The Elusive Apology Trap

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by jimnyc, Apr 16, 2004.

  1. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Why is it that the very same people who refused to demand an authentic apology from former President Clinton for actual felonies he committed demand a bogus apology from President Bush for something that was not his fault?

    Nothing has come to light in the 9-11 investigative hearings implicating President Bush in the 9-11 attacks. Nothing has surfaced to indicate that his administration fumbled information, which, if used properly, could have empowered us to avert the attacks. I repeat: Richard Clarke didn't even allege otherwise.

    Why won't liberals let this go? The answer, of course, is partisan politics. If the president's opponents can ensnare him in an apology trap, they can discredit him as a wartime leader.

    The contrition seekers are not to be denied. One after another they lined up during the president's press conference Tuesday night, some indignant, some incredulous, some drippingly smarmy, but all in hot pursuit of those words the president simply refused to utter, "I'm sorry."

    One questioner essentially accused Bush of possessing a character flaw that blinded him to his own mistakes. Another cited Richard Clarke's gratuitous apology to the 9-11 victims and asked whether the president shouldn't follow suit?

    The president acknowledged that he wishes his administration had done some things differently prior to 9-11 but insisted they had no idea bin Laden was going to fly planes into buildings, especially on September 11, 2001. Bush reminded reporters that the person responsible for those attacks was Osama bin Laden.

    I, for one, am gratified that President Bush declined the invitation to enter the liberal, New Age touchy-feely world of phony emotion, non-apology apologies and diluted accountability. An apology from President Bush would not advance the cause of accountability, but diminish it. It would be irresponsible of President Bush to accept blame for something he didn't do.

    An unwarranted apology wouldn't help the victims' families. But it would help the perpetrators by shifting blame away from them. And it would help President Bush's political opponents -- at least they think it would -- who long for that one self-damning sound bite with which to hang the president. Such an apology would not lead us toward solutions to the problem but away from them.

    If President Bush is responsible for some unannounced, elaborate murderous plot by America's enemies, then our government is responsible for all crimes, not the criminals who commit them (which, by the way, is not such a farfetched concept among the liberal elite).

    And just think how dangerously arrogant it is for us, as a society, to assume we can prevent all crimes or all acts of war. It's the same type of mentality that generates moral indignation at President Bush, not our terrorist enemies, when we sustain wartime casualties in Iraq -- as if we are so invincible that we can fight casualty-free wars. We may be the world's sole superpower, but we are neither perfect nor impervious to attack or death. And we never will be.

    The reporters berating Bush for an apology obviously see themselves as part of the intellectual and emotional elite, able to discern the refined nuance that points to the counterintuitive conclusion that the president is responsible for something he had nothing to do with, nor could have prevented.

    Very few of these smug automatons have the faintest clue that far from possessing any superiority as to basic human thought processes, they do not think for themselves. They eschew independent thought, march in lockstep to the prejudiced liberal mindset that President Bush is a reprobate and doggedly ignore the facts that scream otherwise.

    Consider their audacity and hypocrisy in seeking Bush's head for not doing enough against terrorism prior to 9-11, when they have opposed fighting terrorism aggressively both before and after 9-11.

    The people now condemning President Bush for not combating terrorists prior to 9-11 through profiling, preemption, intelligence sharing, unilateralism and a warlike approach, are the ones who have repeatedly castigated the president for pre-emption, the Patriot Act, unilateralism and denying enemy combatants their civil rights.

    If they are so determined to make someone other than Osama accountable, they need look no farther than themselves. Let them bask in their self-righteousness, and in the meantime, President Bush will tend to the vital business of leading this nation in the war on terror, which despite all this superfluous retrospection, continues to rage in the present.

    Lord help us if our national security is ever entrusted to these handwringers or their preferred presidential candidate.

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/16/131618.shtml
     
  2. jon_forward
    Offline

    jon_forward Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,436
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    nashville.tn
    Ratings:
    +5
    :clap: :clap: :clap:

    What did the previous Administration do about Terrorism?
    NOTHING!!!!
    What has this Administration done about terrorism?
    Neff said
     
  3. Aquarian
    Offline

    Aquarian Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    440
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +1
    perhaps because no buildings on US soil fell with 1000's of folks in them during clinton's term? As you know I'm on the fence regarding what actually happened during this admin's watch (as they say). all the evidence is not out yet, all the questions are not answered. Using Truman's 'the buck stops here' theory, it is not beyond the reach of logic to think that the chief executive in charge the day they happened might offer something in way of apology for the security failure that allowed the strikes to occur (not the strikes themselves). whether or not the failure was preventable is arguable (pending evidenciary review) but a failure is a failure. While I admit that not all those who are asking for some sort of apology would take it this way, my opinion of bush would go up if he came out with one, not down. As per my comments on his speech, what bush needs is a way to make an apology look like a good thing in the eyes of the country and the world, a way to save face. without that, and i have no suggestions at this time, I fully understand why he hesitates to make that apology.

    /2cents
     
  4. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Were these security failures not in the making for the past 15 years or longer? It wasn't the failure of the president. It wasn't the failure of the republican party. It was a collective failure of quite a few administrations at many levels of government.

    Yes, things failed horribly on 9/11. What I wanted from the chief executive in charge was to take action.

    I know I'm only speaking for myself here but I don't think he owes anyone at all an apology. In fact, I feel a bit of gratitude towards him for the way he went forward and stuck to his guns. Had this type of thinking started many years ago then 9/11 likely wouldn't have happened.

    P.S. - if there is so much being discussed about how these security failures came to be, why is it I only hear the republicans calling for Jamie Gorelick to be removed from the panel and testify? All of us should be demanding this if we want to know where the failures emanated from. Seems like a bit odd to expect an apology from Bush and not demand the truth from those that allowed these security failures to get worse.
     
  5. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    Oh please, the only failure here is that these terrorists were allowed to be born by whatever divine being you believe in. The fact is this country is free and freedom has a price. There is no buck to stop. The president of this country did not arm the terrorists, he did not fly the airplane, he did not establish the FAA regulations, he did not invite the terrorists. There is nothing he has done for which he can apologize for. He's already said that he is sorry that families suffered. He's already said that he is greatful for the sacrifices of those fighting.

    Perhaps every single person in this country should make an apolgogy to the others here for it's our very freedom that caused this. We live free while those people died. Am I sorry that they are dead? Yes. Do I owe anyone an apology for living. Hell f'ing no!
     
  6. JIHADTHIS
    Offline

    JIHADTHIS Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,055
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Mowing a grassy knoll....
    Ratings:
    +22

    Well, I agree with you:D

    Oh, and according to Mr. Kean you should mind your own business about Gorelick
     

Share This Page