PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. An apology won’t work unless it is perceived as genuine presumably based on some sort of self-reflection. Given that the administration hasn’t apologized for getting the WMD intelligence in Iraq wrong (at least that i’ve heard), and his “buck stops here” explanation for Katrina was qualified with a “the federal part”, I can’t imagine them considering an apology for this faux-pas.

    Comment by eric — Sunday, October 30, 2005 @ 5:50 pm

  2. Apologize!? It is proper manners to apologize when you have given offense? What offense has the Bush administration given to its enemies at home or abroad? Smite them hip and thigh and drive them from the field is more like it.

    Contemptously
    Henriet

    Comment by Henriet Cousin\' — Sunday, October 30, 2005 @ 6:13 pm

  3. Let’s see, one persons see so many things to apologize for that it is too late for any such admissions, while another sees nothing whatsoever to apologize for.

    So, no ideological lenses clouding anyone’s vision, it would seem..

    Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, October 30, 2005 @ 9:34 pm

  4. Apologize for what? I’ve still seem nothingt hat auggests anyone int he Adminisrtation had anything to do with “outing” Plame or anyone else. Libby’s was indicted for supposedly not telling the turth, not because he outed anyone. I hope W simply pardons Libby and tells Fitzgerald and the MSM to stick it in their ears.

    Comment by Mad Dog — Sunday, October 30, 2005 @ 10:08 pm

  5. The fact that President came out and said that none of the administration was invovled does put some onus on the White House.

    That a major figure in the administration has been indcied for perjury after the President campaigned on bring honor back to the WH (which was a reference to Clinton’s perjury issues, among other things).

    This is also, I would add, as much about politics as it is about who is right and who is wrong.

    Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, October 30, 2005 @ 10:18 pm

  6. No ideological clouds here… Just a simple point. If no one believed Reagan wasn’t involved in Iran-Contra then certainly few will believe that wmd’s existed in Iraq….. they weren’t there, but the administration has yet to admit that even though most people know better today… Therefore if they apologize for Harret Myers, I doubt they would be belived. Its just a matter of establishing credability for the apology to be effective.

    Comment by eric — Sunday, October 30, 2005 @ 10:22 pm

  7. sorry… meant to say Plame. don’t think they should apologize for Myers.

    Comment by eric — Sunday, October 30, 2005 @ 10:24 pm

  8. [...] m, Mr Bush runs the risk of sullying the ideas that he has championed. UPDATE: Steven has more.

    Posted by Robert Prather | Permalink | |
    You can find this entry in: Politics

    [...]

    Pingback by Insults Unpunished » Damage Control — Sunday, October 30, 2005 @ 10:31 pm

  9. I don’t get your point about Reagan–given that he actually did apologize, which is part of the overall point…

    Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, October 30, 2005 @ 10:33 pm

  10. Reagan was believed by some because they perceived the apology as honest. (But like your comment, he only apologized well after everyone figured he did something wrong. I wasn’t clear. So when I said Reagen wasn’t believed, I was referring to his long delays before the apology)

    If Bush apologizes for Plame, but not for WMD’s — at least admitting he made bad decisions based on faulty intelligence — he won’t be belived.

    Remember…. all those “Clinton lied, but no one died” bumper stickers aren’t talking about Plame. Apologies only work if they’re perceived as honest.

    Comment by eric — Sunday, October 30, 2005 @ 10:48 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

0.186 Powered by Wordpress