In Defense of Dick Durbin
For Heaven's Sake Already: The Emperor Has No Clothes
This week the blogosphere has been both salted and peppered with references to Senator Dick Durbin's apology for his recent remarks concerning Guantanamo Bay.
Personally, I didn't even flinch on hearing Durbin's sad conclusion. And one SHOULD flinch as an American upon hearing this kind of testimony. It didn't even sound like crazytalk. It didn't ruffle a single of my feathers.
It sounded factual. Yeah, if someone didn't tell me I would most certainly believe this [sort of treatment of prisoners] was [performed] by some mad regime.
Unfortunately, we're on the verge of having one if we haven't tumbled over the cliff already.
Here please find the "contentious" portion of the original statement:
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings."
That's it. Seriously. That will get you 275 entries in Google News but quick. Senator Frist weighed in, of course:
"Shameful does not begin to describe this heinous slander against our country and against our troops."
Even Democratic Mayor Daley of Chicago couldn't resist: "I think it's a disgrace to say that any man or woman in the military act like that," Daley said.
WORDS spoken into the air, or entered into The Congressional Record as matters of fact aren't a disgrace, they aren't shameful, they do not slander our men in women in uniform. But the acts of torture and abuse as described ARE shameful, they ARE a disgrace to this country and they are a horrible affront to the rule of law. These acts SHOULD offend every American right down to their very bones.
---
On a personal level, I was initially confused by Durbin's remark, which I first viewed out of context. And even though I'm used to seeing things out of context, whether John Kerry's post-service Vietnam testimony, the infamous Dean Scream, etc., I just assumed Durbin was referencing Abu Grahib, not Guantanamo Bay.
Did an image of a naked pile of prisoners stacked in a pyramid just flash inadvertently before your eyes? How about the silhouette of a masked & hooded prisoner, arms raised, wires trailing from his hands... or perhaps a giggling Lyndie England taking her pet prisoner for a walk?
Donald "people are running around with digital cameras" Rumsfeld has said: "I don't do quagmires." He's also said: " I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today will last five days, five weeks or five months, but it won't last any longer than that." Welcome to yet another kooky faith-based initiative.
Durbin's initial comments concerned the treatment the persons without status aka "unlawful combatants" who have been housed in Guantanamo Bay so questionably for so long under the direction of the Bush White House and Donald "I'm not into this detail stuff. I'm more concepty" Rumsfeld.
How does one become an abstraction, a "concept," a "person without status?" Well, one way is to get caught in a sweep, or to be literally sold into custody, as many Guantanamo prisoners claim to have been. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0531-10.ht
I'd like to see a discussion where the underlying behavior and unacceptable policies are the issue rather than a handful of words critical of said policies, policies against which there is established international laws and treaties to which the United States is a signatory. If it is not difficult to summon up words and images of torture and abuse, to summon the dark ghosts of totalitarian governments past, it certainly isn't Dick Durbin making it so.
I didn't see tape of Durbin's "tearful" apology, as it was cast in the headlines. So I wasn't exposed to the repetition I heard about, a kind of repetition we're familiar with from "The Dean Scream" where a tempest is inserted into a teacup, sound is spliced, or one moment is isolated and magnified over and over again and then driven into collective consciousness like a hateable, hummable pop song- one you don't want to know the lyrics to, yet do.
I just read the apology, I didn't see it. Admittedly, it lacked the snap of say, Harry Reid's famously cheeky:
Rolling Stone: You've called Bush a loser.
Harry Reid: And a liar.
RS: You apologized for the loser comment.
HR: But never for the liar, have I?
Sometimes in politics, it is politic to "say" something, then "unsay" it. I don't think this situation was that at all. I think Durbin has some heart.
Durbin's apology read like a gentlemanly thing, it read like language one would expect to hear from a concerned if not downright alarmed US Senator. It was a classy move. I didn't think an apology was necessarily warranted, but nor do I disagree with Harry Reid (on another subject) when he stated:
"Being a senator is about the art of compromise. That's what the filibuster is all about--it forces compromise. And if anyone feels that compromising is unethical, or immoral, then they should get in some other business--because that's what we do."
It's often said politics is the art of the possible. I didn't get the tearfulness mentioned in the televised version from it. But something is making adult men break down and cry in this country, people. And we must root it out at the source.
Voinovich visibly fought back tears recently as well. Over John Bolton. Rather, over his own party's hardline treatment of him after he exercised his right and his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution in daring to act independently as a check and balance in the Senate's advise and consent role against the Republican Party apparatus and an out of control White House.
