Apologize for what?

[Riprorin]

Here's a good editiorial by Cal Thomas:

Apologize for what?

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |

Can anyone imagine reporters during World War II asking President Franklin Roosevelt if he'd like to apologize for the number of American dead and wounded, or Harry Truman if he'd like to repent for dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which forced Japan to surrender? Those were different times - when "psycho" meant you were crazy and "babble" meant you didn't make any sense.

Both psycho and babble were on display at President Bush's news conference Tuesday night (April 13). Four times, by my count, reporters tried to get the president to admit he had done something wrong. What they really wanted was a huge headline: "President Admits Fault for 9/11" or, even better (from their perspective), "President Admits Mistakes in Iraq War."

Frustrated by their inability to pry such words from the president, Don Gonyea from National Public Radio tried another tactic. Rather than asking a question, Gonyea made an accusation. He charged Bush with being a failure as a communicator because he uses the "same phrases" a lot and his speeches "don't vary from one to the next" and maybe that's a major reason "for your falling support." Reporters' questions don't vary a lot, either. If you didn't know the guy was from NPR, you might have guessed from the tone and ideology behind his question that he works for Al-Jazeera or the John Kerry campaign.

The question may have produced the best and most persuasive response of the evening. The president said he doesn't make decisions based on polls and that he hopes "I have communicated my convictions." He added that people should know by now that "when I say something, I mean it."

Why should this president apologize for toppling a murderous dictator responsible for the deaths of perhaps more than 1 million people and the rape and torture of unknown thousands of others? Why should Bush admit mistakes when he didn't start the war? That dubious honor goes to the likes of Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Osama bin Laden and terror-spawning groups named Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Why should Bush take responsibility for an intelligence apparatus that was dysfunctional when he inherited it less than seven months earlier and, by law, was designed to continue misfunctioning until disaster struck?

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Here's a good editiorial by Cal Thomas:

Apologize for what?

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |

Can anyone imagine reporters during World War II asking President Franklin Roosevelt if he'd like to apologize for the number of American dead and wounded, or Harry Truman if he'd like to repent for dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which forced Japan to surrender? Those were different times - when "psycho" meant you were crazy and "babble" meant you didn't make any sense.

Both psycho and babble were on display at President Bush's news conference Tuesday night (April 13). Four times, by my count, reporters tried to get the president to admit he had done something wrong. What they really wanted was a huge headline: "President Admits Fault for 9/11" or, even better (from their perspective), "President Admits Mistakes in Iraq War."

Frustrated by their inability to pry such words from the president, Don Gonyea from National Public Radio tried another tactic. Rather than asking a question, Gonyea made an accusation. He charged Bush with being a failure as a communicator because he uses the "same phrases" a lot and his speeches "don't vary from one to the next" and maybe that's a major reason "for your falling support." Reporters' questions don't vary a lot, either. If you didn't know the guy was from NPR, you might have guessed from the tone and ideology behind his question that he works for Al-Jazeera or the John Kerry campaign.

The question may have produced the best and most persuasive response of the evening. The president said he doesn't make decisions based on polls and that he hopes "I have communicated my convictions." He added that people should know by now that "when I say something, I mean it."

Why should this president apologize for toppling a murderous dictator responsible for the deaths of perhaps more than 1 million people and the rape and torture of unknown thousands of others? Why should Bush admit mistakes when he didn't start the war? That dubious honor goes to the likes of Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Osama bin Laden and terror-spawning groups named Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Why should Bush take responsibility for an intelligence apparatus that was dysfunctional when he inherited it less than seven months earlier and, by law, was designed to continue misfunctioning until disaster struck?

Remember we must learn from history...not say sorry...that will help prevent it from reoccuring.

 

[conjur]

Here's one good reason:


http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1292891

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
Here's one good reason:


http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1292891

There are lots of "shoulda, coulda, wouldas" and "maybe ifs" in hind sight, which we can learn from for use in the future.

CkG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Here's one good reason:


http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1292891

There are lots of "shoulda, coulda, wouldas" and "maybe ifs" in hind sight, which we can learn from for use in the future.

