It is good to hear that Sen. Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, has apologized, sort of, for his remarks of last week comparing the Guantanamo Bay terrorist holding facility to Hitler, Stalin, and other such masters of hell. That it comes a little late is a bit surprising, as history and fact quickly raised their voices in angry retort that Durbin's comparisons betrayed logic and compassion.
History does indeed prove the case that the Bush administration's treatment of enemy combatants in a prison camp is not equivalent to Hitler's eugenically-driven purgation of the earth of a whole race; nor does it compare to Stalin's purges of neighborhoods filled with dissenters in the intellectual class. Guanatamo Bay is a difficult thing to countenance, no doubt, particularly among America's more decorous classes, who condescend to offer advice on hosting incarcerated terrorists. But it is a reality of Muslim extremism where even those for whom the persnickety beg "mercy" would gladly lop the heads off the most sincere and accomodating hosts. There is no middle ground here, particularly when it is known that Guantanamo Bay detainees are housed and fed better than a large portion of the human race; and have been shown commendable hospitality. Been offered a free Koran lately on the street or in the airport by a Muslim evangelist? No, but you'll surely get whatever religious text you demand if you were living in Gitmo. Leftists squirm about national security when they witness detainees in leg irons; and then rebuke their opponents for not dealing with "real threats" like North Korea or Saudi Arabia. There is so much squeamishness about the wrong things.
What is happening in all of this political ranting from Democrats, and there is no real doubt about this, is the denial of the Holocaust. I don't mean that anyone is suggesting that the Holocaust did not happen. What I am saying is that Durbin's remarks deny the actual severity of the Holocaust; and the severity of Stalin's horrific measures. Durbin loses a frame of reference; and thus cannot be taken seriously as an intellectual, though he must be taken seriously as an Orwellian revisionist. For he is rewriting history to a particularly harmful degree, all for political gain, finding an equivalence where there is none. He is saying that if you want to understand Auschwitz, look at Guantanamo.
And Durbin's remarks are not peripheral to the Democratic Party of which he is a member. His remarks, and the revisionism they represent, are endemic to the soul of the party, pervading it to the very marrow (with one qualifier, to which I will speak in a moment). Calling Bush a Hitler, or Hitler-lite, is not unique to a rogue few. He's been called that before; the comparison has been made all too frequently. Bumper stickers proclaim as much ("Bush-Cheney '04: Sieg Heil!"); and the fear-mongering around Bush's alleged dictatorship is profound.
Thus, it is the soul of the party not only to obfuscate history, concealing facts, it is the soul of the party to abuse language. Calling Guantanamo a "gulag"; calling Abu Ghraib's sins "atrocities"; calling Bush's presidency "fraudulent", "tyrannical", "illegitimate" and "stolen"; calling Iraq a "quagmire"; each of these indicates abuse of language, as well as the abuse of those who would hear and read such rhetoric.
And don't think for an instant that those who wince at war and its accidents also wince at being vicious in their rhetoric. One look at Richard Cohen's op-ed from Tuesday's Washington Post is telling in its shamelessness. Called "Piling on Dick Durbin", Cohen's piece elevates umbrage to rage, finding offense in Durbin's critics, who are, to Cohen, too surly in their reproval of Durbin. Durbin, at least to Cohen, is being victimized, battered, and even intimidated in a manner unbecoming to America. But the offense that should disturb Cohen is the title of his piece, which is a gratuitous and shameless reference to the Abu Ghraib photos of piled, naked detainees. To Cohen, Durbin is the target of abuse: Calling American leadership Nazis is acceptable, at worst unfortunate, but calling for an apology is repugnant.
Undeniably one can be assured that Durbin's supporters believe his heart is in the right place, even if his words are not.
Let's put it all in the simplest terms: Death toll - Soviet gulags and sundry purges, 20-40 million; - Hitler's Germany, in camps, 6 million; - Guantanamo, the new "gulag", 0.
Durbin's apology, by the way, is really only an admission of disappointment that not everyone agrees with him. For, as his words clearly imply, he would not be sorry if no one was offended. Durbin is incapable of seeing the intrinsic erroneousness and harmfulness of his comments. The following quote from Durbin's apparent apology is revealing: "Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them I extend my heartfelt apologies." In other words, if some overly-sensitive people DID NOT believe his remarks were hyperbolic, he would NOT be sorry.
It's really everyone else's fault, isn't it Mr. Durbin?
And there is a suggestion, in his first statement found on his website, that what he was really doing was rebuking the Bush administration, and that he would contine to do so: "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." And, to Durbin, the Administration is so vile he will continue to speak out against it even if he must apologize to those who can't stomach the strength of his criticisms.
But it all amounts to an attack, a real attack, not only on language, but on suffering, particularly the suffering of those murdered by Nazis in death and labor camps. How any Jewish voter can be silent about Durbin's remarks; how there can be any Jews who would countenance the Democratic Party, which generally prefers the Palestinian position to the Israeli, stymies me. Perhaps there are liberal Jews who resist the temptation toward anti-Semitism too often accepted by liberals. Perhaps there are some in the Democratic Party who see the Durbin's latent disregard for the hallowed place the Holocaust holds in Jewish history, painful and tragic as it is. But where is the public outrage? Where is the shock? Perhaps the American Jewish voice is quiet because the left has succeeded in painting Bush as Hitlerian, and hence Jewish voters are wary of Bush in all matters. (Plus, Durbin's remarks appear to be encoded warnings to Muslims, suggesting that Hitler has indeed been reincarnated, only this time he's after Muslims.) Regardless, there is a tolerance of Durbin's views that is ominous in its silence.
That, at least, is a tenable reading of Durbin's recklessness. That Durbin has the temerity to suggest that the Bush administration's use of Guantanamo Bay has jeopardized America's soldiers around the world is ridiculous: "More than 1700 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and our country's standing in the world community has been badly damaged by ... Guantanamo." It is Durbin's remarks that this is Nazism repackaged that jeopardize American soldiers. That kind of abuse of power from the Senate floor is unconscionable.
Contratimes
©Bill Gnade/2005/Contratimes
[For a perfect essay on Durbin's remarks, read the National Review editorial regarding the matter.]
No comments:
Post a Comment