UPDATE: A reader writes:
Durbin is of Lithuanian descent. I don't know whether he's first generation ... or whether his grandparents arrived during the World War I wave. Durbin spent great energy courting the Lithuanian community in Chicago. Many Lithuanians fell under his spell and, for the first time, voted Democratic (those who emigrated in the late 1940s and early 1950s often voted Republican because they perceived that party as more anti-Communist).
I suspect Durbin's comparison of Gitmo to the Gulag and Concentration Camps tastes particularly sour to this community, which was pinched on one side by the Russians and on the other by the Germans. My dad--who rushed to Kroch's & Brentano's in Chicago when the first bootleg Russian copies of The Gulag Archipelago became available in this country--must have rolled over in his grave. My mother, whose best friend's husband froze to death during a seventeen-year stint in Siberia, is still spitting.
Posts
32 comments:
"icky". Good word.
"No crying in baseball" -- hey, I'm watching the AFI show, so that really fits!
I cried out of shame and feeling dirty and degraded when they drug Fritz Mondale out of the morgue and tried to run him.
It's always icky when Durbin speaks on the Senate floor. He's addresses the camera, directly. Every one else is content to read their speeches without looking up. It feels like he's trying to steal my soul through C-Span. . .
Andrew: Yes, I noticed that. He was supplicating strangely.
Is this the Senate or Oprah?
I find it insulting that these guys believe that just saying "I'm sorry" and getting misty-eyed will erase the past.
Durbin meant every word of his statement about the troops just like Dean believes that the Republican party is all white, rich, middle-age guys, and Hillary believes in nothing but Rightwing conspiracies.
Non-apologies like Durbin's signal a desire to have your cake and eat it, too. For the left, he's said the magic words about the US military (Nazi's, Gulag, and even Pol Pot). And then he faux-apologizes that you stupidly took offense when his 'true feelings' were elsewhere. The words get to stay, not disavowed, just topped with a Post-It note that says "this is not meant to offend".
Whatever happened to the adults in the US? I seem to recall my parent's era, when an apology meant "I did it, and I was wrong", and tears from a guy meant "I feel horrible about it". Where'd they all go?
Durbin's words were mere ritual, it seems, from the postmodern script. All style, no substance, all meant at counting coup.
When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone," it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
Durbin's crying reminded me of the way that small children cry when they get into trouble.
I don't know which is grosser: the possibility that he was acting, or the possibility that he wasn't.
Either way, his "apology" nicely encapsulates everything that's repulsive about politicians--perhaps especially congressmen.
The standard for self and kids has been that you don't apologize unless you intend to make a real effort to change future conduct.
By this standard, Durbin will fail soon. He never intended to change thought or behavior, only to grease himself morally so as to slither through a narrow place.
It's an interesting modernism how much value is placed on apologies. This is a real boon to encrusted, cynical vested interests. For instance, when the feminists demanded that the University of Colorado apologize for its treatment of soi-disant rape victims (I'm not trying to be snotty here; even a female district attorney would not bring charges), the University apologized. It's a wonderful thing. Two or three words, and you are miraculously absolved of doing anything, don't have to pay anything, don't go to court, and get some good press.
I think it's backscratching. Let me off with an apology and I'll let you off in return and we both don't have to do anything. Big with bureaucrats and some academics, too; I'll maintain silence about your crappy policies or scholarship if you won't expose mine. Nobody wants to be found out. This kind of oleaginous 'repentence' is a growth industry for the '00s.
I spoke at the sentencing hearing of a young man (felony menacing, ADW; a sort of a drive-by incident). EVERY defendant that morning announced that they were heartily sorry, and had Found Jesus in the slammer. And looked expectantly at the judge. It was that expectant look that revealed they were part of the larger culture: "I've SAID I'm sorry. What more can you want? What would be the purpose of punishing me, now I've said the magic words? All it would do is barbarize you. I'm rehabilitated."
He sent them up. They looked aggreived.
Anybody notice that other than the TV camera (which may have been a C-Span remote for all I know), there wasn't anyone else in the room when he made his "apology?"
"Not Happy" is way over-heated, but is making a valid point that's been lost. Durbin's original statement was not that simple-minded "Gitmo = gulag" nonsense. He cited a specific FBI report describing specific actions used by some American soldiers against their prisoners ... then asked whether those methods might be more likely used by totalitarian regimes, rather than the actions of an Army that was presumably sent to overthrow a brutal dictatorship. Like most of you, I'm sick of glib Nazi/Hitler comparisons, and I wish that Durbin had avoided them. But you seem to be implying that even questioning our Army's interrogation methods makes you miserable, despicable, and guilty of spinning ancestors in their graves.
