Bush Owes No Apology

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Bush Owes No Apology
121
Wed, 04-14-2004 - 6:35pm
NBC "Today" show co-host Lester Holt tried to get top talker Sean Hannity to say Tuesday morning that President Bush should have apologized for making "mistakes" in the war on terror.

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.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/14/115849.shtml

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-21-2003
Mon, 04-19-2004 - 1:27pm
I agree with you, and I have stated that Current and past need to apologize for there roles. I think Bush gets so much more heat is because he is the sitting President and it was on his watch that the actual attacks took place on. Does it make it correct? No. I think that there is enough blame to go around to all the presidents.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Mon, 04-19-2004 - 1:38pm
This has NOTHING to do with Saddam's rise to power. He was already IN power during the Iraq/Iran war.

It was in our national interest to be against Iran during this conflict. Unfortunately sometimes the enemy of of our enemy is our "friend".

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 04-19-2004 - 2:19pm
I would agree, but if Bush apologizes, then the Democrats would in turn try to use this against him in the election, trying to claim that he is admitting responsibility for 9/11.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-21-2003
Mon, 04-19-2004 - 2:36pm
That shouldn't stop anyone in saying they are sorry. I am a democrat and I already hold some responsibility in the adminstration and the Clinton also. Like you said, you can't change a persons mind if it is already made up. So the Democratics can shout it off the roof top all they want, the people whom believe it already do, and the one's that don't will overlook it.

As a democrat I would look at Bush a little less harshly and lighten up on him a bit, not enought to vote for him, but enough to give him credit for being a man. To me its not a good man whom can look into the faces of those victims families and honestly say that he or his people do not owe them an apology.

Like I said before, I don't think that anyone could have known that this kind of attack would happen and they shouldn't make an apology for that. They should make an apology for not doing more to protect our homeland. It doesn't matter if it is Republican or Democrat the goverment should have protected our homeland, they didn't and they should apologize for it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Mon, 04-19-2004 - 3:03pm
You say, "My sound bites come from Research. I listen to sound bites and then research them to make sure the facts are correct."

Except that your facts ARE NOT correct. How do you explain that? We in NO WAY helped Saddam overthrow the former leadership in Iraq. This is what you said. It is factually incorrect.

You also say, "Again I understand that we do make mistakes, Lets own up to those mistakes. The problem that I have with this administration is that it "rules" don't apply to everyone. Example the Iraq war, we are there because of the WMD and because he has harbored terrorist's. According to Bush we won't tollerate any nation harboring terrorist's. Why haven't we invaded Saudi? We know that half of the 9/11 highjackers were Saudi citizens? Bush only knows the answer to this, I can speculate and that speculation is because it is not in the best interest of the US to go after those in Saudi."

I think that Saudi, and *all nations* who have harbored terrorists are proving to be pretty nervouse now, evidenced by the fact that they are now doing everything in their power to cooperate with us. This is a good thing. Peace through STRENGTH is the only thing that works.





iVillage Member
Registered: 05-21-2003
Mon, 04-19-2004 - 3:24pm
Very quickly, I have to finish up my work here so I can take my son to t-ball.

My error, there has only been speculation no concrete proof that the Am. Gov't helped over throw the previous leadership...(slapping my own hand).

Your excuse of my error that it makes it OK that the Regan Admin. not only supported Saddam, but supported him after the CW use on Iran?

Why don't YOU go check your facts on the Iran/Contra Affair. We supported Iran and Iraq. And when the heat went up on Iran we suported Iraq more after supplying arms to both sides!

Believe me when I say the Saudi's are not shaking in their boots, they are no more afraid of Bush than they are a poodle. Why don't you RESEARCH your facts on the Saudi's and the Bush family. So now if you want to believe the propaganda that this adminstraion is spouting "hard on terriosism" won't tolerate any nation, your choice.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 04-19-2004 - 3:35pm
-- Like I said before, I don't think that anyone could have known that this kind of attack would happen and they shouldn't make an apology for that.

Apparently the CIA did think about this back in 1995, but for some reason this information never came out until last week. The thing the commission should be concentrating 100% of their efforts on is why it took so long for this to come out, and why was it never known before. If it was, who knew and when, and what was done with the information?

If Bush knew, he should be brought up on accessory to murder, and the same holds for Clinton.

If neither knew, then I still dont see how Bush would owe an apology for doing the best job that he felt that his administration possibly could. Clinton said that his people did the best they could, and without proof otherwise, I would believe him.

What President would knowingly ignore such information?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Mon, 04-19-2004 - 4:15pm
You are wrong. There has Never been any speculation that we helped Saddam overthrow the previous government in Iraq.

Iran-Contra was a long time ago, but I seem to remember the Democrat congress siding with the communists and outlawing any efforts that we would make to overthrow them. At that time a couple of higher ups without Reagan's knowledge tried to overthrow the communists and get our hostages at the same time in some elaborate scheme involving Israel. I remember watching Ollie on TV every day back then, but twenty some odd years have gone by now and it is only a vague memory. I could research it if it made any difference now - but it doesn't.

Do you REALLY want me to research FACTS about Bush and the Saudi Royal family, or would you prefer I read some left-wing unsubstiantiated propaganda about them? ;)

minnie

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Mon, 04-19-2004 - 4:25pm
Agree. Good points!
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-19-2004
Mon, 04-19-2004 - 4:54pm
I would like a piece of this if you don't mind...personally, I agree w/ Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry when he said that president Bush had been "stunningly ineffective" in his foreign policy. I just wanted to point out a couple of things. We were attacked by a group formed and run by Osama Bin Laden, a man who, despite the fact that we can find Saddam Hussein in a hole somewhere, continues to elude the United States of America. Now, that's kind of embarassing...so what do we do. We decide to attack someone that we know we can beat and go against practically the entire UN to do it. I believe that any desperate connection that Bush made with Hussein and 9/11 was only based on support that they believe he may or may not have given Al-Quaeda to finance 9/11. In addition to this, the source of aforementioned support was the United States. We gave Iraq, specifically Saddam Hussein, a great deal of money and weapons for fighting the Iranians (to whom which we secretly gave weapons as well). I think that 9/11 was brought on by the United States, financed by the United States, and an event that after hearing the testimony brought before the commission that the United States could have and should have stopped.

When Richard Clark apologized to the victims of the 9/11 attacks, whether it was his place to or not, I think was a historic moment. Never before has anyone even thought of apologizing to those families...and now there are new victims to apologize to. The families of the 703 soldiers that have died (not including the ones that have committed suicide when they returned) are now owed an apology for the waste of life this "war on terror" has claimed. I think that the only logical apology could come from our dear old "Dubya". Not that he could apologize with any real feeling, he made sure to never get his hands dirty with war (Vietnam??) and he is making way too much money off of this war to really feel bad about it.

This is why I am making every effort to see to it that this man never gets re-elected. I think he's made enough money at the expense of the lives of our brave men and women, some of which actually think they are fighting for a higher cause. I don't know if Kerry has all the answers but I know what our current President is capable of and that just doesn't cut it, not for a county as great as America.


Pages