I haven’t been following the Dickie Durbin controversy, but I’ve been told he’s apologized, with tears and all, for comparing the American interrogators at Gitmo to Nazis and Soviets. Let’s go to the videotape.
More at Yahoo! news.
And here’s a little Dr. Seuss for the senator’s cooked goose.
Update (6/22): From Michelle Malkin’s latest column:
Gitmo-bashers attack the Bush administration’s failure to abide by the Geneva Conventions. But as legal analysts Lee Casey and Darin Bartram told me, “the status hearings are, in fact, fully comparable to the ‘Article V’ hearings required by the Geneva Conventions, in situations where those treaties apply, and are also fully consistent with the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case.”
Treating foreign terrorists like American shoplifters — with full access to civilian lawyers, classified intelligence, and all the attendant rights of a normal jury trial — is a surefire recipe for another 9/11. That is why the Bush administration fought so hard to erect an alternative tribunal system — long established in wartime — in the first place.
The Durbin Apology
Sen. Durbin Apologizes for Gitmo Remarks (AP): WASHINGTON (AP) — Under fire from Republicans and some fellow Democrats, Sen. Dick Durbin apologized Tuesday for comparing American interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to Nazis and other histo…
Trackback by Conservative Thinking — 06.21.05 @ 6:40 pm
These guys are amazing! They call our troops nazis. When confronted they get indignant! They did their hooves in the sand and “project” rightousness! They get acting coaches to help with body-language and the like.
Then they find out they backed a bad hand. Time to eat a little crow. But the harder you’ve dug in, the more dificult it is to seem credible as you reverse yourself. Hence the crying and girlishness. Yes he’s learned a valuable lesson here today…..blah blah blah. In the future I will blah blah blah.
Does anyone even buy this nonesense anymore?
Comment by pajamazon — 06.21.05 @ 6:47 pm
ROTFLOL, La Shawn that little bit of Dr. Suess was hilarious and as plain as the nose on my face.
Comment by Andy — 06.21.05 @ 6:55 pm
It really wasn’t an apology. It was an “if I’ve offended” type of statement. The Left is determined to paint Bush as a torturer and if our military men and women are made to look bad, too bad. Some on the Left as the editorial page of my old home state Minneapolis Star Tribune think the military is terrible. I remember Chris Matthews saying of Bill Clinton, there was no limit to how low he would go. The Left seems to have taken its cue from him. There is no limit to how low they will go to try to regain power.
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 06.21.05 @ 6:56 pm
I had to change it up a bit, Andy. I was still editing but forgot you guys are on it as soon as I hit “Publish.”
Evon - I ran that errand I told you about. Thanks!
Comment by La Shawn — 06.21.05 @ 7:03 pm
Hey ho, Durbin’s gotta go!
That was a semi-apology, better than last Friday, but still shy of abject repentance:
““I am sorry if anything I said caused any offense or pain to those who have such bitter memories of the Holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of our time. Nothing, nothing should ever be said to demean or diminish that moral tragedy.”
[SNIP]
“I am also sorry if anything I said cast a negative light on our fine men and women in the military … I never ever intended any disrespect for them. Some may believe [What? That many believe that it didn’t?] that my remarks crossed the line to them I extend my heartfelt apology,” Durbin said, choking on his words.
[SNIP]
“I don’t want anything in my public career to detract from my love for this country, my respect for those who serve it and this great Senate. I offer my apologies to those who were offended,“”
Immediately after his remarks, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he thought Durbin made a “heartfelt statement” and he was satisfied with the apology.
Duh, John, it was heartfelt cause Turban Durbin realized that his livelihood was on the line, not the error of his ways.
Comment by Andy — 06.21.05 @ 7:08 pm
Doooh!
La Shawn, I goofed on a closing ‘em’ after McCain’s acceptance of apology.
You lost me, Andy. Submit it again, and I’ll delete the old one. - Admin
Comment by Andy — 06.21.05 @ 7:12 pm
More important than anything you blogged about today-the lost Boy Scout has been found alive. Much better television than the runaway bride or the insincere Congressman.
Comment by Chuck — 06.21.05 @ 7:23 pm
So I assume you’ve blogged about it? Great!
Comment by La Shawn — 06.21.05 @ 7:24 pm
Hanoi Durbin apologizes “again”
So now Durbin has offered a real apology:
WASHINGTON — Under fire from Republicans and some fellow Democrats, Sen. Dick Durbin apologized Tuesday for comparing American interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to Nazis and other historically i…
Trackback by The Unalienable Right — 06.21.05 @ 7:31 pm
Jester Durbin wouldn’t know an apology from a hole in the ground. That wasn’t an apology — made me sick to my stomach actually. I still feel need needs to be removed from his postion as Demo Whip and drumed out of office.
