Senator Dick Durbin gave a tearful apology Tuesday for his remarks comparing the treatment of terrorist prisoners in Gitmo by our military to the treatment of Jews by the Nazis and the Russian people by the Soviet Communists. Here's the Political Teen's video. And here is the transcript:
Some may believe my remarks crossed the line. To them I extend my heartfelt apologies. There’s usually a quote by Abraham Lincoln that you can turn to in moments like this. Maybe this is the right one. Lincoln said “If the end brings me out right what is set against me won’t amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong ten thousand angels swarming at his right won’t make any difference.” In the end I don’t want anything in my public career to detract from my love of this country, my respect for those who serve it, and this great Senate. I offer my apologies for those who were offended by my words, I promise you that I will continue to speak out on the issues I think are important to the people of Illinois and to the Nation. Mr. President I yield to the floor.
Unfortunately for Durbin, the phrase "apologies for those who were offended by my words" didn't resound too well with his critics. Were his tears real? Was he admitting that he was wrong, or was he simply apologizing for 'offending' people, with no admission of error?
I've been thinking about the Trent Lott incident a few years ago. Lott didn't compare anyone to the Nazis; rather, he simply complimented century-old former segregationist Strom Thurmond with the admonition that this would be a better country if Thurmond had been elected president in 1948. Lott made no utterances of any kind during his remarks at the reception for Thurmond that specifically indicated support of any kind for Thurmond's half-century-old segregationist politics.
Lott probably thought he was safe. After all, Sam Ervin and William Fulbright, two of this nation's most notorious civil rights foes, are now Democrat idols. No one in their party condemned Bill Clinton when he expressed admiration for Fulbright on numerous occasions. George Wallace is now no more than a footnote since he made peace with civil rights leaders in the 1980's. And no Democrat even wants to talk about the checkered past of Robert Byrd or Fritz Hollings.
Yet Lott received a hailstorm of criticism from Democrats. Courtesy of Rush Limbaugh, here is a sample:
MARIO CUOMO: Trent Lott speaks for the Republican Party. It was terrible.
ANN RICHARDS: Had a Democrat said what Trent Lott said, there would had been no question about whether or not that Democrat would have stayed on or not.
KWEISI MFUME: We think he should resign, and we think the party should find a way to make that happen.
MARY LANDRIEU: The real issue is does the Republican Party think this should be their leader. I can promise you, if a Democratic leader said something like this or close to this, their leadership position would be pulled.
MAXINE WATERS: Trent Lott has made yet another statement consistent with his long history of supporting segregation and separatism and now it's gotten to the point where it's downright racism.
JESSE JACKSON: Trent Lott's redemption will come through action, not just through words.
Lott apologized. He apologized five times. He told BET, "I obviously made a mistake, and I'm going to do everything I can to admit that and deal with it and correct it. And that's what I hope the people will give me a chance to do." Unlike Durbin, Lott specifically acknowledged a mistake. Still his apologies were rejected and he was forced to resign as Senate Majority Leader.
Fast forward to today. The same Democrats who excoriated Lott seem to feel no shame at Durbin's slander of the US military. Some of this is understandable as partisan politics - you don't hang your own people. But as I watched this spectacle unfold, I began to wonder just how much of the Democrat reaction was CYA/"circle the wagons" politics, and how much of it was driven by a deeper agenda. Here was my question: Have today's Democrats, so whipped by the 'leaders' who inherited the Civil Rights movement in the 1970's, been reduced to believing that no other tragedy in the history of human civilization was worse than American slavery and the Jim Crow era?
PLEASE DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND ME. Both eras, by today's standards, were extremely unjust and in no way would a civilized person wish for their reinstatement. But even at its worst, American slavery cannot be equated with the treatment of prisoners in Hitler's death camps, or with the outright slaughter committed by Pol Pot. Yet the preachers of Black victimhood have succeeded in either convincing or intimidating a large portion of our political leadership into believing just the opposite.
The repeated demands for Lott's head, versus the relative silence
about Durbin's slander of the military, speak volumes to me about the
true priorities of the leadership of today's Democrat party.
___________________________
PS - Oh brother! Drudge and Michelle Malkin are reporting that Democrats are holding a news conference - wait, it's over now and here's the story - demanding the Karl Rove apologize or resign for telling the New York Times, "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Imagine! How dare he tell the truth! Looks like the Dems now have a severe case of apology fever. Republicans - please keep quiet, do not play tit for tat, and let the Democrats continue their downward spiral into irrelevance.
Senator Hagel this past week said that we are losing the war in Iraq. When AL-Jazeerah runs this on their network and declares that a REPUBLICAN US SENATOR is claiming that America is losing the war in Iraq, it will not only only bolster Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts, but it will also demoralize our troops and further imperil them by encouraging our enemies. Ironically, Chuck Hagel has desires to be the president of this nation. Will America vote for a traitor for President? I hope not. This is much more demoralizing than anything Dick Durbin said. Where is the Republican party’s outrage? Where is Karl Rove’s outrage? Where is Mayor Daley’s outrage.
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=41358&version=1&templa te_id=57&parent_id=56
FAMILIES OF 9-11 in official press release
As families whose relatives were victims of the 9/11 terror attacks, we believe it is an outrage that any Democrat, any Republican, any conservative or any liberal, stakes a “high ground” position based upon the September 11th death and destruction. Doing so assumes that all those who died and their loved ones would agree. In truth, some would and some would not. By definition the conduct is divisive and, because it is intended to be self-serving and politicizes 9/11, it is offensive.
We are calling on Karl Rove to resist his temptations and stop trying to reap political gain in the tragic misfortune of others. His comments are not welcome.
Posted by: evangelicaljunebug | June 23, 2005 at 07:28 PM