President George W. Bush, regardless of what you may think about him, represents the American people every time he makes a speech or puts in an appearance on the national or international stage.

When the President spoke over the Arab airways, should he have apologized for the conduct of those American military personnel involved in the degradation and sometimes physical abuse of the Iraqi prisoners?

PE,without a doubt Bush should have apologized.

Apologizing for the actions of the military in regard to the Iraqi prisoners, means that as the leader of the nation you are commander-in-chief and you are responsible for their actions.

There was a president once upon a time that said,"THE BUCK STOPS HERE",but this compassionate president has never been humble enough to say this. Why? Because this president has had it made all his life,never had a working job,never had to earn his keep,and wasn't even a successful business person. So in effect I don't believe he has ever been humble and couldn't pass himself off as that kind of person ever if he had training.

I would have like to have heard Bush say: I apologize, the military apologizes and the american people apologizes. What is so hard about that.

All the American people(myself definitely included) want is someone to be honest with us. Give me a honest and humble man running for any office and I will beat a path to his door to campaign for him or her.

Now the President hasn't apologized, Rumsfeld hasn't apologized(he mentioned the word but he didn't apologize),and Gen. Meyers hasn't apologized.

This incident of abuse has been investigated since last fall and a report was on Gen Meyers desk in February. How many of the top commanders have read it. ZERO. They have had since Feb. to read it and neglected to even read it. Now The top brass is mad because CBS didn't delay reporting on the incident for more than 2 weeks.

I am of the impression that this adminstration is never going to investigate and be honest with the people on anything until they are forced to by the media,etc. I have never seen a adminstration so secretive and lying as this one.

Each day I say things can't get worse and lo and behold they do. I wouldn't even attempt to make a wild guess what else this adminstration has in store for us.

In addition, I just saw a Major General apologize to the Iraq people. Now he is the highest ranking military official to apologize. Why can't the higher ups do the same.

I believe they are just a figurehead and only trot out for photo sessions to show off their medals. If their position was eliminated what would happen. Nothing, they would never be missed except their salary.

I am kind of torn on this issue. There are two reasons. First i do believe the president should make a formal statement to the world explaining how Americans do not condone or support such actions in any form. Maybe just to get it on the record. But then there is the idea that Bush shouldnt apologize for the actions of the soldiers. These were rogue soldiers...bound to be some in an army of a quarter million. We all know that stuff like this (or atleast to some extent) happened in Vietnam, Korea, and WW2. And by stuff i mean some sort of injustice to prisoners or civilians. It really is no secret. The soldiers should without a doubt be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the military law. its just not acceptable. But, Bush is not responsible and you cannot put any blame on him.

Furthermore, what real good would an apology do? The arab television wont air the damn thing because they want to keep the image of America as evil and not compassionate. So i guess i think a formal statement about the conduct expected of the American soldier should be made and how such acts of disgrace are outlawed, but an apology would serve no purpose because Bush isnt repsonsible, the soldiers are.

According to this he did apologize, or Scott McClellan did for him:


I'm trying to avoid sarcasm here but did want to add at least the spin on it.

I absolutely believe that Bush, Rummy, and Myers should have all apologized. Rumor has it Bush specifically avoided doing so because he didn't want to appear to be softening his resolve on Iraq. I'll provide a link later if I can find it.

Doc

Here's the White House transcript of Bush's remarks an Alhurra tv (US sponsored) It also has a link to audio and video...
And here's the transcript of talking to Al Arabiya TV (from Dubai).




As far as I can tell - this is the closest he comes to apologizing... But its not an apology. I know if I had insulted my mother, and then tried to get out of apologizing by saying "I didn't like insulting you and I didn't curse at you and call you x, y and z like my sister" - then I would have gotten in big trouble... because its not an apology.

As a democrat, I admit considerable bias towards when it comes to the presidents past inability to apologize for anything he has personally done. However, I think there are even bound to be Bush supporters out there who can't understand why Bush is unable to apologize for the atrocities that occurred. This is something that is clearly wrong - and it is also something that it is understandable for Bush, et al to have not known about - and to have not been directly involved with. As much as I dislike Bush, I don't think he called these soldiers and told them to do this... so, if its not Bush's fault, why does he have such trouble apologizing for it. Say something like "To the Iraqi People I would like to say I am sorry - sorry this happened and took so long to come out. We have been running an investigation since January, and the people responsible will be held to account, and we are working night and day to assure nothing like this happens again... And again I am sorry the actions of these few individuals have put the good reputation of the entire US military at risk."