Comment by Jo — 06.21.05 @ 7:31 pm
Pathetic….I’ll be blogging about this after I get home from counseling tonight. It’s sad that we have this man as a pathetic representative of our country.
Comment by Stacy L. Harp — 06.21.05 @ 7:32 pm
He seemed more apologetic than Santorum…When he compared the Democrats to Hitler it wasn’t as sincere… But I digress.
Good to hear from you, LaShawn.
Monika Brooks
Oakland
Comment by Monika Brooks — 06.21.05 @ 7:53 pm
That was not a real apology. It was a Clintonian one, “if I said/did” I apologize to those who were offended. Come on. Trent Lott was attacked for a lot less & he resigned his position, I haven’t heard of Durbin resigning from any of his posts.
Comment by NYgirl — 06.21.05 @ 7:58 pm
I am hopeful the context is not full of justification and excuses. (Hat Tip La Shawn Barber)
Pingback by ThreeBadFingers — 06.21.05 @ 8:00 pm
“Dick Dastardly” Durbin apologizes
Late this afternoon, US Senator Dick Durbin (Holier Than Thou-IL), with tears in his eyes, finally apologized for his comments a week ago on the floor of the Senate which equated American troops in Iraq with Nazi stormtroopers and those…
Trackback by Ramblings' Journal — 06.21.05 @ 8:00 pm
I went to grades K through 12 in Chicagoland, and I remember the juggernaut that was the Daley machine. One did not cross that political behemoth without having a death wish, at least politically speaking. Even though Daley the Younger is but a pale copy of his powerful daddy, I suspect that his call to Durbin to apologize was the catalyst for Dickie’s message today. Daley the Younger probably made him an offer he couldn’t refuse.
Comment by RedBeard — 06.21.05 @ 8:14 pm
Durbin Apologizes
Senator Durbin has just apologized on the floor of the US Senate. Right now, Lieberman is finally saying something about it…but he’s saying “Who among us hasn’t misspoke and said something and have it misunderstood”, etc.
One problem with tha…
Trackback by Iowa Voice — 06.21.05 @ 8:18 pm
LaShawn, thanks a lot for the link!
Comment by Buckley F. Williams — 06.21.05 @ 9:28 pm
Reckon the apology came about due to the latest poll showing Pro-Gitmo to be more popular with Joe public than even Bush’s approval rating?
Watch the MSM/DNC to drop Gitmo like a dead rat and move on in search of another gotcha to beat Bush on the head with.
I feel sorry for Bush as he has to endure one abuse after another from moonbats who won’t give up searching for something to stick him with.
La Shawn, re #7, you fixed it. Thanks
Comment by Andy — 06.21.05 @ 9:36 pm
So little Dicky cried. Boo hoo hoo. Waaay to little, waaay too late for this Illinoisan. He probably isn’t even sincere about being sorry. Just one more useless Chicago Democrat.
Comment by John — 06.21.05 @ 9:51 pm
Let’s see if someone in the Democratic Party will now put a muzzle on Dr. Demento (a.k.a. Howard Dean).
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 06.21.05 @ 10:16 pm
Conservative bloggers should demand that Durbin quit his leadership post. His cynical ploy was disguised as an apology but it was nothing of the sort. He did not express regret nor remorse. He did not admit he was in the wrong.
Comment by Thomas Galvin — 06.21.05 @ 10:18 pm
Certainly it was a half-assed apology, but as Michelle Malkin said - skirmish is over - we need to let it go - and be ready for the next time.
Comment by josh — 06.21.05 @ 10:42 pm
I listened to the entire C-SPAN segment. It was clear that again, it was what Durbin believed and he regrets ONLY that people understood him.
He has not apologized for making the comparison.
He has not apologized for giving the enemy material to run on their media day and night.
He has not apologized for the HARM that has been caused to America for the INACCURATE statements of comparison that his ORIGINAL quotes had him talking about Americans treating detainees a certain way (compared to socialist/communist dictator of your choice)
Comment by Baklava — 06.21.05 @ 10:55 pm
#23,
Michelle said, “This little skirmish is over, but the continuing assault on the military’s detention policies and practices at Gitmo and beyond continues.
Vigilance.”
I agree with Michelle. The larger assault still continues and we need to deal with it. There is no waiting for that.
Comment by Baklava — 06.21.05 @ 11:41 pm
Vote for the great American
http://tv.channel.aol.com/greatestamerican
Comment by Baklava — 06.21.05 @ 11:46 pm
The “Real” Dick Durbin Apology
AP reports: “Under fire from Republicans and some fellow Democrats, Sen. Dick Durbin apologized Tuesday for comparing American interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to Nazis and other historically infamous figures.”
