Cointelpro 2 Is Here
Tweet
A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn’t know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.
A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a threat and one of more than 1,500 suspicious incidents across the country over a recent 10-month period.
51 Responses to “Cointelpro 2 Is Here”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
This shouldn’t really come as a surprise. Just another product of Team Bush’s fear-based leadership strategy.
A threat?
What do they think we’re going to do? Our most dangerous weapons are silence, bumper stickers, and huge mugs of decaf tea.
Dunno, dude…our local meeting has some pretty darned threatening bumper stickers. And that tea is hot…you could burn someone. Heheh.
Can I play? The DoD was probably afraid guys would stop going in the service, and then they wouldn’t get those neato free dinners from Halliburton!
Ha ha ho ho hee hee!
I could suggest a reason why this group caught the DoD’s eye, but it wouldn’t be worth the trouble. Just keep the echo chamber going.
It wouldn’t be worth the trouble Frank but it just might be worth the laughs.
There’s a reason this shit is illegal. Once those psychotic bastards in the DoD get comfortable with spying on citizens, they’ll be back to ‘infiltrating’ legal, constitutionally protected citizens’ groups (assuming that they haven’t already). Once they get comfortable infiltrating, they won’t be happy with just reporting on what they hear. They’ll go back to sending in agents to provoke and enact illegal and violent behavior, all with the intention of discrediting legal and appropriate public dissent.
This isn’t tin foil hat nail-biting, this is based on the experience of officially documented history. It might not be as sexy as a handful of wealthy Manhattanites riding around in limousines, but it did happen.
I guess the Bushies figure that if it worked for Nixon, it’ll work again for them. I’m sure we’ll hear from some apologists right here who will agree with all of it. OH, WAIT! We already have…
Righties hate anti-war quakers, why would they have a problem with the government infiltrating them and instigating violence on thier behalf?
The question becomes then : does DOD have the right to keep tabs on groups it thinks are ‘potentially’ a threat to DOD activities, facilities, mission. I think it does and if it does, the military would not be releasing details of its investigations – so invariablty their side of the argument never gets presented. So we don’t know what caused these people to come under scrutiny – if in fact it was scrutiny as opposed to mere documented ‘awareness’ of the their activities. Every year a group of left wing thugs come down to Ft Benning and sirupt the lives of soldiers there – throwing blood on the walls etc. It helps for the post to know these slimy b*stards are coming.
And what about these yahoos trying to keep DOD from doing its job. On one hand the left crows about war time recruiting being down and then on the other, at the grass roots level, they are actively working to thwart the military at colleges and schools. Nice. Soldiers are out there dying for their rights, died for their rights under Bubba, Bush I, JC, etc yet the left tries to sabortage their efforts to remain strong. Why?
Dugger
frameone: I agree with dugger1. Why aren’t you laughimg?
Nice strawman, dugger. The question isn’t whether the left supports soldiers, but whether the DoD has a right to engage in extensive espionage upon citizens of the United States. To any right-thinking person, the answer should be “no.” The DoD has always been overzealous in its attempts to protect its own installations, and in recent years has shown a disturbing inclination to strike out on its own in the intelligence field in general. I should know…a close friend works for the DIA.
We have the FBI for this stuff. There’s a reason the FBI is subject to a regime of close oversight and legal strictures. What you’re suggesting is that an agency renowned for “black ops” and operating without adequate oversight (or with far too much leeway granted in that oversight) be allowed to spy on its own citizens in pretty much whatever way it wants, and maintain whatever data it wants on whoever it wants.
As you say, “nice.” Based on your comments, my guess is you think this is okay mostly because you don’t figure you’ll ever be a target. That’s pretty shortsighted.
Dugger the predictable.
Is it any wonder the Pentagon has been exposed to the contagion of paranoia
reminiscent of the Dark Ages of Nixon?
Just look at the Commander in Chief.
I’m not laughing because Dugger, as others pointed out, just advocated government spying on citizens all because they want to excersise their Constitutional right. It’s bullshit to say the Quakers should be spied on because someone in Florida commits vandalism. I also note that he’s supporting the use of secret evidence. If these people are ever arrested will they be able to get a fair trial with all the evidence against them laid out in open court and the ability to cross examine the government?
I’m not laughing because Dugger just shit all over the Constitution.
Look at the Commander in Chief? Why not look at all of the rest of the Nixon retreads that Putsch has in places of power within the junta.
