Right Wing Nut House

The Innaugural Edition of the Carnival of the Clueless last Tuesday proved to be a resounding success. With 15 entries from both the left and right side of the Shadow Media, the Carnival proved that there’s plenty of cluelessness to go around.

Here’s what we’re looking for:

Each week, I’ll be calling for posts that highlight the total stupidity of a public figure or organization – either left or right – that demonstrates that special kind of cluelessness that only someone’s mother could defend…and maybe not even their mothers!

Everyone knows what I’m talking about. Whether it’s the latest from Bill Maher or the Reverend Dobson, it doesn’t matter. I will post ALL ENTRIES REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED OR NOT.

This should be a can’t miss week what with everyone blogging about Senator “Turban” Durbin and the arrest of the PETA employees for being cruel to animals. Then there’s John Conyers and his over the rainbow hearing on the Downing Street Minutes.

C’Mon everyone! Join in the fun!

Entries are due Monday evening by 10:00 PM EST. You can enter two ways:

1. You can send me an email with a link to your post to elvenstar522-at-AOL-dot-com.
2. Or, you can take advantage of the easy to fill out carnival submission form at Conservative Cat.

Here’s the orginal post on the Carnival with a more detailed explanation.

I’d like to personally invite all members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to contribute to the Carnival…that means you Beth! Blogation is over…back to work!

Senator Dick “I have no regrets” Durbin issued a statement on his website apologizing for the fact that he didn’t realize comparing American soldiers to Nazi thugs could be “misused and misunderstood.” By who he doesn’t say. Since I doubt very much that he’s apologizing to me or any other person who took offense at his slanderous assertions - and since not one lefty blogger or Democratic Senator has come out and criticized his remarks - one can only assume he’s apologizing to al Jazeera and other terrorist media outlets for “misunderstanding” his true feelings.

His munificence evidently knows no bounds.

Here’s the statement in its entirety:

“More than 1700 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and our country’s standing in the world community has been badly damaged by the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. My statement in the Senate was critical of the policies of this Administration which add to the risk our soldiers face.”

“I will continue to speak out when I disagree with this Administration.”

“I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood. I sincerely regret if what I said caused anyone to misunderstand my true feelings: our soldiers around the world and their families at home deserve our respect, admiration and total support.”

What does the fact that 1700 Americans being killed in Iraq have to do with a statement explaining remarks about the Guantanamo detention facility? And, as Powerline points out, which policies of the Administration led to the abuses at Abu Ghraib? The ones that directed soldiers to take pictures of inmates with hoods being threatened by dogs? Lyndie England as enforcer of Administration policy? Senator Turban couldn’t resist the urge to attack the Administration even while making a statement of…what should we call it? Apology? Regret? Explanation?

Calling that statement anything other than a self-serving, ass-covering, piece of horse manure in which the Senator is trying to make people forget what he said and substitute what he tells us he really meant does a travesty to the truth.

Here are Durbin’s exact words:

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.

I can see no room in that statement for misinterpretation. The Senator is saying that “the actions of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners” are reminiscent (”you would most certainly believe”) of Nazis, Soviets, and Pol Pot.

As I’ve said in the past, the Senator’s statement is perfectly consistent with the idea that it’s not important what we think Democrats mean when they say something, the only reality, the only context to understand their language is something they make up as they go along.

Convenient albeit a little confusing. Maybe they could tell us when they really mean what they say. Conversely, maybe they could give us a heads up when they want to say something they don’t really mean but we should ask them what they’re really trying to say? That should make things a little easier, don’t you think?

I think the liberals took elocution lessons from Jacque Derridia.

Here’s some additional reaction to Senator al Durbin’s statement.

Captain Ed:

This, of course, is the classic example of the non-apology apology. Note that he doesn’t retract a word of what he said. He says that he regrets if others misunderstood his “true feelings”, not that what he said was wrong and historically inept. Basically, this is the translation one is meant to hear:

If this is the best that Durbin can do after comparing the men and women of our armed forces to Nazis and Stalin’s goons, as well as comparing Islamofascist terrorists to Japanese-American victims of WWII detention centers, then he’s a bigger idiot than I thought

“Idiot” seems to be the word of the day. Here’s the aforementioned Powerline take:

This is idiotic. First, Durbin notes that more than 1,700 soldiers have been killed. This is a good reason to interrogate enemy combatants, hardly an argument to the contrary. But Durbin leads with it to create the illusion that this is somehow his concern. Next he says that his statement was “critical of the policies of this Administration.” But saying that American soldiers are indistinguishable from Nazis and Communists isn’t being “critical of the policies of this administration.” This administration has not, in fact, condoned torture of detainees; as we have pointed out over and over, the administration’s policies have been humane to a degree that is probably unprecedented in world history during wartime. When abuses have occurred, as at Abu Ghraib (which Durbin irrelevantly drags into his “apology”), they have been in clear violation of the administration’s policies.

Finally, Durbin tells us that he has just now learned that comparing our soldiers to Nazis, Communists, and Pol Pot-type crazies “can be misused and misunderstood.” Misused? What does that mean? By whom? Presumably Durbin means that al Jazeera et al. can “misuse” his statements to trumpet the claim that high-ranking American officials have conceded that the U.S. is just as bad as Nazi Germany. I’m not sure that’s a “misuse”–it is what Durbin said–but if he has just now figured out that his statements can be used as propaganda by the enemy, he is much too stupid to be a United States Senator.