CkG

Exactly....hence, a good reason for apologizing for making a mistake and vowing to not let it repeat.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Here's one good reason:


http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1292891

There are lots of "shoulda, coulda, wouldas" and "maybe ifs" in hind sight, which we can learn from for use in the future.

CkG

Exactly....hence, a good reason for apologizing for making a mistake and vowing to not let it repeat.

What do you perceive the "mistake" to be?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Here's one good reason:


http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1292891

There are lots of "shoulda, coulda, wouldas" and "maybe ifs" in hind sight, which we can learn from for use in the future.

CkG

Exactly....hence, a good reason for apologizing for making a mistake and vowing to not let it repeat.

What do you perceive the "mistake" to be?

And ignorance continues to spew forth.

Did you even READ the thread from the link?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Here's one good reason:


http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1292891

There are lots of "shoulda, coulda, wouldas" and "maybe ifs" in hind sight, which we can learn from for use in the future.

CkG

Exactly....hence, a good reason for apologizing for making a mistake and vowing to not let it repeat.

What do you perceive the "mistake" to be?

And ignorance continues to spew forth.

Did you even READ the thread from the link?

I read it and the only thing it reinforces is the size of the wall previous administrations built..

 

[Riprorin]

Did you even READ the thread from the link?

Of course, I read it.

So what was the "mistake"?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Did you even READ the thread from the link?

Of course, I read it.

So what was the "mistake"?

Damn, you're dense.

Not making it publicly known that a member of Al Qaeda was arrested and was being interrogated on suspicion of a planned hijacking.

Tenet was involved in daily briefings with the President but failed to bring this up.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Did you even READ the thread from the link?

Of course, I read it.

So what was the "mistake"?

Damn, you're dense.

Not making it publicly known that a member of Al Qaeda was arrested and was being interrogated on suspicion of a planned hijacking.

Tenet was involved in daily briefings with the President but failed to bring this up.

Considering that the FBI arrested Moussaui, it's unlikely Tenet knew given that the FBI is prohibited from sharing information regarding domestic investigations with the CIA.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Did you even READ the thread from the link?

Of course, I read it.

So what was the "mistake"?

Damn, you're dense.

Not making it publicly known that a member of Al Qaeda was arrested and was being interrogated on suspicion of a planned hijacking.

Tenet was involved in daily briefings with the President but failed to bring this up.

Man you are good, I didn't find anything in your link up there about the government ever connecting Him
to Al Quaeda at that time, nor did I see anything about him being interrogated on suspicion of a planned hijacking,
the article did Imply that though..

I'm going to go out on a limb here..Say everything you posted was true,
Do you suppose that the government (at that time) had someone that gives a thumbs up
or thumbs down to press releases of that nature and makes those decisions partly based on a liability issue?

I wonder *who* would be charged to make such a decision, (to inform the public) or maybe they could have just leaked it..

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Did you even READ the thread from the link?

Of course, I read it.

So what was the "mistake"?

Damn, you're dense.

Not making it publicly known that a member of Al Qaeda was arrested and was being interrogated on suspicion of a planned hijacking.

Tenet was involved in daily briefings with the President but failed to bring this up.

Considering that the FBI arrested Moussaui, it's unlikely Tenet knew given that the FBI is prohibited from sharing information regarding domestic investigations with the CIA.

According to staff reports and testimony this week, CIA Director George J. Tenet and his senior deputies were briefed on the case within days of Moussaoui's arrest, but never told the president, the White House counterterrorism group or even the acting director of the FBI, who learned about the case on the day of the attacks. The CIA brief given to Tenet was titled "Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly."

You were saying???

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Did you even READ the thread from the link?

Of course, I read it.

So what was the "mistake"?

Damn, you're dense.

Not making it publicly known that a member of Al Qaeda was arrested and was being interrogated on suspicion of a planned hijacking.

Tenet was involved in daily briefings with the President but failed to bring this up.

Man you are good, I didn't find anything in your link up there about the government ever connecting Him
to Al Quaeda at that time, nor did I see anything about him being interrogated on suspicion of a planned hijacking,
the article did Imply that though..