Coming from the heart…
Trackback by California Conservative — 06.22.05 @ 12:06 am
Well at least he apologised unlike a few other demacrats for what they,ve said
Comment by firebird — 06.22.05 @ 12:46 am
Durbin still has not apologized. He did not say that Gitmo was not like the Gulag. He did not say the military was not Pol Pot’s mass murderers. He said hw was sorry the dumb were offended. There is a big difference.
Comment by Rod Stanton — 06.22.05 @ 7:10 am
His apology is no different than the one that was issued weeks ago in regards to not passing lynching laws soon enough. Not from the heart, not from repentance but said just to “please” man (same as the bogus lynching law apology). Oh well, busness as usual.
Comment by Renee — 06.22.05 @ 7:24 am
He apologized ‘if anyone was offended’ which hardly sounded sincere to me. I wonder who couldn’t have been offended by his original comments??
Comment by Charlie on the Pennsylvania Turnpike — 06.22.05 @ 7:56 am
Dingy Harry Reid, for one, was not offended; he had praised Durbin’s sick Nazi remarks. Now that Durbin the Turban has sorta kinda half-way apologized, I wonder what Reid will do?
Comment by RedBeard — 06.22.05 @ 8:09 am
[…] ud to your staff before you read them in front of America from now on Senator Durbin. Via LaShawn, tNoYF has some Durbin Dr. Seuss. Scott Ott has the newest accusation from Durbin. […]
Pingback by Myopic Zeal — 06.22.05 @ 8:15 am
“That is why the Bush administration fought so hard to erect an alternative tribunal system — long established in wartime — in the first place.”
They actually fought against the tribunal system that Hamdi eventually forced them to have.
Comment by actus — 06.22.05 @ 8:41 am
I’m sure the murderous Islamic facist will read Durbin’s apology and immediately cancel any attacks they’d planned as a result of his original statement.
And I’m equally sure that the families and friends of those American troops and Iraqi citizens who die as a result of Durbin’s original statement will be comforted by his “aplogy”.
Comment by Dave — 06.22.05 @ 9:51 am
If you want the real scoop about what is taking place at GITMO and want to know first hand what the brave men and women in the U.S. military are doing to protect our rights and freedoms check out this interview by Right Thinking Girl, with a GITMO interrogator…
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 06.22.05 @ 12:29 pm
Durbin did not apologize for being morally wrong, he apologized that someone may have been offended. That is a clear indication that he does NOT understand that he was wrong.
Why, in his “apology”, did he mention only the holocaust victims and the American soldier? Because there are many family members of each in Illinois, I doubt there are many gulag victims or Pol Pot victims.
The senator does not understand moral comparisons and probably does not even know what the holocaust was, nor what occurred in the Soviet gulags, nor the torture and murder perpetrated by the Pol Pot regime.
He referred to the holocaust as the greatest moral tragedy of our time. Moral tragedy? It wasn’t a moral tragedy, it was a moral evil…EVIL. A tragedy is being struck by lightning, falling out of a tree, losing a family member to disease. Auschwitz, Maidanek, Sobibor, Dachau, were not tragic, they were organized, systematic murder slaughter of innocents, organized, systematic evil.
The gulags were organized, systematic slave labor and starvation. The Pol Pot tortured tens of thousands and murdered hundreds of thousands more.
That is evil, not tragedy.
Anyone can make a mistake and misspeak, but an apology focuses on the mistake not on the hearer’s being offended or misunderstanding.
If the truth offends you, I am sorry that you are offended, but I am not sorry for speaking the truth.
Comment by SickAndTired — 06.22.05 @ 1:40 pm
Don’t you know that being a liberal is never having to say you’re sorry. Those bastards will never admit they are wrong.
Comment by djb — 06.22.05 @ 2:18 pm
Have you noticed lately that when liberals in the Senate get caught doing something monumentally stupid, their first inclination is to start crying? Seems to be a trend lately- what is up with that?
Comment by Jewels — 06.22.05 @ 3:17 pm
Remember what happened to Senator Lott after he issued a real apology? He stepped down, whether voluntarily or at the behest of colleagues, he was stripped of his power. And these same colleagues accept this pathetic excuse for an apology.
Politically, we may be doomed. God bless America.
Comment by SickAndTired — 06.22.05 @ 4:21 pm
Durbin meant what he said, and his “apology” was totally empty. Dems are doing everything they can to score points in order to gain back the WH in 2008.
