Macho Nachos

The Follies of Identity Politics

When Dick Morris once punditized that Condolezza Rice could take siginificant voting chunks away from Hillary Clinton because she was female and black, Steven Warshawsky of American Thinker famously quipped in response:

[T]his is nothing but crude identity politics masquerading as political analysis.

If Erick's source is correct about the reasoning the White House is using to arrive at a Garza SCOTUS nomination, it appears that forces within the White House have fallen prey to the same seductive, yet false political reasoning that Warshawsky rightly skewered. Not only will nominating Garza to the SCOTUS not be effective, politically speaking - if he is nominated simply because he is Hispanic, it is also the wrong thing to do.

Now, it will fairly be noted that I'm not above playing dirty in politics to win. I fully realize that there are critical issues at stake, and winning elections matters when it comes to implementing the policies I believe in. However, before I'm willing to engage in the kind of politics that's not necessarily completely on the high road of ideology, I like to make sure that the tactic I'm using works. The reality is that mordern history has shown us that playing identity politics has little to no efficacy.

Remember when the fight at hand was the fight over Clarence Thomas? The conventional identity politics wisdom of the time was that the Democrats would not dare to bring out the bloody knives against an African American - and if they did, we'd really be driving a wedge between them and their base. Turns out that didn't really work so well, as a virtually identical percentage of the black vote voted Republican in 1992 as they did in 1988. The percentage voting Democrat actually INCREASED from 83 to 86, a statistic which is made all the more startling considering the third-party candidacy of Ross Perot in 1992. In contrast, when Clinton had two opportunities to appoint SCOTUS justices, he did not select an African American for either. This hurt neither his percentage of the vote in 1996, nor Al Gore's in 2000.

Now, as Erick has noted, Hispanics are a very different ballgame, politically, in that they have shown to be much more receptive to party change, based on personality. It's also difficult to judge a historical reaction to Democrat character assassination, since the only case study currently available to us is Miguel Estrada, who is hardly a household name within any demographic group. However, I challenge anyone to provide a single historical incident of identity politics being successful. Whether we're talking Geraldine Ferraro, Clarence Thomas, or whoever, whenever these games are tried, they tend to fail miserably. I contend that if it ever will actually be successful, it will be through the basis of an elected nomination, not an appointment.

But even granting the assumption that this time it might work, I still maintain that it is the wrong thing for us to do, for at least two reasons.

First, the very discussion that we are having here gives ammunition for the other side to use against us. "You see?" they will say. "They're just trying to impress you by nominating tokens. Don't be fooled, they don't really have your best interests at heart." When we start seriously discussing putting forth a candidate on the basis of his race and not his qualifications, we immediately lose any credibility with the people we're trying to impress. What's more, we deserve to lose it.

Which ties in nicely with the second reason why this kind of politics is wrong. We've taken quite a political beating over the last several decades for rightly standing up against racial discrimination, which some other people call "affirmative action" or "quotas." Remember all those arguments? Remember how employers should choose the most qualified person regardless of race? Remember how it's insulting to minorities to assume that they can't perform at the same level on their own? Remember how it's ludicrous to punish the children for the sins of their great-grandparents?

I didn't just say all of those things, I believed them. And for us to so openly and blatantly surrender them now for the sake of some cheap (and probably ineffective) play at a segment of the Democrat vote is degrading to the integrity of our party. If that's how little the principle really meant to us, we could have given up fighting affirmative action a long time ago, and done ourselves a lot more political good in the process.

It may be that Garza is the person best qualified for the job - I don't know enough about him to make the case very strongly one way or the other. If he is, then I'm glad to let him have it without a peep. But what I won't be on board for is nominating him because he's Hispanic and we think that'll be a clever thing that will help us next November.

I say it's wrong, and further that it won't work.

Better than Censure

So, it appears that after approximately a week of haranguing, Dick Durbin has finally offered something that approaches a genuine apology. A transcript from the PoliticalTeen offers us this:

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.

Now, the response from the right half of the blogosphere about this has been, shall we say, somewhat less than flattering. Many say, it's not really an apology at all, including Hugh, CQ, Powerline, and - heck, just about everbody. Others, however, are content to mock his skills at stage crying. This is all fine with me, and everyone's entitled to their opinion. But, having spent all my life watching politics, and thus spending about half my time watching Democrats, I can say that this is the best we're gonna get, folks. And further, I think this just may be better than censure. Before Shadx nails me to the floor and lights me on fire, let me explain why.