I'm going to go out on a limb here..Say everything you posted was true,
Do you suppose that the government (at that time) had someone that gives a thumbs up
or thumbs down to press releases of that nature and makes those decisions partly based on a liability issue?

I wonder *who* would be charged to make such a decision, (to inform the public) or maybe they could have just leaked it..

Like they leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame? And that had nothing to do with our nation's security as opposed to the arrest of Moussaui.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

As critical as I am of Bush, I think the media was out of line with their questions about apologies and mistakes. Should he apologize? Maybe. Has he made mistakes? I think that's obvious. But they were badgering the man more than asking legitimate questions. That's poor conduct on their part and poor journalism to ask those questions as opposed to legitimate ones concerning actual things that matter in the here and now. I can't believe he wasn't asked about the current gas situation and his filling of the reserves.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
As critical as I am of Bush, I think the media was out of line with their questions about apologies and mistakes. Should he apologize? Maybe. Has he made mistakes? I think that's obvious. But they were badgering the man more than asking legitimate questions. That's poor conduct on their part and poor journalism to ask those questions as opposed to legitimate ones concerning actual things that matter in the here and now. I can't believe he wasn't asked about the current gas situation and his filling of the reserves.

I can't believe they didn't ask him about the economy...

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
As critical as I am of Bush, I think the media was out of line with their questions about apologies and mistakes. Should he apologize? Maybe. Has he made mistakes? I think that's obvious. But they were badgering the man more than asking legitimate questions. That's poor conduct on their part and poor journalism to ask those questions as opposed to legitimate ones concerning actual things that matter in the here and now. I can't believe he wasn't asked about the current gas situation and his filling of the reserves.

I can't believe they didn't ask him about the economy...

Touche.

 

[fjord]

Answer: The 9/11 cover-up.

I don't need an apology, for what it would be worth (= zero). The way terrorism was handled by Bush and Co. pre 9/11 is low on my list of grievences with this administration.

Much more important is what happened afterwards.

No apology can repair the damage or bring back the thousands of innocent people that have died needlessly (and so avoidably) by the arrogant hand of Bush and his angels of death.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why would Bush apologize when he knew exactly what he was doing at the time, and that it still sells to a significant % of the population?

Pre 9/11, the Admin's attitude towards Al Qaeda was much like that famous Dirty Harry line- "Make My Day." The Neocons had been praying for a pearl harbor type event, and they got it, maybe more than they wanted or had any inclination to believe possible....

Using that tragedy as a backdrop, he successfully played on fear and prejudice to engineer the invasion of Iraq, a prime Neocon objective from day one... and now to back Israeli expansionist legitimization after the bait and switch roadmap... and it all becomes a smoke screen for policy changes on taxes, public health, environment, separation of church and state....

Since when do con artists apologize?

 

[laFiera]

oh yes, the best quore of the night from that whole hmm...presidential speech:
"I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it."
Yes!!!!! I said the same thing for every pathetic exam i took in college....I could have had a 4.0!!!!!

and on the article below the quote is,""I think that some heads should roll over Iraq," Zinni said. "I think the president got some bad advice."
what about apologizing for having such incompetent staff at least???? ooopsss..nevermind that....we elect the top and brightest....and those hire the top and brightest...




Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni wondered aloud yesterday how Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could be caught off guard by the chaos in Iraq that has killed nearly 100 Americans in recent weeks and led to his announcement that 20,000 U.S. troops would be staying there instead of returning home as planned.

"I'm surprised that he is surprised because there was a lot of us who were telling him that it was going to be thus," said Zinni, a Marine for 39 years and the former commander of the U.S. Central Command. "Anyone could know the problems they were going to see. How could they not?"

At a Pentagon news briefing yesterday, Rumsfeld said he could not have estimated how many troops would be killed in the past week.

Zinni made his comments during an interview with The San Diego Union-Tribune before giving a speech last night at the University of San Diego's Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice as part of its distinguished lecturer series.

For years Zinni said he cautioned U.S. officials that an Iraq without Saddam Hussein would likely be more dangerous to U.S. interests than one with him because of the ethnic and religious clashes that would be unleashed.

