Teaching Durbin A Little History

Amy Procter at Bottom Line and Spree at Wake Up America both have great posts responding to the Dem/Durbin reaction to Bush's "New Direction in Iraq" speech. (Durbin, in case you missed it, refused to admit that Bush had, in fact, said something new.)

Procter, the wife of an active serviceman, cuts deepest with her analysis of this part of Durbin's rebuttal to Bush's speech:

Now, in the fourth year of this war, it is time for the Iraqis to stand and defend their own nation. The government of Iraq must now prove that it will make the hard political decisions which will bring an end to this bloody civil war, disband the militias and death squads, create an environment of safety and opportunity for every Iraqi, and begin to restore the basics of electricity and water and health care that define the quality of life.

It's amazing how little knowledge of history some cough!-Dem-cough! members of Congress have; fortunately, Proctor's happy to tutor:

Apparently Mr. Durbin doesn't know how long it took for America to stand and defend herself or how long she battled against the "insurgency" born out of the American civil war called the KKK. Left wing Democrats launched a "reign of terror" against Republican leaders both black and white at the end of the civil war. The KKK was literally a terrorist group that came from the left wing of the Democratic party. 141 years later, the KKK is petering out. How long does Mr. Durbin afford Iraqis to rid themselves of their death squads and militias?

Spree's piece is mainly a wrap-up with a lot of good stuff, wrapped up itself in some good commentary:

It seems that some of the "politicians" believe if they ignore the rest of the changes in strategy and the differences in those same plans that everyone else will ignore it too and only focus on the "surge" aspect. Closing your eyes and refusing to "see" what is in front of you does not mean it doesn't exist, does not mean it is not there, it simply means you cannot see it and that is a "deliberate" choice.

Are the Dems still capable of substance? Can they meet the President's challenge to offer up a better alternative? They've had six years to do it, but so far have been able to put more than two letters together. (Hint: The first one is 'N.')

It's as if they don't take history seriously, and take our future even less seriously. These are important times during which our leaders are asked to make decisions that will change our history -- for better or worse. It is not a time for Dick Durbins who see their role as simple rebuttal, not complex analysis in which some of the President's plan would be accepted, some improved upon, some rejected.

That's called dialog. It's what the Dems say they want, but when I hear them, the picture in my head is not the outreached hand of a mature adult; it's pudgy little arms crossed over the chest of a three-year-old, shaking his head and crying "No!"

Related Tags: Politics, Iraq, War on terror, Bush, Durbin