My chief concern during this whole debacle has been the image of the country as a whole. This buffoon made an incredibly doltish remark that gave radical clerics ammunition, and I didn't like it. Now, what I was forced to ask myself was, "What is the more effective renunciation of Dick Durbin's buffoonery?"

Let's face it, given the atmosphere we currently have in Washington, supposing a censure resolution actually makes it to the floor, and supposing it actually passes, it goes pretty much along party lines. It would be a miracle to get 60 votes to censure any Democrat for saying or doing anything these days. And so, when the dust settles, the MSM reports it as "Republicans censure Durbin," and the Mad Mullahs use it as further ammunition to throw against the Administration - look how we silenced our lone voice of conscience!

Personally, I think it a more effective gesture that the man admit that he's been a buffoon himself. Complete with buffoonish tears, that was a nice touch. If any radical cleric or Kossack wants to hold up Durbin as a champion of truth now, we can just replay his blubbering video over and over again. Durbin is effectively marginalized as of right now, and I believe he's licked enough dirt to get the message across.

Great. So now what? Well, consensus seems to be that we still need to boot him out of the number two minority position. Problem is, most of the people saying that are Republicans. And last I checked, the position of Minority Whip gets to be chosen exclusively by the minority party. We have no more say in who gets to be their second in command than they do over who gets to be our VP nominee. If they want to keep the buffoon, it's certainly their perogative to do so.

I know, I know - a lot of us are out looking for a pound of flesh over the Trent Lott incident. But what we need to remember is Trent Lott stepped down for the good of his own party. Now, a case can be made that Lott's actions were certainly milder than Durbin's, but that doesn't mean that the Republicans are getting the short end of the shaft if Durbin sticks around. If Durbin sticks around, what it means is that the Republicans are smarter than the Democrats. We've got the good common sense to jettison dead weight on our public image.

Now, I've argued before that it would be political suicide for the Democrats to keep Durbin around, given their credibility problems on matters of national security. The fact that he just cried on national TV isn't helping his party's "tough guy" cred any more. Keeping Dick Durbin around in a leadership position would probably be one of the stupidest political maneuvers the Democrats could possibly undertake.

Remind me again: Why is this a bad thing?

Now that Durbin has effectively neutralized the ill effect of his remarks by admitting his own buffoonery, I'm perfectly content to let the Democrats keep imploding. I'm more than happy to watch them choose Nancy Pelosi over Harold Ford, Jr. and to keep Dick Durbin over Joe Liebermann.

As the song goes, it's their party - they can cry if they want to.

How Many is Too Many?

Recently, we've had a lot of debate within our "monolithic" party about the appropriateness of the treatment that the prisoners of war have been receiving, and specifically dealing with the number of prisoners who have died in our custody. In a recent RedHot thread, we mused over the question of how many prisoners need to die in U. S. Custody before it becomes "distressing."

The simplest answer, of course, is one. However, in this case, the simplest answer isn't necessarily the correct one.

The truth of the matter is that, for most of us, we really wish that folks didn't have to die. Ideally, unless someone was doing something that threatened direct harm upon us or our loved ones, we wouldn't wish death on anyone. And who among us cannot muster at least some empathy for those who are obviously unable to inflict further harm, in that they have been imprisoned?

However, a simple fact of life that most of us have noticed is that people have a tendency to die with alarming frequency. And, a convincing case can be made that the death rate in U. S. Prisons in Iraq and Gitmo is not outside the norm of what would be expected in similar situations, and does not indicate a systemic problem in the treatment of our prisoners.

The most comprehensive report that we have seen thus far indicates that 108 prisoners have died in U. S. Custody in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, for an average of approximately 30 deaths a year. These deaths have occured in a rotating prison population that averages a population of between 9,000 and 10,000 at any given time (65,000 or so total since the Afghanistan war began - hereinafter referred to as the U. S. detention population). In other words, in the U.S. detention population, we are looking at a morbidity rate of about 3/1000 population. This is less than half of the morbidity rate of the U. S. population, which tends to remain steady at around 8/1000 population. Figures for this year can be found here.

