[WHOSYOURDADDY]

WASHINGTON — Sen. Dick Durbin (search) went to the Senate floor late Tuesday to offer his apologies to anyone who may have been offended by his comparison of treatment of detainees at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Nazis, Soviet gulags and Cambodia's Pol Pot.

"More than most people, a senator lives by his words ... occasionally words fail us, occasionally we will fail words," Durbin, D-Ill., said.

"I am sorry if anything I said caused any offense or pain to those who have such bitter memories of the Holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of our time. Nothing, nothing should ever be said to demean or diminish that moral tragedy.

"I am also sorry if anything I said cast a negative light on our fine men and women in the military. ... I never ever intended any disrespect for them. Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them I extend my heartfelt apology," Durbin said, choking on his words.

Is this apology real or contrite?

[Ninong]

He is sorry that his remarks were misunderstood. He is sorry that many people assumed incorrectly that he was making an analogy between the U.S. and the Nazis. He is sorry that he quoted from an FBI agent's report of what he observed at Gitmo.

He is sorry that the Republicans will now take this entire thing out of context and use it in the next campaign.

He is sorry that our government has authorized the sort of things that have been happening at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib but he realizes that the American people do not want to hear about those things.

He is sorry that some U.S. interrogators have tortured some detainees to death. We know that for a fact because the military has conceded it but it is not something that should be discussed openly because the American people don't want to hear it.

He is sorry that the President has lifted the restrictions against cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners at Gitmo.

He is sorry that we no longer see a difference between ferocious combat on the field of battle and the treatment of captured prisoners.

He is sorry that our government's sense of justice has gone down the drain. He is sorry that we are isolated and reviled by large numbers of the citizens in countries that were our former friends.

He is truly sorry if he offended any members of the armed forces but if they read his remarks for themselves, instead of listening to the spin from people like Limbaugh and Hannity, they will agree that the conduct reported by that FBI agent is not something that they condone.

I have never met anyone in the military who agreed with what Lt. Calley did in Vietnam. All were embarrassed by that episode and all wished things like that had never happened. Many wished that things like that were never reported but others knew that the truth of what happens needs to be told to keep a free society free. And yes, I was in the military for nine years, but that was before Vietnam.

[schrocat]

I'm sure he's sorry an alarming amount of people can't read their own language.

...I say sincere.

[Ninong]

The truly amazing thing is that he quoted directly from an FBI agent's report. He didn't quote anything from a statement by a detainee or even from a report by the Red Cross. What would have happened if he had dared to quote something from a less reliable source.

It's not the same thing as an emailed memo from a military intelligence officer in 2003, saying: "The gloves are coming off gentlemen regarding these detainees, Col. Boltz has made it clear that we want these individuals broken." According to the Red Cross, an organization that the U.S. still allows in its facilities, one prisoner in Iraq (where the Geneva Conventions are supposed to be applied)

"alleged that he had been hooded and cuffed with flexicuffs, threatened to be tortured and killed, urinated on, kicked in the head, lower back and groin, force-fed a baseball which was tied into the mouth using a scarf and deprived of sleep for four consecutive days. Interrogators would allegedly take turns ill-treating him. When he said he would complain to the I.C.R.C. he was allegedly beaten more. An I.C.R.C. medical examination revealed hematoma in the lower back, blood in urine, sensory loss in the right hand due to tight handcuffing with flexicuffs, and a broken rib."

I'm surprised the I.C.R.C.'s doctors actually examined him. Usually those people are kept hidden from the I.C.R.C.


It is long past time for these things to be openly discussed. What the hell is going on here? Since when did the United States of America accept torture as an acceptable means of interrogation?

[zhenya]

It is long past time for these things to be openly discussed. What the hell is going on here? Since when did the United States of America accept torture as an acceptable means of interrogation?

George,

It's painful to read,and hard to believe that American people would condone such things, especially since it is in the open now. I;m also pretty sure that it had been going on always,just never been exposed to the public.
I am also certain that today's American people look at it with the different eyes, given the 9-11 events.