I think the fact that these are rogue soldiers makes it even more important to apologize for them. If we don't, it looks like this might not be an isolated incident - and we wouldn't want to have a sound byte apologizing for the abuse, just in case its found again. But, since (I truly hope and believe) this is pretty isolated, we should apologize for letting such a thing slip through the cracks, so to speak, that such rogue soldiers would end up in a situation where they could do this. (and by we, I mean Bush as the "voice of the people of the US", since it is part of his job)

I don't think it hurts our credibility to apologize... Brig. General Mark Kimmett and the commander of Iraqi prison operations were both able to apologize. The move to bring the red cross permanently into the prison will help US credibility - perhaps the red cross should be brought into all the prisons in order to prevent further problems like this one. What does hurt is lack of apology. Now, the TV stations have a sound byte of Bush not apologizing... something more damaging.

Colin Powell is outraged. Donald Rumsfeld is appalled. Condoleeza Rice is sickened. George Bush is shocked. Presumably Dick Cheney is disgusted, but he doesn't make statements from his bunker.

What none of them are is SORRY.

Now, to an extent being "sorry" for this mess is just about as acceptable as a cheating husband apologizing when he gets caught in the act. He's not sorry he DID it. He's sorry he got CAUGHT.

Bush probably would have rather had root canal than go on Arab television to express his regrets and tell a very skeptical audience that Americans are really nice people who really don't do these kind of terrible things.

The problem is for this White House is that they have acted in such an arrogant, imperious and heavy handed manner in the past that their recriminations and explanations ring hollow to the average Arab man and woman in the street. Bush has almost no credibility left in the Middle East. His overwhelming hostility to the Arabs and unconditional support for Israel has left him with no bargaining ground.

Bush should have apologized. But neo-conservatives don't DO that. Too much worry that the old "Wimp Factor" might come back to bite them in the buns.

I do not think George Bush has an obligation to apologize (it wasnt him who comitted the crime) but he should have. It would have been the diplomatically appropriate and politically wise gesture but that isnt exactly Bush's strength. Making poor choices and sticking to them tends to be his strength. Bush doesnt think in level headed terms. He feels that as the president of the US anything he does is a favor rather then his duty. He didnt apologize to Canada when we bombed and killed their soldiers either and it angered the Canadian press but hey their just Canadians we can take them for granted . Bush only likes to take responsibilty when something good happens like Saddam being captured. Bush only has to answer to one person the person who told him to be president...god of course. Since Bush is only second to god why on earth would he try to take into account the emotional and cultural feelings of others? Such humanistic interaction isnt fit for the ordained.

When Bush chose to run for President, he became the Chief of the US armed forces.

He was responsible for sending them to a foreign country, in doing so he is also responsible for their conduct - as he is the CinC.

If either US military recruiting standards had slipped, or men were starting to crack due to stress, or whatever had caused this lapse by soldiers in the US military, Bush is ultimately responsible, because he accepted that responsiblity when he took on the Presidency.

This may seem obvious to me, but it doesn't seem to be to many in this debate - saying sorry for something is not an admission of guilt for it.

As an extreme example, if I say "I'm sorry for your loss" to someone who has just been bereaved, no sane person would think I was admitting guilt for killing them, would they?

Bush could very easily make an apology along the lines of rebelkate's

By doing so, he wouldn't be admittting any personal culpability at all, except maybe that he didn't act sooner to root out the bad apples. What is so hard about this for people to understand?
Clearly, Bush cannot make an apology that says "I'm sorry I tortured these prisoners" because he didn't do it. Neither did anyone else who wasn't there.

Although the abuses were perpetrated by soldiers at the lowest level, their commanders are responsible for their behavior and responsibility should continue up the line, right to the very top. A study at Stanford University shows that lack of adequate supersvision and training does lead to this type of behavior in a prison setting.
The Stanford Prison Experiment

Here is a link to an interview with the Director of the experiment:
NPR Talk of the Nation (scroll about halfway down the page for the audio link)

Now, I am not trying to justify what occurred...it was wrong and I condemn it. I just believe that the command structure is responsible for the actions of their soldiers and are therefore responsible to apologize. As Commander in Chief, Bush holds the responsibility to apologize for the abuses that occurred.