In the immortal words of Forrest Gump, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

Hugh Hewitt:

The first cartoonist, other than the genius Muir, weighs in on the Durbin debacle. The outrage continues, and the FreeRepublic’s Military Father post sums it up: Dick Durbin is a disgrace, a low, dishonorable weasel, and the country knows it. He is also the Dems’ #2 in the Senate. He can issue new statement after new statement, but the verdict is in: Durbin is no friend of the American military. Durbin has harmed the country and the military, greatly. He should resign. Democrats should call on him to do so. They will not. Political advantage means more than standing up for the troops.

Here’s a link to Bloggers for Censure. They’re looking for content so if you’ve written something, send him a link.

Strata-Sphere:

This is not going to undo the damage this man has done. I have posted on this before, but it bears repeating. Dick Durbin did more for the terrorists’ cause and recruitment drives than any BS story about Koran flushes or GITMO AC levels:

AJ has a link to an Islamist website that claims Durbin broke “significant new ground” in his accusations. Since they’re not here, on behalf of absent terrorists and their sympathizers everywhere, I’d like to thank you Dicky for the service you’ve rendered their cause.

Recent hearings by the Judiciary Committee looking into the legal situation of detainees at Guantanamo revealed what Senator Arlen Specter has called a “crazy quilt” of regulations and overlapping jurisidctions that have made it virtually impossible to determine what precisely the legal rights of the enemy combatants being held in Cuba are.

Some of the testimony given by Administration officials is almost surreal. What it demonstrates to me, a strong supporter of the War on Terror and Administration policies in general, is that after more than three years, very little thought has been given to the legal status of the terrorists. This has left the Administration and by extension, the United States, wide open to propaganda assaults by both their political foes and our enemies.

It didn’t have to be this way. And the problem has much more to do with bureaucratic inertia than anything else. Apparently, the Justice Department and the Department of Defense have never been able to get together and agree on either a system to judge the terrorists in anything like a timely manner or even agree on what, if any, rights the terrorists will have during any such proceedings.

Granted - and this is something the left and their allies fail to comprehend - this is a conflict with no parallel in human history. We’re making the rules up as we go along. Ostensibly, this is why there’s so much confusion. Rulings by the courts, opinions from the Justice Department, and the exigencies of interrogating the enemy in time of war have all combined to make Guantanamo and other detention centers holding the terrorists a legal quagmire.

Testimony at the hearing given by Michael Wiggins, Deputy Associate Attorney General sought to outline the history of Guantanamo and the evolution of the legal standing of the terrorists being held there:

1. “Such detention is not for criminal justice purposes and is not part of our Nation’s criminal justice system. Rather, detention of enemy combatants serves the vital military objectives of preventing captured combatants from rejoining the conflict and gathering intelligence to further the overall war effort and to prevent additional attacks.”

2. “Each Guantanamo Bay detainee has received a formal adjudicatory hearing before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (”CSRT”). Those tribunals, established pursuant to written orders by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy, were created specifically “to determine, in a fact-based proceeding, whether the individuals detained . . . at the U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are properly classified as enemy combatants and to permit each detainee the opportunity to contest such designation.”

During the CSRT proceedings, each detainee received substantial procedural protections modeled upon an Army regulation that governs hearings under Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention. Among other things, each detainee received notice of the unclassified factual basis for his designation as an enemy combatant and an opportunity to testify, call witnesses, and present relevant and reasonably available evidence. Each detainee also received assistance from one military officer designated as his “personal representative for the purpose of assisting the detainee in connection with the CSRT review process.”

3. “Since the founding of our Nation, the U.S. military has used military commissions during wartime to try offenses against the laws of war. Congress has recognized this historic practice and approved its continuing use in both the Articles of War, enacted in 1916, and their successor, the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And the Supreme Court repeatedly upheld the use of military commissions in the 20th century against a series of legal challenges, including cases involving a presumed American citizen captured in the United States.”

4. “Under the Military Order, a military commission may not exercise jurisdiction over a detainee unless certain preconditions have been met. First, the detainee must be a non-citizen and the President must determine that (1) there is reason to believe that the detainee (i) is or was a member of al Qaida, (ii) has engaged or conspired to engage in acts of international terrorism against United States interests; or (iii) has knowingly harbored a member of al Qaida or someone otherwise involved in international terrorism against United States interests; and (2) it is in the interest of the United States to subject the detainee to the President’s Military Order.”

So far so good. The government established that these stateless terrorists were not uniformed soldiers engaged in fighting US forces but rather murderous criminals whose freedom could facilitate further attacks against us. The classification of “enemy combatants” is confirmed by a CSRT proceeding modelled after Geneva Convention protections. And what appears to be a necessarily broad but nevertheless fair definition of an enemy combatant is used to determine status.

Here’s where it gets muddled.

The Supreme Court ruled a year ago that the terrorists have the right to an attorney and that habeas corpus petitions can be litigated by the appeals courts. This has muddied the waters considerably as 95 habeas corpus petitions have been filed on behalf of more 200 terrorists. In addition, lower courts have ruled that the terrorists may be entitled to rights under the 5th amendment. Those issues are still making their way through the courts but as they do, the military tribunals cannot go forward. This has allowed lawyers for the terrorists to file a host of motions from asking courts to prevent additional interrogations of terrorists to lawyers in one case filing an emergency motion seeking an order requiring the Government to allow them to show detainees family videos on DVD. Others have filed motions objecting to the speed of mail transmission to and from the Naval Base and to the quality of the internet connection they are provided when visiting.

The narrowness of the Supreme Court ruling has thrown the entire legal status of the terrorists into chaos. This has not been helped by what apparently is a difference of opinion between the Justice Department and the military on exactly what rights the terrorists are entitled to. The military wants the terrorists rights hazily defined for good reasons. Ill-defined rights will make it more difficult for the terrorist’s lawyers to seek remedies in US courts. And while the Justice Department generally agrees with that notion, furthering a definition of terrorist’s rights will assist them in their court cases.

