Radioblogger.com has the full speech in blue within this transcript (permanent link will be up here), so folks can read the whole thing for themselves.
I see a lot of weaseling here: regret that people were offended, poor choice of words, no, really, I love the troops... but nothing even approaching "I was dead wrong and I crossed an important line."
There's a lot wrong with this picture.
We'll start with the apology itself, full of the usual psychobabble saying that he hopes the pain he has caused to various groups will go away, and capped by the Lincoln statement that lets him sit up there and smarmily claim to be right all along while he bows to political pressure.
Aside from Durbin's own "mea-want-y'all-off-my-back-now", may I point out:
- Bill Roggio explains, in detail, exactly what analogy Durbin was making and still makes to the gulags, since it was not retracted.
- Read this Winds post about Russian artist Nikolai Getman. Click on the picture of the artwork, and find out what that picture is showing you. Compare to Durbin's statements.
On the bright side, the pressure from all quarters finally forced Durbin to say something. Too bad he didn't read Salon.com's general advice re: sincere and insincere apologies, which explains:
I'm sorry I was rude" is good. "I'm sorry if I was rude" is not. It weasels. It implies that maybe you weren't rude. It implies that the person being apologized to has a twisted little worldview if they think "Oh, shut up, frog-lips" is rude.
An apology should give the sense that you actually feel some form of regret. "Sorry if" is a conditional apology. Conditional apologies make things worse, not better.
There are a LOT of "sorry ifs" in that transcript. Sincerity? Apology? Don't insult my intelligence. He apologizes re: the holocaust analogy, because the Democratic Party doesn't want to extend its growing reputation for anti-semitism. Telingly, there's no gulag apology even though that was more prominent in his analogy. After all, those prople vote Republican.
All this in an apology that took a week to arrive, under mounting political pressure that began to include prominent Democrats who still possess an ounce of common sense. The tears, especially under these circumstances, confirm every suspicion (to spell it out: if he was genuinely emotional on this subject, he would have apologized a week ago).
You'd think that with all those Hollywood moonbats to draw on, someone would have sprung for better coaching.
Durbin's "love" for the troops seems to be the same sort of abusive parent "love" Armed Liberal has discussed before. As Mike Rentner writes from Anbar Province:
"You may think it's all just political posturing, but I'm over here in Al Anbar Province, Iraq and every stupid statement like this from such a high level of our government is a direct threat to my life. Statements like this are used to recruit people to kill me. I take it very personally."
"I call on those who question the motives of the president and his national security advisors to join with the rest of America in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad."
-- Senator Dick Durbin, in 1998
...As long as that President is a Democrat. Otherwise the Republic can go screw itself, of course, since foreign issues only matter insofar as they relate to domestic political advantage. He's a Democrat, all right....
UPDATE: The Wall St. Journal has some interesting polling results re: Guantanamo that suggest the issue is a loser with many Democratic voters. But the wild-eyed 30% is driving fundraising and policy these days, so...
The way I read it was that those that felt the remarks were offensive were wrong in thier interpertation of "my remarks" and for that he was sorry. Not for the the Left that agreed with his remarks.
Of course its not that he was lazy and foolish in the way he tried to organize his argument, its that the listeners interpretted it wrong. Thanks Dick, how brazenly arrogant of you.
The silly thing is that Durbin had the tools to make a pretty good case, with or without resorting to Reichperboly. Durbin stupidly chose a pretty mild FBI report to cite when he could have used some much more inflamatory evidence. If he was smart he would have used the 'toss the crap against the wall and hope nobody looks at any one turd too closely' strategy, as Durbin's defenders like Sullivan do. But for some reason Durbin specifically pointed to that one report to invoke his Nazi comparisons. It does give us a pretty good look into how Durbins mind works. He obviously believes what he said. Durbins apology is phony because he is apologizing for the wrong thing. He should be apologizing for making a vapid argument, but that is one thing he will never do. Better to be thought an extremist demagogue than a man who cant string a coherant thought together.
a·pol·o·gize intr.v. a·pol·o·gized, a·pol·o·giz·ing, a·pol·o·giz·es
1 To make excuse for or regretful acknowledgment of a fault or offense.
2 To make a formal defense or justification in speech or writing.
Seems he was apologizing... in the 'make excuse' sense of the first definition. His earlier justifications were definitely definition 2.