I thought that all that TSA stuff was supposed to be discontinued a few years ago when they got caught putting it in place then. Funny how they just cooked up another name and another government bureauracy, forgot to mention it to the public, and continued on their merry way.
I’m also sure that, if they were targeting and documenting all of the illegal shenanigans that the Young College Repugnicants, the AFA, and all of the theofascists have been up to, the reich wing types here would be just as happy to see them doing it. One day they may find themselves in a similar situation as those who are being spied on today. Perhaps then they might change their tune…
“engage in extensive espionage upon citizens of the United States”
Be careful, Concord. I think the DOD intelligence services already have the right to track and document the activities of US citizens in connection with legitimate service functions. But who said anything about extensive espionage or espionage at all in this case? Espionage suggesting infiltrating the groups etc. We have no evidence of that.
And I’m not so sure the left supports soldiers. I don’t think the likes of Corrigan or Jadegold support soldiers in any way. And I don’t think we support soldiers by telling those soldiers out there risking their lives that they are doing so at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons, in the wrong place and they are going to lose anyway. I was a soldier and that sure as h*ll would not sound like support to me.
BTW, DIA is not well known for black ops. CIA and elements of various service components are. And there are other military intelligence units besides and outside of DIA.
And I do sympathize with the services here. I acknowledge there needs to be certain rules regarding the gathering of intell, but I think if we ask young men and women to sacrifice their lives for their country, we need to support them with more than sixties rhetoric. Come down to Benning sometimes and take a gander at that gaggle of ex-hippies throwing blood on the soldiers’ facilities – soldiers about to go out and die for the right of those worthless, godforsaken hippies to such cr*p.
Dugger
Dugger;
You certainly have the constitutional right to call the Ft Benning
protesters “worthless, godforsaken hippies” without any fear of
governmental retribution, which could curtail your civil rights.
Dugger, you’ve absent-mindedly forgotten to mention exactly what it is the Benning protesters are there to protest.
For those who aren’t familiar with the torture school formerly known as the School of the Americas, here’s more info.
Dammit, Leo and Quaker…stop typing so fast.
Be careful, Concord. I think the DOD intelligence services already have the right to track and document the activities of US citizens in connection with legitimate service functions.
A limited right. How far that right extends is, as I read it, precisely the issue. My read on where it should be would fall somewhere under the category of “sharply limited.”
But who said anything about extensive espionage or espionage at all in this case? Espionage suggesting infiltrating the groups etc. We have no evidence of that.
Whether that’s what it suggests or not is probably open to discussion. From the article:
It means that they re actually collecting information about who s at those protests, the descriptions of vehicles at those protests, says Arkin. On the domestic level, this is unprecedented, he says. I think it’s the beginning of enormous problems and enormous mischief for the military.
I used “extensive” deliberately because it can be relative. There’s not some hard and fast line that qualifies as extensive. Which is precisely why there needs to be better oversight.
I realize that people in the right wing of the American political spectrum have a nearly congenital need to make every defense or DoD-related issue about “supporting the soldiers.” I’m sorry, then, to remind you once again that “supporting soldiers” has exactly nothing to do with this issue. Zero. This is about whether the DoD has the right to spy on American citizens. Period. While it’s probably true that most of the people they’d be inclined to spy on have some issue with the military, and that some of them may not “support the soldiers,” it’s also true that correlation does not imply causation. It’s not an issue of patriotism, it’s an issue of prying.
Allow me to clarify. By “agency” I was not referring to the DIA specifically, and I only offered it later as one example. My initial reference was meant to be to the DoD as a whole, so I should have said “department” rather than “agency.” My bad. Further to that, “black ops” would be more accurately stated as “black budget,” or classified spending. So basically I pretty much hosed my point, which is that the DoD is notorious for spending money on classified projects that get little or no oversight. To wit:
Neither Congress nor the executive branch regularly produces reports on oversight of classified spending. None has been made during the buildup after the 2001 terrorist attacks. Without such investigations, it’s impossible to know whether, or to what extent, the classified “black budget” is being abused.
From an article that’s tangentially related.
And I do sympathize with the services here. I acknowledge there needs to be certain rules regarding the gathering of intell, but I think if we ask young men and women to sacrifice their lives for their country, we need to support them with more than sixties rhetoric.