It’s past time for Congress to step in and define the legal rights of the terrorists. Senator Specter has a bill languishing in the Senate that would do just that. By defining what rights these enemy combatants are entitled to, we will make it easier to determine how many, if any, of the detainees at Guantanamo should be repatriated and how many should be kept there for the rest of their lives.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin:

The reason for using military tribunals is that the alternative–civilian trials–is fraught with peril. Even former President Clinton admitted as much when he lamented recently that prosecuting terrorists sometimes requires “the presentation of evidence which would reveal the identity of the intelligence source, compromise the life of the intelligence source, maybe risk the life of the intelligence source, but more importantly dry up what we thought we were finding out about terror networks.”

What kind of mess are we in when Bill Clinton makes more sense than the Adolf Eichmann-invoking John McCain?

If the Supreme Court upholds some lower court rulings that give terrorists at Gitmo 5th amendment protections, we might as well open the doors and let them go. As Michelle points out, much of the evidence against these murderous thugs is extremely sensitive, much of it gleaned from NSA intercepts. Even a closed trial would be disasterous for our security given the sympathies of the lawyers who would be granted access to this sensitive intel.

Would you trust some of those moonbats not to reveal what they learn in classified sessions?

Dick Durbin has had a rough day.

It began with an interview on WGN Radio’s Spike O’Dell show this morning where, doing his best imitation of a pretzel, Dirty Dick twisted and twisted and twisted until he had himself so tied up in knots trying to minimize his Gitmo interrogators-are-worse-than-Nazis charge that he resembled a piece of uncooked rotini:

Q. I guess one of the reasons people are having such a hard time with this one, is when comparisons are made and you use names like Nazis and Soviet gulags, when you are talking Nazis there were what, 9 million people killed in the camps there. The gulags had about 3 million and so forth. And I know Gitmo is not the Holiday Inn down there, but I don’t think anyone has died down there, have they?

Durbin: No, that’s true. In all fairness, they did not. But I don’t believe we were dealing with deaths at Abu Ghraib either. We were dealing with a situation where when people saw the digital camera photographs, they said “My God! Americans should not be involved in that kind of conducrt.” Now I will not demean or diminish the terrible atrocities that were commtted by the Soviets and the Nazis. The points I was, the point I was trying to make there was, if I just read this to you and say “What kind of country, what kind of governemtn would do that,” and you’d think of some of the most repressive regimes in history. Sadly this FBI report says its being done by our government. I don’t know who in our government. But it should stop….

(HT: Hugh Hewitt)

Notice how Senator Potato Head swears he’s not diminishing the atrocities at death camps and gulags where millions died…and then proceeds to do so by recognizing that there have been no deaths at Gitmo. This is a typical liberal tactic where the words that come out of their mouths don’t matter. It’s what they say they mean that counts.

The Senator had a brief respite when the Chicago Tribune rode to his rescue:

With his unassuming Midwestern demeanor and genial bearing, Dick Durbin is no one’s vision of a political street fighter.

Yet Illinois’ senior senator–who is growing in stature as a national Democratic voice and a font of strategic and communications advice for a party eager to regain its footing–found himself on the receiving end of Republican outrage this week.
In the face of an organized Republican brouhaha over his remarks, Durbin refused to back down. He maintained that the Bush administration bears responsibility for creating the conditions that led to the mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo by saying they were not subject to the Geneva Conventions.

Returning to the Senate floor Thursday night, Durbin reread his original statement, saying he wanted his colleagues to understand the context of his remarks. “It has been nothing short of amazing,” he said of the reaction.

“Was I trying to say, `Isn’t this the kind of thing we see from repressive regimes?’ Yes. This is the kind of thing we expect from repressive regimes and not from the United States,” Durbin said in response to hostile questioning from Republican Sens. John Warner of Virginia and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Warner called Durbin’s comparisons “a grievous error in judgment.”

(HT: New Editor)

Good ‘ole cornpone Dick! He’s just an “unassuming” sort, the kind you might want to invite over to supper after church on Sunday. Just don’t get him started on Gitmo - he’ll spoil your appetite.

Rush Limbaugh, of course, has been in his element with Durbin saying “Al Jazeera loves you, Sen. Durbin, probably more than the people that voted for you in Illinois could ever love you.” Limbaugh was referring to a piece on the arab propoganda organ that praised Durbin so much they even forgot to report what was in the FBI email about the specifics of the “torture.”

And that’s the nub of the matter here. Durbin and the Democrats are upset that we didn’t read these terrorists their rights and immediately get them lawyers from the ACLU or some other communist-front moonbat legal organization that would have made sure that each and every one of these bloodthirsty galoots would have walked out of our custody as free men. Why? Because the evidence against these men has been gleaned from sources and methods that are among the most closely guarded secrets in government. To reveal them would severely hamper our efforts to protect ourselves from their brothers who at this moment are planning to kill as many of us with one blow as they possibly can.

The fact that a United States Senator - the number two Democrat in all the Senate - doesn’t realize this and continues to criticize the US for not abiding by the Geneva Convention (which doesn’t recognize these cutthroats as soldiers in the first place) is proof positive that the Democratic party is not ready to lead this country. Until these fools get serious about the threat we face, a majority of Americans - not a large majority but just barely enough - will refuse to hand them the keys to the kingdom.

Here’s more of what poor Senator Lickspittle has had to put up with today:

Van Helsing:

I can’t explain the surreal hyperbole surrounding the supposed abuse of terrorists, other than to say it’s a matter of psychopathology as much as politics. At least some of the irresponsible fools in the chorus Durbin has joined must be aware that they are not only insulting and demoralizing both our troops and our country; they are not only providing critical propaganda support to al Qaeda and impeding the Government’s ability to prevent the next 9/11; they are also trivializing the horrors that the profoundly evil ideologies of communism and fascism have inflicted on millions of innocent victims. What sort of sickness makes them want to do that?