I'd say Durbin's apology is close enough for government work. Friday's apology was more non-apology than yesterday's (though it repeated some of Friday's). The Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot stuff was always fingernails on the blackboard stuff to me anyway. I can understand people in the military or people with more direct experience with totalitarian horros might not be satisfied.
Strike the analogy and the more pressing question are:
Just out of curiosity, does anyone else think it bizarre that he chose to bring up this up during debate over the energy bill?
Does anyone think it's bizarre that it occurs after 15 Republican Senators will not vote for a bill apologizing for lynchings in this country?
There is a very good chance the GWOT is going to be lost by the political posturing on both sides. Does Durbin's statement make Mike Rentar anymore safe than the actions of soidiers at Abu Gharib and at Gitmo? Both as are used to recruit people to kill our soldiers
I think Sullivan analyzes this best, although I'm having trouble linking to it. I'd copy the whole thing, but go to sections -
"Durbin Said Nothing Wrong"
and "Durbin Again".
You should be able to search with that (Do a find on his site).
Joe, are you starting to lose it? You really seem to have no perspective anymore.
Senator Dick Durbin and his stupid comments and subsequent non-apology reminds me of Jane Fonda.
Having served in-country Vietnam during my 20+ years U.S. Navy career, Mike Rentner's comment from Anbar Province struck a raw nerve with me. Rentner wrote "You may think it's all just political posturing, but I'm over here in Al Anbar Province, Iraq and every stupid statement like this from such a high level of our government is a direct threat to my life. Statements like this are used to recruit people to kill me. I take it very personally."
Dick Durbin has adopted the Jane Fonda defense for treason, Fonda used the non-apology, dressed as an apology with the adoring collaboration of mainstream media.
Since her two visits to Vietnam in 1972 and 1974 giving aid and comfort to the Soviet Union and communist North Vietnam, Jane Fonda has used a variety of red herrings to distract from her subversion and treason during the Vietnam War, with the most common red herring tossed around by Fonda's media supporters being "the apology". In Fonda's several so called "apologies" she has repeatedly demonstrated that she is sorry she got caught, and that is what she apologizes for, not because she thinks subversion and aid and comfort to the enemy is wrong.
Look at it from Dick Durbin's viewpoint. Use Jane Fonda's methods, Fonda's way worked.
JC, Sullivan doesn't analyse anything, its a silly defense of Durbin.
And in support of crimes against humanity, while pointing the accusing finger.
Evil, pure evil.
JC, your last dont paint a nice picture of youself. but at least you didnt find a mass grave of kids to stand on. But thats because you have already shrugged past them, long ago.
Since it's Andrew Sullivan's job to defend Dick Durbin these days, let him demand that Kos apologize for telling Durbin to "go f--k himself".
Robert M wrote:
So how did the bill pass unanimously then?
Personally I thought it was a stupid bill and we should dock the pay of the members of Congress who wasted our time with this crap.
Re: Dick Durbin
Apparently this is the second time Senator Durbin has read the account from the same email on the floor of the Senate. He read it before back in February during the Gonzales nomination hearings when it might have actually been Germaine but managed to do it then without slurring Americans by comparing them to Nazis, Soviets, and the Khmer Rouge in the process.
One irony in all this is that its long been a screed in certain sections of the anti-Israel community that Durbin rose to power as the result of some Jewish conspiracy. I'm not up on the literature, so I don't know how Durbin's vote against the Iraq war squares with this, but for those of you who didn't know, Durbin got his start in Congress back in the mid-80s by defeating Republican Paul Findley, friend of Arafat and various terrorists and tyrants, author of They Dare to Speak Out : People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby, and someone that declared September 11 would not have occurred if the US government had refused to help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society. Findley is sort of a heroic figure in some circles, so Durbin's contrary views on Israel, the PA and Arab tyranies, get him only grief.