Don’t get the impression that I have a particular beef with service members. I can run down a roster of military service in my own family dating at least back to the Civil War, including my own. But as I said earlier, sympathy for the troops has nothing to do with this. It’s also bogus to take a swipe like “sixties rhetoric,” as if to imply that civil libertarians = hippies, which is quite plainly false.
Come down to Benning sometimes and take a gander at that gaggle of ex-hippies throwing blood on the soldiers facilities – soldiers about to go out and die for the right of those worthless, godforsaken hippies to such cr*p.
First, I find it instructive that you would refer to fellow Americans as “worthless, godforsaken” people. As much as I might disagree with you, or Frank, or Ian, I don’t think any of you are “worthless.” Second, I find it equally instructive that you would cite as your example the home of the SoA, which is hardly representative. Instead, why don’t you come up here? I can take you to Fort Bragg, to Seymour Johnson AFB, to Pope AFB, a little ways up the road to the Norfolk Naval Station. Nothing to speak of goes on at any of those bases. You don’t suppose that Benning’s situation might be a little different?
It’s not particularly germane to the discussion, at any rate, because again, you’re trying to make this about “supporting the troops.” It. Is. Not. About. The. Troops. It is about government prying into the affairs of private citizens, something right-wingers seem generally to detest.
One more, and then I’ll stop for a while. Above, where I started with “Allow me to clarify,” I was editing and accidentally removed the relevant cite from Dugger’s post:
BTW, DIA is not well known for black ops. CIA and elements of various service components are. And there are other military intelligence units besides and outside of DIA.
Sorry about that, and the sort of non-sequitur transition that resulted.
Also, I happen to know–first-hand–that those dangerous radicals meeting to discuss ways to keep military recruiters out of high schools are working for the American Friends Service Committee. That’s the social justice branch of the Quakers.
If the AFSC is a threat to our security, we’re in bad shape, indeed.
Concord,
“So basically I pretty much hosed my point, which is that the DoD is notorious for spending money on classified projects that get little or no oversight”
No, you made the point OK. I have had some personal experience in this matter and you are correct. The problem is that the programs need to be top secret (thats where stealth came from) – oversight equals public domain often. Typically, black money (that I was aware of – I wouldn’t have known about CIA) was skimmed off the top of the big DOD budget – maybe like 2% in my days. This was doable because in Gov. , the focus is almost always on the budgetary side and not the expenditure side. You say you want $30M for a special ops helicopter, but in the end it only costs $29M (more complex than that).
And both you and Quaker are right that the focus at Benning is the old School of the Americas, but that doesn’t stop the, uhhh, protesting citizens from damaging the facilities of our soldiers. Why can’t they go through ‘democratic’ channels if they disagree rather than scr*wing with the soldiers? And I have been at other sites (WPAFB) where the protesters disrupted military ops.
I don’t know at all, but my bet is that the military is merely keeping tabs on an organization that they fear will turn up on their doorstep one day soon. If what they are doing is against the law, it should be stopped. But I still have a lot of disgust for those who clainm to support the military and then try their damndest to stop the military from doing their jobs. Right or left, we should be thanking those people, not hindering them.
Dugger
And I m not so sure the left supports soldiers. I don t think the likes of Corrigan or Jadegold support soldiers in any way. And I don t think we support soldiers by telling those soldiers out there risking their lives that they are doing so at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons, in the wrong place and they are going to lose anyway. I was a soldier and that sure as h*ll would not sound like support to me.
Here’s something I don’t understand about the “support the troops” thinking that Dugger discusses, above. In this mode of thinking, there is, essentially, never any reason to criticize a military operation without being tagged as somebody who hates the military.
Let’s put Iraq aside for a moment.
Extreme Hypothetical: An administration in the future, Democrat or Republican, decides that our military should invade, say, Italy, specifically in order to target orphanages. Through whatever means and for whatever reasons, Congress authorizes this use of force.
The military invades and begins shooting up Italian orphanages.
Now, because we are reasonable human beings, most of us could agree that using the military to shoot up a bunch of Italian orphans would be a prime example of a moment when we might be moved to point out that the soldiers are risking their lives at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons, and in the wrong place.
But under Dugger’s philosophy as stated, there simply is no appropriate time to cry foul. Once the military is on the move, everything they do is right–and to criticize the administration that began Operation Oliver Twist would also be tantamount to treason.