What it boils down to is that the Left is blurring the line between humiliation and torture. Humiliation can be an effective tool to gain information, especially from prideful men like the terrorists. Torture is something altogether different. We don’t use torture because it is an unreliable means of gathering information. People will say anything to keep the next blow from striking. The offense at humiliation is nothing more than mealy-mouthed nonsense tied to the Left’s need to make everybody “feel good.”
No one has died at Gitmo, and no one will, unless a terrorist successfully commits suicide. There have been no serious injuries, unless the terrorists have inflicted it upon themselves by either physical resistance or their own choice.
How people equate humiliation with torture is beyond me, but not beyond those who practice circular reasoning.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 06.22.05 @ 4:44 pm
Jewels,
Becuase Ahnold was right. Girlie Men.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 06.22.05 @ 5:09 pm
No one has died at Gitmo?
How do know that? Or do you continue to believe all that our government tells us?
And what about those “extraordinary renditions” to lovely locales like Uzbekistan, where they are doing some of the dirty work for us?
Comment by meade — 06.22.05 @ 6:34 pm
meade,
I also don’t know for certain that you are a human being, but I choose to work under the assumption that you are.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 06.22.05 @ 8:12 pm
“I also don’t know for certain that you are a human being, but I choose to work under the assumption that you are.”
Are there any plausible alternatives?
Comment by actus — 06.22.05 @ 8:18 pm
Meade, Even Juan Williams has said that nobody has died at G’tmo.
I’ve met liberals who think the moon landing was a staged production. Are you one of those?
Comment by Baklava — 06.22.05 @ 8:20 pm
#40 Jewels,
That’d be Turbin Durbin and just recently Whine DeWine.
While I’d agree the two are liberal, Mike DeWine is a wepubican who were one of the ones who enabled the kicking of the can down the road for interpreting the filibuster rule to not apply to judges.
Nice Blog you got.
Comment by Baklava — 06.22.05 @ 8:29 pm
LaShawn–
Being of Ukrainian ancestry, I have a real hard time accepting any apologies from Senator Durbin. In the past he has made very clear that he is of Lithuanian descent (via his mother).
All well and good — except he hasn’t got a clue as to what happened to his mother’s people, much less my maternal grandparent’s people. He says in very blatant English that Stalin’s goons goose-stepping in cadence to the Internationale while butchering tens of millions of innocent civilians are equivalent to the detention center at GITMO.
Excuse me Senator Dickey! Since when does zero deaths (at Gitmo) equate to around 20 million deaths in Stalin’s gulag as of 1 September 1939?
Senator Durbin thinks (and regrets) that he has slandered those associated with the American military forces (myself included). If that is what he thinks, he’s way off base. He has deliberately spat on the graves of the victims of Stalin’s gulags, Pol Pot’s killing fields and the victims of the Nazi Holocaust. Any apology by Senator Durbin at this point is not only pointless, it is an insult to humanity. The only appropriate action is Durbin’s immediate and unequivocal resignation from the Senate; yes I said the Senate not just the position of Senate Minority Whip.
Comment by Mescalero — 06.23.05 @ 12:07 am
Amen, Mescalero! I too have relatives who suffered not at the hands of Stalin, but the other comparison the esteemed senator made, the Nazis. He is utterly ignorant of history and devoid of sensible judgment.
Comment by SickAndTired — 06.23.05 @ 12:18 am
Durbin outraged at Gitmo, but support the most brutal kinds of abortion
From LifeNews: In 2003, when the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly to ban the barbaric “procedure" known as partial-birth abortion, Sen….
Trackback by Danny Carlton (aka Jack Lewis) — 06.23.05 @ 9:47 am
For those intersted, here’s the latest Rasmussen poll data (hat tip-Powerline):
A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 20% of Americans believe prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been treated unfairly. Seven-out-of-ten adults believe the prisoners are being treated “better than they deserve” (36%) or “about right” (34%).
The survey also found that just 14% agree with people who say that prisoner treatment at Guantanamo Bay is similar to Nazi tactics. Sixty-nine percent disagree with that comparison. This helps explain why Illinois Senator Dick Durbin apologized for making such a comparison.
I love how the largest group says the terrorists are being treated better than they deserve, but you would never hear that from the MSM. They are preoccupied with the 20%.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 06.23.05 @ 2:12 pm
“No one has died at Gitmo?
How do know that? Or do you continue to believe all that our government tells us?”
That is what is reported by the International Red Cross, who make regular inspections at Gitmo.
“And what about those “extraordinary renditions†to lovely locales like Uzbekistan, where they are doing some of the dirty work for us?”
Is this supposed to be some kind of sensationalism? We use Uzbekistan as a staging area for our forces, not as an interrogation outpost. We are also giving support to the people who are in favor of democracy in that region as well. Get your facts straight.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 06.23.05 @ 2:16 pm
Democrats = All allegations are true all the time.