Now, of course it will immediately be noted that much of the difference in that morbidity rate can be accounted for by noting that the U. S. detention population is probably (no official figures available) a lot younger than the average of the U. S. population, but the U. S. detention population has the liability of primarily existing in a combat zone. In fact, 22 of the 108 deaths in the U. S. detention population (almost 1/5) occurred in a single mortar attack on Abu Ghraib on April 6, 2004. The bottom line is that the prisoners in our custody are dying with much less frequency than a dispassioned observer might expect. In the absence of a political cause at issue, I doubt this death total even makes news.

I'd like to compare the death rate of the U. S. detention population with the death rate of state-run prisons in 2004. Ideally, we could make a comparison of the domestic prison population as a whole, but most domestic prisoners are prisoners of the 50 states, and the information is so widely scattered as to make such a compilation impractical. The DOJ is attempting to compile such a report, But it is not yet available.

On to the question of whether an inordinate number of deaths have been caused by abuse and/or murder. The AP report has a breakdown:

_ At least 26 have been investigated as criminal homicides involving possible abuse.

_ At least 29 are attributed to suspected natural causes or accident.

_ 22 died during an insurgent mortar attack on April 6, 2004, on Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

_ At least 21 are attributed to "justifiable homicide," when U.S. troops used deadly force against rioting, escaping or threatening prisoners and investigations found the troops acted appropriately.

Now, what a lot of people are latching on to in this report is the contention that 26 individuals have been murdered or abused to death by U. S. guards - but that is not what the report says. The report says that 26 of the deaths are being investigated as homicides. In my mind, this is does not come close to indicating that actual homicides have occured, but rather that the military is exercising due diligence in investigating every death. To the best of my knowledge, only two of our servicement have been convicted/plead guilty (PFC Edward Richmond and Staff Sgt. Johnny Horne), and official charges have also been brought against the Ft. Carson Four. Other than that, the only thing that is indicated is that the incidents are being "investigated."

Being that we are dealing with a population of folks who were ostensibly healthy enough to fight us in the first place, one would hope that every death would be investigated to determine whether foul play has been involved.

But, no matter, let us grant the contention that all 26 cases currently under investigation were, in fact, murders. This means that we are averaging a little less than 8 murders a year, within a population subset of about 10,000-12,000 (prisoners and guards) that is almost entirely male, with good reason for holding grudges of death against one another, and have been expertly trained to kill other people (and quite possibly desensitized to killing other people as well). This translates to a homicide rate of approximately 70/100,000 population, which is admittedly high in comparison to the homicide rate of the U. S. population as a whole, but I think the adjusting factors for this population subset more than explain the difference. In any case, one would be hard pressed to make the case that an average of 8 homicides a year within this population subset indicates a systemic problem, and one would be even more hard pressed to make the case that it indicates that these homicides are systematically ordered or condoned. Especially given the fact that they are all under investigation.

I hope that this post has been informative to the curious. One will, of course, notice that I haven't a whit with alleged cases of "improper treatment," which is a whole other issue, but rather only of death. I think, based upon this evidence, that the assertion that "prisoners are dying in our custody with alarming frequency" is on shaky ground, indeed.

A Disagreement Erupts

John Cole thinks we're acting like a bunch of kids. I, specifically, am called out in the list. Kos, of course, suddenly thinks John Cole is great. Not that Cole is guilty for that, of course, but when your post is being used as a club by Kos, that's not something every conservative blogger necessarily strives for.

With as much politeness as I can muster I have responded to Mr. Cole. The full text here:

Okay, John, so far as I can tell, there are three basic areas in which your post is dead wrong. I'll do my best to dispatch them, in no particular order.

First, your breathless contention that Censure is some off-the-wall equivalent of a nuclear bomb landing in the Senate. If you're interested in the history of Censure in the Senate, I've provided one here. Nine senators have been censured in history - for reasons ranging from reading classified documents into the record, campaign finance flaps, abuse of power, and yes, even political reasons (See McCarthy, Joe). There have been far more Senators who have actually been expelled, or resigned under the threat of expulsion, most for siding with the confederacy during the time of the Civil War.

The point of this history and legal lesson is that what we're basically advocating here is that the Senate tells Durbin that he's been behaving badly. We're not advocating that Durbin be caned, or paraded through the public square in shackles, or heaven forbid left in a room where the A/C is cranked all the way up without his shoes on.

