Why no apology about Iraqi prisoners?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
What's so hard about a simple "I'm sorry"?



My God, even if someone didn't really give a damn about the prisoners and only cared about political damage control, you'd think it would simply be smart to make a loud and clear apology for what happened to the Iraqi prisoners at the hands of our (US) military.



Yet Bush was all over Arab TV "regretting events" and "promising to get to the bottom of this" and assuring that this wasn't "the American way", but very, very conspicuous by its absence was a pure, simple, heartfelt (or even simulated heartfelt) apology.



This has not gone unnoticed by Iraqis, other Arabs, or anyone else.



Maybe an apology wouldn't have helped much, but the blatant lack of one certainly has hurt.



And forgetting political spin and diplomacy, saying "I'm sorry" would have simply been the decent, compassionate thing to do.



For what it matters, for my own part, let me say I personally am sorry that my country has let this kind of thing happen, and I'm sorry that we don't have leadership with the decency and humility to apologize when it should.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 24
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Bush is the Commander in Chief. He is responsible even if realistically a given president or leader can't know everything happening everywhere. One takes the high road and accepts responsibility and apologizes. That's what real presidents do (not that we have one now).



    It's as if he is afraid of being sued or tried in court. Well guess what. He -is- responsible, even if only in that unrealistic sense. The least he can do is apologize. It can only help, even if only in a selfish "do it to get elected" sense.



    God, I can't stand the man.



    Plus he has that pressed down look. What's up with that. Remember Archie Bunker when he was on TV delivering his editorial about how airlines should pass out handguns to prevent hijackings? Bush has that squashed look now.



    The buck stops....at Rumsfeld it seems.
  • Reply 2 of 24
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    i have to say this kind of thing actually puzzles me.



    I mean, I take him at his word about his faith and what that means in his life. Maybe I'm just ill informed about his kind of faith, but I would have thought that one of its characteristics would be humility and a willingness to admit error, or take responsibility for error on his watch.



    My impression has been that one of the things Bush's supporters admire is exactly that kind of "groundedness", of having the common touch and not taking himself too seriously.



    Yet as far as I know he has never taken responsibility for anything (in the buck stops here sense) or apologized for anything ever. Not now or in Texas or ever.



    Even, as in this case, it would be the smart thing to do.



    Which seems like a kind of pridefulness or self righteousness that doesn't jibe with his image or the idea of serving God, either one.
  • Reply 3 of 24
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by addabox

    i have to say this kind of thing actually puzzles me.



    I mean, I take him at his word about his faith and what that means in his life. Maybe I'm just ill informed about his kind of faith, but I would have thought that one of its characteristics would be humility and a willingness to admit error, or take responsibility for error on his watch.



    My impression has been that one of the things Bush's supporters admire is exactly that kind of "groundedness", of having the common touch and not taking himself too seriously.



    Yet as far as I know he has never taken responsibility for anything (in the buck stops here sense) or apologized for anything ever. Not now or in Texas or ever.



    Even, as in this case, it would be the smart thing to do.



    Which seems like a kind of pridefulness or self righteousness that doesn't jibe with his image or the idea of serving God, either one.




    Bush does not come across to me as a man of faith.



    I do agree with your statements here.



    I fear Bush is simply a social conservative who panders to social conservatives and wishes to maintain an image of being a "man of faith"



    Could I be wrong about this? Sure...



    Do I question Bush being a man of faith? You bet I do.



    Fellowship
  • Reply 4 of 24
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Yes, an apology would be most welcome. Not just for the torture and humiliation of Iraqi POWs, but also to the bereaved families and friends of the c.11,000 Iraqi civilians who were killed by the invasion and bombing that he ordered, the widespread and wanton destruction of infrastructure essential to the wellbeing and survival of the civilian population (a war crime), and the decimation and looting of Iraq's priceless treasures and historic artifacts. Perhaps he could also apologise to the women of Iraq who now are faced with the probability of some variety of patriarchal hardline Islamic fundamentalism. Perhaps, while he is at it, he could apologise to the families of the 755 American troops who have perished, for what? And perhaps he could apologise to the longsuffering American taxpayers, who have shelled out some $200 billion to make our country more hated, and less safe...(and another $25 billion to be requested before the election). Anyone expecting an apology from Bush must be living in cloud-cuckoo land....his arrogance is only exceeded by his dishonesty.
  • Reply 5 of 24
    argentoargento Posts: 483member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Fellowship



    Do I question Bush being a man of faith? You bet I do.



    Fellowship






    You and me both.
  • Reply 6 of 24
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Scott McLelland just apologised on behalf of the president.
  • Reply 7 of 24
    hardheadhardhead Posts: 644member
    Apologize for what? He didn't do anything wrong...



    (Heavy sarcasm in above post...)
  • Reply 8 of 24
    hardheadhardhead Posts: 644member
    I'm not finished yet...



    It was the "evil doer's"...
  • Reply 9 of 24
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    [



    Do I question Bush being a man of faith? You bet I do.



    Fellowship [/B]



    I don't know if Bush is a man of faith or not.....but whatever faith he professes to follow has little or nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus.
  • Reply 10 of 24
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shetline

    What's so hard about a simple "I'm sorry"?



    For what it matters, for my own part, let me say I personally am sorry that my country has let this kind of thing happen, and I'm sorry that we don't have leadership with the decency and humility to apologize when it should.




    Quite likely the world would be better off if people of your thinking were crowding the corridors of power



    Why has Bush failed so miserably in the interviews?



