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
In fact, if you look at the transcripts from the press conference...I have known college frat boys with hang-overs who would have faired better. To be able to answer a question without really answering it is an art that Bush has not yet mastered...I would have thought all intelligent Americans would have seen through the verbal garbage that Bush spewed that day.
I guess you can say the United States financed 9-11 considering they used OUR OWN PLANES as bombs but it CERTAINLY WASN'T BROUGHT ON by the United States! That sounds like someting Osama would say.
And you certainly heard different testimony than I heard - the testimony has been that even if we acted on ALL of Clarkes suggestions, 9-11 would have still happened. Pre-911 - when we couldn't imagine something crazy like this happening most Americans were more concerned with our own civil liberties than worrying about terrorism. As long as were were enjoying the civil liberties we enjoyed, and the terrorists were plotting against us unsuspecting Americans, something like this was enevitable.
Richard Clarke apologized to the victims in an effort to get press and SELL MORE BOOKS. If he were sincerely sorry he would donate his book profits to the victims. What good are hollow apologies? No good. President Bush is actually doing something. I respect that more than an empty apology and no action like opportunist Richard Clarke.
If anybody needs to apologize for dead soldiers it is the left wing, especially Ted Kennedy and John Kerry who are responsible for enboldening our enemies to kill more of our brave young men. It is disgraceful how politics seem to me more important to the extremists on the left than the lives of our soldiers.
>"
First, the US is responsible for what happened on 9/11 in an indirect way. If Bush is correct in assuming that Saddam financed the venture, then any money or weapons Saddam passed on once came from us. If we thought he was so damn dangerous and irresponsible and such a threat to our security then why did we give him millions of dollars in aid and weapons for fighting the Iranians? (Who we also gave weapons and money to to kill Iraqis) I'll tell you why, because it worked to the advantage of who was in power at that time to accomplish his goals...no thought to the future...seems to run in the family I suppose.
Second, again, if it is the United States' responsiblilty to topple evil regimes and end the death and destruction that Saddam was causing in Iraq, then why: Have soldiers been killed at an increasing rate since he was overthrown? Have Iraqis been dying at a rate comperable to when Saddam was in power? (At least then Iraqis didn't have to worry about our fighter jets or suicide bombers killing them and their families)
We have failed...if all we wanted was Saddam then take him. We are an advanced country...I know that if our county really wanted to they could have taken just him. The problem with that though is that wouldn't have lined the pockets of Bush and his cronies as much as this war has. I have one word for you "Halliburton". That is all...
I don't think that the president has studied "political speaking" if you mean he answers questions by not answering them like Bill Clinton was such a master. Bill Clinton was charismatic, but not only did he not answer tough questions,( which were few and far between from the adoring press), he actually was misleading to the point of dishonesty in his answers (ie: It depends what the definition of "is" is...)
President Bush is not slick, but he is straightforward and honest. I prefer that wholeheartedly.
minnie
I wonder about this a lot. The left wing is constantly criticizing how the president speaks. I see it all the time. This is the question I have. Bill Clinton consistantly MURDERED the english language, yet nobody said a word about it. Why is that?
>"Bill Clinton consistantly MURDERED the english language"<
For instance?
< Bill Clinton was charismatic, >
I know a lot of people think so, but the first time I ever saw him I thought, "slimy used car salesman". I've never been able to grasp the charisma that so many see in him, though I will concede that he is very intelligent and quick on his feet-kind of like a really good used car salesman...
And your one word "Halliburton" makes no sense to me, so I can't argue with it.
minnie
Pages