PS --- Did not see "the crying scene," and probably won't. I hate seeing tears on camera.
Kathleen: I've never written anything about the substance of Durbin's original comment, just that he was creepy and pathetic in his apology. I think it's important to avoid treating prisoners abusively, but those who have a motive to score political points by criticizing our treatment of prisoners have an obligation to criticize competely. That there is a basis for criticism doesn't mean you can put all other concerns aside and swing freely. Durbin made a miserable mush out of his attempt at criticism, and it only empowered the other side to make it all about him. I'm disgusted by his incompetence. He should go home and cry about that in private, not on TV.
To "Not Happy": I was agreeing with you, and "the point that got lost" was the point that you brought up: that Durbin was asking a valid question about the US Army's interrogation methods, and that those who refused to address those concerns glommed on to his Nazi/Pol Pot references.
Durbin was reading an email... NOT a report... an email from an FBI agent. We have no idea when this was written, who wrote it, or even its veracity.
Talk about not addressing the matter at hand. Durbin says... if I read this to you what would you think? My first thought is - have you verified it? Is it true? When did it occur? Have any steps been taken since the email was sent? You know... procedure.
According to the people at Gitmo - Mr. Durbin has not been there - has not been in contact with them - has not tried to find out anything else about the situation. So, he fails on all counts. And crying just makes it worse.
I watched (on C-SPAN) Icky-Dicky Durbin apologize on the Senate floor for comparing GITMO to NAZI, Soviet and POL POT death camps.
He WAS choked up - TRULY NEAR TEARS (like Voinovich!), and I think he understands he crossed the line, and has learned his lesson. GOOD.
Now he must RESIGN FROM LEADERSHIP.
After all, Trent Lott APOLOGIZED FOUR TIMES, AND THEN STILL HAD TO RESIGN AS LEADER.
If Icky-Dicky Durbin fails to resign, it tarnishes the entire Democrat Party.
That the Dems are putting no pressure on Icky-Dicky Durbin says EVERYTHING you need to know about the dems: they are beholden to their loony Left base (which believes Icky-Dicky Durbin's comments about Gitmo were ok); and the Dems are spineless.
BTW: I have been a registered Dem since 1974, but that will change before the next election. AND: I voted for BUSH in the last election!
Not happy wrote: Excuse me, folks, but did you people bother to read what Durbin actually said? Really, given the facts about the soldiers' behavior, if you were asked if you thought that the people engaging in it were U.S. troops or Nazis, what would you say?
Given the facts? The facts about Gitmo are that 1) the Koran occasionally was mishandled accidently, 2) once in a great while it was mishandled intentionally, 3) on occasion we've pressured inmates to talk by using techniques that can be considered coercive but not torture, and 4) the inmates at Gitmo live and are treated far better than inmates in 99% of the world's prisons.
Remember who gave them their Korans in the first place? We did.
Number of deaths in the Gulag --> 15 million.
Number of deaths at Gimo --> zero.
Our troops have not behaved as Nazis. They have not treated Gitmo inmates as if they were in a gulag. They have not behaved as Pol Pot.
Mr. Durbin suggested otherwise. That's why he's wrong, that's why he has to apologize.
Joseph Angier wrote: ... Durbin was asking a valid question about the US Army's interrogation methods, and that those who refused to address those concerns glommed on to his Nazi/Pol Pot references.
We didn't "glom" on to them, they were right out in the open. They were a prominent part of what he said. It was hard to miss.
The Army's interrogation methods are a fair subject for commentary, critique and debate. One can fairly ask if playing bad, loud music, or making an inmate stand in a given position for hours, is proper. That's a fair question.
Shouting that doing such things makes one similar to a Nazi, to a Pol Pot goon, or a trusted gulag prison guard is not just improper, but way out of bounds.
I have a friend who survived nine years in a Soviet 'corrective-labor' camp. He also survived several years in an East German prison. He knows the difference. Too bad Sen. Durbin doesn't.
Too much air conditioning, no air conditioning, having to sit in the same position for hours, having to stand for a long time, pouring water on people's heads. . .
Uh, no. This in no way reminds me of Nazi death camps or Soviet gulags.
It does remind me of long family road trips taken when I was a kid though.
Re "Not Happy- that is an accurate and appropriate name for the liberal Dems. They are uterly humorless and strident. I didn't see Durbin bawling but this insincere apology business has to stop. The American people are too smart to buy it.
