Say It Isn’t So, Dickie Boy

23 June, 2005

[Congressman Billybob]

Let’s talk about the stupidity of Senators. Senator Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) is our Poster Child. First, there is no known lower limit on the stupidity of an individual Senator.

For gross public dumb, it’s hard to beat a one-term Iowa Senator who went to a local massage parlor to have his ashes hauled. He was dumb enough to pay with a credit card. And dumb to have a staffer who was living in sin with an Iowa reporter. As a result, the credit card slip was published in a paper, and the gentleman’s career ended at six years.

This illustrates two sides of the issue of Senate stupidity. The job of the Senator is to be alive and get reelected. Almost everything else that a Senator does can be done by staff. More than a few Senators have been relatively successful despite being notorious drunks. The Irish tend that way (no cards or letters, I’m part Irish with a right to say that).

In short, it’s the job of staff to be sober and on duty 24/7. They feed information, talking points, entire speeches, to the boss, so the Senator then sounds prepared on the subject with useful ideas to offer. The best of Senators lead their staffs. The worst of Senators are led by their staffs. Think ventriloquist’s dummy; you get the idea.

Now we turn to Dickie Durbin’s comments on the Senate floor. He read what he said was an e-mail from an unknown FBI agent about actions at Gitmo, and then said: “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.” Minor point: the FBI is not in Gitmo, so this is obvious hearsay.

Let’s put some facts on the table. Within minutes of Durbin’s comment, folks posted on the Internet comparisons of how bad these various regimes were. In the Nazi death camps about 9 million people were killed. In the Soviet gulags, about 2.7 million people died. And under Pol Pot, about 1.7 million were killed. From my research, those figures are low, but close enough for government work.

In Gitmo, by comparison, there are suggestions of five instances of possible “Koran abuse” by guards. No one has been killed. The one inmate treated worst was the apparent “20th hijacker,” slated to fly a plane full of passengers into the White House.

The blogosphere can get the Soviet, Nazi, and Khmer Rouge information in seconds. Therefore, alert staffers for Dickie Durbin could have gotten the same information before he went on the Senate floor and revealed himself as the south end of a northbound horse.

The fact that Durbin wasn’t warned off means one of two things, both bad. Was the Senator such a geopolitical moron not to see how wrong his comment would be, and said this off the cuff without consulting staff? That means this stupidity is his, alone. Or, did Durbin consult with his staff before this remark? Then, the stupidity here is ubiquitous in his staff.

What has happened since, about Dickie Durbin’s incompetent history lesson? He’s refused to apologize, but has begun to lie and cover up. Days later, he quoted himself in the Senate, “you might conclude that it was done by one of those repressive regimes....” Go back and review. When he shot his mouth off originally, he didn’t say, “might.” That’s a new and false addition.

Now, Dickie Durbin has blamed the “right wing media” for the “Nazi flap.” A UPI article, 17 June, 2005, concluded, “He said abusive treatment of prisoners was something most likely in ‘repressive regimes’ than the United States.” It’s hard to understand why Durbin thinks that calling the United States a “repressive regime” will help end the criticism he is already receiving from many people across the political spectrum.

Apparently, Durbin’s ignorance of history includes ignorance of Presidents in the 20th Century who were Democrats. A turning point in Harry Truman’s 1948 campaign came when a listener called out, “Give ‘em Hell, Harry.” Truman replied, “I don’t have to give ‘em Hell. I just tell the truth and they think it’s Hell.”

Well, the same applies to Dickie Durbin today. We only have to tell the truth to cut him down to size. Welcome to Hell, Dickie. You’re so dumb you richly deserve it.

About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment attorney and author who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu

[Jim Noble]

I doubt it was anyone in the United States.

Then you, bro, need to wake the F up and smell the gunpowder.

MoveOn.org

DSA

DU.

[TheGeezer]

America is getting an eyeful of these enemies of ours. And it ain't pretty.

It is becoming clearer every day that Democrats are the party of anti-Americanism. Can one really be a patriot AND a Democrat? I'm concluding it is not possible. To be a Democrat today is to be one who hates our culture, our economic system, our military, religion, the family, and the list goes on and on.

I believe one can be against the war and be a patriot. But to be a Democrat and a patriot is no longer possible.

[TheForceOfOne]

Dick Dur-Bin Laden is a friend of Allah.

[UltraKonservativen]

There is nothing we Repubs in ILL can do with him, this state is too stoopid ..
CAN'T FIX STOOPID EITHER.

[Grampa Dave]

Great, may be the subtitle could be changed to:

Turban Dick

Al Qaeda's Senator

[Libloather]

Didja notice who Little Dick left out of his Senate rant? How about the number Castro has eliminated, the rape and torture rooms of Saddam, and, Billy Jeff's favorite donor, the Chicoms? Millions wiped out and not one peep.