Comment by Baklava — 06.23.05 @ 2:19 pm
Renee writes:
>>>His apology is no different than the one that was issued weeks ago in regards to not passing lynching laws soon enough. Not from the heart, not from repentance but said just to “please†man (same as the bogus lynching law apology). Oh well, busness as usual.”
Is there some tactile distinction between lynching someone, or putting someone into a gas chamber? Why would an apology for lynching laws be “bogus”, but people must be FORCED to apologize for mentioning Nazis?
Speaking of which….
>>>WASHINGTON May 20, 2005 — Sen. Rick Santorum says he “meant no offense” by referring to Adolf Hitler while defending the GOP’s right to ban judicial filibusters as Senate leaders prepared to start a countdown Friday to a vote over whether to stop minority senators from blocking President Bush’s judicial nominees…
“Referencing Hitler was meant to dramatize the principle of an argument, not to characterize my Democratic colleagues,” Santorum, the No. 3 Republican in the GOP leadership in the Senate, said of his remarks Thursday.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=775272&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
Oops. I wonder if the bloggers who’ve posted so far accept SANTORUM’s apology?
–Cobra
Comment by Cobra — 06.23.05 @ 6:16 pm
Cobra wrote, “Is there some tactile distinction between lynching someone, or putting someone into a gas chamber?
Let’s look at this logically please:
The Senate was making an apology for filibustering (Democrats did this) anti-lynchning legislation many years ago. In the apology there is no mention of who filibustered. The apology is being made by members of the current Senate not by the perpetrators. The apology is being made by Robert Byrd who shouldn’t even be in the Senate because he was in the KKK voluntarily.
Durbin was making an apology that people were offended by his remarks (not apologizing for making the remarks), remarks that HE made and was responsible for and remarks that compared American treatment of detainees to conditions under Hitler and Pol Pot. To see the ridiculousness of that comparision (if you don’t see it) you’ll need to read alot more of La Shawn’s threads. It’s not only the ridiculousness, folks like Al Jazeera and Islamic radicals are using his words to flame the hate in order to try to kill more Americans.
Cobra also asked, “I wonder if the bloggers who’ve posted so far accept SANTORUM’s apology?”
I’ve written that no politician should use Hitler’s name in an argument because extremists who don’t understand the English language like you Cobra would get detracted very easily. It won’t do anything for the debate. Saying that you’ve got to read Santorum’s remarks. He did not compare Democrats to Hitler as liberals keep saying. He didn’t even compare Democrat tactics to Hitler’s tactics. He drew up an hypothetical situation about Hitler claiming Paris and then when the Allies were bombing him saying “How dare you bomb me this is my country” [which never happened and Hitler didn’t say that]. He then talked about how the Democrats were just in the last 4 years starting to filibuster judges and then saying “how dare you change the rules” as if that was the way things were for every.
Reading Comprehension Cobra. Word mean things. While he shouldn’t have even said the word Hitler because it detracts from his argument his argument was sound where Durbin’s was not. Santorum’s argument was about people starting to do something and then getting upset when people try to change it to be the way it was. Durbin’s was comparing our G’tmo facalities and treatment of detainees to those under Pol Pot and Hitler when not one detainee has died.
There has been investigations and the Department of Defense has prosecuted any service-person they believe has not operated lawfully. If anything the U.S. should get KUDOS for the due diligence in making sure that we are good.
Comment by Baklava — 06.23.05 @ 6:45 pm
Bill Oreilly just said something intelligent! Yes, he did. He said (a bit late though I might add) and I quote, “If there was no Islam, there would be no War on Terror.”
There is a fallacy in there somewhere but the message is nvertheless clear to sane, peace-loving, free, human Americans.
To Bill O’Reilly the self appointed greatest man he ever knew…BRILLIANT!
Comment by Raymond — 06.23.05 @ 8:44 pm
These jerks they would have sided with hitler
Comment by firebird — 06.23.05 @ 11:39 pm
“To Bill O’Reilly the self appointed greatest man he ever knew…BRILLIANT! ”
Raymond might just have a subtlety that some of us lack.
Comment by actus — 06.24.05 @ 12:49 am
Baklava writes:
>>>The Senate was making an apology for filibustering (Democrats did this) anti-lynchning legislation many years ago. In the apology there is no mention of who filibustered. The apology is being made by members of the current Senate not by the perpetrators. The apology is being made by Robert Byrd who shouldn’t even be in the Senate because he was in the KKK voluntarily.”