Here's just a taste of what Voinovich got for that:
----
[dinner sound effects/cutlery]
Wife: Honey, were you watching C-SPAN today? Did you hear how disloyal Senator Voinovich was to Republicans and President Bush? Voinovich stood with the Democrats and refused to vote for John Bolton, the man President Bush has chosen to fight for the United States at the UN
Husband: No, I was streaming it on the Internet at the office, but from what I could tell, Senator Voinovich played hookey from the hearings?
Wife: Yeah that's right. He's missed most of the Bolton confirmation hearings, but then shows up at the last minute and stabs the President and Republicans right in the back.
Husband: That's ridiculous - the United Nations needs reform, we need someone who will stand up for the United States and fight the UN's corruption and anti-Americanism.
Wife: Shame on Senator Voinovich. After the Democrats smeared Condoleeza Rice for Secretary of State and Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General, how could Voinovich side with the Democrats in smearing John Bolton?
Husband: It seems like Senator Voinovich has become a traitor to the Republican Party.
Wife: Enough's enough. I'm logging on to Move America Forward dot com to register my protest with Senator Voinovich's office.
Husband: What was that site? Move America Forward dot com ?
Wife: Yep, Move America Forward dot com
----
I know Dick Durbin made my head spin late last week--but for other reasons-- when he and Harry Reid introduced this:
DURBIN, DEMOCRATS SET NEW NATIONAL PRIORITY FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE TO SECURE AMERICA
If you want to know what's really behind the attack on Durbin, look no farther.
I caught him on C-Span making an eloquent and sincerely sensible, reasonable argument for American energy independence just a few days ago. And I believe I heard, in that session, that OPEC made over 300 BILLION dollars last year alone somewhere in his televised remarks. Durbin forcefully pointed out that it is impossible to not see how our dependence on foreign oil makes the United States of America "subservient" to the whims and wishes of these foreign oil-producing countries.
::::::::That alone is certainly enough to make a grown man cry.:::::::::::
I'll leave you with the press release from his office.
----------
[Washington, D.C.] -- Assistant Senate Democratic Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) today announced their "40 in 20" proposal that sets a new national priority to break America's dangerous and growing dependence on foreign oil.
Durbin and Reid's objective, endorsed by former CIA Director James Woolsey at a news conference today, sets a national security goal of reducing foreign petroleum imports by 40 percent by 2025, or a reduction of 7.64 million barrels per day. The "40 in 20" goal will be offered as a Democratic amendment to the energy bill expected to be debated on the Senate floor this week.
"Our goal of reducing imports of foreign oil by 40% over the next 20 years is a matter of national security and economic prosperity," Durbin said. "It will not only make us safer, it will help move us toward job growth, and a healthier, cleaner environment. Leadership, investment in American ingenuity and innovation, and a commitment to succeed, will guide us to our destination."
Durbin added, "If this amendment is accepted by the Republican-controlled Senate, we could be investing $100 billion in America in 2025 instead of spending it overseas." Last year, according to the Energy Information Administration, American taxpayers spent more than $110 billion to import foreign oil.
Reaching the 40% reduction goal over a 20-year period can be achieved through a variety of ways. One recipe includes saving four million barrels per day through growth in the biofuels and ethanol market, where Illinois farmers can lead the way in the production of liquid transportation fuels. Additionally, nearly one million barrels per day can come from modest changes to the aviation, residential and industrial sectors; more than one million barrels per day can be saved by simply increasing the efficiency of heavy duty trucks; and almost 600,000 million barrels per day in savings can be reached by establishing efficiency standards for replacement tires on our cars. This does not even account for the fuel savings the United States will witness from the growing hybrid automobile fleet.
"While the `40 in 20' goal is clear, the proposal recognizes that there are different measures we can implement to reach energy independence. We expect to consider amendments in the next two weeks that will complement our vision and help America reach this goal," Durbin said.
"Our nation's thirst for foreign oil, and our competition with countries like China for the dwindling worldwide supply of crude, is leading us down a dead end path. We have no choice but to turn around before it's too late," Durbin added. "American consumers can't afford to continue to pay the rising prices at the gas pump because our nation's continued dependence on oil cartels and foreign production. The solution for energy independence is right here at home -- not in an oil field in a desert across the ocean."
The United States, with only 3% of the world's proven reserves, consumes 25% of all oil produced worldwide.
Appealing to the Republican majority for support, Durbin concluded, "President Bush and Republicans in Congress have a choice either to join Democrats on the highway to freedom or to continue to set up barricades that will keep us on the road to insecurity. It's time to put aside partisan differences and focus on America because our nation's security depends on it."
----------