Sen. Durbin Apologizes for Gitmo Remarks - Yahoo! News
I am posting this article for two reasons:
1. I am the one who referred to Durbin as "unapologetic" during our lively dialogue over the weekend. I said this because, at the time, he simply was unapologetic and he stood by his words. However, it appears that he is willing to admit that his words were wrong after all. One may wish to question his motives for changing by saying he is only saving himself from political suicide, or he is just caving in to the right-wing (and even left-wing) pressure. I, for one, will not attempt to question him at all. I admire him for his willingness (despite his motives) to admit his choice of words was wrong and to apologize to those whom he might have hurt.
2. It is true that conservatives can be accused of only pointing to the "bad" qualities and actions of liberals. Granted, liberals make more than their fair share of malicious comments and suggestions of us, but in the words of my grandmother, "Two wrongs don't make a right" [although three lefts do ;)]. One can never justify wrong actions by simply pointing out that others do the same, at least not if they are trying to remain credible or maintain their integrity. With all this said, I just want to be one who is willing (at least once in a very blue moon) to speak out when I think a liberal does something that I think is right. Durbin, while a man I do not agree with or support, is still an man, nonetheless. And as every man knows, it is not only hard to say we're wrong and that we're sorry, but it is even harder to admit these things in public - and even harder yet to show any sign of emotion.
Let the record show that I not only applaud Durbin for his penitence, I was willing to do it for all the world to see. And believe you me, if a Republican had said the despicable things Durbin said last week I would have been equally upset. I may have a bias (we all do), but that does not make me unobjective. Sounds like a paradox, huh?
Labels: politics
9 Comments:
I myself do not find this a very convincing apology. "He said some believe that my remarks crossed the line and to them I extend my heartfelt appologies." He is not saying he is sorry for what he said. He is apologizing to those that it may have offended. Then he continues to apologize to any soldiers who were insulted. This my friend is not an apology. Not once did he say I apologize for what I said, I was wrong. Again he is only apologizing to those offended.
What Sen. Durbin said was extremely vicious and hurtful. Nothing can compare to the hatred and torture that was expressed by the Nazis. For a fellow countrymen to compare our soldiers, who have and continue to sacrifice their lives to protect our great land, to Nazis is unexceptable!
I personally prefer this quote by Durbin taken from the sited yahoo news article:
"This administration should apologize to the American people for abandoning the Geneva Conventions and authorizing torture techniques that put our troops at risk and make Americans less secure," he said the day after his initial comments.
Durbin never INTENDED to insult American soldiers, he was critizing this Adminstration and its interogation policies--but hey, if the Right can do twist his message enough, maybe the American public won't hear it. We as Christians should be rising up in arms to fight for the rights of our enemies--not ignoring their abuse. And I may not like Durbin's choice of words, but I can see beyond them to the point he was trying to make.
Look, I think we all know where each other stands on this issue. I want dialogue, but I don't want to beat a dead horse. The bottom line is that one group of us views this war on terror and all that is involved here (including Gitmo) differently than another. Anonymous-q, we know that you do not think this war is just and that you feel that the U.S. is committing war crimes and atrocities. As one who believes this war is just and that the U.S. has not committed war crimes or atrocities, I speak on behalf of all on my side of the aisle that I respect your opinion, but I do not agree with you.
A recent Rasmussen poll indicates that 70% of Americans say Gitmo prisoners are being treated about right or better than they deserve, and another poll shows that Bush's approval rating is at 49%. My point is that there are many people on both of sides of these issues.
Anonymous (not "Q"), we know that you do not think Durbin's apology was sincere and/or sufficient. That's fine. You are making that judgment based on your limited knowledge of these matters. Anonymous-q, you probably think that Durbin shouldn't have even apologized. You think that he was merely criticizing the President because he doesn't like him or his decisions. You make your judgements based on your limited knowledge as well (as we all do).
None of us here have actually visited Gitmo to see how prisoners are being treated. Instead we are all forced to listen to other accounts and make our decisions. I, for one, believe that they should be treated humanely and given limited rights, but I do not think that they are as yet being mistreated. Anonymous-q does not agree, and so at this point in what has become a lengthy discussion we have to agree to disagree.
I thank you all for your contributions to this topic. You all have articulated yourselves well. I don't want to quench the mood or atmosphere of discussion, but let's try not to keep going around and around on this same issue.
Fair enough. If I come across provocative I mean to. If I come across disrespectful--I apologize. Just trying to share another perspective. I have no doubts about your character or your sincerity.
New issue...
Could someone define repentance?
Then we can determine if someone really was repentant.
However, we need not discuss if we feel that someone should or should not repent. Just what is repentace, and is someone's apologetic statement actually repentful?
Again, we need not discuss if an apology was actually in order.
-Matt
Is the NLT's use of the phrase, "Turn from your sins and turn to God" to simplistic? Um, yeah, doesn't sound that great already. I'd better crack out Oden and come up with something better, that won't contribute much to a discussion.
Here's an interesting question though. In seminary Steve Blakemore asked us, "which comes first, the new birth (salvation) or repentance?" In other words, do we repent and God saves us... or does God save us and we repent. Which is the cause, which is the effect?
Thinking,
I think that issue needs its own separate topic. You're getting into how Calvinists and Wesleyans differ in their theology of atonement. With that said, keep an eye out for that discussion in the near future.
Sounds good Sean!
A topic that will get into Monergism, Pelagianism & Semi-Pelagianism, Synergism etc...
I am a visual learner, and need to be able to post diagrams, and pictures for that discussion...LOL
Okay...I will just try to articulate with words, a little more.
Anxiously Awaiting,
-Matt
Matt, just be sure that you don't let Ron use visuals when talking about Monergism and Synergism. He might draw and say something sacrilegious..... Don't ask!
Ok, please do :)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
Back to Blog