It's frankly absurd for you to charge those of us who advocate censure as "going overboard" in some bizarre partisan torture job. A Senate resolution for censure doesn't carry the legal force of a darn thing, except to say that the Senate itself is pretty well disgusted with what Senator X did, and they don't like it. If you don't think that's an appropriate response to Durbin's remarks, you're entitled to your opinion, but to imply that we're all behaving like a bunch of "kids" as opposed to you mature "adults" who have a more sophisticated view of the world, is just flat out ludicrous.

Which brings me to point number two. You'll notice that I've taken exception to being called a "kid" despite the fact that you never specifically used the word "kid" to describe me or anyone else calling for censure. However, I doubt that anyone else who read your post would come away understanding that you meant anything else when you included in the title of your post, "Thank goodness the adults are in charge."

The point is that implications matter, and it insults the intelligence of everyone who listens to you to come along later and pretend that they don't. Okay, so Durbin never said our soldiers/administration/whoever you blame for this incident are Nazis, or Stalinists, or Khmer Rouge. Fine. I never said he did. But in saying that their actions are more consistent with Nazis than with Americans, it is a valid and necessary implication of his statement that in his judgment, they were behaving like Nazis/Stalinists/The Khmer Rouge. If I tell you I'm going to the store to pick up 2 apples, and then 2 more, I can't come back later and say, "I never said I was going to get four apples from the store."

You don't need classes in semantics, logic or hermeneutics to understand this. People are plenty capable of connecting the dots themselves. When Al-Jazeera repeats the piece, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're distorting it. When a self-described liberal editorial cartoonist interprets Durbins comments thusly, you gotta say, it's a pretty clear message.

Trent Lott couldn't come along later and say that he was talking about Strom Thurmond's plan to lower the capital gains tax when he praised his Presidential run, and Durbin can't come along later and say he didn't mean what he clearly did mean, either. And yes, I've read the speech, the whole ridiculous thing, in its context. And yes, I've also read the FBI report as a standalone. That absolutely does not change the fact of what the man said - context can really only do so much. And it also doesn't change the fact that an elected official of this country, especially one of such prominence, should be a darn sight more careful in choosing his words, if he doesn't want to be "misunderstood" so fundamentally.

Which brings us to point three, upon which I have come to understand that there is a fundamental difference between myself and many people. I've visited prisons before and seen the conditions that people live in. I've read correspondence with some of my converted Christian brethren who are currently behind bars and read about the conditions that they currently live in, and by comparison, granting the absolute truthfulness of every story coming out of Gitmo, Gitmo is a cakewalk.

I don't advocate torture. I don't advocate that we attack electric nodes to their genitals and shock them until they talk, or burn parts of their bodies alive, or torture their children in front of them - you know, things the actual Nazis would do. But in my own narrowminded provincialism, I'm a lot more concerned about the way our own citizens are treated in prison than I am about the folks at Gitmo, and there you have it.

And further, Durbin's idiotic remarks indicate one of two things about him as a person. Either, he is unaware of the prevalent conditions in prisons in the United States, or he is aware, and doesn't care. In either circumstance, he finds it more worth his while to berate the administration over the comparatively mild treatment of the prisoners at Gitmo - which leads me to firmly believe that he doesn't really care, he's just trying to score political points. If you think he's genuinely concerned, you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to try and sell you some of my real estate interests in Arizona. And the fact that he would use this irresponsible and inciendary rhetoric not over an actual grievance, but rather to score political points is totally inexcusable, and worthy of official condemnation by the Senate.

Tacitus follows up displaying inordinate concern over an overblown issue, a point to which I'll respond tomorrow. My blood is up, and I'd rather not say things to/about him that I'd regret later.

What Liberal Bias? (Part 4,610)

AOL users were greeted this morning with the shocking revelation from AOL News (thumbnail inset) that poor Robert Byrd (seen near tears, here) has political opponents who are willing to use his past in the KKK against him! This despite the fact that he's "really, really sorry" and "was never involved in another scandal in his life."