It’s the sickness of withdrawal. They were in power for so long and now, being out of power, are unable to adjust to their status as minority party. They have no idea what “loyal opposition” means. If you read floor debates held during the civil war, you get an eerie feeling of deja vu. The Dems had been in power for 30 years prior to that war and acted pretty much the same way - they sought to regain power even if it meant splitting the union.

Stephen Green:

Equating anything and everything thus far reported from Guantanamo with “torture” is nonsense on stilts. Air conditioning changes, intimidation, sleep deprivation and having your personal space invaded by a woman? Hell, I put up with worse stuff that that at summer camp. What will they threaten these thugs with next, the comfy chair?

Sorry Steve, beat you to the comfy chair theme days ago.

Jay Tea at Wizbang:

There’s an old aphorism that says “as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.” Since we’re already being punished for “torturing” these detainees, why don’t we go ahead and do it already?

We already know beyond a shadow of a doubt that some of these detainees have extensive knowledge and experience as terrorists. It’s time to take the handcuffs off our interrogators and let them do whatever they believe is necessary to get the information we need out of them. Let’s use pain, discomfort, drugs, deception, anything we can on these terrorists. Since we’re already suffering the consequences of using torture, it only makes sense to me that we gain the benefits of such. Let’s show the world just what good old American ingenuity, inventiveness, and resources can achieve.

Don’t worry…Jay Tea points out the drawbacks of that strategy in the rest of the post.

Joe Braue writes a letter to Senator Sniveler:

Your comments on Gitmo are way, way over the top, Dick. You need to resign, right now, and save yourself the disgrace of being recalled by your voters. I’d insult you if you had any worth, any integrity or dignity or even decency to shame, but clearly you don’t. And one more thing I won’t do – give you the respect of being called Senator, ever again. The more Americans willing to disrespect you the way you have disrespected us, the better, Dick.

We both know your little tizzy was a publicity gimmick, but if you really want to display your deep concern for human rights, you might look into the cesspit your buddy’s running at the Cook County jail – it makes Gitmo look like Club Med. On second thought, probably not enough media attention in it for you. And there would be actual, real atrocities to point to, in your state, on your watch. But please, keep the great quotes coming, Dick. The Republicans won’t even need to campaign in your state this year.

Not just the jail. I pointed this out in a post a few days ago:

When one consider’s what this terrorist had to endure – extreme heat, extreme cold, loud rap music – perhaps Senator Moonbat should take a walk down Lawrence Avenue in Chicago in the middle of the Summer (or Winter). Every year, several hundred Chicagoan’s die as a result of no air conditioning during the Summer or heat during the Winter. And the overbearing presence of loud rap music is part of the “color” of some of those neighborhoods. And yet, we strangely have never heard the Senator get up on the floor of the Senate and lambast his good buddy Mayor Daley for allowing such things to occurr.

It would seem the Senator has more sympathy for people who want to blow us to kingdom come than he has for his own constituents.

Here’s a very serious (well, mostly) Jeff Goldstein:

You see? All Senator Dick was really doing was showing his love of country! And—dissent being the highest form of patriotism—it follows that the more vicious and speculative the dissent, the more fervent and geniune the patriotism. Which means that Durbin’s comparing Gitmo soldiers to the murderers of a combined 30 some-odd million civilians? One of the single greatest expressions of patriotism EVER!

Jeff’s takedown of Pandagon’s Jesse Taylor is classic Goldstein. The left’s current defense is that it’s patriotic to give aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime. Of course, they don’t quite put it that way. As I said earlier, it’s not what they say, it’s what they say they mean that counts.

We have yet to hear one word of condemnation from Senator Wanker’s colleagues. Until we do - until we see Dick Durbin in the well of the Senate Chamber abjectly apologizing for his sickening slander, the drumbeat will continue.

The boys at Powerline have taken a stab at a little political prognostication with regards to the Presidential race in 2008. This is always fun, of course although at this stage pretty much an exercise in futility.

But, okay…let’s play!

First, Paul has a surprising possibility:

As much as I hate to admit it, my sense is that the country, and probably even the Republican party, will have a serious case of Bush fatigue as 2008 approaches. It is normal for such fatigue to set in toward the end of a president’s second term. Moreover, President Bush’s policies — a war, daring legislative initiatives — and his bruising battles with Senate Democrats are especially likely to tire the country.

This means that the most likely nominee is a Republican governor or Rudy Giuliani. Within this group, the prize most likely will go to the candidate who appeals to conservatives without scaring moderates. Like the George Bush of 2000. Romney may fit that description.

First, I think that Paul is spot on with his belief that the people will be ready for a “return to normalcy.” In fact, I wrote about it for the American Thinker. Whoever the nominee from either party will have to make the War on Terror a secondary issue.

That said, I don’t think either Romney or Guiliani have a chance. The Republican Party hasn’t nominated a northeastern Governor since Tom Dewey in 1948. And while Eisenhower listed Pennsylvania as his home state (he maintained a home in Gettysburg), the old General could hardly be associated with the “Eastern Liberal Establishment” that conservatives rebelled against in 1964.

In fact, 1964 was the last time anyone from a northeastern state appeared on the Republican ticket. New York Congressman Bill Miller was Goldwater’s running mate. And while George Bush 41 had ties to the eastern establishment (and was successfully painted as such by Reagan in 1980) he made his political bones in Texas. I think the chances of a Republican from the northeast winning the nomination are about as good as a conservative Democrat from the South has of winning that parties top spot.