The slippery slope of this is that any President who wishes to go about his or her business unchecked need only commit troops to action. This seems a really scary precedent to set.
Dugger, maybe you could expand on the “damaging the facilities of our soldiers” thing.
My understanding was that the protesters at Benning were arrested the moment they entered the base.
Dugger – I wasn’t criticizing soldiers, either above or before. My hypothetical isn’t about criticizing the body of the military, it was about criticizing their “use.”
These are not the same thing. I have trouble understanding why you can’t see that.
BD,
You can criticize soldiers all you want. Soldiers died so that you can do that.
But, BUT, if you criticize soldiers, be honest enough to not claim you are supporting soldiers.
We live in a democracy – meaning sometimes things happen according to the pouplar will that we don’t like. But good citizens realize the democratic principal is an overriding moral one. Can we live in a ‘democracy’ and select the rules and laws and taxes we want obey and pay and ignore the rest. Will that work? Of course not. So a soldier goes to war selflessly in support of the ‘democracy’ sometimes in support of an effort he may not not personally support. In my book, that speaks highly of that individual. He may lose his or her life serving the republic. That being the case, it seems to me the criticism of same said soldier, if it needs to be done, by those not risking their lives, those not serving, needs to take into account the soldiers risk, his higher moral calling. The por soldier had a large majority of politicians of both sides line up and say “go to war, son”. george Bush said it. John Kerry said it. many, many others said. “Democracy’ spoke. then he gets over there and these same politicians who told him to go start comapring his fellow soldiers to Nazis, saying they will lose, calling it the wrong war etc. Doesn’t seem right to me.
Dugger
My gripe is that no one on the left seems to think soldiers Support does not equal criticize. And one can criticize a warWhy aren’t soldiers considered in hte same vein as the Red Cross or
BD,
You were making an intellectual point. No problem with that. My ‘you’ was more an an editorial ‘you’. I maybe should have better said ‘one’. And again, one can criticize soldiers (hey, sometimes -like Calley- they may deserve it), their use or whatever. I would argue that, like say police and Red Cross volunteers, soldiers deserve a little extra consideration ( a nasty, underpaid job at which they may die). And that the left seldom seems to police its own kind from nasty, overly broad criticisms of the military – like Corrigan’s Nazi anlaogy here re the Marines, or Durbins Nazi Gitmo analogy. Why wasn’t there a mainstream liberal out there saying something about Durbin? Party unity was more important or they believed what he said? And that the time to be harsh and strident and provocative re going to war is before the decision is made, not after you have already sent young men and women in harm’s way. You can criticize after the decision is made but you are, to an extent, then hurting those young men and women, even if you don’t intend to.
Dugger
Do you really not know the answer to this?
There wasn’t a mainstream liberal out there saying something about Durbin because they were all trampled in the stampede of conservatives to get in front of a camera or microphone to misrepresent what Durbin had actually said.
Mainstream liberals were so busy trying to correct the record–and fending off accusations of “hating the troops”–that any considered criticism of Durbin was drowned out.
And that the time to be harsh and strident and provocative re going to war is before the decision is made, not after you have already sent young men and women in harm s way.
Good Lord. We tried this. The war protestors got marginalized as a “focus group.”
Durbin’s to be faulted for his use of Nazis as an evocative image–breaching Godwin is a bad idea outside of the net as well–but not for his larger point; that we as Americans should be holding ourselves to a higher standard if we intend to go about the world creating regions in our image.
I don t know at all, but my bet is that the military is merely keeping tabs on an organization that they fear will turn up on their doorstep one day soon.
I would hope it amounts to nothing more than that. And even that, in my opinion, is something they should cooperate with the FBI on. IMO.
If what they are doing is against the law, it should be stopped.
Yes.
But I still have a lot of disgust for those who clainm to support the military and then try their damndest to stop the military from doing their jobs. Right or left, we should be thanking those people, not hindering them.
Personally, I thank them every time I visit my grandfather’s grave. But that doesn’t stop me being very, very skeptical any time someone wants to send troops into harms way. On the contrary, maybe it makes me more so.
And I don’t buy the argument that dissent stops after deployment. When the deployment is misguided, or flat out wrong, those in opposition have all the more responsibility to get our people back home. There’s no greater support than trying to get each and every service member back home in one piece, at the earliest possible time.
