The cartoon left out Stalin, Mao, Attila the Hun, Beelzebub, and Pee Wee Herman. Otherwise, it is a good representation of views from the left.

Posted by Woody at June 21, 2005 10:18 AM

GM-

I haven't yet commented on Durbin's comments on my blog, because I've been away/recovering for the weekend, but your point is well applied to all overheated rhetoric. I have always leaned toward our holding objective standards of what should be considered acceptable interrogative techniques, but words like this, or like Santorum's likening the Democrats' filibuster of judicial nominees to the Nazis, they don't benefit anybody.

And I blogrolled you as well.

Posted by Fargus at June 21, 2005 10:32 AM

Loony Durbin makes me queasy.

Posted by BronxPundit at June 21, 2005 10:52 AM

My guess is that 'disgusting' cartoon is actually on your side, you've perhaps missed the sarcastic content?

Posted by steve at June 21, 2005 12:19 PM

This is the comment, I don't see it as 'disgusting'.
"If I read this to you and didn't tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe that this must have happened by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that's not the case. This was the action of Americans and treatment of their own prisoners." -- Senator Dick Durban, D-Ill. June 14, 2005.

He's asking what the standards are for treatment of prisoners, especially since so many of them are likely to be innocent of any connection to terrorism. He's simply stating that this is the kind of thing that we associate with the worst types of regimes, is that not so?
A whole lot more rational than Rick Santorum's use of the Nazi analogy or other Ann Coulter's belief that people are traitors for disagreeing with her [delusions of self grandeur notwithstanding].

Posted by steve at June 21, 2005 12:34 PM

GMR - I'm not going to comment further because you guys are so stuck in your own stench on this one.

But, as I thought I made clear from an introductory line, what you quote defending Durbin is not me or "a commentor on this blog" but Andrew Sullivan. That entire long post, after my intro of it as such, was clipped from Andrew Sullivan, a pro-war conservative.

If Andrew Sullivan is part of the "loony left", I'm not sure what that makes you, but it's pretty far off the hook.

Posted by reg at June 21, 2005 12:45 PM

reg, most posters here are regular people expressing opinions from middle America (or, should I say the Heart of America)), and I would never play the game of "gotcha" with them or any other commenters, as you have. I thought that type of game was reserved for Tim Russert, who likes to try to make anyone who disagrees with his liberal views look foolish and himself look smart in the process--or, was that the idea here?

I suspect that most liberals would not recognize and would agree with much of the content from the Communist Manifesto, if I slipped that into their discussions. Now, this is not exactly the same because Andrew Sullivan is not a conservative in my book and has made more than a few off-the-left-wall remarks before, and it's natural that many here would not agree with his comments even knowing who wrote them--and, rightly so. Also, unlike the Communist Manifesto is as to liberals, Andrew Sullivan would not be as well known to or read by conservatives--especially isolated entries.

Since you made a point of mentioning your "gotcha" twice and saying that no one picked up on it, I guess that you're pretty proud of that. Wouldn't it be better to say what you think and debate ideas rather than playing games with others--especially when they are being honest and sincere with you?

Posted by Woody at June 21, 2005 01:24 PM

If a correction of attribution is a "gotcha", I'm really, really sorry Woody. Forgive me. I'm a chump who's too chicken to debate ideas and only "plays games". Again, sorry. I'll try to be more forthright with my own opinions in any future debates with you.

Posted by reg at June 21, 2005 01:35 PM

Andrew Sullivan has joined the Looney Left on this topic. He is becoming "less and less" a conservative. Nuff said? You are still wrong on this issue reg, nothing you say can or will make up for that. Rant all you want, make all kinds of accusations. You are wrong. Just plain ol' wrong!

Posted by GM Roper at June 21, 2005 01:35 PM

Also Woody, I posted the re-attribution twice because the original post appeared in one set of comments and was referenced in another. Both places the quotes were attributed to me personally by responders.

I probably - and this isn't snide - didn't set the clip off clearly enough from my introductory line attributing it to Sullivan. I thought it was clear and only posted it because I wanted people here to read it as another pro-war, self-described "Tory" or British conservative's point of view. I knew that anything I said along the same lines would get the reaction it got. There was no intention to set anybody up for a "gotcha". I was actually surprised when I saw people reacting to it as me or some "lefty loon" rather than Sullivan, because my intent was to provoke response to a conservative who has a differing view than Durbin's vocal critics on the Right.

