Schumer Part Two

Hugh calls him a weasel. We call him a ninny. Either way you cut it, Schumer is about a bright as a burned out light bulb. Yesterday, Chuck Schumer said this about our troops:

And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting.

Yesterday, our troops were unable to protect those in Iraq. They were incompetent. The tribal people in Iraq had to do it all on their own, and they did so without our help whatsoever. It was all them while our troops just say around twiddling their thumbs, I guess. He didn't elaborate on what our troops were doing, he just knew that they didn't have anything to do with the success reaped in Iraq from General David Petreus's brilliant surge strategy.

Today, Chuck Schumer said this:

First, I know we all have the deepest gratitude and respect for the sacrifice of the brave men and women serving our country so valiantly in Iraq. Make no mistake about it, the troops are doing their job.

I'm concerned, however, that their mission is not worthy of their great sacrifice, especially the President's surge. The surge, despite earlier reports this week, has failed to meet the objectives set out by the President. And the President can't change that fact by changing the goal. He's now claiming progress in Iraq as evidence that the surge directed at Baghdad is working.

So, now they're brave. Now they're doing their job. They're winning, but on the flip side, the surge isn't working, according to Senator Schumer. Senator Schumer also says that the president is "changing the goal." This couldn't be further from the truth. The goal of the surge was to break the backs of the insurgency, which we have; so much so that they're joining us and the ISF to fight al Qaeda for their homeland.

Secondly, the increased and stable security was provided so the second step of the surge strategy could take hold -- giving the Iraqi national and local governmental institutions the room they needed to get their goals accomplished. It's now September, and the Iraqi parliament should be reconvening soon to begin that next step. If Baghdad is secure, folks, the politicians can do what they have to do in relative safety.

Richard Miniter for Pajamas Media was present at the bombing on 12 April that took place in the parliament's cafeteria. So, to say that the surge hasn't provided a level of security for the politicians, and it's a failure is to be disingenuous. Not a news flash for anyone who pays attention to the Democrat leaders in Congress that seem content to break down the surge before any report is given, despite the overwhelming success being reported.

But Chuck Schumer's comments yesterday and today brings to mind another Democrat that suffered from this same fantasy world that they seem to revel in. That person was Dick Durbin, and on 14 June, 2005 he uttered the following on the floor of the Senate:

When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here — I almost hesitate to put them in the record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:
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.

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."

Now these statements have been proven to be false; exaggerations, at best, but a buffoon trying to score political points. He was roundly criticized for these comments, and rightly so. You don't criticize those serving to defend this nation. And if so, you'd damn well better make sure that you know what you're saying, unlike John Murtha's accusation that the Marines in Haditha committed murder. (A comment now I'm sure he wishes he could take back to avoid being sued for that statement.) On 22 June, just eight days after the initial remarks, Senator Durbin took to the floor and issued anything but a heartfelt apology for comparing our troops to the worst human beings on earth that have committed innumerable crimes against humanity:

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) yesterday offered a tearful apology on the Senate floor for comparing the alleged abuse of prisoners by American troops to techniques used by the Nazis, the Soviets and the Khmer Rouge, as he sought to quell a frenzy of Republican-led criticism.

Durbin, the Democratic whip, acknowledged that "more than most people, a senator lives by his words" but that "occasionally words will fail us and occasionally we will fail words." Choking up, he said: "Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them, I extend my heartfelt apologies."

If the Democrats think they can slander the troops, and make an apology in short order, and fool the voters into believing they're sincere, think again. People are paying a lot of attention to those that make comments like this. It's not excusable at all, and the Democrats should know better. But they don't. At least they present a facade of "caring" about the troops when they really only heap on them disdain and ridicule. Only after being called on the carpet by the people -- the voters, the military families, and veterans -- are they truly "sorry." Sorry is the right word, but it has nothing to do with their non-apology apologies.

Sorry is in relation to their character, and that's the damnable thing about situations like this.

(ADDENDUM: Readers should thank God that Marcie didn't address this issue. I might have had to close the blog given how angry she was yesterday, and how much more angrier she is today about this half-assed non-apology by Senator Durbin.)

Publius II