Here are John’s thoughts:

I agree that Bush fatigue will probably be a dominant theme of the 2008 campaign. It’s sad, but President Bush’s success will be the main reason why most people will be yearning for a change. I read somewhere that at the end of a meeting just after the September 11 attacks, Bush turned to Attorney General John Ashcroft and said: “John, don’t let it happen again.” To their eternal credit, Ashcroft, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest carried out that mandate. But if we get through the next two or three years without a major attack, most Americans will be more than ready to “move on.” To move back, really, to the days when everything seemed to be fine.

2008 is a long way off, of course, and don’t forget that I’m the guy who predicted a year before the 2004 election that whoever the Democrats nominated would defeat President Bush. I hope I’m wrong again, and large events are likely to intervene. But for what it’s worth, that’s how it looks now. It is infuriating that the Democrats should be rewarded for their reprehensible tactics, but rewarded, I think, they are likely to be.

A rather too pessimistic outlook, I’m afraid. What John is not taking into account is the endless capacity of the Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot with regards to Presidential nominees. If, for instance, the Democrats had nominated Joe Leiberman instead of John Kerry, I daresay we’d be looking at our President spending his summers on the eastern shore rather than Crawford, TX. Leiberman could have won the election going away, probably taking both Ohio and Florida away from Bush in the process. Kerry’s only hope was horrible economic and war news - news that never quite materialized.

So whither the Democrats in ‘08? CW says Hillary. I say follow the money. If you look at President Bush’s enormous fundraising advantage leading up to the primaries of 2000, you can see the value of raising cash early. Hillary will be able to do this with ease. Her liberal/Hollywood base is ready to give early and often. She and her husband (if Bill is still in the picture) will suck the air out of any other candidate, especially John Kerry and John Edwards.

Is there a chance for anyone else? No. Only if some shocking revelation regarding Hillary (not Bill) is brought to the forefront can she possibly lose. The feminists, the hard left, the anti-war crowd, George Soros and his money machine are all backing her. She’ll spend the next 2 1/2 years honing her message, massaging her image, and practicing her public speaking. She will win the nomination in a walk.

Here’s Deacon’s take:

I agree that ‘08 is likely to be a tough year for us. I’ve also recently come around to the view that Giuliani can be nominated despite his views on social issues. However, it would be premature to conclude even tentatively that we can only win with Giuliani or someone further to the left. And I tend to think Romney could survive a religion-based assault, although I don’t yet have a clear sense of this. If Romney can’t, there are other potentially attractive governors out there.

Mark my words; if the Republican party nominates a pro-choice candidate they will lose by at least 6 points. And while the electoral college will once again be close, in a race against Hillary, the Republicans would lose not only Florida, but potentially Virginia, Ohio, and Colorado as well. All of those states (except Ohio) have fast changing demographics trending toward the Democrats. Do not underestimate the excitement that a Hillary Clinton candidacy would generate. It would cross party lines and affect even the so-called “security moms” who were instrumental in Bush’s election win last year. She’d be tough to beat.

If Republicans thought the white evangelical vote last year was important it will be even more so in 2008. Only the nomination of a true blue, dyed in the wool, social conservative has a chance of beating Hillary. That’s why even though he’s an incompetent fool, Bill Frist may be the party’s first choice in “08. Senator Frist’s problem will be the fact that he’s a Senator and the Majority Leader. Could it be possible that Frist would resign his seat and pursue the White House after the mid term elections in ‘06? It’s not impossible, but I don’t see Frist as the gambling type.

So whither the Republicans in ‘08? Their only chance may be to nominate someone who would be able to generate almost as much excitement as Hillary. A social conservative but someone who wouldn’t scare the beejeebees out of the great middle of the road voter that’s the key to winning any election in this country.

How about a young, attractive Hispanic? Or a charismatic black female? Senator Mel Martinez and Secretary of State Condi Rice would both have many pluses and minuses. Either could run a strong, nationwide campaign against Hillary. They would generate a huge amount of excitement in the Hispanic and Black communities. Both have inspirational personal stories. And while Martinez is a one term Senator, he has Executive Branch experience as HUD Secretary.

The bottom line is that, historically speaking, Republicans tend to be much more pragmatic in their selection of Presidential nominees. An argument can be made that this is why they win so often. In 2008, it remains to be seen whether the Republican party has the discipline and foresight to nominate someone for what promises to be the most exciting Presidential election in a very long time.

Most of us who follow politics know that both the House and Senate chambers are usually quiet, staid places full of dignified representatives going about the people’s business with a combination of monotony and boredom.

But it wasn’t always so. A little more than 150 years ago, those two bodies were full of quarreling, angry men, many of whom came to the floor armed with pistols. There was a daily potential for real violence and Southern representatives were especially cognizant of any slight, any slander directed at their state or their “peculiar institution.” Fistfights on the House floor were not uncommon over the issue of slavery. In fact, it could fairly be said that the first blows in the American Civil War were struck between the people’s representatives in the lead up to the formal break in 1860.

The Senate was a little different. The high-born Senators were much less likely to engage in the rough and tumble of politics. They were expected to maintain a level of decorum in their debates according to long standing rules and traditions.

But even the Senate was not immune from the whirlwind that the issue of Kansas created. Should Kansas be admitted to the Union as a slave state or a free state? The issue held the attention of the nation during the spring of 1856 as Massachussetts Senator Charles Sumner rose and began to speak about slavery.

Politicians back then were something like the celebrities of today. In a time when politics was theater, politicans were expected to be entertainers, giving stemwinding speeches designed to rouse the passions of the listener.

