Saturday, June 18, 2005

Durbins regretful

As you might imagine, Senator Dick Durban is seeking to cover his political ass and has released a statement on his web site:

:::::::: “More than 1700 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and our country’s standing in the world community has been badly damaged by the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. My statement in the Senate was critical of the policies of this Administration which add to the risk our soldiers face.”

“I will continue to speak out when I disagree with this Administration.”

“I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood. I sincerely regret if what I said caused anyone to misunderstand my true feelings: our soldiers around the world and their families at home deserve our respect, admiration and total support.”
::::::::

Before anyone at all starts talking about this as an apology, it's not even close to an apology. Durbin leads off with that favorite factoid of the left: a body count. He disregards anything those troops have accomplished in favor of stating a number and painting them all as failures. He follows that up with the left's 2nd favorite topic, Abu Ghraib, and links that into a weak-wristed attempt to portray himself as part of the loyal opposition. (Note to the Senator: to be a member of that group you have to show loyalty. You ain't even close, bub.) Finally, here comes the hypocrisy of thrusting his chest out and loudly proclaiming his support for the troops in the field.

Nice try, Senator. Actually, no, this wasn't. It was pathetic. The Senator's position - which he steadfastly holds to - is that those same troops he says deserves everyone's support are engaged in activities the average American would find indistinguishable from those of the Nazis in WWII. Or the Soviet gulag guards during the Cold War. Or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. His "regrets" aren't that he said something he shouldn't have, it's that people who misunderstood him are so stupid they can't read English properly. His protestations that what he meant was that he doesn't agree with the policies of the administration don't wash, either. The administration's policies where the treatment of detainees is concerned have been stated very clearly and they are remarkably cognizent of the detainees' welfare. Far more so than the detainees' concern for our welfare, or that of our troops. And far more, it would appear, than the Senator's concern their welfare as well.