1) Strike “pile on” and substitute “criticize”
2) No, that is not what I was arguing.

Just two “gotcha lasts”.

“Why didn t  the Left pile on Durbin?’

Pile on? Come on. The left didn’t even get within the same zip code of criticizing Durbin. My entire gripe.

Your last point. Durbin himself initially argued that he didn’t know the ‘Americans’ at Gitmo were soldiers.

Dugger

Look at the description above and tell me: “Yup. Sounds like Americans to me.”

If you can’t do that, then that description sounds like it’s about somebody else.

Durbin used the word Nazi as a descriptor concerning the efforts of americans

After all this back-and-forth, now you’re going to prove you knew you were mischaracterizing all along? “…concerning the efforts…” Not “smearing the troops,” not “comparing soldiers to…”. Durbin was–and we are–talking about specific actions.

If I give an open-handed stiff-armed salute, am I not performing an action you would expect of a Nazi? If a dance around in a goofy little jig when a city is destroyed, wouldn’t it be fair to characterize that as “something Hitler did”?

The problem, Quaker, is the choice of the word Nazi (and COmmie and Pol Pot).

Yeah, that’s a problem. I could have reworded that speech seven different ways so that Durbin made exactly the same point, but without using the n-word (or the c-word or the p-word). But in every single formulation, he would have been saying exactly the same thing: listen to these words and tell me that Americans shouldn’t be doing this.

Now I’ve exhausted my patience with this topic. I’ll sum up by returning to your original question: Why didn’t “the Left” pile on Durbin? Because the “outrage” was fake, phony, and contrived. Also manufactured and bogus. They were piling on Durbin, not to defend the military, but just to make political hay. Nothing anyone on the Left said or failed to say would have changed that a jot.

Are you trying to argue that Durbin did not mean soldiers at Gitmo when he said Americans?

What?

The problem, Quaker, is the choice of the word Nazi (and COmmie and Pol Pot).

I have yet to see a ‘conditon’ that subtracts out any of those words. None. Are you trying to argue that Durbin did not mean soldiers at Gitmo when he said Americans?

Dugger

On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. . . . On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.

Read it and tell me that’s typical of how our soldiers treat captives. That would be smearing the troops.

by demeaning a segment of the military with his broad brush smear

Another mischaracterization. What “segment” of the military did Durbin describe?

There was no “segment.” He read an FBI report and said: “If you had to guess, you wouldn’t guess Americans.”

Exaclty what conditon did Durbin set?

You looked it up and quoted it earlier and here it is again: “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…”

If I didn’t tell give you the answer, you wouldn’t guess Americans, you’d guess Nazis.

Like I said, it appears “conditionalization” only works for one side.

You still won’t admit that the whole uproar was a politically motivated GOP tactic to divert attention from what Durbin actually had to say. Here’s the Washington Post, reporting in real time:

The week-long Republican campaign against Durbin shifted attention from the subject of the senator’s initial statement: allegations that terrorism suspects are being mistreated at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Critics have called for the base to be closed, but defenders, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, say there are no alternatives.

All the GOP whining and crying was phony from the start.

Why can t they just let a good compassionate Senator smear troops with a Nazi descriptor and shut up about it.

And you persist in your mischaracterization. Would you really read that FBI report and say, “Sounds like Americans to me”?

Which I have never said. However, by demeaning a segment of the military with his broad brush smear, Durbin hurt more than just those he smeared.

And you seem to have zero sense on conditionals. Did Durbin state ahead of time that his Nazi smear was not be taken seriously? Only applied to actual US NAzi soldiers? Exaclty what conditon did Durbin set? Of course, the answer is none and your point is a non-starter.

You are correct Durbin did apologize, but only after the Anti-Defamation league stepped in and raised hell about his remarks demeaning the Holocaust.

But as I understand it, in your view he needn’t have apologized. The real problem here was Republican objections to Durbin’s remarks associating Nazis and Commies with a group of troops. Those d*mn Repubicans. Why can’t they just let a good compassionate Senator smear troops with a Nazi descriptor and shut up about it.

Dugger

There is a curious lack of willingness on your part to get into Durbin s statement.

There is a curious lack of willingness on your part to portray Durbin’s remark honestly.

He didn’t say: “All the troops are just like Nazis.”

What he said was: “If I read you this report and asked you to guess who did this stuff, you’d probably guess ‘Nazis.’”

Back to what I said earlier: somebody around here went to great pains to argue the signifigance of conditionals. Any idea who that might have been?

Also: If I read that FBI report to you (and you didn’t already know the answer) would you really guess that Americans were treating captives that way?

When will you acknowledge that Durbin went way overboard and should apologize for his remarks and that the left should have criticized it.

Yes….

…as soon as you acknowledge that Durbin did apologize–twice–for the remark and that the right made a fuss about it strictly for political advantage, not because of their concern for the military.

There is a curious lack of willingness on your part to get into Durbin’s statement. If I held a press conference, and said ‘Quaker is a gem of a person but he acts like a Jew hating, mass murderer”, what is important in that statement? What will the media focus on? What will the the public remember?
And you seemed to have ignored the results of investigations which found no torture at Gitmo. So exactly how did the Gitmo soldiers behave in a fashion that deserved the Nazi/Commie metaphor?

When will you acknowledge that Durbin went way overboard and should apologize for his remarks and that the left should have criticized it. And re the Nazi metaphor, is what went on at Auschwitz etc no worse than what went on at Gitmo. Did the concentration camp Jews gain weight like the Gitmo detainees? How many did we kill at Gitmo? Near 6,000,000?

Dugger

Sadie,

Gee I didn’t know 8 Iraqi vets are Democrats. I take back my statement completely that soldiers favor Republicans. Eight! Omigod! its gonna be Pres Kucinich, now.

Dugger

It is strange, yes, but at least some of your comrades are catching on — eight Iraqi vets to date now are running for office as Dems in 2008. They have figured out who is one their side and who is just using them, as props, and worse.

The detainees described a place where they were chained to the wall, deprived of food and water and kept in total darkness for months with loud noise blaring at them around the clock.

What country would you guess was holding these prisoners?

When the Army says Pfc. England is a criminal because she abused detainees, then they’re talking about her only, and not all the rest of the troops. Seems fair to me.

But when Sen. Durbin says that a few unnamed interrogators have behaved in a way that doesn’t measure up to American ideals, he’s insulting every soldier who serves now and has served in the past.

Do I have that about right?

Dugger

I guess that principle has certain limits.

The military has said that the abuse of prisoners in some cases is criminal. Is that the same thing as calling all soldiers criminals?

It’s a simple question.

“Dugger, the military itself has said that the abuse of prisoners is criminal. The military has tried and convicted soldiers for mistreating captives. Is that the same as calling all soldiers criminals?”

Lets be clear , heres the report from the Sf Chronicle on Gitmo (july)

“Military investigators examining alleged abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, say they found treatment such as leashing a terror suspect and forcing him to behave like a dog. But they say they found no evidence that there was torture or that senior leaders imposed faulty interrogation policies.”

This is the basis of Durbin’s Nazi comparison. You remember Nazis. Murdered 6,000,000. Think Durbin was wise? Right? Moral? Fair?

Dugger

Privately, Republicans are telling us this is kind of a coordinated strategy they now have. They want to go after Durbin, they want to go after the House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and say that a lot of their comments have been extreme, especially on the war — Lou.

Once again, Dugger, if the GOP seriously thought that Durbin’s remarks posed a threat to the morale of the troops, they wouldn’t work so hard to keep those remarks front and center.

Or would they?