Sumner didn’t disappoint. His speech alluded to slavery in the crudest, most sexually suggestive terms. This was no accident. One of the most horrifying aspects of slavery to the puritan-like citizens of New England was the “freedom of the slave quarters” granted to southern masters (and their house guests). Sumners words were designed to recall that horror and in the process condemn not only the institution of slavery, but those who practiced it:

But, before entering upon the argument, I must say something of a general character, particularly in response to what has fallen from Senators who have raised themselves to eminence on this floor in championship of human wrongs. I mean the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Butler), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglas), who, though unlike as Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, yet, like this couple, sally forth together in the same adventure. I regret much to miss the elder Senator from his seat; but the cause, against which he has run a tilt, with such activity of animosity, demands that the opportunity of exposing him should not be lost; and it is for the cause that I speak. The Senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight, with sentimcuts of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight I mean the harlot, Slavery. For her, his tongue is always profuse in words. Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this Senator. The frenzy of Don Quixote, in behalf of his wench, Dulcinea del Toboso, is all surpassed.

By insulting Senator Andrew Butler, Sumner had opened a hornets nest. One of Butler’s kinsman from South Carolina, Preston Brooks, took offense at the Senator’s slander. Here’s the official Senate history of the incident that followed:

Representative Preston Brooks was Butler’s South Carolina kinsman. If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel. Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs. Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his “Crime Against Kansas” speech.

Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner’s head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended.

Bleeding profusely, Sumner was carried away. Brooks walked calmly out of the chamber without being detained by the stunned onlookers. Overnight, both men became heroes in their respective regions.

The aftermath was shocking. Sumner (who never fully recovered his faculties after the beating) was lauded as a man who told it like it was. Brooks, in the meantime, became a hero throughout the south. People sent him canes by the score, some of them inscribed with “Hit Him Again.”

Brooks attacked Sumner for his blood libel against a kinsman. And now we have a similar blood libel made by my home state Senator Dick Durbin whose stupidity and arrogance I’ve written about here and here. Durbin’s libel was much more serious than a slap at someone’s family honor. His words comparing American interrogators to Nazi’s and the detention center at Guantanamo to death camps debase the government and people of the United States.

What’s worse, instead of apologizing, this embarassment to my home state has called on the United States to apologize for abandoning the Geneva Convention. It seems to have escaped this clueless moonbat that the Geneva protocols were written to protect soldiers in uniform. Since the only identifying feature of an al Qaeda foot soldier is the number of dead innocents left in his wake, the protocols would seem not to apply in his case.

This hasn’t stopped not only Durbin, but the jubilant Kossaks who now feel they have the President and his Iraq policy on the run. They are fairly bursting with hope that at last, they can do what they’ve been dreaming of for two years; repeat the success of their ideological ancestors of the 1960’s and cause the people of United States to lose faith in both the eventual victory in Iraq and the righteousness of our cause. It’s sickening.

Durbin has gotten what amounts to a caning in the last few days from the Shadow Media. I’ve detailed extensive reaction to the intial comments of the Senator here. Some additional thoughts follow.

Michelle Malkin:

What America needs is for President Bush himself to directly challenge Durbin on his treachery.

What President Bush should do is to call on Durbin to retract his remarks (not just apologize) and ask forgiveness from our troops and the American people.

Palmetto Pundit:

Oh, the humanity! It looks as if Sen. Durbin has joined the ranks of congressmen who are stuck on stupid. He either a) has no knowledge of history or b) he is making these sick comparisons out of hatred for the Bush Administration, or c) a combination of the two. Frankly, I couldn’t care less which one it is. All three are equally pitiful in my opinion.

Captian Ed:

It seems that the Democrats have, for the past four decades, ever been ready to smear the American military during a time of war — particularly with analogies to Nazis — to bolster their political fortunes at the nation’s expense. This hysterical and self-righteous namecalling turned out to be almost completely false in Viet Nam, but we learned that well after we ran out on our erstwhile allies in the South. They are even more ludicrous today, when the Durbins, Kerrys, and others have gotten so desperate for political attention that they now feel the need to toss out genocidal equivalences three at a time for what amounts to nothing more than humiliation techniques, invoking Nazis, Stalinists, and most egregiously the Khmer Rouge that their propaganda allowed to take power in the 1970s.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars:

“The senator was totally out of line for even thinking such thoughts, and we demand he apologize to every man and woman who has ever worn the uniform of our country, and to their families,” said John Furgess, the VFW’s commander-in-chief.
“Our soldiers put the needs of others first, just like generations of Americans before them,” said Furgess, a Vietnam veteran who retired as a colonel in the Tennessee Army National Guard.

“They answered the call to create our country, to save our Union, and to help free the world from tyranny. And in return, all they ever asked for was to be appreciated for who they are and what they do, and for the country to care for their minds and bodies if broken or care for their families should they die,” he said

Froggy Ruminations:

I want Durbin’s job, and I want it now. I’ll be damned if a US Senator is going to get away with comparing my comrades to the Gestapo, or Stalin’s thugs. To the people of the Great State of Illinois, none of you have a hair on you’re a$$ if you do not demand a recall of this piece of trash. This guy isn’t some benchwarmer nutjob either, he is in the Democratic leadership and as such he speaks for the rest of the 44 Senators in his caucus. If you are a Democrat US Senator and you do not have a statement of categorical disavowal of Durbin’s remarks and a plea for him to recant and apologize for them released to the press by close of business today, you are wrong.

That sounds like a great idea. Here’s Durbin’s email address and phone number:

Phone: (202) 224-2152 or (312) 353-4952

E-mail: dick@durbin.senate.gov

Let’s get busy.