Well, it's clear to me that the President can't win. Some would like it if he got down on his knees and bowed to the east all the time saying, "I'm sorry, I'm sorry". The minute he did that, they would be saying something like, "Look at him sniveling before the world. How dare he shame us that way." That's just how I feel.

Just curious how many that are so down on the military now, and always the President were this upset and blaming all Iraqis when those mens bodies were burned and hung up like slaughter cattle?


I still don't think the public has a right to know. The press causes, IMHO, far more grief for our military than the enemy. This was already being investigated, so just what has it accomplished? Made US citizens mad? That is good, how? Gave the rest of the world more fodder to hate America. Good job.


In case someone is thinking that I approve of this behavior, you couldn't be more wrong. These soliders helped the enemy the same as if they had joined their side and fired upon their own.

It's not a case of win or lose for the President, nor should it be, for it is a far bigger situation than that. It's not a case of his bowing to the east and begging the forgiveness of the people in Iraq. It is the tradition of statesmanship, to be spokesman for the people, that impels Presidents in particular to apologize for the missteps and malfeasance of Americans in situations such as this one.

The way American and British soldiers and civilians have been mistreated by insurgents in the area is indeed abhorrent to me; I am not blind or deaf to what has happened to the victims. I am not excusing or trying to explain the actions of the insurgents--they are reprehensible.

But, wrongly or rightly, we expect better behavior from our own people toward the Iraqi prisoners.

Bush's omission of an apology was a mistake on his part. It would not have diminished him in anyone's eyes. To the contrary: a President who isn't big enough to take responsibility, at least to the point of apologizing for the misdeeds of those ultimately under his command, looks like less of a world leader.

Just what is it you want the President to say? I'm sorry, really doesn't mean piddly squat. It's what you do in the long run that counts. Forgive me if I don't see the need to use the words, "I'm sorry". Those two little words aren't going to change any minds in the world or on this board.

Good grief, America is made of individuals just like every other country in the world. In no way, can one person be held accountable for the actions of individuals. I suppose you (collective you)want to be held accountable for the actions of every family member and friend that you have.


Edited to add: let's agree that we see this differently.

It may be 'clear' to you, but it is not to anyone else. Had Bush apologised I would have been impressed by his strength of character and willingness to take a measure of responsability for the actions of those troops under his command as commander in Chief. Your putting things in an illogical extreme (bowing to the east all the time and apologising on his knees) does not help either your case or his.

When those US civilian contractors were killed and their bodies subsequently mutilated and put on display the world was horrified. It may suit your own personal political beliefs to believe that the 'non-Right' was secretly giggling and laughing and exchanging conspiratorial secret handshakes when it happened, but that is simply not the case. We were horrified then at the actions of the Iraqi mob, and we are horrified now at the actions of the US military.

Both deserved punishment for their actions, and as I recall the US went in and killed hundreds of people in that town looking for the guilt parties and trying to crush resistance, and the Iraqi police under the command now of one of Saddam's former generals is still searching for these people to bring them to justice.


Why did you bother to even bring up those four bodies anyways? Are you using that as justification for the actions of the US camp guards? Are you trying to draw some kind of parabole? Are you using an Iraqi mob as the standard by which the US troops should measure their behaviour?



So clearly you do not believe in the first amendment. Just so you know, one of the interesting things about the constitution is that its clauses are not meant to be applied only when politically expedient. It is not meant to be applied selectively whenever the Right things that the 'truth' would damage their cause. The word inalienable means something fairly key.


But you think this clearly important peice of news should have been supressed because it 'makes the government look bad'. I assume you would also want other such news supressed, after all it just gives fodder to the enemies of the US right?

If the US suffers a defeat in battle in the next few weeks and loses troops, it would be best to muzzle the press, as this just makes the US look bad and gives fodder to their enemies. If the president turns out to have been lying or deceptive about the reasons for going into Iraq, that just makes the president look bad, no need to report that.

Why not set up a government agency which vets all news stories to determine if they are really 'suitable' for publication according to the agenda of the government. After all, we would not want the president to look bad.

Well, at least a republican president. The right had no complaints when freedom of the press was used to embarass a Democratic president, and make the country look bad, and give the world more fodder to hate America.

So what will we call this agency, meant of course only to protect the people from 'bad' news?

Well, the USSR called theirs 'Itar-Tass', and it worked well for them. The Cubans have AIN, Agencia Cubana de Noticias. China has Xinhua, the Government news agency. See? The US has lots of precident here...