If the Democrats (white conservative Southerners primarily) were the one fillibustering anti-lynching laws THEN, and Republicans (white conservative Southerners primarily) are the one who won’t apologize NOW, what does this have to say about white conservative Southerners?
What is the primary distinction from being an ex-KKK member, and simply a white conservative who votes as though he is a current KKK member in regards to civil rights, lynching apologies, etc?
–Cobra
Comment by Cobra — 06.24.05 @ 7:41 am
Whoa there cobra, isn’t that KKK member (an unrepentant one at that) the one still using the filibuster? And to hold up the nominations of black justices?
Way to take a page out of Howard Dean’s comic book… republicans are prim. southern conservatives… heh.
Learn some history son, then try a course in logic and critical thinking.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 06.24.05 @ 7:45 am
“what does this have to say about white conservative Southerners?
What is the primary distinction from being an ex-KKK member, and simply a white conservative who votes as though he is a current KKK member in regards to civil rights, lynching apologies, etc?”
Define how us white conservative southerners vote as if we are current KKK members? Is it because we do not espouse nor follow a liberal agenda?
Comment by Chris Roberts — 06.24.05 @ 10:52 am
The cobra can’t wrap himself around the facts….
Comment by Baklava — 06.24.05 @ 11:41 am
You refuse to answer the question posed. I will answer it for you then. I don’t find any relevant difference between the Dixiecrats who fillibusted anti-lynching laws and the Southern Republican Senators who refused to support the lynching law apology last week. If you HAVE any relevant differences between the two groups, please fill me in. I’d love to hear what it is.
Chris writes:
>>>”Define how us white conservative southerners vote as if we are current KKK members? Is it because we do not espouse nor follow a liberal agenda?”
I don’t know what your personal views are on lynching apologies, civil rights laws, miscegenation laws, or school re-segregation. I don’t know if you’re a resident of Louisiana old enough to have been one of the 55% of whites to vote for David Duke in the 1991 Gubernatorial race.
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/duke_own_words/on_blacks.asp
I don’t know if you’re one of the 22% of South Carolina voters who voted to UPHOLD the ban on interracial marriage in 1998–http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/11/03/election/ballots/interracial.marriage/
–or if you’re one of the 41% of Alabamans who did the same thing in 2000.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/07/alabama.interracial/
I don’t know if you’re a resident of Alabama, and voted this PAST ELECTION to KEEP the language of school segregation and poll taxes on the state constitution.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16443-2004Nov27.html
I don’t know if you’re a member of the Southern Party– http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/01/southern.party/
or The Council of Conservative Citizens–
http://www.cofcc.org/
I don’t know these things yet, Chris, so I can’t definitively say how you might vote. But I’ve got a pretty good idea how a KLANSMEN would on the above mentioned issues.
Back to the THREAD on the use of “Nazis” by Durbin. This link details some various Republican/conservative uses of Nazi references,
http://www.crisisisrael.com/display_commentary.php?cid=313
And don’t forget campaign commercials online by the GOP splicing together various Democratic speakers with Hitler.
>>>WASHINGTON (AP) — Adolf Hitler’s image has surfaced again in the White House race. President Bush’s campaign contains online video, removed from a liberal group’s Web site months ago and disavowed, that features the Nazi dictator.
The Bush Internet video, which was sent electronically to 6 million supporters, intersperses clips of speeches by Democrats John Kerry, Al Gore and Howard Dean with the footage of Hitler.
Democrats want the video pulled from the site. Campaign aides said it would remain.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-06-27-bush-hitler-ad_x.htm
–Cobra
Comment by Cobra — 06.24.05 @ 4:59 pm
Pardon me for being confused, Cobra, but you seem to be attacking Republicans for airing a video bit produced by hate-filled leftist Bush bashers which tried to liken Bush to Hitler. So… it’s ok for the haters on the left to do a hit piece with Bush=Hitler garbage in it, but it’s evil for the Republicans to point that fact out to the voters?
Next you’ll be attacking Republicans who dare to point out the fact that Robert Byrd was a recruiter and a high officer in the KKK. Evil Republicans.
Comment by RedBeard — 06.24.05 @ 9:22 pm
Redbeard, didn’t you get the memo? Of course it’s always ok for the leftist to bash conservatives, afterall, we’re part of the VRWC that hates anyone who’s not one of us. According to the Dr.Dean’s Version (DDV) Bible, not only was Jesus a liburul, it’s flat out wrong and hypocritical to point out the beam in their eyes while we still have that mote in ours.
Comment by Andy — 06.24.05 @ 11:32 pm
Good analogy, Andy.