The vote is in for this week’s Watcher’s Council and coming out on top was The Sundries Shack with a post entitled “What’s the Real Question in America.” Jimmie takes a column by WAPO’s Fred Hiatt on the reason that editorials in that august publication fixate on American sins apart piece by piece. Here’s Mr. Hiatt on why there aren’t more editorials on Zarqawi’s inhumanity:

But it’s also true that The Post has published more editorials criticizing Donald Rumsfeld than Abu Musab Zarqawi. That’s partly because, to the extent that editorials are meant to educate or explain, there isn’t all that much to say about Zarqawi’s evil that isn’t evident to most Post readers; and to the extent that editorials are meant to influence, there’s no point in addressing messages to the beheaders of the world.

And Jimmie’s response:

Did you catch that? You don’t see editorials about Zarqawi because, 1) we already know everything we need to know about him, and 2) he wouldn’t listen to us anyway.

But that jumps over a more important point. Newspaper editorials really aren’t about delivering facts. That’s what the news articles are suppoed to do. Editorials exist to deliver opinion - their job is to persuade, not to inform. Perhaps Hiatt’s confusion about the role of a newspaper editorial might also explain the problem with so many news articles. If he, a veteran reporter, believes that editorials are supposed to deliver facts, might he also believe that news articles are supposed to deliver opinions? It’s a fair question, I think.

A fair question that we’ll never get an answer to.

Finishing second in the voting was E.Claire’s excellent rant against the leftist idiots who want to turn the memorial at Ground Zero into an anti-American Disneyland. Here, Claire gently takes the organizers to task for their use of the word “freedom:”

“Not a word to shy away from?!? Whendahell have Americans ever shied awya from using the word “Freedom”?!? I hear President Bush use it regularly as his choices have freed 50 million people in the last few years.

Whatinhell, you might ask, does this have to do with US being attacked by raving 7th century religious nuts?

Gently, Claire…Oh Well. Read the whole thing but be forewarned; take your blood pressure meds before doing so.

Another excellent post from the Council was Gates of Vienna’s “The Slave Owner’s Book Store.” A Saudi couple in Colorado were keeping an Indonesian woman as a virtual slave:

If you were wondering how she escaped, the authorities were given “a tip” that the family was harboring an illegal alien. They got a search warrant in November, 2004 and discovered the slave. She was removed from the home and legal proceedings began.

If the benighted MSM doesn’t bury this story under toilet paper, it will be interesting to see how the trial goes and what the sentence is. Perhaps old Al-Turki should talk to Michael Jackson, see what the secret is.

Indeed.

Thw winning non-Council post was from Winds of Change entitled “Zimbabwe Changed My Mind: Guns Are A Human Right:”

As many of you know, I’m from Canada. We have a pretty different attitude to guns up here, and I must say that American gun culture has always kind of puzzled me. To me, one no more had a right to a gun than one did to a car.

The Right to Bear Arms is the only reliable way to prevent genocide in the modern world.

Even though I myself am something of a lukewarm 2nd Amendment supporter, I can see the truth in what he says. There is also truth in the idea pushed by gun rights supporters here that America will never know tyranny as long as people have a right to keep and bear arms.

Something to be said for that too.

If you’d like to participate in next week’s watcher’s vote, go here and follow instructions.

Jeff Goldstein is a very funny fellow:

A popular German TV murder mystery show recently had an episode that could have come from the pen of Michael Moore and the conspiracy nuts on the left:

The woman, who says in the program that the September 11 attacks were instigated by the Bush family for oil and power, then is targeted, presumably to silence her. The drama concludes with the German detectives accepting the truth of her story as she eludes the U.S. government hit men and escapes to safety in an unnamed Arab country.As ludicrous as it may sound to most Americans, the tale has resonance in Germany, where fantastic conspiracy theories often are taken as fact.

Many Germans think, for example, that the 1969 moon landing was faked, and a poll published in the weekly Die Zeit showed that 31 percent of Germans younger than 30 “think that there is a certain possibility that the U.S. government ordered the attacks of 9/11.”

(HT: Washington Times)

Here’s Mr. Goldstein:

Another one of those German “thought experiments,” most likely (my favorite is, “what if the Jews were responsible for German unemployment, a flagging economy, and the loss of Germanic pride? Are Gypsies worth feeding? What if we handled the “gay” problem with big pizza ovens?”).
Oh well, let’s cut them some slack. They’re just brave thinkers—positing fictional scenarios as a way to expand their understanding of how the pragmatic concept of contingency obtains in the shaping and propagating of historiographical interpretations of world events.

And what harm ever came from that….?

And speaking of “thought experiments”…

Mel Brooks is also a very funny fellow. In fact, there’s only one time I laughed so hard I actually peed in my pants. It was the first time I saw Brooks’ riotously funny movie “The Producers.”

It’s a Broadway show now. Matthew Broederick and the very funny Nathan Lane played the characters portrayed by the incomparable Zero Mostel and comic genious Gene Wilder in the movie. The plot is simple. A down on his luck Broadway producer, with the help of a mild mannered accountant, seek to make millions by swindling investors. They do this by overselling “shares” in the musical (50% of the profits for one investor, %75% for another, 100% for another, etc.).

But in order not to have to pay out, they must find an absolutely sure fire flop of a show. They find it in a musical entitled “Springtime for Hitler: A Gay Romp with Adolf and Eva at Berchetesgarden.”

Here’s the title song, played to the hilt using showgirls dressed in provocative storm trooper outfits and a huge swastika as a backdrop:

Germany was having trouble
What a sad, sad story
Needed a new leader to restore
Its former glory
Where, oh, where was he?
Where could that man be?
We looked around and then we found
The man for you and me
LEAD TENOR STORMTROOPER:
And now it’s…
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Deutschland is happy and gay!
We’re marching to a faster pace
Look out, here comes the master race!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Rhineland’s a fine land once more!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Watch out, Europe
We’re going on tour!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany

Move over Mel…you got company.

