I’m betting that the WH’ll cave on this one like he did about the various investigations.
They’ll issue an apology of sorts.
Anyone wanna bet?
If you wanna emphasize the “of sorts,” they already have. Depending on how you define it, I may take the bet.
This would be a VERY tough bet to collect on, it would be such a weasely politician’s apology. The ones betting against would always argue it wasn’t enough of an apology to make them pay.
It’ll be as much of an apology as Reagan gave us over trading arms for hostages.
Iran Arms and Contra Aid Controversy
My fellow Americans: - I’ve spoken to you from this historic office on many occasions and about many things. **The power of the Presidency is often thought to reside within this Oval Office. Yet it doesn’t rest here; it rests in you, the American people, and in your trust. Your trust is what gives a President his powers of leadership and his personal strength, and it’s what I want to talk to you about this evening. **
<snip>
First, let me say I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration. As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activities. As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I’m still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior. And as personally distasteful as I find secret bank accounts and diverted funds - well, as the Navy would say, this happened on my watch.
Let’s start with the part that is the most controversial. A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. **It was a *mistake. ** *
<snip>
When it came to managing the NSC staff, let’s face it, my style didn’t match its previous track record. I’ve already begun correcting this. As a start, yesterday I met with the entire professional staff of the National Security Council. I defined for them the values I want to guide the national security policies of this country. I told them that I wanted a policy that was as justifiable and understandable in public as it was in secret. I wanted a policy that reflected the will of the Congress as well as of the White House. And I told them that there’ll be no more freelancing by individuals when it comes to our national security.
<snip>
Now, what should happen when you make a mistake is this: You take your knocks, you learn your lessons, and then you move on. That’s the healthiest way to deal with a problem. This in no way diminishes the importance of the other continuing investigations, but the business of our country and our people must proceed. I’ve gotten this message from Republicans and Democrats in Congress, from allies around the world, and - if we’re reading the signals right - even from the Soviets. And of course, I’ve heard the message from you, the American people. You know, by the time you reach my age, you’ve made plenty of mistakes. And if you’ve lived your life properly - so, you learn. You put things in perspective. You pull your energies together. You change. You go forward.
R. Reagan
March 4, 1987
nationally broadcast on tv
SimonX, did you start this thread just so you could sideswipe Reagan? If not, what in the world caused you to so quickly hijack your own thread?
I missed the part where I sidswiped Reagan.
I provided the Reagan quote as a standard of measurement for apologies.
I thought it was sufficiently explained with this part:
“It’ll be as much of an apology as Reagan gave us over trading arms for hostages.”
I was wrong. My bad
I may have read sarcasm into your post when there was none. If I did, I apologize.
So to clarify, do you think that Reagan’s apology was sufficient? Were you suggesting that Reagan’s speech was not an actual apology, but rather just a “weasely politician’s apology” (as suggested by Revtim)?
And why did you use Reagan’s apology, and not (for example) Clinton’s?
I assume you mean Bush will apologize for the 9/11 attacks. Not some spokesperson, but Bush himself saying he apologizes for allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen on his watch.
If so, it won’t happen. I’ll bet you a one week non-posting period in GD right after the Nov election for whoever is correct.
Do we need to pick a neutral party to arbitrate?
I was using it as a par for the WH’s apology.
Reagan never actually says that he’s sorry, per se, but the idea is there that he was responsible and regrets the events that happened on his watch.
Reagan was a politican.
Among politicans, (Doper pols excluded of course), weaseliness is only a matter of degree. I think that taking responsibility in this instance was admirable. It’s what a grown man should do.
First off, I happen to’ve had this link to Reagan’s apology on this matter handy.
Second, I’m from Arkansas, so I’d already had about a decade too many of Clinton by the time he became president. Now, I’ve had decades too many of Clinton. I used to work mere blocks from his presidential library site. I’m even more sick than most of hearing about him. I’ve no real need to bring into this conversation thank you very much.
Fair enough, SimonX. I misconstrued your post, and I apologize.
I started to say Bush, but instead decided to hedge my bet by saying the White House.
That’s pretty steep. Care to up it? Include the Pit as well?
But can the ban apply to whomever’s incorrect?
That’d prob’ly be best.