I’ve seen several comments from the liberals here that seem to suggest that it’s horrible and wrong to point out the horrible and wrong things done and said by liberal politicians. In that alternative universe, where up is down and cold is hot, pointing at Dickie the Turban’s treachery becomes the crime, and the treachery itself becomes benign. That idea leaves me scratching my head, but then so does liberalism in its entirety.
I was a liberal for about 4 years, back in the dark days of unreal and cocoon-like university life. Then I grew up, looked around at the real world, and began hoping that not too many people had seen me acting foolish during my descent into immature madness during those 4 years.
Comment by RedBeard — 06.25.05 @ 7:54 am
“I don’t find any relevant difference between the Dixiecrats who fillibusted anti-lynching laws and the Southern Republican Senators who refused to support the lynching law apology last week. If you HAVE any relevant differences between the two groups, please fill me in. I’d love to hear what it is.”
Uh. Hello. There is one huge difference that counts. The Democrats that filibustered, they SUPPPORTED lynching. None of the Senators that did not vote for the apology support lynching. What they do say, and have repeatedly said is that an apology by them is empty because they were not the ones using the filibuster.
I know how a Kleagle would vote too, just look at Robert Byrd.
Really, though, when are you guys going to learn that you can’t keep stating that any white conservative that doesn’t agree with the liberal agenda has to be racist?
Comment by Chris Roberts — 06.25.05 @ 10:30 am
Chris Roberts writes:
>>>The Democrats that filibustered, they SUPPPORTED lynching. None of the Senators that did not vote for the apology support lynching. What they do say, and have repeatedly said is that an apology by them is empty because they were not the ones using the filibuster.”
Well, Chris, which whites DID support lynching, since lynching obviously occurred?
Which whites voted for KEEPING the language of segregation in the Alabama Constitution?
Redbeard and Andy can take a stab at that one too, since obviously this African American liberal from New Jersey didn’t participate in any of the above.
Do you consider the “liberal agenda” to be any of the above topics?
–Cobra
Comment by Cobra — 06.25.05 @ 11:09 am
So….
Cobra
Your point is what? That Republicans then (Jim Crow era) and now, are racists?
Now, would you consider yourself prejudiced, bigoted or racist?
Just trying to get the background on your thinking.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 06.25.05 @ 2:48 pm
Cobra, does it help you to have the U.S. Senate apologize for sins not committed against you, and by senators no longer in the Senate? If it does, ok, I guess. Whatever floats your boat. But please don’t expect me to understand it, because I cannot. It all reeks of hollow rhetoric and phony politics.
If the British government suddenly issued an apology for the abuse suffered by my Irish ancestors, caused by no one issuing the current apology, my thought would be a very large “HUH????”
If the French and German governments, composed of not one guilty soul, apologized for failing to act to stop the systematic murder and abuse of my Mennonite ancestors, my reaction would be the same, one of puzzlement.
But hey, what the heck; if any of those goofy, phony, guilt-ridden politicians want to give me apologies and reparations, for sins committed by no one alive today against no one alive today, I’m all for it. I could use a new wide screen plasma TV.
Comment by RedBeard — 06.25.05 @ 2:49 pm
Redbeard writes:
>>>Cobra, does it help you to have the U.S. Senate apologize for sins not committed against you, and by senators no longer in the Senate? If it does, ok, I guess. Whatever floats your boat. But please don’t expect me to understand it, because I cannot. It all reeks of hollow rhetoric and phony politics.”
You have a long line of ethnic groups to malign if you think that the lynching apology by the Senate was “hollow rhetoric and phony politics.”
I doubt you’ll attack those groups though.
>>>If the British government suddenly issued an apology for the abuse suffered by my Irish ancestors, caused by no one issuing the current apology, my thought would be a very large “HUH????—
You may get to say “Huh” sooner than you think. Apology is all the rage in England.
“>>>PM apology over IRA bomb jailings
Gerry Conlon has campaigned for a public apology
Tony Blair has apologised to two families who suffered one of the UK’s biggest miscarriages of justice.
The prime minister was commenting on the wrongful jailing of 11 people for IRA bomb attacks on pubs in Guildford and Woolwich in 1974.
Mr Blair said: “I am very sorry that they were subject to such an ordeal and injustice.”
He made the apology to members of the Conlon and Maguire families in his private room at Westminster.
In a statement recorded for television, Mr Blair said the families deserved “to be completely and publicly exonerated”
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/ northern_ireland/4249175.stm
Apologies for a 30 year old miscarrage of justice? That’s CHICKEN-FEED for Tony Blair! Remember this one, Redbeard?
>>>Washington, D.C. — British Prime Minister Tony Blair apologized to the Americans for the British burning of documents during the War of 1812.
