Where Is The Apology?

Paul Krugman raises some good questions in this NY Times article.

Quote:

---

George Bush promised to bring honor and integrity back to the White House. Instead, he got rid of accountability.

---

Why is it that the world had to stop and an independent investigation convened and impeachment proceedings begun when Clinton got his d**k sucked, but Bush seems to operate with impunity well above the law for actions far more severe?

In the end many people said it wasn't the sex act that offended them about Clinton but that he lied- blatantly- under oath- when questioned on it. Keep in mind I was one of those people. I didn't like Clinton and I was in favor of impeaching him for lying (among other things) at the time. In retrospect I am glad the impeachment failed. The country wouldn't survive long if Presidents were impeached any time they did something unpopular. But, IMHO - Bush's blatant lying has fargraver consequences for this country and its future.

Somehow Bush has managed to trick, fool, bribe or bully the rest of the government and the press into letting his actions go unquestioned and unanswered.

Quote:

---

Still, the big story isn't about Mr. Bush; it's about what's happening to America. Other presidents would have liked to bully the C.I.A., stonewall investigations and give huge contracts to their friends without oversight. They knew, however, that they couldn't. What has gone wrong with our country that allows this president to get away with such things?

---

Full article: Where's the Apology?

He'll never apologize. He won't see a reason for it because:

a) he "went" on information provided (even if it was wrong)

b) he won't admit to having "full disclosure" (unless someone investigates how much he knew)

c) he's "saved" Iraq

d) stopped a mass-murdered

e) he Texan and therefore, always right.

BTW, you do know that he and Blair were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize? I figured you would have replied or commented at this point on this. :D

I think Tony's head probably exploded :)

He'll be back as soon as he gets his head duct taped back together.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by MsMittens
He'll never apologize. He won't see a reason for it because:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by MsMittens

c) he's "saved" Iraq

---

Do you dispute this? Or would you have rather left the mass-murdering rape room running dictator by the name of Saddam Hussein in power?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by MsMittens

d) stopped a mass-murdered

---

What, is this a bad thing now?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by MsMittens

e) he Texan and therefore, always right.

---

That's just an asinine stereotypical statement.

.dublix

I was being scarcastic...

That said, I won't dispute that something needed to be done. But to lie to do it?? Makes me wonder if there are other things he lied about. It's a pick and choose kind of thing. Why won't they deal with the mass-murders that go on elsewhere? Why didn't his father deal with this in 1991 when it could have stopped a lot of the genocide that happened?

And why even lie about the reason? Why not just say "We're going in to deal with your genocide issue since you aren't getting it?". Why make the false claim of WMD??

Strikes me more as a reason to get sympathy and support (use a war -- very patriotic. As I was told once here, if you're not with us, you are a terrorist). But it also strikes me as having ugly elements of Vietnam. Thankfully the soldiers don't seem to be caught in the middle again (in the sense of the shame that was spewed out against those that returned from Vietnam).

Quote:

---

That's just an asinine stereotypical statement.

---

No it's not... that's why I moved there :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by MsMittens
I was being scarcastic...

That said, I won't dispute that something needed to be done. But to lie to do it?? Makes me wonder if there are other things he lied about.

---

How do you even know as fact anyone lied? David Kay said it was a failure at the CIA.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by MsMittens

Why won't they deal with the mass-murders that go on elsewhere?

---

I'm up for it, let's all chip in and do it together. Oh wait, this is the world, forgive my ignorance. ::bah::

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by MsMittens

Why didn't his father deal with this in 1991 when it could have stopped a lot of the genocide that happened?

---

The UN mandate did not call for this. I wish he would have though.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by MsMittens

And why even lie about the reason? Why not just say "We're going in to deal with your genocide issue since you aren't getting it?". Why make the false claim of WMD??

---

Again, you don't know anyone lied. With that said, hell yeah, if Bush had said that I would have been all aboard. Either way the right thing was done. Who can dispute this?

.dublix

OMG, Negative made me laugh! :D


This whole apology thing started rippling on the far left about 3 or 4 days ago and gained full speed in the last 2. Somehow they say that an apology would make everyone happy but it won't so I don't get the idea behind it. I also find it amusing that Clinton lying under "Oath" is the same as the president saying something along the lines that we have to remove Sadams weapons programs before they become a threat and that somehow relates to impeachment practices of old.

To be honest, it really wasn't Clinton lying that bugged me, it was the fact that he considered us all too stupid to realize what he was trying to pull. Lol, I find it funny now, water under the bridge. Heck even Clinton said last night or the night before that they weren't sure in 1998 if they got everything. That in 1998 he attacked weapons storage facilities. Guys and gals, this is 1998. He also said they had no way of knowing because there were not any inspectors in Iraq, remember Saddam forced them all out. He also admited that a regime change was part of his own plans. I just don't get the backlash. Call me crazy, if Bush started apologizing all over the place and trying to apease those who will never be apeased, then I'll take another look at him because that puts him in the same boat as the leading democratic candidates. I think he saw a threat and acted on it and used Saddam as a vice to present a case to the rest of the world that .... how did he put it... something like the United States doesn't need a permission slip to defend itself. Hell the UN won't even go back into Iraq until and I quote the United Nations "The United States can guarantee the safety of UN troops." Since when does the United States defend the UN? And those who oppose "how bushy went about it" Want the UN to handle every aspect of foreign diplomacy when they won't even go back into Iraq because they are scared of fallout from the Bath party.