But who? I don’t want Reeder deciding whether or not the WH had made a statement that was apologetic enough.
I’d trust tamerlane, tomndebb, Qadgop the Mercotan, Airman Doors, manhattan, Lynn Bodoni, gobear, elucidator…
Actually, there’s quite a long list that I’ve no desire to try and complete. Is there someone you have in mind?
The selectee(s) must be willing, of course.
As I suspected. No hedging-- if you’re gonna bet, let’s bet straight up. He doesn’t have to say “Read my lips, I apologize”, but Bush has to say it himself.
I rarely turn down an offer to up a bet. I’m Ok with including The Pit.
Yes, incorrect is correct. Whoever is incorrect (not whomever). 
I’m fine with either Tamerlane or Airman. The others are either a bit too partisan, or I just don’t know their politics. AD is probably a better choice, as I don’t think Tam gets into the political debates very often.
Well, that’s a different bet than what I offered in the OP.
I’ll consider it.
Well, it’s not so much a political debate as it is an exercise in literary comparison. The WH statement just has to be judged against Reagan’s arms for hostages statement.
It will include the idea that the Admin’s responsible for what happens on its watch whether or not it is their fault and that the lapses were regrettable.
But the Reagan statement was clearly one by Reagan himself, not “the Whitehouse”. If it’s just a matter of a written vs a spoken statement, that’s fine with me. But if it’s left as “The Whitehouse”, I don’t see how that is bounded. Is Condi part of “The Whitehouse”? Is the CIA or FBI director part of “The Whitehouse?”
I think if you clarify what you mean by The Whitehouse, we can close the deal.
Well, Ann Coulter was holding court on Joe Scarborough tonight and she was as far right-wing as ever. A few choice statements she made (paraphrased):
-
She says Bush doesn’t need to apologize for anything. bin Laden and all the worldwide terrorists are the ones who need to do the apologizing to US. But since she knows they won’t do that, then they have to DIE.
-
She thinks everything is going just fine in Iraq and this “war” on terrorism is proceeding nicely.
-
She said, “we need a friendly, PUPPET government in Iraq”.
-
When asked by Robert Reich what would happen if the newly democratic Iraq chose to elect a pro-Islamic religious government which wanted the U.S. to leave Iraq, she said we wouldn’t accept that nor allow it to happen. When pressed as to what we would do about it, she said “we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it, but it’s not going to happen anyway”. This allowed Reich to say that was one of the problems with the Bush admin, no planning for what happens if things don’t go according to plan. <lol>
I’d say yes.
No.
The White House consists of the PotUSA of course, the VP, the cabinet, and any other political appointees who were either appointed by or specifically retained by the GWB Admin, who report directly to the Pres, (I’m trying to include Mr. McClellan somehow, but I’m unsure of his particulars). I won’t count Cheney’s people, like Scooter.
Powell counts, but his subordinates don’t.
Rumsfeld… well if Rumsfeld apologizes, I’ll run to the mountains and hope that I’m among those eaten first. But he counts as WH.
Ashcroft, fer sure, but not his subordinates.
There’s prob’ly a more specific, official delineation.
Tell you what, in the am I’ll poke around the www.whitehouse.gov and see what I can come up with for a mo better list.
Nothing useful at the WH website.
I’ll go with ammended version.
The White House consists of the PotUSA of course, the VP, the cabinet, and any other political appointees who were either appointed by or specifically retained by the GWB Admin, who report directly to the Pres, (I’m trying to include Mr. McClellan and Mr Card somehow, but I’m unsure of their particulars). I won’t count Cheney’s people, like Scooter.
Powell counts, but his subordinates don’t.
Rumsfeld… well if Rumsfeld apologizes, I’ll run to the mountains and hope that I’m among those eaten first. But he counts as WH.
Ashcroft, fer sure, but not his subordinates.
Let me know what you think about the delineation of who is WH.
Then we can officially agree to the terms of the wager and begin our arbiter selection process.
I think it would make sense apologizing… Clarke had a big effect on the public when he did… or so I was made to understand. What mistake exactly would they admit though ? Bush’s view of what is worth while losing or doing aggressive isn’t the same as the normal world.
This Cartoon says it all: