I am reposting a Daily Herald interview with Dick Durbin, found here
. Durbin contiunes to make himself look stupid by some of the comments he makes here. Really stupid.
Durbin: U.S. won’t leave Iraq for years
By Eric Krol
Daily Herald Political Writer
Posted Wednesday, July 06, 2005
U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin said Tuesday it would take a miracle to get U.S. troops out of Iraq within three years and hinted Democrats will filibuster a Supreme Court nominee they find too conservative.
The state’s senior senator also told the Daily Herald editorial board he’ll press hard to pass an upcoming measure to spend federal tax money on stem cell research and will vote against a constitutional ban on flag burning.
Durbin, a 60-year-old veteran lawmaker from Springfield, made major headlines last month for comparing the U.S. treatment of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay to the way the Nazis treated their victims, and he later apologized. On Tuesday, Durbin said he had only himself to blame for giving his political foes fodder but complained the firestorm that resulted was an “orchestrated right wing attack.”
What follows is an edited transcript of the Durbin editorial board session, with a longer version available at www.dailyherald.com.
Q. You voted against the Iraq war, but you don’t think the United States should set a timetable for troop withdrawal?
A. I do not. At this point, I think that might be counter-productive. But I do believe we should have a plan that has some finite goals, what do we want to achieve. We should hold the Iraqis accountable for the number of troops that they’ll have trained and ready to replace Americans. Whether it’s the troops in the field or border patrols or security forces, I think that’s reasonable. And holding them, of course, to their own deadline when it comes to constitutions and forming governments.
(Durbin went on to say the Iraq commitment is “long-term.”)
Q. Define long-term.
A. When we invaded (in March 2003), (Sen.) Dick Lugar of Indiana said five years. And I thought, oh man, I hope he’s wrong. I think to say substantial troop presence by the United States, if we ended it in five years from invasion, it would be a miracle at this point.
Q. Do the Democrats already have a filibuster plan if the Supreme Court nominee is too conservative for their liking?
A. Well, no. The honest answer is, I hope it doesn’t happen. I think at the Supreme Court level, it would be troubling. I hope it doesn’t come to it. But it may, depending on the nominee.
I’m encouraged by one thing, and that is that the White House is making overtures to have a bipartisan discussion on this. We don’t expect them to give us a list of six nominees and say, you know, which one can you live with. It’s the president’s authority and power to make this decision. But to have even a basic conversation about what we’re looking for on the court is progress. We haven’t had any of that for four and a half years. So that is a promising thing.
Q. Your comments about Guantanamo Bay obviously caused a political firestorm and you apologized. One remaining question is, why didn’t you run that imagery past someone, staff or fellow senators, before you busted it out?
A. Let me just say those were my words, nobody else’s, they were mine. It’s not the type of thing, in my business, where you pull over senators, and say, let me read a speech to you. It isn’t done. Nor do I expect them to do that to me or ask me to review their speeches. As I said, and I’ll repeat here, it was a very poor choice of words. The imagery of Nazis, Soviets, Pol Pot and the rest of it went way beyond the pale. I thought that I was making a pretty clear reference to an FBI memo, but others did not see it that way. I have said that I apologize for those words and I feel that I should have chosen different words, better words, for that purpose.
But what an interesting reaction, when I think about it, as I look back on a half dozen, 12 words that were used. I discovered, as some others have discovered, what the other side has available that we don’t. They are so well-organized.
Q. Isn’t that the way it works in Washington?
A. On one side it does.
Q. There are Republicans who get dirtied up, too.
A. Yeah, but I’ll tell you what, we have nothing. We are not even in this league. We’re sitting on the outside of the stadium listening to the cheering inside. We don’t have the right-wing radio operation. The bloggers are getting started, I’ll be honest with you, on our side as well.
Q. So do you see this as almost an orchestrated attack on you …
A. Oh, it definitely was.
Q. …or do you see it as the media really doesn’t know what they’re doing?
A. It’s an orchestrated right-wing attack that brings the mainstream media in. If they make enough noise. Here’s how they do it: go into a press conference in Washington and the guy stands in the back from Fox and just screams the same question over and over and over again to the point where the other reporters are, my God.
Q. How did they bring (Democratic Chicago) Mayor Daley in?
A. (Syndicated conservative columnist) Bob Novak. He came to Chicago one Monday and had lunch or a meeting with the mayor. Told him his side of the story. And unfortunately, the mayor didn’t know that we had put out a statement the Friday before about this and he made some statements along those lines. He’s also the father of a young soldier training to be a Ranger. I’m sure he felt extremely sensitive about that. We talked about it afterward. I don’t think he knew the whole story.
Q. Do you feel personally hurt by that?
A. I’m disappointed. I’m disappointed by it, but I’m going to continue to work with Mayor Daley. I’ve known him for 30 years. He came to see me after this event to talk about things that the city needed, and I’m going to continue to help.
Ok, here is where I point out his idiocy:
"We should hold the Iraqis accountable for the number of troops that they’ll have trained and ready to replace Americans. Whether it’s the troops in the field or border patrols or security forces, I think that’s reasonable."
Troops in the field, border patrols....they are ALL security forces. Apparently his knowledge of military matters is as deep as mine in the field of astro-physics.
"But what an interesting reaction, when I think about it, as I look back on a half dozen, 12 words that were used."
No Sir, it was not just the 12 words you used. We, and I believe I speak for a whole lot of people in the US, were offended by your whole speech, and the ideas behind it. When a person decides on the language they are going to use, it belies the persona and the ideology of the individual using the words.
" It’s an orchestrated right-wing attack that brings the mainstream media in. If they make enough noise. Here’s how they do it: go into a press conference in Washington and the guy stands in the back from Fox and just screams the same question over and over and over again to the point where the other reporters are, my God."
Ummm...not sure how to answer this ludicrous statement...One guy from Fox is an "Orchestrated right wing attack'?!?!?!!!! Okie-dokie. I do believe, if you look at the overall scheme of things, and I challenge anyone to find anything proving otherwise, that the MSM decidedly leans LEFT. Fox is definately more conservative...but we have people at NBC
who seem to think that The Founding Fathers were terrorists, anchors at CBS who knowingly promulgate forged
documents in an attempt to slander and defame the character of The President of the United States, and the list goes on......
It is apparent that Dick Durbin does not think before he speaks. It is also apparent that he is not to be taken seriously. We should be ashamed as a nation to have someone with such flawed logic as one of our lawmakers.