) legitimately ask Democrats to hold their leader to account, especially given the precedent of Lott?" Sounds fair to me.

Same thing for Grand Dragon Robert Byrd, another glorious democrat. All Trent Lott did was raise a toast to Strom Thurmond and he got the axe. Byrd burned crosses and terrorized blacks and he goes on to become one of the leading voices of the donkey party. Byrd penned a letter to Mississippi Senator Bilbo back in 1945 that said he, "would never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels." All of it written off as "youthful indescretion". Byrd is also the only surviving Senator who participated in the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, which oddly enough was passed because of the support of mean old white Republicans.

Need more clarification? There is a senate floor full of them.

[TexasTiger 13,050]

Come clean on Dems? Clarification, please.

Never mind, you are totally incapable of telling the truth anyway.

164874[/snapback]

Huh? Are you taking your meds?

And just when I thought we were on the verge of an actual exchange of ideas. I was genuinely trying to understand exactly what you were requesting. Even said "please." Oh, well...

[Tigermike 3,063]

Come clean on Dems?  Clarification, please.

164853[/snapback]

As the article says, "When Sen. Trent Lott made a far less damaging, but still deplorable, statement two and a half years ago, his fellow Republicans insisted he step down as their leader. Shouldn't Democrats insist that Sen. Durbin step down as their whip, the number two man in their leadership? Shouldn't conservatives (and liberals) legitimately ask Democrats to hold their leader to account, especially given the precedent of Lott?" Sounds fair to me.

Same thing for Grand Dragon Robert Byrd, another glorious democrat. All Trent Lott did was raise a toast to Strom Thurmond and he got the axe. Byrd burned crosses and terrorized blacks and he goes on to become one of the leading voices of the donkey party. Byrd penned a letter to Mississippi Senator Bilbo back in 1945 that said he, "would never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels." All of it written off as "youthful indescretion". Byrd is also the only surviving Senator who participated in the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, which oddly enough was passed because of the support of mean old white Republicans.

Need more clarification? There is a senate floor full of them.

164883[/snapback]

The only problem with that TIS, is that Durbin was speaking for the dems base. Nothing he said was too far over the top than what Commissar Dean has been saying for months.

[Piglet 0]

So maybe you want to just dismiss Durbin, and maybe Al and the others who support him, as just liberals off in left creek. Maybe you'll listen to a couple of partisan Republican bloggers instead:

I am happy that we do our best to take care of these detainees, and I am very glad that we do treat them well the vast majority of the time. That doesn't mean that I am willing to just dismiss observations from FBI agents as 'nonsense,' and it doesn't mean that I believe the key to long-term success in Iraq and in the larger War on Terror is through petty partisan games like calls for censure and "I Love Gitmo" propaganda campaigns.

This does not mean that I am asking everyone to get a case of the vapors over every allegation of abuse, and I am not telling everyone to reach for the smelling salts each time a Koran/urination story comes across the newswire.  We all understand that these detainees are trained to lie about their treatment, and we all recognize that some will choose to play their own partisan games to hurt this administration.

It does mean I recognize Dick Durbin's larger point, albeit delivered in a politically stupid and potentially inflammatory manner- we are better than Nazis, this FBI email describes behavior that shouldn't be condoned or endorsed, and we should have the decency and the sense to treat such allegations from FBI agents seriously.  And that means even if it is an aberration that is an isolated deviation from the great job we do taking care of these detainees most of the time.

When Bush won the election in 2000, a popular refrain in the base was "Thank God the adults are in charge."  Is it really asking too much that we behave like adults?

A good start would be accepting Durbin's apology or future apologies, dropping these petty calls for censure, and beginning a serious conversation on the legal status of detainees and our long-term strategy in the War on Terror, all the while while investigating credible FBI reports of abuse.  The American people and the world deserve that much from us.

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/6/20/193952/633

The substance is, distressingly enough, there. Specifically, the Senator cites some appalling abuse as witnessed by an FBI agent. While it is fashionable in certain crowds to shrug at these things on the grounds that the victims are all terrorists anyway, the affected apathy leaves some assumptions unexamined. Those assumptions are: first, that the abuse as reported was as bad as it got; second, that the victims are all terrorists. Both assumptions are false. We know that dozens of prisoners have died in American custody, with a shameful proportion being probable homicides. We also know that many prisoners have been released from Camp X-Ray, apparently not terrorists after all.

Now, two caveats here: no one, to my knowledge, has died at Camp X-Ray; and the specific techniques witnessed by Durbin's FBI source were, I am fairly sure, accepted US military interrogation tactics as long as twenty years ago. These are mitigating facts if you fixate on rhetoric in a vacuum, studiously ignore the constellation of American prisons other than Guantanamo, and pretend that rap music, shackles and uncomfortable air temperature is the extent of the problem. Knowing that on the next news cycle Durbin will be yesterday's news and our wartime prisons will remain a current affair, what would an adult do?

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/6/20/221939/980

[Tiger in Spain 0]

The only problem with that TIS, is that Durbin was speaking for the dems base.  Nothing he said was too far over the top than what Commissar Dean has been saying for months.

164895[/snapback]

You got that right my friend. I am appalled that Durbin (an elected leader) would say what he did about our troops, but that rage is tempered by the realization that the more absurd these morons get, the more red that will show up on the 2008 election map.

[WarTim 3,457]

I do not want this moron to "step down". WE need MORE liberals in power like this cookie. As a matter of fact, most of them are already just like this one!

"Stupid is as STUPID does". A great uat grad