The public has a right to know, and the freedom of the press shall not be infringed, period.


EDIT to add:



You are correct, saying sorry does not repair all the damage, and it would have to be backed up with actions. However NOT saying sorry is a decision too, and that will reflect on the president and upon the United States.



I will have to remember that argument when Hussein finally comes up for Trial. "One person cannot be held accountable for the actions of individuals". Good to know.

But perhaps, just perhaps, the burden of responsability AND blame is somewhat higher for the leader of a nation?

I guess I will take the low road...

Bush should not have apologized. He did not commit these actions. Ultimately, he IS responsible, but what good would come from an American President apologizing for the actions of a few rogue GIs?

As disillusioned points out, this type of situation stems from a lack of command. But the command being talked about is at the local level, not the political one.

Bush has been fairly "hands-off" regarding the situation in Iraq (from what I can tell). He has allowed the military commanders to do their jobs. To step in now and admit some culpability in this instance...just doesn't ring true.

Also, what affect would an apology have on the "Arab Street"? Likely, an apologizing US President would further lower their estimation of us. Just as our kid's gloves treatment of some of these insurgents has been a source of hope for the resistance, an apology now would further goad on the rebels.

The people immediately responsible ARE the ones responsible. THEY are the ones who let the situation get out of hand, not Bush. He has, appropriately, expressed his remorse and has vowed to make sure this type of situation does not develop again. But an apology (to me) is an expression of guilt. Bush is not guilty in this, the perpetrators (and their commanding officers) are.

Half true I guess...

Nobody is claiming that Bush Jr. ordered these atrocities, or was aware of them at all. Clearly he bears no direct responsability for the actions of US servicemen in the cases under investigation now across Iraq and Afghanistan.

But, Bush Jr. is not just some guy from texas in a hat who got his money from his daddy. Bush Jr. is President of the United states, Commander in Cheif of the armed forces, and representative of both the US people and the US military both at home and abroad.

It is becoming clear now that the things done at this prison were not just isolated incidents, active investigations into torture, rape and murder are ongoing now across Iraq and Aphghanistan, both countries that were invaded under the orders of Bush Jr. and him alone.

So my question is, where does the responsability of Bush start and end? Clearly he is not directly responsable, but does he have no blame for the situation at all? Even if he does not, does he not represent the people under him, and in fact the entire country?

How hard would it be to say "On behalf of America sencerely apologise for the actions of these men and women, and I shall take steps to ensure that such excesses do not occur again".

He certainly has been happy to claim credit for things for which he bears no direct responsability... he cannot have it both ways. Either he is leader of the nation or he is not.

Saying 'an apology would make them think less of us' is terribly weak. yes, the fanatic militants would see it as weakness, but honestly, the US is not trying to court the opinion of the fanatic militants. It is trying to court the opinion of the average Arab in the middle east, who did not like Hussein, was not a huge fan of the US but may be convinced that the actions of the US were justified. Not apologising for obvious excesses on the part of American troops affects this group, a group the US cannot afford to further alienate.

Look, I'm not talking how this makes the President look. I"m talking about those young men and women wearing the Uniform of the United States Military. You think making this public is going to make our people safer???????

I would have said this regardless of who is in the White House. I don't like the press. Haven't for years and have very little respect for them. Period. This really isn't about Bush in my opinion. It's about the total lack of responsiblity of the media. They never consider how their actions put others in danger. That's my point. Everything is global today, and to air our dirty laundry in my opinion is a mistake. . Last I looked, I am entitled to an opinon.


Okay, about those contractors, I'm not making myself clear I guess. Did the US get an apology from anyone? Did the world start screaming? Not that I heard. It was more of the, oh they worked for the administration and deserved what they got.(not here, other places)


Why does everything have to be right or left? That is the biggest problem in this country. There is no middle.

This is silly, I'm not changing your mind about anything, and your not changing my mind. Another problem with the whole darn country, none us of are willing to budge an inch. Doesn't bode well for any of us.


I will have to remember that argument when Hussein finally comes up for Trial. "One person cannot be held accountable for the actions of individuals". Good to know.



Are you trying to compare Bush to Hussein? Do you believe that President order these people to do this? Okay. I'll shut up. Because if I don't, I'll have all 3 strikes in one post.

Amlord states:



If nothing else his "hands off" approach to Iraq in general is the reason why he should apologize to Iraqis. Apologizing isn't about correcting a wrong, it's about acknowledging your responsibility to the lives affected in the WOT under your policy.