[Ninong]

No, Gene, I don't believe the things that are happening now are typical of what happened in the past (meaning prior to 9/11). The treatment of prisoners, especially at Guantanamo, is the result of direct orders from the top. The very top. Every time something is exposed, they backtrack and pretend they didn't really mean it. They withdrew Gonzales' memo and they withdrew Lt. Gen. Sanchez's memo authorizing inhumane treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, but only after they were reported in the press.

Both the FBI and the CIA have told the administration that torture is not an effective means of gaining useful intelligence but they won't listen. It's that mentalily of we're tougher than them and nobody's going to tell us what to do. The treatment of prisoners has always been the mark of a civilized society. Just because the other side is a bunch of savages doesn't mean that we have to be that way, too.

I am so sick and tired of hearing the wingnuts try to portray any criticism of the administration's handling of the war in Iraq as un-American. Their conduct of the war is what's un-American. Their treatment of prisoners is what's un-American. Their disregard for the lives and welfare of our fighting forces is what's un-American. They are willing to risk losing this damn war before admitting that Rumsfeld was wrong. We don't have enough troops on the ground to do the job and we aren't giving them the equipment to do it.

Defend any conduct, no matter how reprehensible, and accuse your critics of being anti-American. That's the new mantra of the religious wingnuts who are willing to accept anything and refuse to see the truth. In their minds, this is truly a crusade in the old fashioned sense of the word. Which is what Bush originally called it before his handlers told him that word was verboten.

[almostdiva]

He is sorry that he quoted from an FBI agent's report of what he observed at Gitmo.

I don't think so. I think that's the ONE thing he's not sorry about. My take is that he feels the situation needs to be discussed in the open and changed. I agree that he's sorry his remarks were taken out of context. I also don't think he intended any insult to currently serving military.

I think he's also sorry that he HAD to apologize, given the current political climate. I don't think he's sorry that he presented the Bush administration as inhumane. I don't think it's accurate in that, by talking about the Nazis, he was saying we are conducting a holocaust. I think he was just going for an extremely repressive regime that would strike an emotional note with Americans. He could have said Zimbabwe, China or any number of countries that wouldn't have made folks sit up and take as much notice as Nazi/Soviet, strictly from a historical/frame of reference perspective.

R

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by almostdiva

I don't think so. I think that's the ONE thing he's not sorry about.

I agree. My comment wasn't meant to be taken literally. It was facetious. His only true regret is that his comments have been misconstrued and many Americans, including those fighting for our country, are only hearing twisted versions of what he actually said.

My take is that he feels the situation needs to be discussed in the open and changed. I agree that he's sorry his remarks were taken out of context. I also don't think he intended any insult to currently serving military.

Exactly.

I don't think it's accurate in that, by talking about the Nazis, he was saying we are conducting a holocaust.

But that's NOT what he said, is it? Please read the passage that I will place in bold in the text of his ENTIRE comments on the floor of the Senate:

U.S. Senate Floor Statement by Sen. Dick Durbin on Guantanamo Bay

June 14, 2005

Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion in recent days about whether to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. This debate misses the point. It is not a question of whether detainees are held at Guantanamo Bay or some other location. The question is how we should treat those who have been detained there. Whether we treat them according to the law or not does not depend on their address. It depends on our policy as a nation.

How should we treat them? This is not a new question. We are not writing on a blank slate. We have entered into treaties over the years, saying this is how we will treat wartime detainees. The United States has ratified these treaties. They are the law of the land as much as any statute we passed. They have served our country well in past wars. We have held ourselves to be a civilized country, willing to play by the rules, even in time of war.

Unfortunately, without even consulting Congress, the Bush administration unilaterally decided to set aside these treaties and create their own rules about the treatment of prisoners.

Frankly, this Congress has failed to hold the administration accountable for its failure to follow the law of the land when it comes to the torture and mistreatment of prisoners and detainees.

I am a member of the Judiciary Committee. For two years, I have asked for hearings on this issue. I am glad Chairman Specter will hold a hearing on wartime detention policies tomorrow. I thank him for taking this step. I wish other members of his party would be willing to hold this administration accountable as well.