"I think that some heads should roll over Iraq," Zinni said. "I think the president got some bad advice."

 

[dahunan]

IRAQ WAR IS a mistake - just ask the families of the 700 dead and the families of those who are missing limbs and are now suffering serious psychological trauma from the fighting over there.

*I guess we can also ask the families of the 10,000 plus dead Iraqi civilians EDIT-I meant liberated..not dead

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Cal is a loon.

Bush started the Iraq war. Someone sent troops over and invaded. It wasn't Saddam. Bush and Co. also stated time and again that we knew what and where the WMDs were. Knew, not guessed. Those WMDs were the thing people feared. That is what gave Bush popular support. Well, he screwed the pooch. Perhaps some feel it's ok for a leader to mislead the public for some "higher good". I do not. Johnson did that crap, and if there is a hell, I expect him to be roasting for it. Bush will be joining him too I expect.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Here's a good editiorial by Cal Thomas:

Apologize for what?

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |

Can anyone imagine reporters during World War II asking President Franklin Roosevelt if he'd like to apologize for the number of American dead and wounded, or Harry Truman if he'd like to repent for dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which forced Japan to surrender? Those were different times - when "psycho" meant you were crazy and "babble" meant you didn't make any sense.

Both psycho and babble were on display at President Bush's news conference Tuesday night (April 13). Four times, by my count, reporters tried to get the president to admit he had done something wrong. What they really wanted was a huge headline: "President Admits Fault for 9/11" or, even better (from their perspective), "President Admits Mistakes in Iraq War."

Frustrated by their inability to pry such words from the president, Don Gonyea from National Public Radio tried another tactic. Rather than asking a question, Gonyea made an accusation. He charged Bush with being a failure as a communicator because he uses the "same phrases" a lot and his speeches "don't vary from one to the next" and maybe that's a major reason "for your falling support." Reporters' questions don't vary a lot, either. If you didn't know the guy was from NPR, you might have guessed from the tone and ideology behind his question that he works for Al-Jazeera or the John Kerry campaign.

The question may have produced the best and most persuasive response of the evening. The president said he doesn't make decisions based on polls and that he hopes "I have communicated my convictions." He added that people should know by now that "when I say something, I mean it."

Why should this president apologize for toppling a murderous dictator responsible for the deaths of perhaps more than 1 million people and the rape and torture of unknown thousands of others? Why should Bush admit mistakes when he didn't start the war? That dubious honor goes to the likes of Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Osama bin Laden and terror-spawning groups named Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Why should Bush take responsibility for an intelligence apparatus that was dysfunctional when he inherited it less than seven months earlier and, by law, was designed to continue misfunctioning until disaster struck?

Just because the author learned how to draw a few elementary parallels doesn't mean they are in any way legitimate. When FDR made his decisions, there was a holocaust going on in Europe - and countries were being swallowed up by Hitler. We were also attacked by the Japanese.

Now perhaps my knowledge of history isn't all that good, but I don't recall FDR using Pearl Harbor as a pretense for attacking China, India or Australia...

Bush is a tool, plain and simple. He needs to go. No apology will do.

 

[heartsurgeon]

liberals are a feckless bunch, that cannot stomach being out of power and unable to legislate anything. they have no agenda of their own anymore, all they can do it criticise Bush, and in their delusional universe, they expect him to "come clean" and admit the Liberals should be back in power. Liberals feel they have better answers to everything because they are morally superior.

I fully expect a liberal to post here that they really are morally superior, and do know better, and that i am a moron.

i'll bet money on it.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
liberals are a feckless bunch, that cannot stomach being out of power and unable to legislate anything. they have no agenda of their own anymore, all they can do it criticise Bush, and in their delusional universe, they expect him to "come clean" and admit the Liberals should be back in power. Liberals feel they have better answers to everything because they are morally superior.

I fully expect a liberal to post here that they really are morally superior, and do know better, and that i am a moron.

i'll bet money on it.

I am not a liberal.. but your post sounded like a Rush Limbaugh script