Within a few months, some very disturbing pictures will wash across our TV screens. It will not be of innocent civilians killed by car bombs or US soldiers being blown up by IED’s. The pictures will be much more unnerving than that.

They will be pictures of our enemies dancing in the streets.

From the refugee camps in Palestine to the streets of Tehran, the nauseating scenes of supporters of people who want to murder us all dancing and screaming “Death to America” will be dwelt on lovingly by the media as the news that America is retreating in the War on Terror reaches even the benighted savages in that excreable part of the world.

This is only the beginning:

President Bush would have to start bringing home U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1, 2006, under a measure a small bipartisan group of House lawmakers - including a Republican who voted for war - proposed Thursday.

Two Republicans and two Democrats introduced a resolution that would require the president to announce by the end of this year a plan for withdrawing troops and steps for following through on that plan. Other Democrats quickly signed onto the plan.

It is the first such resolution put forth by lawmakers from both parties, although an overwhelming number of Democrats and six House Republicans voted in 2002 against sending troops to Iraq.

Don’t anybody kid themselves. With the constant barrage of negative news from Iraq by the MSM plus the added weight of the torture narrative that’s been pounded into the American people for more than a year, a timetable for withdrawal will strike a resonant chord with the American people and before you can say “Bushitler” there will be more Congressman co-sponsoring that resolution than you can shake a stick at.

As I said in a post just this past Monday, the President had to get out front of this issue and squash it in his own party before it started to gain momentum:

I can smell the panic from here.

Unlike Viet Nam, this country is so wired with wall to wall cable and internet news that this type of Congressional insurgency won’t take years or months to ripen, but rather days. The President has to nip this in the bud now or risk losing Congressional support for the Iraq war.

Nothing less than a clear, unambiguous rejection of this resolution by the President will keep a gaggle of Republicans from joining this effort. Any delay could result in the weak and faint of heart (read politically vulnerable) making common cause with people who have little desire to see Iraq - or any other country in the Middle East - free but rather a deep passion to see the President’s policy fail.

The fat lady ain’t singing yet for the war. But I can hear her warming up in the wings.

There’s an old Scottish prayer that goes:

From Ghoulies and Ghosties
and long legged beasties
and things that go bump in the night,
Oh Lord! Deliver us.

I’d like to make an addition to that collection of phantasms and include Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, AKA “Kos” and all his minions and hangers-on who emerge occasionally from the nether reaches of planet earth to spew the most vile and corrupt conceits against the United States and its military while giving aid and comfort to those who would destroy us.

They are despicable.

Defending Senator Durbin’s remarks equating American soldiers with Nazis and Pol Pot is one thing. That kind of political mud wrestling is part of the game. But to then turn the response to Senator Durbin’s baseless and hysterical charges into a countercharge alleging that people who criticize the Senator are supporting torture is so beyond the pale as to make it unrecognizable as political discourse.

This is too much:

To the pea brains on the Right, incapable of reading the English language in its most basic, unuanced form, they claim Durbin is calling our troops Nazis. The Wingnutosphere is making that claim. Rush is making that claim. Hannity is making that claim. Drudge is making that claim. Look to Fox News to jump on the bandwagon tomorrow.

Of course, what Durbin is saying is that such torture — undisputed, by the way, and read from an FBI report — is more at home in a place like Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany than in a modern Democracy.

Only an idiot would call the interrogation techniques used on that murderous thug torture. Only a fool would say this:

And these cowards — these people who will neither serve the cause they claim is so vital, nor urge others to serve it — now rush to defend behavior that is indefensible?

WHAT IS SO INDEFENSIBLE? MAKING A TERRORIST UNCOMFORTABLE? MAKING HIM SWEAT? MAKING HIM SHIVER? MAKING HIM LISTEN TO RAP MUSIC?

The FBI report is full of “torture” techniques like this. Let’s not forget “the finger in the chest” routine. Ach! That’s Medieval! What’s next, the rack? Or how about the technique our ogreish interrogators came up with all on their own; the infamous “Drink Water or Wear it” torture where the poor, innocent beheader of women was splashed with water.

Powerline had the perfect response to this nonsense:

By the way, there is a serious point to be made here. No one thinks that playing Christina Aguilera music, shaving a guy’s beard off, and putting him in the same room with a woman are the most effective ways to extract information from a detainee. The reason why these unorthodox methods were used, obviously, is that the more effective, but less humane, techniques that have been used since time immemorial were banned by our civilian authorities, and the American military took seriously the restrictions under which they were operating. The mildness with which terrorist detainees have been treated stands as an imperishable monument to the greatness of the American spirit and the moderation of the Bush administration.

I’ve said many times since 9/11 that my eyes have been opened to the perfidy and faithlessness of the left. I no longer feel constrained to voice the thought that they are collectively a traitorous lot with no more regard for this country (NOT the President. The United States of America) than my pet cat.

I’m sick to death of them excusing their giving aid and comfort to enemies who wish to kill us all as nothing more than some kind of patriotism recognized as such only by them . It’s not working anymore, not when our enemies are the only ones cheering them on. When al Jazeera isn’t talking about torture but how people like the Kossaks are condemning their own country for stress techniques that wouldn’t injure anyone - much less a hardened terrorist - then you can be sure that your advocacy for the comfort of the murderous beheaders is not going unnoticed.

Congratulations. You should be right proud of yourselves. Too bad this isn’t 1945 instead of 2005. Your advocacy would place you where you belong; in jail right along side the beneficiaries of your munificence.