It is worth reflecting for a moment about how we have reached this point. Many people who read history remember, as World War II began with the attack on Pearl Harbor, a country in fear after being attacked decided one way to protect America was to gather together Japanese Americans and literally imprison them, put them in internment camps for fear they would be traitors and turn on the United States. We did that. Thousands of lives were changed. Thousands of businesses destroyed. Thousands of people, good American citizens, who happened to be of Japanese ancestry, were treated like common criminals.

It took almost 40 years for us to acknowledge that we were wrong, to admit that these people should never have been imprisoned. It was a shameful period in American history and one that very few, if any, try to defend today.

I believe the torture techniques that have been used at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and other places fall into that same category. I am confident, sadly confident, as I stand here, that decades from now people will look back and say: What were they thinking? America, this great, kind leader of a nation, treated people who were detained and imprisoned, interrogated people in the crudest way? I am afraid this is going to be one of the bitter legacies of the invasion of Iraq.

We were attacked on September 11, 2001. We were clearly at war.

We have held prisoners in every armed conflict in which we have engaged. The law was clear, but some of the President's top advisers questioned whether we should follow it or whether we should write new standards.

Alberto Gonzales, then-White House chief counsel, recommended to the President the Geneva Convention should not apply to the war on terrorism.

Colin Powell, who was then Secretary of State, objected strenuously to Alberto Gonzales' conclusions. I give him credit. Colin Powell argued that we could effectively fight the war on terrorism and still follow the law, still comply with the Geneva Conventions. In a memo to Alberto Gonzales, Secretary Powell pointed out the Geneva Conventions would not limit our ability to question the detainees or hold them even indefinitely. He pointed out that under Geneva Conventions, members of al-Qaida and other terrorists would not be considered prisoners of war.

There is a lot of confusion about that so let me repeat it. The Geneva Conventions do not give POW status to terrorists.

In his memo to Gonzales, Secretary Powell went on to say setting aside the Geneva Conventions "will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice... and undermine the protections of the law of war for our own troops... It will undermine public support among critical allies, making military cooperation more difficult to sustain."

When you look at the negative publicity about Guantanamo, Secretary Colin Powell was prophetic.

Unfortunately, the President rejected Secretary Powell's wise counsel, and instead accepted Alberto Gonzales' recommendation, issuing a memo setting aside the Geneva Conventions and concluding that we needed "new thinking in the law of war."

After the President decided to ignore Geneva Conventions, the administration unilaterally created a new detention policy. They claim the right to seize anyone, including even American citizens, anywhere in the world, including in the United States, and hold them until the end of the war on terrorism, whenever that may be.

For example, they have even argued in court they have the right to indefinitely detain an elderly lady from Switzerland who writes checks to what she thinks is a charity that helps orphans but actually is a front that finances terrorism.

They claim a person detained in the war on terrorism has no legal rights -- no right to a lawyer, no right to see the evidence against them, no right to challenge their detention. In fact, the Government has claimed detainees have no right to challenge their detention, even if they claim they were being tortured or executed.

This violates the Geneva Conventions, which protect everyone captured during wartime. The official commentary on the convention states: "Nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law."

That is clear as it can be. But it was clearly rejected by the Bush administration when Alberto Gonzales as White House counsel recommended otherwise.

U.S. military lawyers called this detention system "a legal black hole." The Red Cross concluded, "U.S. authorities have placed the internees in Guantanamo beyond the law."

Using their new detention policy, the administration has detained thousands of individuals in secret detention centers all around the world, some of them unknown to Members of Congress. While it is the most well-known, Guantanamo Bay is only one of them. Most have been captured in Afghanistan and Iraq, but some people who never raised arms against us have been taken prisoner far from the battlefield.

Who are the Guantanamo detainees? Back in 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld described them as "the hardest of the hard core." However, the administration has since released many of them, and it has now become clear that Secretary Rumsfeld's assertion was not completely true.