The British raided the American capital from August 17-28, 1814. While there, they burned the White House, the Capitol and other buildings, which provided a nice revenge for the Americans’ burning and sacking of York in 1813.”
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:NRZLSddgo7sJ:www.generalbrock.com/level2/articles/news/blair.htm++British+apology&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Scuzzi writes:
>>>”Your point is what? That Republicans then (Jim Crow era) and now, are racists?”
I’m just giving you FACTS. You can interpret them anyway you wish. My point is I’m more fascinated by the REFUSAL of Southern Republican Senators to support the anti-lynching apology apparently paling in comparison to Durban’s turn of phrases while reading the BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S FBI reports on conditions at Guantanamo.
I don’t think lynching or torture is a supportable practice. There are posters in this blog that seem to have a different point of view.
–Cobra
Comment by Cobra — 06.25.05 @ 5:03 pm
No, Cobra, you are giving rhetoric.
How about the second question: Are you, in your opinion, prejudiced, bigoted, or racist?
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 06.25.05 @ 5:31 pm
Cobra said: “You have a long line of ethnic groups to malign if you think that the lynching apology by the Senate was hollow rhetoric and phony politics. I doubt you’ll attack those groups though.”
Cobra, the only group I have maligned is the U.S. Senate. Your other implication simply isn’t true.
Comment by RedBeard — 06.25.05 @ 5:42 pm
Check out this pic from Cobra
http://www.thecobraslair.com/National%20Issues12.html
or this one:
http://www.thecobraslair.com/National%20Issues22.html
Full of hate I say… No need to deal with the misinformation from him.
Comment by Baklava — 06.25.05 @ 7:01 pm
Very illuminating, Bak. Sad, but illuminating. I wish I could understand where that degree of hatred comes from.
Comment by RedBeard — 06.25.05 @ 7:45 pm
I thought his recurring image of former Gov. McGreedy as a super hero was quite funny. Likely not for the same reasons Cobra did.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 06.25.05 @ 11:00 pm
There were a few interesting bits. In particular, it was educational to discover that Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Janeane Garofalo, etc. are Klansmen.
Odd, though; I mean, it’s obvious that all conservative talk show hosts love to go around burning crosses. Sure, we all know that, right? That’s a given, that all conservatives are eveeeeeeeel people. But those good and pure and wholesome leftie talkers? I had no idea. Well, live and learn.
Comment by RedBeard — 06.26.05 @ 9:04 am
SCSI writes:
>>>I thought his recurring image of former Gov. McGreedy as a super hero was quite funny. Likely not for the same reasons Cobra did.”
Hey, you never know. We may share the same opinions on that subject.
Isn’t America all about the free exchange of ideas?
–Cobra
Comment by Cobra — 06.26.05 @ 12:44 pm
Ideas? or Hate? I choose ideas but how do you freely exchange ideas as a liberal with the conservatives that you hate?
Comment by Baklava — 06.26.05 @ 1:30 pm
An interesting intellectual exercise might be to discuss what point in time defines the beginning of the liberal hate agenda.
It could have been during the Vietnam era, it could have been during the feeding frenzy of Watergate, it could have been during Reagan’s first campaign, or maybe it was as late as the Clinton years.
Liberals have always been wrong, but they used to be principled. At some point the majority of them stopped being principled and became just plain nasty.
Prime past example of a principled liberal: John Kennedy
Prime current example of a nasty liberal: Teddy Kennedy
Even within one family the lines are drawn. In the nation as a whole, it’s much more serious. And so it continues.
Comment by redbeardbarbarosa — 06.26.05 @ 2:20 pm
I wouldn’t say liberals have always been wrong. I would say that those who espouse what is currently known as liberalism are, were and will be wrong.
But it wouldn’t have been that long ago that Redbeard, Baklava (I suspect) and I would have been called liberal, and the change in labels isn’t because our ideals have changed, but the common definition has.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 06.26.05 @ 2:37 pm
It’s actually a bit of both, in my case. I was afflicted with leftie-itis for a few years, but I’m feeling MUCH better now.
And comparing JFK’s philosophies to those of his crude, vulgar, nasty brother, one would hardly think they could be from the same political party.
Liberalism, in the sense of collectivism, has always been wrong. Liberalism, in the sense of real fair play, true civil rights, etc., in the spirit of the Founders, has always been right. Today’s conservatives have evolved to embrace the latter while opposing the former. Today’s “liberals” have devolved, and all they have left is the collectivism, plus a whole lot of bitterness and negativity, with no vision whatever.
Comment by redbeardbarbarosa — 06.26.05 @ 4:41 pm
Ok, how did that nick get assigned to my post above? Probably sabotage by some liberal.
Comment by RedBeard — 06.26.05 @ 5:46 pm