Trying to shift a public relations battle from their own actions to the people who point them out, that is.

White House Castigates Durbin for Remarks

By NEDRA PICKLER<br/>Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House and Senate Republicans on Thursday assailed a Democrat for comparing American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay to Nazis, Soviet gulags and Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot.

It is "beyond belief" that Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin would compare the treatment of dangerous enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay to the death of millions of innocent people by oppressive governments, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

"I think the senator's remarks are reprehensible. It's a real disservice to our men and women in uniform who adhere to high standards and uphold our values and our laws," he said.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., criticized Durbin for spouting "loose comments" and comparisons that "have no basis of fact or history." Durbin's remarks in a speech Tuesday in the Senate were "a most egregious misjudgment," Warner said.

Defending himself, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat said Thursday it was "just plain wrong" to say he was diminishing past horrors.

He said he was comparing interrogation techniques that the FBI report said were used at Guantanamo with those in foreign detainee camps.

"This is the type of thing you would expect from a repressive regime. This is not the type of thing you would expect from the United States," Durbin said.

There should be a simple, one-sentence response to any of this crap from Republicans:

"If you're so offended that our troops are committing the kinds of acts made infamous by the dictators of history, why won't you join me in calling for them to stop?"

This forces critics to either deny that the abuses are happening (which doesn't hold water), or go on the record as saying that we support torture (and no politician wants to do that, no matter what he holds in the blackness of his little heart).

Hear me, Democrats? Don't let them make this about Dick Durbin.

Jun 16, 2005: WASHINGTON - Rep. Ernest Istook plans to co-sponsor a proposed constitutional amendment that would have prevented Oklahoma from losing one U.S. House seat if the plan had been in place in 2000, he said Wednesday.

The proposal, House Joint Resolution 53, would count only U.S. citizens in each state when congressional seats are being apportioned. Illegal aliens and others legally in the country who have not completed the naturalization process would not be counted in the apportionment of the 435 House seats.

Rep. Candice Miller, R-Michigan, introduced the proposed amendment last week. It has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee.

If it had been in effect for the 2000 Census, the plan would have shifted how nine House seats were apportioned, according to statistics from the Congressional Research Service.

California would have six fewer seats, while New York, Florida and Texas would have one fewer. Oklahoma, Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Utah would have one additional seat.

If you're doing the math, then you may have noticed that, by the most amazing coincidence, this Republican-sponsored amendment not only disempowers non-citizens (always a GOP goal for some reason), but also would have shifted three electoral votes in 2004 from the Democratic to the Republican column, increasing a GOP lead by six votes.

Istook would get to ignore all those annoying brown-skinned people unless they had citizenship papers, plus his party would get more electoral votes. What's for him not to like?