Military sources, according to the media, indicate that many detainees have no connection to al-Qaida or the Taliban and were sent to Guantanamo over the objections of intelligence personnel who recommended their release. One military officer said: "We're basically condemning these guys to a long-term imprisonment. If they weren't terrorists before, they certainly could be now."

Last year, in two landmark decisions, the Supreme Court rejected the administration's detention policy. The Court held that the detainees' claims that they were detained for over two years without charge and without access to counsel "unquestionably describe custody in violation of the Constitution, or laws or treaties of the United States."

The Court also held that an American citizen held as an enemy combatant must be told the basis for his detention and have a fair opportunity to challenge the Government's claims. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority: "A state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens."

You would think that would be obvious, wouldn't you? But yet, this administration, in this war, has viewed it much differently.

I had hoped the Supreme Court decision would change the administration policy. Unfortunately, the administration has resisted complying with the Supreme Court's decision.

The administration acknowledges detainees can challenge their detention in court, but it still claims that once they get to court, they have no legal rights. In other words, the administration believes a detainee can get to the courthouse door but cannot come inside.

A Federal court has already held the administration has failed to comply with the Supreme Court's rulings. The court concluded that the detainees do have legal rights, and the administration's policies "deprive the detainees of sufficient notice of the factual bases for their detention and deny them a fair opportunity to challenge their incarceration."

The administration also established a new interrogation policy that allows cruel and inhuman interrogation techniques.

Remember what Secretary of State Colin Powell said? It is not a matter of following the law because we said we would, it is a matter of how our troops will be treated in the future. That is something often overlooked here. If we want standards of civilized conduct to be applied to Americans captured in a warlike situation, we have to extend the same manner and type of treatment to those whom we detain, our prisoners.

Secretary Rumsfeld approved numerous abusive interrogation tactics against prisoners in Guantanamo. The Red Cross concluded that the use of those methods was "a form of torture."

The United States, which each year issues a human rights report, holding the world accountable for outrageous conduct, is engaged in the same outrageous conduct when it comes to these prisoners.

Numerous FBI agents who observed interrogations at Guantanamo Bay complained to their supervisors. In one e-mail that has been made public, an FBI agent complained that interrogators were using "torture techniques."

That phrase did not come from a reporter or politician. It came from an FBI agent describing what Americans were doing to these prisoners.

With no input from Congress, the administration set aside our treaty obligations and secretly created new rules for detention and interrogation. They claim the courts have no right to review these rules. But under our Constitution, it is Congress's job to make the laws, and the court's job to judge whether they are constitutional.

This administration wants all the power: legislator, executive, and judge. Our founding father were warned us about the dangers of the Executive Branch violating the separation of powers during wartime. James Madison wrote: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

Other Presidents have overreached during times of war, claiming legislative powers, but the courts have reined them back in. During the Korean war, President Truman, faced with a steel strike, issued an Executive order to seize and operate the Nation's steel mills. The Supreme Court found that the seizure was an unconstitutional infringement on the Congress's lawmaking power. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, said: "The Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make the laws which the President is to execute ... The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good times and bad."

To win the war on terrorism, we must remain true to the principles upon which our country was founded. This Administration's detention and interrogation policies are placing our troops at risk and making it harder to combat terrorism.

Former Congressman Pete Peterson of Florida, a man I call a good friend and a man I served with in the House of Representatives, is a unique individual. He is one of the most cheerful people you would ever want to meet. You would never know, when you meet him, he was an Air Force pilot taken prisoner of war in Vietnam and spent 6 1/2 years in a Vietnamese prison. Here is what he said about this issue in a letter that he sent to me. Pete Peterson wrote:

>From my 6 1/2 years of captivity in Vietnam, I know what life in a foreign prison is like. To a large degree, I credit the Geneva Conventions for my survival....This is one reason the United States has led the world in upholding treaties governing the status and care of enemy prisoners: because these standards also protect us....We need absolute clarity that America will continue to set the gold standard in the treatment of prisoners in wartime.