Posted by reg at June 21, 2005 01:43 PM

I think you're the one who's been ranting GMR. As for Sullivan's conservative credentials, he's liberal on social issues like a number of other political conservatives and critical of Bush on fiscal irresponsibility and conduct of the occupation, but his support for the war hasn't wavered. Not one bit. If you want to drum him out of your circle, I'm sure he can handle it. Nuff said ?

Posted by reg at June 21, 2005 01:47 PM

reg, I understand your intent for the Sullivan post and apologize for stating that it could have been otherwise. Also, while you were responding to me here, I was over at Cooper's responding to you there. We need to get on the same page. I have to go. Have a good week.

Posted by Woody at June 21, 2005 02:16 PM

reg, I can rant here, it's my blog, I pay the freight with my hard earned bucks. I can allow others to rant as well, but I can also point out that they are ranting.

I allow opposit opinions because that is my purpose here, to get discourse going. Sullivan may in fact be down on bush, so what, I'm down on the prolifigate spending as well and if the Republicans don't watch it, they will get the same tax and spend reputation the left and Democrats already have.

I am also in favor of stem cell research... adult stem cells. I am in favor of gay civil unions, but not marriage. I am in favor of a lot of things you probably are too. But on Dandy Dick Durban, you (and Andrew Sullivan) are wrong.

Posted by GM Roper at June 21, 2005 02:53 PM

"We need to get on the same page."

I don't know Woody. Anyway, thanks for recognizing what I was trying to do by posting Sullivan. It was a tactic, but not the one you suggested. If I'd said the same stuff under my own "name", it would have been like repeating The Communist Manifesto from memory at a Chamber of Commerce meeting. We liberals can do that you know. Sort of like decent people quoting The Bible.

Actually, the first time I quoted from the Communist Manifesto at a Chamber of Commerce meeting, people were stunned by Marx's understanding of just how dynamic and transformative capitalism is, considering he was writing back in 1848. They marveled at his understanding that capitalist globalization was virtually inevitable and that wordlwide extension of commerce would transform global culture. They also were surprised that, his rantings prophesying a future proletarian revolution aside, he welcomed the capitalist "revolution" as mankinds' highest watermark - economically, politically and culturally - to date. Of course, the second time I tried it, they threw canapes and cheap wine from the refreshment table at me.

Posted by reg at June 21, 2005 03:01 PM

Were the canapes any good?

Posted by GM Roper at June 21, 2005 03:14 PM

Are they ever ???

Posted by reg at June 21, 2005 03:23 PM

reg: "...quoted from the Communist Manifesto at a Chamber of Commerce meeting...They marveled...the second time I tried it, they threw canapes and cheap wine...at me."

reg, the first time they thought it was a Candid Camera stunt. Realizing the truth, the second time they just reacted to the help staff crossing the line.

Posted by Woody at June 21, 2005 03:40 PM

"Look, I'm a pretty solid civil liberties guy. But this has nothing to do with civil liberties. The murderers of September 11 are not criminals. . . . It would be a radical move to treat these people as civilians subject to the usual protections. Our tortured attempt to do exactly that in the past--remember the Lockerbie fiasco?--is one reason why al Qaeda thought they could get away with mass murder this time. . . . We should show them the same mercy they showed to the men and women who showed up for work on September 11."--

Oh, and reg, that quote is ALSO from Sullivan. Guess it depends on which day you catch him. As I noted, he has moved from the right to the left on this issue....

Posted by GMRoper at June 21, 2005 10:00 PM

That was written ten weeks after 9/11...some people have the capacity to learn from experience and rethink glib rhetoric.

Here's another pro-war guy a few weeks ago. Thomas Friedman: "the abuse at Guantánamo and within the whole U.S. military prison system dealing with terrorism is out of control. Tell me, how is it that over 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody so far? Heart attacks?"

My main point is that you're clearly hysterical on this subject, wildly defensive and pretty thoughtless in your rhetoric (such as the implication that someone, somewhere has suggested the alternative to the present situation is treating prisoners "like Sunday School children") and your posing this as a left/right or pro-war/anti-war issue is bogus and simplistic, if not downright simpleminded.

I'm through with this.

Posted by reg at June 22, 2005 01:54 AM