My view of Bush won't change if he apologizes. I'm neither stunned or disappointed at his decision.

I think one difference here is that the US is the aggressor. The Iraqi prisoners are captives who were under US control. Who should have apologized for what happened to the contractors? Iraq does not have a Commander in Chief at the moment. We do and he is ultimately responsible for whatever happens to the Iraqi at the hands of the US.

The media is making people less safe?

Bush ordered the military into a nation that had been hostile to the US for decades based on ideological grounds. He sent them in there to depose a government even though he had expressly forbidden any serious planning for a post-Hussein Iraq. The bits of advice he did get long beforehand (do not disband the Iraqi military, make sure to protect infrastructure and culture in the immediate post-Hussein vaccum) he ignored and was proven to have been wrong to do so. he sent them in ill equipped for occupation tasks, with insufficient body armour or support. he sent them in there on false pretenses which turned out to be entirely in error.

The forces are there now with no coherent plan for the future, the people of Iraq are governed by US appointees headed by an American. During his watch, US soldiers have been found to have been torturing and even killing POWs, not just in one prison, but in several all around the country, with more investigations starting every day.

When the media reports this near infinite boobery, THEY are making things unsafe for the people of the US?

If I cheat on my girlfriend, and a friend tells her, who bears responsability for hurting my girlfriend: Me who cheated or her friend who told her the truth?


The media tells us what is happening. If what is happening is detremental to the cause of the US, then do something about that. Simply telling the media not to report excesses does not make them go away. (oh, and its entirely against the US constitution, by the way). You say the media does not consider the consequences of their actions. Their actions are simply to report on the actions (and consequences) of Bush. Lying to the world may give Bush an easier ride come November, but that road is a direct line to those Soviet, Chinese and Cuban news agencies I mentioned earlier. Did you know that the main Soviet controlled newspaper in the cold war was called 'Pravda', which means 'truth?'. All the 'truth' the government thinks it is convenient for you to hear...



Then you were not listening very hard. Nobody was 'pleased' about these contractors dying, nobody was giggling about it. And notably, the US then made every effort to root out and kill not only the individuals who took these actions, but the Cleric who they felt was behind it. Nobody begrudged the US doing this either. Funny, in that case the US seemed happy to hold the Cleric responsable for the actrions of those under his command, even if he did not actually order those four men to be mutilated and hanged up on bridges...




No, clearly as a whole the two are not comparable. I just find it amusing how you are not willing to apply that statement above about responsability of a leader to anyone but Bush.

I guess Bush should take Lyndon Johnson's "hands-on" approach.

I guarantee you he would be criticized heavily for having the gall to call any of the shots in Iraq directly, just as Johnson was (rightfully).

If a prison guard abuses inmates, does the Governor of the State apologize? No, he doesn't. He fires those resposible.

That is what should happen here, and is happening here.

Apologize? Bush can't. America can't.

There's so many "dirty little secrets" in American history. I don't suppose that's any different than any other country, but our dirty little secrets seem to be particularly rooted in violence. We could be talking about treatment and wholesale slaughter of Native Americans, slavery, prison systems, post-reformation lynchings in the south, or a whole host of other (and mostly racially motivated) atrocities, including Japanese internment camps in WWII. The bottom line is that we're pretty good at abusing those different than ourselves.

Let's get past a myth - America is not a "peaceful nation". In fact, a case could be made that the U.S. is the most violent country on the planet, both in terms of real aggression and the culture that breeds this aggression. In the 21st century, we are one of the few countries in the world that codifies capital punishment - state sponsored execution. We can watch heads roll 50 times a night on TV, but you won't see one bare boob. But the abortion issue? No, no, life is sacred.

I tire of the evangelical dichotomy.

I'm reminded of what allied forces did upon liberation of concentration camps during WWII - they forced the local citizenry, who turned a blind eye toward the horrors in places like Dachau and Auschwitz, to come in and view the carnage, and literally clean up the mess. As Americans, we've never been forced to confront the stink of reality of our (to paraphrase soon-to-be ex-DefSec Donald Rumsfeld) "untidiness" to other members of the human race. The images of atrocities at Abu Ghraib, even sterile as they may be, force us to confront that reality. So it shouldn't be surprising that Mom and Pop Heartland are literally screaming that the images of prisoner abuse shouldn't be shown.