Abusive detention and interrogation policies make it much more difficult to win the support of people around the world, particularly those in the Muslim world. The war on terrorism is not a popularity contest, but anti-American sentiment breeds sympathy for anti-American terrorist organizations and makes it far easier for them to recruit young terrorists.

Polls show that Muslims have positive attitudes toward the American people and our values. However, overall, favorable ratings toward the United States and its Government are very low. This is driven largely by the negative attitudes toward the policies of this administration.

Muslims respect our values, but we must convince them that our actions reflect these values. That's why the 9/11 Commission recommended: "We should offer an example of moral leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law, and be generous and caring to our neighbors."

What should we do? Imagine if the President had followed Colin Powell's advice and respected our treaty obligations. How would things have been different?

We still would have the ability to hold detainees and to interrogate them aggressively. Members of al-Qaida would not be prisoners of war. We would be able to do everything we need to do to keep our country safe. The difference is, we would not have damaged our reputation in the international community in the process.

When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here -- I almost hesitate to put them in the record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:

On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold....On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.

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. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

It is not too late. I hope we will learn from history. I hope we will change course.

The President could declare the United States will apply the Geneva Conventions to the war on terrorism. He could declare, as he should, that the United States will not, under any circumstances, subject any detainee to torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The administration could give all detainees a meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention before a neutral decisionmaker.

Such a change of course would dramatically improve our image and it would make us safer. I hope this administration will choose that course. If they do not, Congress must step in.

The issue debated in the press today misses the point. The issue is not about closing Guantanamo Bay. It is not a question of the address of these prisoners. It is a question of how we treat these prisoners. To close down Guantanamo and ship these prisoners off to undisclosed locations in other countries, beyond the reach of publicity, beyond the reach of any surveillance, is to give up on the most basic and fundamental commitment to justice and fairness, a commitment we made when we signed the Geneva Convention and said the United States accepts it as the law of the land, a commitment which we have made over and over again when it comes to the issue of torture. To criticize the rest of the world for using torture and to turn a blind eye to what we are doing in this war is wrong, and it is not American.

During the Civil War, President Lincoln, one of our greatest presidents, suspended habeas corpus, which gives prisoners the right to challenge their detention. The Supreme Court stood up to the President and said prisoners have the right to judicial review even during war.

Let me read what that Court said:

The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions could be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.

Mr. President, those words still ring true today. The Constitution is a law for this administration, equally in war and in peace. If the Constitution could withstand the Civil War, when our nation was literally divided against itself, surely it will withstand the war on terrorism.

I yield the floor.







He posed a hypothetical question. We should all answer that hypothetical question. If we read that statement and didn't know that it was written by an FBI agent, we might assume that it was about the Nazis or some other despotic regime. Right? Or would we all accept that things like that happen and we see nothing wrong with that?

What should be our reaction to a report like the one from that FBI agent? "Hell, yeah! That's America!" or "Oh, my God, what are they doing down there!!!"

In other words, when one reads that FBI agent's comments, one should immediately conclude that they are reading about conduct by the Nazis or some other criminal regime, not something done by U.S. forces. When one reads that and realizes that it is a report of something done by our own forces, then one should be outraged, not at the bearer of the message but at the people who authorized and condoned such inhumane treatment.

His point is that such treatment is reprehensible and unacceptable in a civilized society, not that we are comparable to the Nazis. That's not what he said but the difference is lost on some of the rightwing defenders of the administration's policies.

What's next?

America: Still no beheadings!

America: Still not Auschwitz!

We're better than that and it's time we put a stop to all this crap!

[Ninong]

Here is the full apology so that people won't have to rely on the Fox News version:


Tuesday, June 21, 2005



[WASHINGTON, DC] – U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) today made the following statement on the floor of the United States Senate:

“More than most people, a Senator lives by his words, words are the coin of the realm in our profession. Occasionally words will fail us and occasionally we will fail words.”