    1) He has a low self-esteem, therefore he feels it is humiliating to say "We/I are sorry, we did wrong" and therefore is trying to avoid it. His spokesman had to go on air and say "sorry" repeatedly afterwards.



    2) He is lacking empathy. I don't doubt he is angry about the misconduct of his troops, but I also doubt he is hurting at the thought of people being tortured. After all, he has ordered to have terrorist supects captured by the US handed over to third world authorities with the clear knowledge they'd beat the stuffing out of them.



    3) He is driven by a grand design. Any obstacles, anything that goes wrong is a mere glitch. He'd rather adapt reality to his design than the design to reality.



    4) Deep inside, he despises and/or fears the arabs. He told arab TV: "I think people in the Middle East who want to dislike America will use this as an excuse to remind people about their dislike,". True on the one hand, but an obvious attempt at blaming some "people in the Middle East", instead of acknowledging guilt. And a horribly wrong thing to say in such a situation. This should not have been about what the arabs do to the US' image, but what US soldiers did to arabs.
  • Reply 11 of 24
    burningwheelburningwheel Posts: 1,827member
    the bush admin is so stupid, they got caught up in this too much and didn't think it through clearly (like the war) and i suspect they sinply forgot to include this in his speeech. i'm serious, i think they forgot to. idiots
  • Reply 12 of 24
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
    Yes, but if the election were held today Bush would win. Why? Because John Kerry's Catholic.
  • Reply 13 of 24
    hardheadhardhead Posts: 644member
    (Imposter)segovius, who are you and what have you done with the real segovius?





    All kidding aside, as the leader of the occupying forces in Iraq, it's his DUTY to do damage control right now. Whether he personally believes he's responsible or not.



    He SHOULD have bit the bullit and given an apology. Where's the debate on this matter segovius?
  • Reply 14 of 24
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Love means never having to say you're sorry.

    And when you love war....
  • Reply 15 of 24
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Maybe this is why Bush or BushCorp isnt apologizing....he/they do not want people to remember what was said a year back. Saddam Hussein?s horrific legacy of mass torture was one of the arguments deployed to justify preemptive war against Iraq.



    Quote:

    On April 30, 2004, George W. Bush said, ?A year ago I [gave a] speech?saying we had achieved an important objective, accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam

    Hussein. As a result, there are no longer torture chambers or mass graves or rape rooms in Iraq.? Even as Bush spoke those words, he and millions of newspaper readers and television viewers across the world were aware that torture chambers, rape and sexual abuse of detainees in Iraq are not a thing of the past. The shocking revelations and photographs from Abu Ghraib also

    provided stark proof that the practice of torture is not limited to

    "uncivilized" societies.



    The Abu Ghraib scandal breaks at a time when some commentators argue that the "war on terrorism" may require the US government to suspend, in certain cases, its legal and moral prohibitions on torture. Has the specter of terrorism rendered torture a "lesser evil"?



    Lisa Hajjar, professor in the Law and Society Program at the University of California-Santa Barbara and an editor of Middle East Report, argues to the contrary. In "Torture and the Future," now accessible in Middle East Report Online, she shows that "the one core right that all human beings can claim" is the right not to be tortured.



    Read her essay online at:

    http://www.merip.org/mero/interventi...ar_interv.html
  • Reply 16 of 24
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    1:23 Central Time:



    Bush apologizes in press conference.
  • Reply 17 of 24
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jubelum

    1:23 Central Time:



    Bush apologizes in press conference.




    The buck was passed, Jesus will forgive him, the US public will forget about it, and the slate is wiped clean, things will return to normal....except cameras and recording devices will be banned from Iraqi prisons from now on.
  • Reply 18 of 24
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    Damn - and I just ranted for 10 minutes about why he wouldn't - I hate that guy



    Don't worry- you're not the first person to underestimate the shrub.
  • Reply 19 of 24
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jubelum

    1:23 Central Time:



    Bush apologizes in press conference.




    No he didn't apologize. Apologizing and simply saying sorry are not the same thing. Bush did not say "To all those Iraqi nationals tortured (or abused) at the hands of the US military I'm am before you to humbly apologize." What Bush did was tell a dignitary a day after his prime chance to apologize that he was sorry. What was he sorry for? Was he sorry for the abuse (probably)? Was he sorry these abuses were brought to light (probably)? Or was he politically sorry as a matter of expedience? The apology should have been included in the 10 minute discussion on the Arab networks yesterday. He didn't and the world became even more outraged. Now this after the fact contrition looks to be politically motivated. I'm not going to say it is politically motivated but it "looks" that way.
  • Reply 20 of 24
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Well, from the tidbits in the news thus far it sounds like a very lame "apology". "I told Jordan's King Abdullah I was sorry for the humilliation suffered...."



    Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't some prisoners actually die?



    XXXX X: Mr. President, I think I've found a way for you to apologize without actually apologizing.



    P. Bush: Bring it on.



    XXXX X: Mr President, I thought we weren't gonna use that anymore?



    P.Bush: Bring it on, bring it on! Heh heh heh. Just kidding.



    XXXX X: What you can do is mention how you told King Abdullah you were sorry for the humilliation of the Iraqi prisoners and their families.



    P.Bush: Won't that harm my Commander in Chief Air Craft Carrier Landing War President image?



    XXXX X: Not really. Besides, you can also "add" that you also told him that you were equally sorry that people seeing those pictures didn't understand the true nature and heart of America.



    P.Bush: Well I'll be damned. You ain't purtty but you sure are smart Karl!!



    XXXX X:
Sign In or Register to comment.