So what’s so awful about Bush saying “We tried our best to prevent 9/11, but in the end, despite our strongest efforts, we were unsuccessful. For that, we are sorry, and we are completely committed to stopping future terrorist attacks both here and abroad.”?
I’ve heard several people in the media refer to W as a “CEO-style president.” Well, CEOs often apologize for things they have no personal control over, such as plane crashes or product malfunction, and nobody takes that as a sign of weakness or incompetence. Heads of governments in other countries do the same, and, as previously noted, so did previous governments in this country. Why can’t Bush do the same, or even admit to mistakes in intelligence?
The question about “mistakes” was posed to Bush more than once last night with the associated “and are you going to apologize?”.
I don’t see the apologies part as a strawman. Rather, I see it as the second part of the tightly-coupled, two-part issue that keeps coming from the press and others: “GWB, admit your mistakes, and then apologize for them”. And, wouldn’t it follow that if Bush did admit to a mistake, then right on the heels of it would be a flood of demands for apologies for said mistake?
But yes - technically, you did not mention “apologies”. However, given this:
…I’m not sure that rewording would get me anywhere If you’d like, just pretend that the references to apologies are missing. I think the argument still holds without them.
I found this article about “dry drunk” behavior and a couple of others like it (posted by a Doper within the last couple of days; sorry, don’t remember who) to be quite illuminating with respect to Bush’s “I don’t really know much of anything beyond the fact that I’m right about everything” attitude.
If, like you suggested, an apology comes from someone that had no personal control over the event, it would seem to me to be a self-serving, rhetorical, hollow apology, and would cause more harm than good.
I might as well stand up and apologize for the last two losses by the Red Wings in the Cup playoffs recently. Yeah - that would do a lot.
Bush apologizing for something that was outside of his control at the time would only serve to give his political enemies fodder for mudslinging. So, even at that level, it’s not worth it.
OK. Ignoring the “apology” strawman (booka, you can ignor the “strawman” if you want), point is that this little episode seemed to me to indicate that W is incapable of thinking for himself. It seems likely to me that he was afraid of mentioning anything without having it fed to him–or, more charitably, properly vetted by his handlers.
But they do it all the time, and for good reason. The CEO or President is the head of the ship. When the ship founders, the head carries the can for it.
You are not the CEO of the Detroit Red Wings. Sure, you may be sad as a fan if they lose, but you don’t sign their players’ checks. The CEO is ultimately responsible for the players’ performance on and off the ice. If they fail, it’s his responsiblity to do something about it. Similarly, the President is ultimately responsible for the actions of the government’s employees. I agree that perhaps the CEO of the Red Wings shouldn’t apologize for a couple losses. Then again, nobody dies if Detroit doesn’t win the Stanley Cup this year. For the sake of propriety, some form of apology from the President seems in order.
Would Bush’s response have been any different if the question was, “Mr. President, when you look back over your time in office and knowing then what you know now, if there was anything you could have done differently, what would it be?”
He was asked about the lead up to the Iraq war and the planning, etc.
His responses with respect to the WMD’s was effectively 'we were 100% correct, they were there, we’ll find ‘em and find the rat bastards who hid them’. Given that David Kay, Mr. hand-picked WMD finder, came to the conclusion that there haven’t been any weapons or programs since 1998 this response indicates a level of dishonesty or disconnection that boggles the mind. What possible national interest is there in maintaining this charade?
With respect to the question of the pre-war statements that rebuilding Iraq would be paid for out of oil sales - no US taxpayer money required (okay 1.6 billion, but that’s it). His response was not that estimates of oil revenues or the scope of reconstruction were off (to the tune of tens or hundreds of billions (with a ‘b’) of US taxpayer dollars) but rather that Iraqi oil revenues are flowing beyond our wildest dreams of a year ago, and that they will pay for Iraqi reconstruction. What is the point of this mendacity?
I watched the conference in hopes of finding out something new. But I didn’t even get new lies, just the same two year old ones.
Other thoughts:
We will have a plan to win the war on terrorism?
We will have a plan to transfer sovereignty to someone?
Ay carumba, how long can we afford to live in the future tense?
This is not like hockey, and it is not about job interviews. This is about responsibility. If Bush didn’t want the responsibility for what goes on in the government, he shouldn’t have run for president. This is more like the head of a division that just lost $100 million from an accounting blunder saying that he didn’t do anything wrong.
The reason his not admitting any mistakes matters is that as far as I can tell, they learned nothing from this experience. They made no contingency plans for what would happen if we were not greeted with flowers in Iraq. Do you thing they’re doing any better now about the turnover of power? No, Bush said someone will tell me who gets the keys to the country.
Your hockey analogy is right in one way - as far as running the team, Bush is more a fan than a manager.
As much as I’m embarrassed by Bush and as much as I disagree with his policies, I understand why he answered as he did. And I’d say U.S. voters are largely to blame.
In a race where Kerry’s already been criticized for changing his mind on a couple issues, how the hell can Bush admit to making a mistake? Personally, I respect someone who changes their position on an important issue after thinking about it, or who admits to making a mistake and takes steps to prevent a repetition, but it seems that many voters are susceptible to the suggestion that a candidate who does either is a wishy-washy flip-flopper who can’t be trusted.
In sum, most people are fleeceable dimwits, and Bush is their ideal leader.
Bush didn’t answer because it threw him for a loop. He neither had an answer pre-prepared by a babysitter, nor was he able to come up with one on his own.
He was unable to come up with one on his own because he doesn’t feel any responsibility. And because he’s forgotten how to be honest.
If he were an honest person, who felt personal responsibility for his actions, he’d probably have examined this question before, in the wee small hours. And he’d honestly be able to stand up and say “I’ve learned this,” or whatever.
But then I’d have some respect for him, so THAT’S never gonna happen.
[/opinion]
I’m guessing that the 90 year old black men who were the subjects of biological experimentation got tired of waiting for an apology from President Roosevelt, and the descendents of Indians who still live on reservations may have gotten tired of waiting to hear from Andrew Jackson. Clinton seemed to be the only president in office that could speak for the government with respect to those mistakes.
Now, I’ll admit, Clinton certainly went overboard in apologizing for movies no longer costing a nickel and the disappearence of light brown M&M’s, but I think, in general, that a president is considered to be a spokesman for the country and the government. If the country owes someone an apology, I think it more or less falls to the president to vocalize it.
You know, like how Reagan apologized to Japanese-Americans for them being herded into internment camps during World War II.
I agree with everything you’ve said here - since our presidents are supposed to be infallible, admitting to a mistake is basically tantamount to career suicide.
I understand Bush not wanting to go back on what he’s said. But I don’t understand how he can continue to put our military in danger after what’s happened and what we’ve discovered (and haven’t discovered). That’s my main beef with him at the moment - it seems he’s more concerned with ‘saving face’ than he is with the safety of our armed forces.
He’s like a man without any first language isn’t he? I wonder though, does he feel any guilt regarding the hundreds of innocent people who’ve been killed in Fallujah alone? Or does he believe the guilt lies with the tank commanders and infantrymen that pull the trigger?
“Flip-flopper” is just the latest conservative euphemism for “someone who accomodates changing circumstances.”
And given how the Bush Administration carefully crafts its messages for maximum public appeal and voter-friendliness, for a Bush supporter to accuse Kerry of pandering to the public is an(other) example of blind hypocrisy.