“On June 14, I took the floor of the Senate to speak about genuine heartfelt concerns about the treatment of prisoners and detainees at Guantanamo and other places. I raised legitimate concerns that others have raised, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, about the policies of this administration and whether they truly do serve our needs to make America safer and more secure, whether, in fact, some of the policies might, in fact, endanger our troops, or in some ways disparage the image of America around the world.”

“During the course of that presentation, I read an e-mail from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that was discovered to exist last August, and has now been produced as part of the Freedom of Information Act. After reading the horrible details in that memo, which characterized the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, I then, on my own, my own words, made some characterizations about that memo. I made reference to the Nazis, Soviets and other repressive regimes.”

“Mr. President, I have come to understand that was a very poor choice of words. I tried to make this very clear last Friday that I understood to those analogies to the Nazis, Soviets and others were poorly chosen. I issued a release which I thought made my intentions and my inner-most feeling as clear as I possibly could.”

“Let me read to you what I said. ‘I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood. I sincerely regret if what I said causes anybody to misunderstand my true feelings. Our soldiers around the world and their families at home deserve our respect, admiration and total support.’”

“Mr. President, it is very clear that even though I thought I had said something that clarified the situation, to many people it was still unclear. I'm sorry if anything that I said caused any offense or pain to those who have such bitter memories of the Holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of our time. Nothing, nothing should ever be said to demean or diminish that moral tragedy.”

“I'm also sorry if anything I said in any way cast a negative light on our fine men and women in the military. I went to Iraq just a few months ago with Senator Harry Reid and a bipartisan Senate delegation. When you look in the eyes of the soldiers you see your son and daughter. They are the best. I never, ever intended any disrespect for them.”

“Some may believe that my remarks crossed a line. To them, I extend my heartfelt apologies.”

“There's usually a quote from 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 said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, 10,000 angels swearing I was right wouldn't make any difference.’” “In the end, I don't want anything that I may have said detract from the love for my country, my respect for those who bravely risk their lives each day for our security, and this Senate which I am so honored to serve as a member. I offer my apology for those offended by my words. I promise to speak out on the issues that I think are important to the people of Illinois and to the nation.”

[WHOSYOURDADDY]

One question I have is why is it only one side of this issue that the media has decided to give Headline News too?

What about abuse (verbal and physical) at Gitmo by detainees towards their military guards and Red Cross visitors? There has been several emails by former prison guards to the media outlets such as CNN, ABC, NBC the Washington Post ect that outline the abuse they suffer from having to "Take care of these detainees" yet not one word has been printed about this nor has any news outlet other than Fox News chose to confirm nor deny this events as having occured?

With respect to Durbin's apology I'll take it for a grain of salt, especially hearing Howard Dean was saying at a fund raising event afterwards.

My Next question comes about Dean - why does he feel it necessary to want to play the "Race Card" regarding the past vote in Ohio and allegations of voter suppression? Even the authors of the study he was quoting were quick to distanced themselves from his remarks.

[Ninong]

I haven't heard Dr. Dean's exact words but I'm sure they were colorful.

The "race card?" You're accusing a Democrat of playing the race card? Please! Bush invented the race card. He used it quite successfully in the South Carolina primary in 2000, didn't he? "Would it affect your opinion of Senator McCain if you knew that he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" That wasn't using the race card?

Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris didn't use the race card in Florida? Posting police cars to do driver's license, registration and insurance checks near selected polling places on election day wasn't playing the race card? Removing thousands of legitimate names from the voter roles wasn't playing the race card? Having fewer voting machines and much longer lines in black precints wasn't playing the race card? Some of the lines in some black precints were six to seven hours long. The percentage of voided ballots was much higher in black precints that it was in predominately white precints. I'm talking about the 2000 election here.

As far as the 2004 election is concerned, if that's what's you're talking about, I guess you might call it playing the race card if the average wait for an African-American voter in Ohio was 52 minutes vs. 18 minutes average for white voters but that's the way it was. Is that what you're talking about?

I haven't read the report but I assume you're upset because some Democrat is accusing that nice Ohio Secretary of State of supressing the vote of his own racial group but what the heck, stuff like that happens, doesn't it?