Why go on Arab TV and foget to apologize??

Great Debates
1

Simply put, (for a change…)

a clear question:

Moved:
Bush’s performances today in two arab tv interviews, directed at conveying his revulsion and horror at the torture incidents, in fact was worse than had he made no such direct outreach to the Arab world at all.

                                 because:

Never in the course of the interviews did he say:

" I am the commander in chief and I am deeply sorry for what was done by those under my command".

(This would have been a really, really good time for him to start remembering mistakes, like, I made a mistake putting those bad people in charge of those poor torture victims…)

Spending half an hour in self-serving pieties about American values, without finding the ten seconds to apologize is a flagrant demonstration of how he really feels about the issue.

It adds insult to injury.

(Assume, hypothetically if you insist, that the arab speakers to whom the stations are directed noticed the fact that no apology was forthcoming…trust me on this, I’m not posting links…)

2

From my response to a similar PIT thread:

Any ideas?

3

Trust you? Hm. Well, ok. For the sake of arguement, assuming that Bush didn’t say anything like “America deeply regrets blah blah blah”, or any other politician-speak of similar phrase, and assuming that this speach is the only one talking about the incidents, and assuming that it was an appropriate forum for America (or at least Bush) TOO apologize, and assuming that no other government organs will mouth apologies:

Either it was a gross oversight or Bush simply doesn’t feel responsible for the actions of troops under his command. I would have expected some kind of political apology statement if this was the appropriate forum for one (which I have no idea, not having seen the link or what exactly was or was not said, where it was, in what context, etc).

Is that the debate?

-XT

4

Bush SHOULDhave apologized! alaricthegothis absolutely right. As the Commander-in-chief of the military of his country, he should apoligize. If the new General in charge of prisons can apologize on behalf of his people, so should he. In the first place Americans have no business being in Iraq. The war was declared on the premise that Iraq possessed WMDs. None have been found. Not even something closely relating to WMDs. The whole premise of the war has therefore been rendered invalid. Liberation of the Iraqi people from an oppressive regime has only come as a cover up later. While it may be true to an extent that the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein was opressive, that is not enough grounds for another country to invade one. IMHO the decision of deciding who governs should be left to the people of the country. If it is really “bad”, the people know and will take care of themselves when it comes to the pits.
The pictures of the US Army maltreating the prisoners were horrendous. Bush SHOULD apologize publicly!

5

Happy to.

The disinclination to step forward and accept liability for the damages that have been the result of your behaviour in advance and /or anticipation of litigation, although good business, is not necessarily good policy, and especially not good interpersonal behaviour.

More to the point, it is wholely inapposite as an informing principle in the present context where no tort litigation is, or can be, in contemplation, and even if it were, the expression of moral remorse by an executive does not foreclose litigation of the facts of liability–from a tort defense point of view, the guy who can’t apologize is the one accused of jamming the flashlight up the other guy’s ass, because then he will be impeached if he takes gthe stand to deny the underlying behavior.

More to the point, even if there were some potential tort claim (pace, sovereign immunity…) the most important goal of the appearance would would be (and is) undercut by the “courtroom strategy” atmosphere.

The appearance on tv itself was intended to expose the president directly to the arab tv viewers and have him directly ease their animosity.

(That, in passing, is why it was an “appropriate” place for an apology).

6

There were a few other things wrong and missing in his Great Monologue…

Salaam. A

7

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Trust you? Hm. Well, ok. For the sake of arguement, assuming that Bush didn’t say anything like “America deeply regrets blah blah blah”, or any other politician-speak of similar phrase, and assuming that this speach is the only one talking about the incidents, and assuming that it was an appropriate forum for America (or at least Bush) TOO apologize, and assuming that no other government organs will mouth apologies:

[QUOTE]

Either it was a gross oversight or Bush simply doesn’t feel responsible for the actions of troops under his command. I would have expected some kind of political apology statement if this was the appropriate forum for one (which I have no idea, not having seen the link or what exactly was or was not said, where it was, in what context, etc).

Is that the debate?

Please go back and read the question.

Not:should he apologize sometime, somewhere,

Not:ought he feel personally bad.

but

should he as a matter of simple public relations have made an appearance where apology was possible, and OMIT it.