Pejman has already lampooned Byrd's excuse for "confronting the past," so I won't belabor the point. What's really sickening here is the victimization of Byrd - and what's even more sickening than that is the absolutely fawning coverage of Byrd the AP article attached to the story provides. Some excerpts:

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. (AP) -- Sen. Robert C. Byrd's new memoir reveals both his encyclopedic knowledge of political history and the unlikely inspiration that helped launch his own political career: A Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.

It's a mistake he has paid for time and again, the only significant scandal ever attached to a man who grew up in Wolf Creek Hollow and who next June stands to become the longest-serving senator in U.S. history.

Even now, with the 2006 election more than 18 months away, Republicans are using it in their campaign to oust him. Byrd has not declared whether he will run again, and his book gives no hints.

Do you mean to say that Byrd has actual political opponents? That those mean old Republicans would dare stoop to using something as insignifcant as KKK membership in a political campaign? The poor, tortured soul! Think of the damage that would be done to us all if he doesn't run!

It portrays a man who is religious, socially conservative, respectful and respected - a man for whom a promise is an unbreakable bond. But it is more the chronology of a career than the story of a man, dispassionately detailing virtually every federal dollar brought to West Virginia.

At this point I had to take a break and run to the restroom. It seems that my stomach had a disagreement with my Otis Spunkmeyer muffin for some reason. Weird. It's never happened before.

According to Citizens Against Government Waste, he's helped secure $1.6 billion for the state just since 1999. But any reader expecting an apology will be disappointed. Byrd is proud of supporting a state that suffered more than most through economic recessions - long exploited for its natural resources and slower than most to attain prosperity.

Behold! A paragon of politically objective journalism!

He belonged to the Klan for a year, then moved in 1943 to Baltimore to help build ships.

This, of course, is historically false, as Pejman adequately points out.

Byrd says he never resented blacks, Catholics or Jews, but he failed to "examine the full meaning and impact of the ugly prejudice behind the positive, pro-American veneer."

That, of course, would help to explain Byrd's statment in 1945 that "Rather I should die a thousand times, and see old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels." Sounds like he's just welling over with compassion for those of other races. And he only joined the KKK because it was positive! And patriotic!

The book suggests he deals with his family as he does the world, with reverence and commitment.

I'd like to write more, but I mysteriously need to visit the restroom again. Perhaps it's the cran juice that's upsetting my stomach this time.

Steyn Eating Durbin Alive

In case you've been missing it, Mark Steyn has been eating Dick Durbin alive. Steyn is always a must read, but these two articles are exemplary, even for him.

MachoNachos, Traitor

I give some aid and comfort to the Democrats on Dick Durbin.

Why? Because I think the country needs it.

What's the over/under on the number of times I get flamed for it?

On the History of Censure

I've done a little research to see what kinds of things have gotten Senators censured before. Here's a brief rundown of the nine Senators who have been censured in the past.

Timothy Pickering was the first Senator to be censured, for reading confidential documents on the Senate floor before they had been declassified. The vote fell 20-7, and Pickering was defeated for re-election.

Following Pickering, Benjamin Tappan was censured in 1844 for leaking information to the press. The information he leaked? A copy of a President's speech on the floor of the Senate. He did not run for re-election.

Following Tappan, Benjamin Tillman and John McLaurin were censured in 1902 for getting into a fistfight on the Senate floor (and who says the tone of debate is worse than it has ever been?)

In 1929, Hiram Bingham was censured for an ethics violation that basically involved employing a lobbyist.

In 1954, Joe McCarthy was censured for doing his job too well. I mean, for Abuse and non-cooperation with the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections during a 1952 investigation of his conduct; for abuse of the Select Committee to Study Censure.

In 1967, Thomas Dodd, father of current Senator Christopher Dodd, was censured for funneling money from his campaign account into his personal accounts.

In 1979, Herman Talmadge was censured for, effectively, ethical violations involving his fundraising and personal billing.

In 1990, David Durenberger was censured for abusing the perks of his office.

in 2005, Senator Dick Durbin compared the actions of the guards at Guantanamo bay to those of the Nazis, Stalinists, and the soldiers of Pol Pot. What will the result be?

Censure Update

RedState user Cadwalj is reporting that Newt Gingrich has sent a letter to the Senate seeking Censure for Durbin. I can't find anything on his website yet, but we'll keep looking - this is apparently something that was sent out to those on his email list.

