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...