Cenk Uygur asks the same thing:
If you don’t stand up for yourselves, you’ll never convince the American people that you can stand up for them!But that's not what happened. Until it does, things will remain the same.
Instead of apologizing themselves, Democrats should have demanded apologies from Senator Santorum, Senator Sessions and Senator Inhofe for their own Nazi references. Senator Santorum -- just last month -- compared Democrats to Adolf Hitler. There are millions of Democratic veterans who fought for this country, who died for this country, some of them while fighting against Adolf Hitler. How dare Senator Santorum say that?!
Howard Dean says Republicans are white Christians and the roof falls in on him. Santorum says Democrats are like Adolf Hitler and not one peep from the media. Durbin says we shouldn’t be like the Nazis and there’s an avalanche of faux media outrage. The administration condones torture … and not a damn thing!
Has anyone in the media ever asked George W. Bush for an apology for all of the abuse and torture on his watch?
[snip]
Senator Durbin should have said this instead:
I believe in an America that is the shining city upon a hill. A light unto the world. Because this government has dimmed that light and turned us into our enemies by fighting depravity with depravity, fighting fundamentalism with fundamentalism, fighting savagery with more savagery, I demand that they come down here right now and apologize. Not just to our troops who they directly endanger, not just to all Americans who believe in a better America, but to the founding fathers and every veteran who ever fought for this country – for making what they fought for a just a little less meaningful, a little less bright and little less honorable. They have turned down the light of freedom and they dare to ask us for an apology? I’ll apologize when George W. Bush apologizes for what he has done to the name and honor of America!
6 comments:
Interesting title, Dave. What do you consider yourself, politically, if I might ask. What issues (social or fiscal) might you 'lean right' in, if any?
Just curious...
I'm a progressive but I really hate the two party system. I really hate dualism in general. Not everything can be put in one camp or another, black and white, up and down. I live in a world of color and many dimensions. Having more parties that could form coalitions around different issues would be more to my liking but it will never happen. And don't get me wrong, I almost always vote Dem as a blocking move to Republicanism. I'm constantly finding myself in a position where I'm voting against someone (usually a Republican) rather then voting for someone.
The second part of your question is a bit trickier since I hate to give ownership to a position to only one of two political philosophies (dualism again).
Things that, wrongly in my opinion, are often attributed only to the right that I favor with some caveats (of course!) include a strong, but well regulated and non-political military, and fiscal responsibility that sometimes means raising taxes as well as cutting expenses. On social issues, I'm not sure I have anything in common with the right.
Dave's a blogocrat!
It was sad to see Dick Durbin cave wasn't it. He's a good Senator.
I sent an email through the ADL (a fine organization which I'm sure only means well) website about what I percieve as a hasty response to Senator Durbin's remarks.
I can sympathize with the ADL's important cause of defending the Jewish peoples from slander, and racist remarks. No right minded person could argue with that cause in light of the events of the last two thousand years - especially the twentieth century.
What nobler cause could exist?
Well, perhaps there is a nobler cause after all?
All of us, every man, woman, and child should be concerned about defending ALL ethnic groups, races, creeds, nations, peoples, from slander, and abuse. That should be the highest of causes shouldn't it?
Being an advocate for one subset of the human race just doesn't sound like a plan that will further that goal of promoting the good for all mankind does it? In fact it seems a little outdated in this global village in which we all live.
We have to look at Durbin's intent - which seems to have been overlooked entirely by his critics in the rush of condemnation.
In the weird world in which we live the term NAZI seems to raise up all the flags of condemnation, but the ugly image of prisoner maltreatment is somehow pushed to the side in this political lynching of a man brave enough to speak out. Oops, I used the word lynching, I guess I'm treading on thin ice now.
It's a sign of the level of moral decay within this society that a leader can be shouted down by the protectors of all that is politically correct just for trying to do the right thing.
JeromeProphet
Non-political military? Is it political now?
And regarding cutting expenses, that's been the one shortcommings of the current admin. Reps used to mean less government, less spending. Not so anymore. But as you state well, I won't vote Dem because of that issue - to me not only is it not an improvement, they're worse.
"Non-political military? Is it political now?"
I'm not saying it is necessarily. At least not overtly. My concern is that it stays that way. With an all volunteer force it becomes it's own constituency. Republicans openly claim the military for their own (while wrongly bashing Dems for "hating the military" whatever that means) and I'm concerned the military may reciprocate.
And, yes, I'm a Blogocrat supporting a platform of two blogs in every garage and a post in every pot. On second thought, Blogocrat sounds like I'm a Blagojevich Democrat. Yuk.
It would appear that the people that make up the military have more conservative numbers than liberal (based on voting percentages). But as far as the military's purpose, it's the best trained fighting force in the world and it carries out its orders regardless of which party holds office.
Post a Comment