Roger L. Simon also has a press release from some of the Frosh Republican Senators that's worth a read. I had intended to blog more about why the left isn't joining this crusade, but I'm too tired, so it'll have to wait until tomorrow.

UPDATE: Powerline has found the text of Newt's censure letter. It reads as follows:

Dear Senator _______________:

By his statements equating American treatment of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay with the behavior of the evil regimes of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Senator Richard Durbin has dishonored the United States and the entire U.S. Senate. Only by a vote to censure Senator Durbin for his conduct can the U.S. Senate restore its dignity and defend American honor.

Senator Durbin’s comparison, sadly, is despicable.

U.S. Senators should be clear about the gravity of Senator Durbin’s comparison. Nine million innocent human beings were murdered in Hitler’s death camps, nearly three million perished in the gulags under Stalin, and more than one and a half million were slaughtered in the killing fields of Cambodia at the hand of Pol Pot. And while not a single terrorist has died in detention at Guantanamo, Senator Durbin sees fit to liken our American service men and women to the terrifying murderers of three evil despotic regimes.

Moreover, Senator Durbin equates the terrorist detainees at Guantanamo with the millions of innocent men, women, and children exterminated by the order of evil dictators. The fact that he did so as a high ranking member of the Senate on the Senate floor makes his comparison all the more shocking.

This moral equivalence isn’t just utterly false; it endangers the lives of our young men and women in the military because it arms every radical Islamist with the official-record words of a Senate leader to justify their war of terror against civilized people everywhere.

Senator Durbin’s statement of “regret” on Friday has only compounded the need for the Senate to act. In it, Senator Durbin said that “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…” Incredibly, Senator Durbin is sticking to his original assertion that there is indeed, in his own words, an “historic parallel” between U.S. soldiers at Guantanamo Bay and the killers under Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. In other words, his only regret is that Americans don’t understand his misreading of history and that he has caused us to misunderstand him. Offering no apology for the original slanderous statement itself, Senator Durbin has chosen instead to actually defend his comparisons. This defense makes his original speech all the more revolting.

It’s one thing for one Senator to endanger young Americans and defame America; it would be the shame of the Senate if the other 99 senators did not stand up to defend America and to defend the reputation of our young men and women in uniform.

A Senate censure of Senator Durbin is justified and would reaffirm a standard for healthy, rational debate. By voting for or against the censure, the rest of the members of the U.S. Senate can go on record and make clear how they judge Senator Durbin’s characterization of American soldiers. It will also send a clear message to terrorists who will use the words of a Senate leader against us that the Senate stands in support of America and our military and against those who seek to destroy the free people of the United States.

There is historic precedent for censuring Senators whose words bring dishonor and disrepute on the Senate and impair its dignity; Senator Durbin’s words fit that precedent.

In this case, expressing outrage is not enough. It is time for the Senate to act. Senator Durbin must be censured now.

Sincerely,

Newt Gingrich

Spot on, Newt.

The Scent Has Drawn Them

You know you're drawing a lot of blood when the trolls follow the scent all the way back to your email inbox.

When I posted this at RedState, you should have seen the spittle fly! A sampling of the more intelligent rhetoric from our liberal friends follows (I'd correct their mangling of the English language, but I'm short on time tonight):

Of course it isn't the same as the Nazi concentration camps, and he never said it was.  Durbin told the truth, he did not lie, he did not exagerate.  He simply described objective reality.  He should not have issued even a semi-appology because there is nothing for him to appologize for.

And then there's this paragon of American political understanding:

Say it loud and proud every single opportunity you get, and urge your Republican leaders to do likewise, "We Love Torture".   The more you make it clear to the public that you all are the party of war and torture, the more I get tingles up and down my spine.

Or wait! By far the winner of the liberal intelligencia award for the day landed in my e-mail inbox!

You are right Apologies are not enough: When Bush does apologizes for
torturing people, and for cowardly attacking a third world country using the
best equipment that money can buy, you are right apologies won't be enough.

The only apology Americans should accept is when Bush is impeached. Listen
to Wesley Clark he is correct. Durbin is right you are abusing people if not
the Red Cross would be allowed to investigate. But hey your site caters to
people that didn't finish high school so they can't read thrue the lies.

I'll have more about what this means for the libs here in a few.