As BD points out, those of us in the antiwar camp made an exceptional amount of noise prior to the launch of this little misadventure, and were drummed out of the public square, called “loonies” and “objectively pro-Saddam” (that one particularly rankles), and generally dismissed as appeasers. Please pardon me if, after that treatment, I don’t feel obligated to sit down and shut up.
Oh, and I personally think Durbin was a boob for making that comment, if for no other reason than because he demonstrated lamentable ignorance re: Godwin’s Law. But no one offered me airtime to broadcast that opinion.
“Good Lord. We tried this. The war protestors got marginalized as a focus group. ”
Don’t agree. War protesters had and have the same vote as you and I. Are we marginalized? Should they have had more than one vote? Media outlets gave voice to their complaints – much as they do Cindy Sheehan’s now. When there are two or more ways and you have a democracy, only one way, the majority way, will get done. The other side is not marginalized.
I’d say thats a poor excuse Quaker. A Democrat could have asily said: I like Dick Durbin. He’s afine seantor and I look forward to working with him. But on this he’s wrong, dead wrong. Period. Wouldn’t have really hurt the Dems, wouldn’t have particularly hurt Durbin. But it wasn’t done.
Dugger, Abso-frappin-lutely the worst typist on the Internet.
Could have. But as I said before, most of the Dems were too busy saying stuff like, “No, Dick didn’t say that all American troops are just like Nazis,” and “No, Dick Durbin isn’t a traitor who should resign from the Senate and be sent to a re-education camp.”
The purely over-the-top hysteria that came from the right, the blatant and purposeful misrepresentation of what Durbin actually said drove his colleagues to stick up for him instead of piling on.
The disgrace wasn’t in what wasn’t said. It’s in what the shouters kept shouting.
I also don’t buy your bullshit about Durbin. You support torture, remember? You don’t have a problem with the tactics used by Nazis, remember? You yourself would license our soldiers to use Nazi tactics. You don’t care, remember?
Dugger –
I doubt you when you praise the troops for protecting our freedom when so often it sounds like you would have been fine living in Hussein’s Iraq, just as long as you were on the right side of the repression.
“You can criticize after the decision is made but you are, to an extent, then hurting those young men and women, even if you don t intend to.”
This is brilliant logic Dugger, just brilliant. It isn’t the President’s fault that soldiers are dying in an unnecessary, ill-conceived and destabilizing disaster, it’s the fault of the people criticizing the President for launching the disaster in the first place.
Get rid of the Nazi analogy altogether. There have been adept torturers since 1945, after all. One could easily make the comparison that allowing our soldiers and CIA agents to torture is allowing them to use the tools of the Pinochet regime and al-Qaida.
It should be clear why it is that we want to prohibit torture. We’re supposed to be The Good Guys.
Yes.
It’s best not to bring up Nazis unless you’re actually talking about Germany and World War II. If you mention them in any other context, you’re only going to end up arguing about whether the reference was appropriate instead of discussing the point you were hoping to make in the first place.
frame,
Where does your brain go at times? Three irrational, uninvited, hate-filled posts in about half an hour.
Many regimes have used torture – including the Israelis. Even some supporters of the McCain law acknowledge there might be a time when torture will need to be used (extra-legally – the so called ticking time bomb scenario). Are they, along with the Israeli’s Nazis too, per your unmedicated logic?
No where, anyplace, did I say war protesters were responsible for soldiers dying. You flat made that up. I said and say “You can criticize after the decision is made but you are, to an extent, then hurting those young men and women, even if you don t intend to.”
And your first post is even more idiotic than the other two.
Dugger
Quaker,
It gets weaker each time. You are saying, in effect, that what Durbin said about the troops was wrong, merited criticism, but Democrats get a pass because there was over-the-top criticism of Durbin from the right. What about Democrats showing the troops some respect by criticizing Durbins remarks and then respond as appropriate to whatever criticism of Durbin went too far. You make my point. To protect themselves politically, Democrats let the troop smear stand.
Dugger
And to score political points, Republicans let the misrepresentation of Durbin’s comment stand.
Where were the “mainstream Republicans” saying, “Now calm down, everybody. We all know that’s not what Dick said”?
There weren’t any.
If you’re going to point fingers at Dems for making too little of what Durbin said, it’s only fair to lay the same amount of blame on Republicans who made too much of it.
Oh wait I get it now. You criticize Durbin because he implied that using Nazi tactics was a BAD thing. Seeing as how you think the Nazis were on to something with this torture deal I can understand why you’d be miffed.