Rush reminded everyone - it ain't a death camp if there are no deaths...

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I probably missed it someplace, but where is the authentication of the e-mail from an actual FBI agent? How do we know this is the truth in the first place? Did one of Durbin's staffers come up with it? Is this another Danrather-type stunt?

********************************************************

ACLU collected much stuff via a FOIA .....

List is on the following thread....

See this thread:

FBI Memo Durbin quoted from

[Maria S]

Thanks! I seem to stay out in left field, wandering, wandering...so I need all the help I can get!

[Taxman]

I like it, Congressman Billybob!

Taxman Bravo Zulu!

[JohnBovenmyer]

I was hoping you'd post on Durbin. As you are far better informed on the finer points of constitutional law than most here I have a couple questions for you. Does what he did rise to the level of the 14th amendments "giving aid or comfort to the enemy" clause or at least come close enough to make arguing the point reasonable? And, if so, could the mechanics of removal under that clause be done with just a simple majority of the Senate? I think that shouldn't require the 2/3 vote otherwise needed for expulsion as the amendment deals with qualifications - similar to picking winners in disputed elections which IIRC is done by simple majority vote, provides its own voting standard to be overridden of 2/3 the other way in both houses, and supersedes the expulsion clause in any case. Whether the GOP leadership would do it is sadly another matter; my question is could they legally remove Durbin with their alleged majority. For the possible argument that "finding Durbin guilty of giving aid or comfort to the enemy is a matter for the courts, not for the Senate" I remind folks of the precedent Sen. Harkin created during Clinton's Senate trial. I believe that makes the Senate an appropriate fact finding body in this case.

[Congressman Billybob]

There is a huge difference between the processes for questioning the election of a would-be Member of Congress, and the ones for expelling a seated Member. The Supreme Court dealt with precisely those differences in Powell v. McCormick, when the corrupt Congressman (temporarily) got his seat back.

It is a majority vote for either House to determine whether a would-be Member or Senator has been duly elected, and should be seated -- after a Committee has held a factual hearing and reported its conclusions. However, expulsion of a Member (Senator( requires a 2/3rds vote and takes place on the floor of the House / Senate.

Neither the courts, nor the other House, nor any other part of the federal government has any role to play in the expulsion consideration and decision. Look at the list of current Senators and consider whether there is a snowball's chance in Hell that a full 2/3rds of them will vote to expel Durbin. I think the answer to that question is no, non, nein, nicht, and nyet.

John / Billybob

[JohnBovenmyer]

Thank you for your reply. It sounds like election disputes and expulsions work the way I thought they did. I'd thought, based on some Freepers comments RE Sen. Kerry, that section 3 of the 14th amendment might offer an alternative "shortcut" to the normal 2/3 expulsion procedure. Apparently it does not. This should teach this physician to stick to practicing medicine, but I fear I'll continue to act like many Americans, independent types striving beyond their expertise in one or both professions. I agree on your odds against 2/3 of the current Senate voting to expel Durbin. It would currently draw fewer votes than those cast for Clinton's removal as the GOP base isn't nearly mad enough to force the hands of his friends in the alleged majority.

The current partisan divide demonstrates the wisdom of the framers in giving Congress the power to Declare war. Bush is operating under a bill that functions similarly but doesn't explicitly use the words "Declaration of War." The minority and the media use that lack to pretend we're not really at war. If Congress had formally used the words this pretense would be much harder to maintain and some of the anti-war forces might actually be charged for the treasons many here believe they are committing. IIRC a few in congress wanted to formally declare war, but they were snowed under by the many who didn't think it was necessary or who were troubled by the question of against whom to declare it. Bush's biggest mistake in the immediate post 911 period was not pushing for what President Jefferson was given against the Barbary Pirates, a non state-centric Declaration of War. Had he made the case in his great speeches then, I believe the public mood would have swamped all opposition and the public would still believe we're at war. As with Jefferson's war, time would have solved the technical problems of the unorthodox declaration.

[Dante3]

I still pick Ted Kennedy/John Kerry as worse.

[Rocky]

And I thought Patty Murray was bad.

The Dems keep outdoing themselves.

[GregoryFul]

It is hard to imagine that Americans could put this vacuous POS in office in any state of the union.

[ladyinred]

Democrats are all claiming not to have any intelligence these days aren't they Billybob? They voted for the war without knowing what they were doing you see.

Great article sir!

[GregoryFul]

Our brave soldiers are dying for this scumbag, Durbin. He should be expunged from office!

[Grampa Dave]

He and about 45 other rat senators and a few of our Rinos should be shipped to France for the duration of the WOT.

[Congressman Billybob]

Evening, folks,

I dunno why this came to y'all's attention so long after I wrote and posted it. It remains true, however, that Dick Durbin is dummer'n dirt, and periodically makes a new remark to prove that exact point.

Cordially,

John / Billybob