Possibility 1: The president is sure that things have transpired that he should apologize for, but under the pressure and stress of the interview he cannot think of one.
Possibility 2: The nominal audience and the intended audience are not the same.
Possibility 3: The president honestly does not feel that these things are his responsibility and as such an apology would be inappropriate.
Possibility 4: The president would dearly love to apologize, but he knows the liberal media and kerry campaign would pray the “gotcha” game
BINGO! As I understand the situation, one of the networks is American owned and operates out of Maryland, the other is the US house organ in Du’bi. One broadcast the thing in English with Arabic subtitles and the other broadcast in English with no translation. Both edited out the last question and answer about (I think) the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Neither broadcast was followed by any commentary in Arabic or in English, or in classic Latin for that matter. The whole thing, it seems to me, was aimed at a domestic audience, not an Arab one.
I seriously doubt they’d seize upon him if he said “On behalf of the United States, I apologize for the pain and suffering caused by the unlawfull actions of these soldiers.”
I don’t think that an apology has to be a personal admission of guilt. The governor of my state apologized last year for actions the state did in the 1930s and 40s, which clearly weren’t the governors fault, but nevertheless he apologized on behalf of the State of Oregon.
If Bush apologized on behalf of the United States, he doesn’t need to admit any personal wrongdoing whatsoever.
Well I think Bush missed a bet by not making a big point out of apologizing. I agree with the others that I just don’t see how it could possibly hurt him. I’m not saying that he hasn’t, in effect, apologized, but it would have been better for him to make it as conspicuous as possible. Who knows, maybe he did just get nervous and forget to make a point of it. He needs to take lessons from Richard Clarke (but then when did Bush ever listen to that guy?;)) It would be the classy thing to do.
My take on it has to do with the perception that other cultures (Iraqis) would get from an apology, they might see it as a sign of weakness and encourage them. I don’t know that for sure but did take a business class in cross culture communications and have learned to study the people’s customs before you go so as not to create a fo-pa.
These actions may not appear like the correct thing to do in our culture but may have been geared towards theirs.
I’m not saying it’s what happened, but I would think this would have to come into play.
Had we seen this sort of concern previously I might have some sympathy for this point of view. That whole “Infinite Justice” thing, using “crusade” to describe our efforts, poorly thought out search tactics (in that they were culturally insensitive), etc. I guess the administration might have learned from its prior difficulties in this area, although I remain skeptical.
Except that there’s no evidence that we’re dealing with that sort of culture, unless of course you can provide some cites? It’s hard to imagine a culture where an apology for perversion in ones underlings would be taken as a sign of weakness. Bush’s interview reads more like a series of excuses:
Interesting theory, but it’s wrong. Arabs have already expressed their anger at not receiving a formal apology from Bush. If that wasn’t a part of their culture, they wouldn’t have brought it up, would they?
By God, John Wayne never apologized for nothing. Why should his disciple? Of course John Wayne never lied either and always acted from motives of altruism. There my be a difference.