Dugger –
So when you said this: “You can criticize after the decision is made but you are, to an extent, then hurting those young men and women, even if you don t intend to” you meant what exactly? That war protesters were getting soldiers injuried? How do you mean hurting? You repeat the phrase but don’t explain what you meant. I wager, like most right wing idiots, you enjoy hiding behind insinuation all the better to play dumb when someone calls you on your crap.
Speaking of twisting someone’s words. Durbin never said our soldiers were Nazis. He said that the confirmed abuse at Gitmo sounded indistinguishable from the tactics used by Nazis and Stalin. You jump all over him for it but you have repeatedly said that you support these very same tactics. Furthermore, you have said that it doesn’t bother you that the Nazis and other despicable regimes have used torture, you still support its use. You support torture, so you support our troops using Nazi approved tactics. So what’s your problem with Durbin?
Durbin said that confirmed incidents of torture at American detention facilities sound indistinguishable from some of the torture tactics used by the Nazis and Stalin.
…and I might add, my response is an example of the other half of what I was talking about.
If you want to put forward a misrepresentation of the facts, we’ll discuss that first and get back to what Durbin actually said later.
Quaker,
Your dodging. Political give and take goes on all the time. Republicans do it, Dems do it, with each side often exagerrating the bad points of the other side. Durbin stepped away from that political give and take and targeted soldiers. Yet per your logic, since Republicans criticized Durbin in a way thought by your side to be unfair, Durbin’s smear of the military goes unchallenged by Democrats.
Dugger
Right there are a couple of excellent examples of what I’m talking about. Durbin did nothing of the sort. To claim that he did is to misrepresent his statement.
“And your first post is even more idiotic than the other two.”
Really? Let’s find out. You have expressed support for the following things:
1. The military’s right to spy on American citizens.
2. Torture.
You could start a really nice police state with just those two positions Dugs.
Quaker, So now its evolved into Durbin did not say anything bad about the military. So per your analysis, his remarks were OK and the whole problem is the old right wing bogeyman? AS ex military, I thought his remarks insulting. Here’s what another miltary said:
The senator’s remarks, while apparently intended to apply to only a small number of us, actually hit ALL of us squarely in the heart. To compare any member of the U.S. armed forces with the murderous thugs who ran Hitler’s camp system, the Soviet Gulag, or who gleefully slaughtered entire populations in Cambodia, is an affront to all men and women of our military.
“Does Senator Durbin really mean to imply that WE are thugs and murderers? Does he really mean to imply that WE treat our prisoners in the same manner, as say, the totenkopfverbande treated prisoners at Sobibor, Belzec, Treblinka, or Auschwitz? Does he really mean that?”
Durbin’s defense was that he, technically, didn’t know the Gitmo interrogators were military. Did dumb ol’ frat boy George Bush dupe yet another progressive?
Dugger
“Does he really mean to imply that WE treat our prisoners in the same manner, as say, the totenkopfverbande treated prisoners at Sobibor, Belzec, Treblinka, or Auschwitz?”
But Dugger, you support the way many of these prisoners were treated. You support torture.
Off-topic, Dugger.
Your original question was “Why wasn t there a mainstream liberal out there saying something about Durbin?”
Your last comment tries to take this discussion into a different area. This thread is slipping quickly off the front page, and I’m not eager to open up a new line of discussion.
Your nice example notwithstanding, I think we both have read what Durbin said and understand precisely the point he tried to make.
If Durbin’s detractors were genuinely concerned about the tender feelings of our soldiers, they wouldn’t have worked so tirelessly to keep his comments–excuse me–a distorted version of his comments–on the front page.
I’ll try once again to answer your initial question: there were no mainstream Democrats lining up to excoriate Durbin because they didn’t want to appear to be taking part in the shameless, politically motivate smear campaign being waged against him.
If someone shouts: “Why won’t your brother apologize for beating his wife?” which should I say? a) “My brother doesn’t beat his wife.” or b) “My brother really should apologize for saying those pants make her butt look fat.”
No evolution has taken place.
Durbin was talking about a set of specific events. He opined that if one were to guess who performed these acts, one would guess that very bad people had performed them.
There was no generalization about “the military”
There were no mainstream Democrats lining up to excoriate Durbin because there was no reason to excoriate Durbin in the first place. Period.
Already answered.