Is "sorry" an apology?

I’m talking about Bush of course. I was glad to hear on the news that he apologized (for the sake of world opinion of America), but they seem to be referring to this statement:

That’s from Islam Online only because that was where I found the longest quote.

Now, the English word “sorry” can be an apology, but it can also be an expression of sympathy without any implication of responsibility, as in “I’m so sorry your mother is sick.” Didn’t one state pass a legislation saying that the words “I’m sorry” uttered at a scene of accident is not considered an admission of liability? So does the above quote count as an apology? One could almost suspect that Bush chose words which can be translated into other languages as an apology, yet weak enough that it doesn’t sound like a full apology to the American public.

In 2001, I think Bush told China that he was sorry that the U.S. spy plane entered Chinese air space, but claimed not to have given, or refused to give an apology.

Bush sounded more apologetic on Thursday than he did in that little “interview” he gave. I guess it’s a start.

I would like to believe that if someone was making a sincere apology, it should be obvious to everyone as such. If you’ve got to break out the lawyers to determine if it’s an apology or not, odds are it ain’t.

I noticed that the “apology” expressed no admission of responsibility. If I slap you and call you a liar and then later say that I am sorry that your feelings were hurt, I have not apologized for my actions or my accusation and I may not be actually sorry for either.

Until the President can say that he is sorry that some American troops have abused prisoners, his apology falls flat.

In the meantime, I think that most Americans are terribly sorry that their countrymen have behaved so despicably. But we don’t have to read more than a handful of threads here on the subject to see that there are others at SDMB who would have done the same thing if given the chance.

According to what CNN reported, here is what Powell said:
“We regret the Chinese pilot did not get down safely, and we regret the loss of life of that Chinese pilot,” Powell said.

It was a BIG deal here in China. Everyone arguing what the word “regret” meant, and to the Chinese media and man in the street, it meant “jack shit.”

Bush’s apology was a crock. When dealing with other languages and cultures, if it’s an apology, then make it very unambiguous. None of this diplomatic-ese to save face or appease the electorate. Being diplomatic just pisses people off. :rolleyes: YMMV

take a page fron Kennedy and the bay of pigs

As I said in another thread, the first sentance is designed to give a soundbite impression of an apology, but in the context of the second sentance, it does seem much more like a “I’m sorry for your loss” kind of sorry (i.e. I’m sorry those stupid soldiers don’t understand what America is all about). Indeed, it’s couched in such a way as to distance America from the acts.

I think the real problem is that Bush’s intended audience was the American news media, not people in the Middle East.

Bush never apologized, he expressed regret for the actions of others.

An apology is regret for your own actions or omissions.

Thanks - I guess this wasn’t much of a debate at all. If it’s an apology it’s a weak one without any admission of responsibility.

The news in Japan reported it as an apology though. :rolleyes:

I’m confused. What admission of responsibility would be required?

I’m no fan of Bush, but I can hardly say that this is what he wanted to have happen or directed it in any way. The only thing he did wrong, IMO, is drag his heels a bit.

I think the first supraliminal is right. You can only apologize for your own actions or actions that you have ordered.

I don’t agree with this. He’s the President, the Commander in Chief, the head of state. He has the authority to apologize on behalf of the nation. And these atrocities are a direct, albeit unintentional, consequence of the war which he asked for and got.

Not so: one can apologize on behalf of the country. That is, in fact, his job as the leader of the country: to offer apologies for things done in the name of the country, especially on his apparently blind watch.

I don’t see how that would be more meaningful than what he already did.

I would look at that as covering his political ass. The only meaningful action he can take is to se that those involved are severely punished.

I think the President is definitely “involved” in this. It’s a direct consequence of his war.

I guess what bothered me most was that Bush is distancing himself from the incident completely. He didn’t know about it until he saw it on TV, and when he did find out all he said was “This isn’t the America I know.” When he did apologize it was “I’m sorry for what happened.” This isn’t how the Commander in Chief is supposed to behave.

I agree with, well, it looks like pretty much everyone. Saying “I’m sorry, but it’s not my fault” isn’t an apology. Which isn’t to say that this whole mess is Bush’s fault, but I don’t think what was said is really an apology.