If your point is that those who noticed the absence of an apology and feel alienated have no right to “demand” an apology, I suggest you argue with them.

Although I think that on a human level W is a piece of shit, that is not relevantg.

FGor purposes of the issue at hand, I"m saying we come out with a more, and not less, alienated target demographic, ya feel me?

8

Cool. I feel all enlightend now…and, dare I say? Slightly less ignorant! I love this place! :slight_smile:

9

Itr’s all part of maintaining the “strong unwavering wise leader” facade his handlers have built around him. An apology would be an admission that he isn’t infallable and isn’t all-knowing, and that’s about the only thing his campaign has to run on this November.

10

Lets see…re-reading the question…

I’m no further enlightened. Sorry. But since you’ve now further elaborated (but still haven’t provided a link to the text of what he said…I guess I’ll have to look it up myself), I’ll stay with what I said.

Namely, on the surface and with all the caviots I gave, it sounds reasonable to have expected Bush to have said SOMETHING about the US apologizing for our actions as we are responsible for the actions of our troops.

That wasn’t my point at all. God knows where you got THAT impression from…I sure don’t. My point was to set out some kind of parameters so we could have something to debate, as I didn’t find your original OP very, er, debatable. Seemed more like it was bordering on the edge of rant in debates clothes, and I actually think this IS something worth debating.

I don’t generally feel too comfortable when someone says ‘trust me’ in their OP. :slight_smile:

-XT

11

Granted,

But I thought he was running as God’s President, not God Himself…

And anyway, when did expressions of sorrow and empathy get conflated with the shouldering of personal moral guilt.

I mean, if I call my aunt, and she says Uncle Joe just died, does my blurting out

“Oh, I’m so sorry,” mean they’ll know that I killed him??

gotta whatch what you say…

12

Except that the President of the United States is completely immune from all civil litigation for all actions (or inactions) done under his official capacity as President. NIXON v. FITZGERALD, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) So arguing that he won’t apologize for fear of getting sued really doesn’t fly in this case.

13

Yuckers! While that *is *good to know, I was thinking there might be some kind of, oh I don’t know, *international *court of some kind that might at least have authority to hold national leaders accountable. I’m only slightly being a smartass here–I’m truly among the opinionated ignorant in these matters. I’m actually divided on this issue. This kinda stuff happens in a war…blah blah blah, and while it is unacceptable it should have been expected. I’d say more, but this is probably not supposed to turn into an all-out Bush bash (in which I’d heartily participate).

I can’t get this cartoon image out of my head of GWB jamming an army in the shape of a flashlight up an Arab’s ass (thank you alaricthegoth).

14

Well, the collateral damage, this stuff happens, has been their pretty consistent line, including resisting compensation to obvious victims of misguided ordnance… (How that policy makes any kind of sense beats me, but there you go…)

So what really puzzles me is that here, where they say, uh-oh, we gotta send the big guy out, they obviously would brainstorm whether to apologize or not.

Now, call me a pussy, but where is the DOWNSIDE in this case of an apology, a gosh Mrs., Habib, sorry 'bout your luckl, and sorry Mr. Habib is on ice in a drawer.

(have you scoped the 24 deaths in custody, including two that THEY call murders, inclulding one following a rape (and please, please don’t volunteer the gender of the victim if you know… I’m already in possession of too much information…)

15

If a tribe does something wrong, and there is an apology forthcoming, the head of the tribe is expected to apologize. And yes we are seen as a tribe with Bush as it’s leader. Underlings do not do the apologizing.

Again, it’s a slap at the Arabs.

16

Maybe he thought if he apologized in any way, he would be responsible
and we can’t have that!

17

I’ve heard it said, generally by jerks, that an apology is a sign of weakness. Maybe Bush, being a jerk, subscribes to that jerkish belief.

18

Simple answer, none of the interviewers asked president Bush to apologize:

WH press briefing

19

oh shit–I had it right. He just forgot.
d’oh

20

I hadn’t seen that transcript, but that’s what I’m driving at. He would have been miles ahead to have done nothing,.

Even a fish, as they say, would stay out if trouble if it kept its mouth shut, and in W’s case, the intellectual metaphor is about congruent.