Bush Owes No Apology
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 04-14-2004 - 6:35pm |
But Hannity, who was on hand to promote his book "Deliver Us From Evil," would have none of it.
"Let's talk about critics and the question of whether he owns up to mistakes," Holt began. "Has he made mistakes in the war on terror?"
"Why should he apologize, number one, for the terrorist attack that was brought to this country?" Hannity shot back.
"We've got to face reality here - America is at war and they attacked us," the conservative host reminded, noting that critics of Bush's handling of the war on terror seem to want it both ways.
"We're criticizing the president for not responding to a memo five weeks . But yet we knew that Saddam wasn't abiding by 17 resolutions in 12 years' period of time. And he didn't abide by a cease-fire agreement."
Hannity told "Today" that had Bush allowed Saddam to remain in power and his continued efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction resulted in an attack on the U.S., "would we not have a commission a year and a half later" blaming Bush for ignoring the threat.
Holt complained that Hannity's scenario was "theoretical."
Just like the August 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing that warned Osama bin Laden wanted to attack America.

Pages
President Bush came out swinging last night at his nationally televised press conference, and as usual, the media made a bunch of idiots out of themselves. But that's par for the course, I suppose. Bush began with a 17-minute address to the nation that focused entirely on the situation in Iraq. Throughout the course of his remarks, he shot down just about every argument the Democrats and the media have been making about Iraq. Don't expect to see that analysis in the press reports of his news conference today however.
The president said that the violence in Iraq is neither a civil war, nor an uprising, but rather a power grab by Islamic militants. This fact is clear to anyone who takes a rational view of the situation. So much for the Vietnam comparison. He also stood by the June 30th deadline for handing over power to the Iraqis, much to the consternation of the left and Democrats in Congress. He correctly pointed out that if the Coalition steps back from that pledge, the Iraqis will feel betrayed, something he is not going to let happen. In other words, he wants the word of the United States to actually mean something. Imagine that. If some previous presidents, both Republican and Democrat, had felt the same way we might not be in this fix today.
Then it was send in the clowns time as the media started asking their questions. It wasn't so much a question and answer period as it was an interrogation. First question? How could Bush be so wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and how could he take us to war on false premises? Straight out of the liberal playbook. At the beginning of the war in Iraq John Kerry had the same view on WMDs as did George Bush; ditto for the United Nations and most of Europe. To hear the media tell it there was only one person in the world last March who felt that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of WMDs, and that person was George Bush.
Then, we had the question that Bush would not answer...and it was priceless, because they tried more than once. Does the president feel any personal responsibility for 9/11? The first question that comes to mind is whether or not it is even appropriate for a reporter to demand apologies from the president at a presidential news conference? But ... ask the question they did.
Look ... he didn't do it. They did it. Osama bin Laden and his assortment of Islamic maniacs. The president's job is not to apologize. His job is to react; to pursue the people who did this thing ... and permanently remove them as a threat to our security and interests.
We started this orgy of apologies during the Clintonista era. They are little more than moral exhibitionism. The reason this reporter was pressing Bush for this apology is because he realizes that an apology would be a de facto acceptance of culpability. Maybe Clinton should apologize.
Then someone asked him if he ever admits any mistakes. He couldn't think of any. The liberals in the media must be seething over that one. Then came the question about the PDB, and they couldn't get him on that either. The underlying premise of many of the questions is the standard liberal mantra these days: that President Bush knew about the attacks on 9/11 before they happened and did nothing. To them, it's all a big conspiracy.
Liberals believe in virtually every conspiracy under the sun, except the one true and obvious conspiracy; the media is liberally biased.
Bush was also repeatedly questioned on his "plan" to resolve the situation in Iraq and bring our troops home. What do they want, an hour-by-hour timetable? The plan stands to turn over Iraqi sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30th. American troops will stay to protect against insurrection. Following the transfer of power there will be free elections. What do they expect from Bush, the names of the candidates?
http://boortz.com/nuze/200404/04142004.html
There seems to be some sort of mindset in the United States that an apology is an admission of weakness. The same mindset isn't true in other parts of the world. In Japan, saying "gomenasi" (sorry, I heard it and said it many times as a child but don't really know how to spell it in English) is not considered a sign of weakness. It actually can be considered a sign of strength, just as humility can be a strength. I admit, as a child I used "gomenasi" to get off the hook and back into action!
Maybe it's the American mindset that's getting in Bush's way, maybe it's politics, or maybe it's his conviction that he's done nothing wrong. Maybe he's just too durn mule-headed. I don't know. But I do think a man as "good" as you seem to believe Bush is, would be able to express regret, contrition, and actually be able to say "I'm so sorry--I will try my hardest to see that it never happens again".
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
In looking at if from his point of view, he did not fly the planes into the WTC, or the Pentagon. He did not hijack any of the planes, and did not have knowledge to this affect.
This also applies to Pres. Clinton who I have not seen running to any news stations offering any form of apology. Afterall, if you are going to pass judgement on Bush for having this occur on his watch, then you have to pass equal judgement on Clinton for having the entire event planned and funded under his watch.
In saying that I do agree that Bush should say that he and his administration are determined to find and correct the faults that allowed this event to happen, and make sure that he and his administration do everything in their power to make certain that something of this nature does not happen again. This puzzles me why he cannot at least say that.
It is one thing to have conviction, but another to be too proud.
I thought he did say that and that was the basis for establishing Homeland Security. As far as I am concerned, the fact that there has not been a terrorist attack happening on US soil is proof that "his administration......everything in......power to make certain that something of this nature......not happen again". We are constantly being warned via color coded alerts when situations seem ripe for terrorist attacks. I believe that 'chatter' is continually being evaluated and are being passed on to Americans. To me, it is proof that this administration is committed to keeping us abreast of any and every possibility of terrorist attacks.
While there's no question that the Bush adinistration missed some clues, Bush is HARDLY responsible for 9/11. I won't even say Clinton was responsible, despite the fact that he could have had bin Laden and refused and failed to respond to no fewer than 3 al quaeda attacks against us during his administration. 9/11 took the world by complete surprise. In any case, due to our current political climate if Bush even HINTED that he had even the slightest responsibility for 9/11 the Dems and the media would seize upon it and hammer away at it mercilessly. There is no reward today for being candid and honorable. The rule of today's politics (practiced wih great success by our most recent former president) is deny, deny, deny-anything less is political suicide.
As far as the failure in Iraq, uh, what failure? As far as I know the campaign is still ongoing, unless some Dems have their way and we run cowering form a few B'aath party thugs and terrorists. We can and must prevail in Iraq.
I agree the rest of your post, too.
Pages