Monday, June 20, 2005
Like other officers of the United States, Senators take an Oath of Office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.So, can anyone explain how knowingly making hyperbolic accusations against our fighting forces in a time of war and providing our enemies with Information Warfare resources serves to defend the Constitution against our enemies? Those in support of Sen. Durbin (vocally or tacitly by silence) would have us believe that "speaking truth to power" and standing up for the ideals of our country do, in fact, support the Constitution and that one could even say that those who would betray the promise of America through nefarious deeds are, in a manner, enemies of the Constitution. To this I say "pish-tosh".
While self-examination and the open airing of problems is a part of America that I would be loathe to sacrifice, the expression is not "speaking manic hyperbole to power" for good reason. Likewise, I believe there is a proper place, time and manner in which to discuss sensitive matters and that it varies based upon both the nature of the issue and the external circumstances and context in which the matter arises. When the house is on fire you don't complain about a clogged toilet. When you are at war with an enemy that makes excellent use of IW you don't provide them free ammunition over someone turning the A/C too high.
The real question is if Sen. Durbin's actions were out of ignorance or if he simply felt the immediate political effect was more important than any potential international effect. To make such baseless comparisons and then turn around and blame international reaction to your statements on the baseless "facts" defies logic. It, instead, is indicative of an individual for whom their primary focus is not supporting or defending the Constitution, but rather supporting and defending themselves and Party. In a way it is a reaction to the losses of power the Democrats have experienced over the past decade, to circle the wagons and reflexively come to the defense of any member at question. What the Democrats haven't figured out yet is that there are some rats that need to be thrown from the ship lest it sink completely.