You make some very good points. They have nothing to do with what I said, but they were good points.
I simply said our leaders shouldn’t apologize because we are an immature society that cannot simply accept and apology and not hold a singular mistake against someone for the rest of their careers.
I don’t remember saying we shouldn’t hold our leaders accountable for anything.
Actually, that kind of behavior, and others that many find objectionable of the current administration, are consistent with the personality disorder known as narcissism.
Really? Odd how I found a counterexample in under five seconds:
Besides, even if we accept your (false) premise that corporations never apologize, how does that make it morally acceptable for the President of the United States to do the same? “Hey, the multinational corporations are heartless bastards, so it’s okay for our leaders to be heartless bastards too”. 
Nonsense. That’s just a glorified version of the old schoolyard refrain that “real men never say they’re sorry.” It’s all machismo bullshit; to apologize when one has committed a genuine error is a sign of honor and maturity, and only a coward would find it distasteful.
That may be how you view things; please don’t claim to speak for the rest of us.
Oh, and the comparison of Dopers to card-carrying members of the Communist Party merely for not kissing the President’s posterior shows the monumental and blithering idiocy and uninformed nature of some people around here.
We’re infested with Reds, eh Senator?
It might be hard to tell the difference between a real Commie and a moderate or liberal from over there at (10.00, 3.49) on the political compass, but surely a thoughtful, intelligent person like yourself has the capacity and will to understand who he’s debating with.
Bypassing the psychopath and Nazi references that belong in the Pit, there may be some sort of debate here as to whether and when Presidents should apologize.
Everything Bush does between now and the election (policy speeches, timing of vacations, casual comments, farting in church etc.) has intensely political overtones. Issuing apologies will naturally be exploited as admission of failure/wrongdoing. While some of his advisers claim they’re disappointed he didn’t apologize sooner, there are probably other advisers bending his ear about apologies being perceived as weakness abroad or at home.
Still, I think he comes off looking poorly here. Sometimes you do what’s right and face the music, instead of looking foolishly stubborn, which can also be viewed as weakness.
Bush saying he doesn’t make decisions on the basis of polls pins the needle on the Bullshit-O-Meter every bit as much as Hillary Clinton claiming she hasn’t thought about running for the Presidency.*
I guess I sort of meant to conflate this thread with a companion,.
Apparently he was SUPPOSED to cop on arab tv
(which would have made sense)
He couldn’t wrench himself around to do it,
he double crossed his staff
this is all
AFTER
they had all sat down,
brainstormed the political pros and cons
(just like we’re doing here)
That’s what blows my mind—
that’s why I raised the issue of something that
belongs in the DSM six ,
(or whatever they’re up to)
Help me out here, atg.
Where in the DSM (and I thought they were only up to DSM-IV, not DSM-VI) is there a disease, condition or syndrome characterized by reluctance to apologize? I know they’re coming up with new disorders all the time, but I never heard of this one.
Or is there a syndrome which involves baseless speculation on the nonexistent psychiatric disorders of one’s political opponents, based on personal animus?
If not, perhaps we could suggest one for the next DSM revision.
Try Pervasive Developmental Disorder, NOS. The subject is (among other issues) incapable of admitting error and finds it nearly physically painful to apologize (because that would indicate that the problem or incident was not really all the fault of other persons). The DSM-IV does not list a failure to apologize, explicitly, but I can attest from personal experience with a victim of that syndrome that it is part of the constellation of symptoms. (Interestingly, PDD-NOS also manifests in problems with verbal communication. 
)
Mind you, I do not believe that GWB is psychotic, (smug self-righteousness combined with intellectual laziness provides adequate explanations for his actions), but the question was whether one might find a condition related to a failure to apologize in the DSM-IV.
It looks like to me Firestone apologized for the tire problems, hey sorry your new tires didn’t work out, we’ll send a refund your way. It doesn’t seem like they apologized for what actually mattered, the 88 dead people.
Where are you getting this machismo bullshit? Tell me one time a President has ever sincerely apologized for something big? I mean, Nixon may have, I cannot remember the exact words he used, but that was at a point when his political career was over and it didn’t matter anymore. In fact you prove my point. Bush is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. He apologized, but not “fast enough” for the leftists here at the tinfoil hat crowd infested Straight Dope message boards.
I’m sorry that I spoke for you, I know you are a very enlightened person that would never use Bush’s apology as a way to attack him.