Regardless of the word choice he gave, there’s not much reason to believe any apologies in politics. Rumsfeld’s words to Congress were unambiguous, but given what he did, does it matter? He covered up these incidents as best as he could from Congress and the public for several months; “I’m sorry” carries little weight compared to those actions. I doubt he’d do things differently if given a second chance, which also lessens the value of the apology. And third - this is the big point - an apology that is forced is usually insincere, you can’t even say ‘at least he apologized’ when someone says those words unwillingly. (Which is always the case in politics, people apologize publicly when they have no other recourse and they’re told it’s the right PR thing to do.)

So I don’t think either of them really apologized, but I don’t think it honestly matters. No words are going to take back what happened.

I agree as well. What Bush gave was a condolence, not an apology. He expressed pity, but a real apology would be more than that - it’d be an admission that we screwed up, by letting these guys get away with torture for so long and not even being aware of it, and a plan for making sure it won’t happen again.

I’m getting real sick of all the apology BS. Our society has turned into a giant Opra show.

The simple statement, “I’m sorry these prisoners received inappropriate treatment and I can assure you those responsible will be brought to justice” would have been fine with me. I’d much rather our leaders spend time taking action and kicking ass to find those responsible than to be spending time trying to kiss ass. Swift action in serving justice to those guilty will do much more to restore faith in our country than saying “I’m sorry” and trying to kiss eveyone’s ass countless frigging times.

That’s very, very true. Of course, it’s much easier and faster to just say you’re sorry, and I think that has a lot to do with it’s popularity. :smack:

I think a sincerely meant “I’m sorry” is a fairly potent statement. True remorse is, sometimes, all one can offer after for something wrong, by way of atonement. If, say, Bush was out of the loop until it was too late to stop some attrocity, and reacted out of sincere dismay by saying to the world “I’m sorry for what happened; it will never happen again,” I don’t think there’s much more that he could or do, except making sure he keeps his promise.

The problem with Bush and Rummy’s apologies is they were late, apparently carefully scripted, at least partially coerced, and tended to reveal more of a regret for failures in the chain of command and military protocol (which lead to uncontrolled leaks to the media) than that Iraqi POWs suffered at the hands of sadistic American MPs.

If the Bush administration had been more immediately forthcoming, responsive, and contrite when these revelations first surfaced internally (many months ago), I’d be willing to accept at face value that the apologies were sincere, and that whatever corrective actions would be taken for the proper motives. As it is, I have the sick feeling if the neocons are upset now, it’s because of all the bad PR in an election year. I’m sure those immediately responsible are going to catch holy hell for what they’ve done, but I suspect they will indeed be made scapegoats for unnamed Intelligence officers who will continue to go about this business in a more professional and covert manner. Rumsefeld himself has previously expressed open disdain for the restrictions of the Geneva Conventions, and dismay at how such restrictions hindered our campaign against al Qaeda. Rumsfeld really set the tone for the intelligence community, what with Guantanamo inmates not being subject to Geneva Conventions protections and all that. That the Guantanamo “terrorists” fell into a legal grey zone that Rummy could exploit seemed to suit Bush just fine up until now. There is no recognition, as far as I can tell, that the unethical and immoral imprisonment of some number of non-combattants, who are denied all due process and legal representation, is bad enough, and that it sends quite an insidious message to all other soldiers, covert and otherwise, in the War On Terror.

Hey, actions have consequences, guys. You’re reaping what ye hath sewn, Bushco. Are you folks sorry people were treated inhumanely, or sorry some jackass lackeys got caught red-handed doing a sloppy job at it, making you look bad by proxy? Given your cavalier attitude towards human rights and international law up to this point, I’m forced to suspect the latter.

Easy to say sorry for what happened, impossible to make a 100% guarantee that it won’t happen again. What you can do is make examples of those that are guilty and hope everyone else takes note. The World doesn’t want or believe apologies, the only way out of this mess (and that is not even an easy path) is swift public persecution of the guilty. Swift persecution and time spent living up to proper standards will eventually satisfy most that this mess was a fluke. There is no other way for this to be cleaned up.

As for who do I think is involved:
CIA - field leaders, but not above that. This seems to be a field initiated response to demands for information.
Military MP’s - unfortunatley mostly reservist (including the General) who seemed to enjoy their task a little too much.

Maybe not 100%, but we can sure do a better job of preventing it. We can find out why these jackasses were able to get away with what they did for so long, why the abuse was hidden from leaders and the Red Cross, and who, if anyone, was involved in covering it up. We can punish not just the handful of soldiers who tortured Iraqis, but also those above them who turned a blind eye. We can put checks in place so they won’t be able to cover this sort of thing up in the future.