On another note has anyone seen the massive lines of Iraq people who are changing their names from Saddam? lol, it's not chic anymore to have your children named after your loving dictator. Even if Bush went about it the wrong way.

What happen to all those that where screaming about the fact that WE were the ones who gave him the weapons which we are now searching for. Does anyone doubt the he was at least trying to develop weapons of mass murder.

So were given that he had the weapons that we gave him but can’t remember what he did with and his scientists were working hard to develop more. In his list of allowed weapons were hidden among other things, nerve gas shells. He possessed missiles that had a range that exceeded the range he was allowed to have. He gave large sums of money to the families of suicide murderers thereby openly showing his support and encouragement of terrorism.

He knew we were definitely going to march on him but his friends held us back for months.

Just what we all know about sadam…for sure, was enough reason to take him out. The UN should have taken him out, bush senior should have taken him out but bush jr did. Saving iraq was never given as a reason for doing it although we're trying very hard to do so. where does it say that an invader must repair any damages caused to the invaded. maybe the un says this but nobody ever takes them seriously.

In typical democrat fashion a theory is speculated then touted as fact. I listened to hillary give a speech. She said with her knowledge of the inner workings of government what ‘might’ have happened was…this this and that. By the end of her speech she was screaming “is this the way we want our country run?” as if whatever she imagined had become fact. It had not. Just as saying bush lied does not mean that he did and no amount of rhetoric will serve as proof.

Clintons affaire was used by his enemies to try and take him down. “Show me or your lying” is being used by bush’s enemies. Im not buying it

Dont hold your breath. Bush does not even directly answer questions.

I would be insulted if Bush stood up and appologised about Iraq. Politicaly he done what he needed to do ensure his re-election. Which is what he considers good for the states. Ok it is bad for nearly everyone else in the world. All that is left for us foriegners is to see if in his second term he can live up to being president of the most powerfull country in the world. IMHO he has a lot of catching up to do..

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." albert Einstien

Quote:

---

The Guardian / Associated Press

A prominent Israeli MP said yesterday that his country's intelligence services knew claims that Saddam Hussein was capable of swiftly launching weapons of mass destruction were wrong but withheld the information from Washington.

"It was known in Israel that the story that weapons of mass destruction could be activated in 45 minutes was an old wives' tale," Yossi Sarid, a member of the foreign affairs and defence committee which is investigating the quality of Israeli intelligence on Iraq, told the Associated Press yesterday.

"Israel didn't want to spoil President Bush's scenario, and it should have," he said.

Another member of the committee, Ehud Yatom, said Israel had told the Americans it believed the weapons existed but had not seen them.
...

---

Quote:

---

The Guardian
Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear programme, today asked the country's president, Pervez Musharraf, to forgive him for selling its secrets abroad.

...

The scientist was sacked as a government adviser over the weekend, after he confessed in a written statement - officials said - to selling nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

---

"Ok it is bad for nearly everyone else in the world. "

How in hell did you arrive at that conclusion? i suppose lybia surrendering its weapons without a shot being fired is bad for everyone else as well. will it also also take generations before the world community recovers from the loss of the taliban?

hey tony at least bush isn't doing this:

Top Clinton administration officials wanted to end the Kosovo war abruptly in the summer of 1999 -- at almost any cost -- because Al Gore's presidential campaign was about to kick off, former NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark says in his official papers, the WASHINGTON POST is set to report in Saturday editions, according to newsroom sources...

'There were those in the White House who said, 'Hey, look, you gotta finish the bombing before the Fourth of July weekend. That's the start of the next presidential campaign season, so stop it. It doesn't matter what you do, just turn it off. You don't have to win this thing, let it lie...'

www.drudgereport.com

Two World Wars on and the yanks have only just managed to form a forieghn policy that makes them get involved at the start. Instead of turning up late and bringing chocolate and pantyhose.

Jinxy,

Too funny...... funnier still because it's so true..... :D

Tedob1 yeah bad for nearly everyone else. The talibans got into power under the Reagan and Bush sr administrations and they signed their death warrent when they supported Ben ladin. It wouldnt have mattered who was in power at the time.
What weapons did Lybia really give up? I think they gave up their "programmes" but never any real weapons. I could be wrong!
Another small unimportant point is the dollar is really low against all other currencies even though growth in the States is 3 or 4 times more than in Europe. "Bush" required of Japan and China that they continue to float the dollar to keep it artificially weak. Funnily enought this is actually worst for americans abroad. Bush will be good to Iraq regardless of his reasons, but it may not come about before the end of his next term.
Jinxy that was probably the most relavent statement so far :)

cheers all

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Negative
"Israel didn't want to spoil President Bush's scenario, and it should have," he said.

---

Israel.....the 51st state.