'Cause you know... being a Representative and then Senator is such a pathetic career as opposed to say pundit and blogger.
Ann, please show some cultural sensitivity. I, too, am of Lithuanian descent, and Lithuanians are never "icky." There are some really wonderful Lithuanian adjectives that are much more appropriate, but also not printable.
Let's just say that Senator Durbin's performance was multiculturally offensive, even to the French.
i've about had it with the legislature. who are these guys? bunch of losers if you ask me.
Ironically, Durbin's comments are likely to cause the deaths of more people than the treatment of the Gitmo prisoners have done.
Specifically, the wrong people. Us.
Oh Poor Not Happy... so unhappy is she/he... about cruel Amerika's treatment of fanatic killers. Boo hoo!
But seriously, Not Happy is apparently some cloistered pointed-headed handwringer who's never studied history in depth, nor seriously examined what conditions are in the rest of the world prisons, and has no grasp of proper context and comparison.
Interrogation need not be free from pain, and can be downright unpleasant. For those who love to throw international feelings and international law in bin, the ICJ, expressly said so in a decision years ago dealing with IRA terrorists in British custody. They found no torture in very circumstance similar to that depicted in Gitmo.
I want to know when blubbering over just about anything became politically okay. When I was a kid politicians only cried at funerals and memorials. I want to know the SPOT that this all changed and who is responsible. (My own version of a spot resolution). By the by, it is appropriate to discuss whether our interrogation methods are correct. I am not uncomfortable with the methods I have seen described, I mean its not like they are getting 24 hours of "Dancing Queen".
Depression is no laughing matter.
It is a good reason to take drugs.
Lithium any one?
Gee, the detainees will have great stories when they eventually do leave.
"It was back in oh-five, and the infidels had me locked up in Cuba. Those infidels were some hard-assed sons of bitches. I remember one of them, particularly cruel. He had little eyes and a tight smile. He had no mercy, this guy. He used to turn up the air conditioning--you could hear the screams for hours. I remember him taking away a man in another cell. The man was returned several hours later. His hair was wet. He didn't have to tell us. We all knew what they did in "the room." If you went back there, you knew what you were in for. These infidels would pour water on your head. No remorse, no sliver of humanity. They'd just do it. I still have nightmares."
When I saw Durbins first attempt at an "apology" the only thing that came to mind was:
"Well, that depends on what your definition of IS is."
When I viewed the second "apology" I couldn't help but think what was really going through his mind was:
"Well, I couldn't get out of it the first time with wordplay, so I'll try crying for the cameras and looking very sorry about it. But nevertheless I meant every word of it."
The guy's playing the Democrats standard game now, he's getting pats on the back and comparing our troops and America in General to Soviets, Nazis and the KR has elevated him to the top slots of the Democrat party.
The guys introducing Howard Dean tonight, I'm sure in the back rooms and echo chambers of the party, he's the new golden boy, promised great Democrat wealth and prestige for the way he's successfully slandered this nation.
--Jason
Beldar: "miserable" is more what I think of his career. He's feeling sorry for himself and cares about his career -- the thing I call miserable. He's sad that things aren't going well for him when he imagined that his bold words would advance his career. What I find so disgusting is that he's so obviously crying -- crying! -- for himself.
Kathleen B.: Monster that I must be, I'm going to declare outright that when it comes to interrogation of people thought to be withholding information on terrorism directed against us, my "high standards for my country and my military" pertain to nothing other than effect, effect, and effect. In the extreme case of terrorists capable of the sort of feats we saw on 9/11, I don't think there's any natural or divine support for the decent limits we set for ourselves in ordinary, civil life. It seems to be completely fortuitous that on 9/11 the jets weren't all concentrated on the White House and the Capitol, and that they weren't brought crashing down during a State of the Union address. There are mistakes one can only make once, and sleepwalking into 9/11 could have been our one, deadly mistake. I can't take our random, ridiculous reprieve from the destruction of our government and way of life as anything other than an opportunity to take lawlessly effective steps to make sure our enemies don't have another chance. Torturing terrorists is one of those steps, and I'm just sorry that we seem not to be very good at it. I blush to say this on the Althouse blog, but your mincing, flouncing moralism is one of the reasons I've come to doubt the wisdom of our indiscriminate "women's suffrage."
Daddy Warbuck: I believe the tribunals are designed to determine whether they are properly classified as "enemy combattants," which then justifies holding them for the duration of the conflict.
Post a Comment