Something you have never learned it seems is how important legitimacy is in politics. It IS a genuine fact that when you apologize, you admit that YOU PERSONALLY, have fucked up. Your legitimacy is BLOWN, and that apology will be thrown back in your face a thousand times.
To boil it down to some bullshit latin machismo crap is insanely idiotic. It has aboslutely nothing to do with machismo. Bush does things based on what will bring him the most political capital. If you have a problem with that vote for Jesus or someone for elected office, because you won’t find a serious mortal politician that decides his actions any other way.
If you insist otherwise, you are obviously too naive to warrant any further responses.
The 10.00 is purely economic number. I can agree that I may be nearly that right on economic issues, but my “real” numbers are probably more like (8.50, 1.50). Due to the biased nature of the questions on the political compass there were a few I had to answer in the affirmative that I was fairly on the middle over.
I think the term that is used for psychopaths now is sociopath. They are characteristically very intelligent. I think we can safely exclude the President.
He suffers from acute shallowness.
Like the man is a saucer.
The Arabs are not at all happy with Bush’s “apology” and have called it mere “lip service”. I believe they are right. I don’t think Bush has ever apologized for anything. Why would he? After all, he couldn’t recall even one tiny mistake he had made in his last major press conference (try that in your next job interview). The man that claims God wanted him to be president is a bit too full of himself. What was that movie? The Man Who Would Be God? :rolleyes:
Psychopath? Juan Cole today dredged up this old article arguing that he’s in fact a sociopath…
I think you’re aware that one can pluck a solitary descriptor out of any of a myriad of DSM-IV disorders and point triumphantly to some person one dislikes. I was unaware that you (or anyone else who prattles about the psychopathology of Bush) are a practicing shrink who has evaluated Bush in person over a sufficient period to make such a diagnosis.
Parlor psychology is just another failure tactic employed by clueless anti-Bush partisans. “He’s stooopid! He’s crazy!”
Just concentrate on all his failures of commission and omission and you’ve got enough ammo, folks, as long as you don’t screw it up offending potential supporters through dumb character assassination.
Jackmannii: Wow. That was a well reasoned post. People who discuss Bush’s personal failings are “clueless anti-Bush partisans”. Keep up the good work. It’ll really encourage people not to slap stupid labels on other people, won’t it! :rolleyes:
Quote MartinH :" …our leaders shouldn’t apologize because we are an immature society that cannot simply accept and apology and not hold a singular mistake against someone for the rest of their careers. "
At last - some sence Martin.
Thing is, the Iraqis may not be as immature as you think you are. Maybe having been treated like shite for the last 30 or 40 years, they would be stunned that the POTUS had appologised to them - personally. They may respond by not throwing genades at US troops in Bagdad. They may even start to respect the occupation ( their words, not mine ). The statement may just sow the seed that would grow into a fruitfull relationship based on trust and respect.
Of course, now they KNOW that Bush doesnt really care.
Well done everyone concerned.
sin
I am not a therapist, but I have fucked a few and married one…
You are quite right, of course, to cavil at my diagnosis.
If anything, I suppose a psychopath would apologize with no problems since sincerity is not an issue.
I guess I’m trying to track down something mor along the lines of compuslive behavior
As I understand the scenario, he and his aides sit down, scope out the issue and the say,
Go ahead big guy, go to the towelheads and say you are sorry.
But then he can’t carry it off.
One would think it relatively straghtforwrd unless some unconscious processes are at work…
We can only hope so.
You zeroed in on a stinging remark* and ignored everything else. In much the same way, Bush supporters (or those on the fence) tend to seize on poorly documented, over-the-top personal slams by opponents and fulminate about those, and the debate shifts away from Bush’s bad policies and screwups.
Advantage - Bush.
*if it makes you feel better, I’ll rephrase it. The invoking of psychopathology by those unqualified to do so is foolish and counterproductive, no matter which political target one chooses.
Yes, of course you are right. Not being licensed psychologists, the vast majority of Americans should not ever speculate on the possible psychological forces driving their leaders to behave in odd ways. By bringing this up, you’re doing a superb job Jackmannii. You’re a strong voice for the defense, and our nation owes you a debt of gratitude.
Not to tempt you to stray into the perilous swamps of remote diagnosis, how do YOU explain w’s inability to effectuate the planned apology on arab tv–which we are told surprized his aides (i’ll bet it did) and raised tentime the ruckus if he had just shut up and did his little dance with abdullah the next day.
so wassup?