This is our culture. This is who we are. 228 years after the revolution, we've still got a chip on our national shoulder.

To apologize for one instance of human rights abuse would open the floodgates, and the US would be paying reparations into bankruptcy. This doesn't mean Bush and America shouldn't apologize, it's that he / we can't, because our past history with this kind of thing is a pandora's box that can't be opened.

A good leader takes responsibility for the actions of his subordinates, as President of the United States the buck stops with Bush.

A good diplomat would realize the delicate nature of this situation in the middle east. He/she would realize that the combination of the circumstances on how we came to be in Iraq, our history in the middle east in general, the middle eastern culture and finally the United States high moral ground attitude make this a very dangerous situation.

The only possible solution to this problem is to try and make some kind of sincere apology to the Iraqi people for what was done to them. A pledge to bring all those responsible to justice is also important.

Bush had a really good opportunity here to make some progress towards peace and tolerance in that region. Instead of doing the right thing, he chose to stick with the cowboy mentality that has characterized his presidency.

Edited to add:



I'd like to think that we have evolved a little bit in the past 50 years, wouldn't you? Or rather I'd like to think that we can evolve further.



None of those incidents were highly publicized in the American and world media. In fact for many of the incidents you listed, media was not a factor in our daily lives. This no longer is a "dirty little secret" when it gets broadcast to millions of people.

These are very political times and its pretty rare for the buck to stop anywhere near the desk of the president. Presidents dont take responsibility for *anything* anymore, it would just be turned into a commercial for their adversaries.

I remember Bill CLinton took responsibility for the US testing of radiation on children in the 1940s. He gave this mea culpa for the USA on the morning of the OJ verdict. Somehow it got buried in the news. gee

Abu Ghraib is no longer a "dirty little secret" only because Gen. Meyers failed to persuade CBS not to air the 60 Minutes II piece.

What I'm getting at is that as a culture, we have a long and sorrid history of this kind of stuff. It's who we are. And the world knows it.

The media has always been a factor in shaping American public opinion, all the way back to the day of the revolutionary pamphleteers. It's just that instant media of the 21st century has compressed reaction / debates times from months to minutes.

Yes he should have done so. He didn't have to, he didn't do it or order it, but he is President and this is his watch. We are Americans and are supposed to be above such behavior. As President it is Bush's responsibility to represent the best of our beliefs. Why do Bush supporters think such actions are not to be apologized for, have you sacrificed all honor and integrity in your zeal to prove how faithful you are to Bush? Obviously he saw the importance of the situation by his response to it by going on the arab channels and speaking to the issue. I respect him for that action. Will it have much impact? maybe it will. When was the last time any American President was apologetic at all. Considering Bush's attitude towards world opinion so far this should be seen as honest humility on his part. Good to see.



Yes you are entitled to your opinion. A very disturbing movement gaining momentum among Bushists is the desire for the muzzling of the free press because it doesn't leave Bush in a shining halo of righteousness. You were all [edited] and giggles when they were showing our troops demolishing Iraqi soldiers but now that there is a growing body count and there have sadly been some inhuman and disgusting behavior by some inbred members of our society you want a complete blackout of anything not happy smiley? How much more integrity and the most basic foundations of this country are you willing to surrender? The treatment of prisoners should be a priority, regardless of the actions of the enemy.

I going to come down on the no side...

It actually took a while to come to a decision. I was initially going to answer yes for the same reason many in this thread did so: Regarding America's image it couldn't hurt and it might help, so swallow the pride Bush and apologize genericaly (I'm sorry on behalf of the US that this happened, blah...)

Realizing that I was a bit ambivalent I did something that usually helps. I slept on it....

...and when I awoke the miracle of sleep revealed to me something I should have seen long ago. That Bush would have been foolish to apologize because of the nature of the American media. Don't ge me wrong, we need them, but it is largely a sensationalistic group. Take the current controversy over whether Rumsfeld should resign over this incident

Bush made a smart move. The apology wouln't have done anything in the Arab world (where this really counts) it would have been an extra throwaway gesture...

Meanwhile it would have been politically painful when the analysts started talking about how Bush "took responsibility" for the abuse.

Net negative, don't do it



Deep breaths....

Merely a matter of pratical consideration...

One thing I want to take issue with.

This argument has been repeated by several people in the 'No' camp on this issue, that for some reason the apology would not mean anything to anyone in the Arab world.

What makes you say that? Ignoring for a moment the fanatic, militant fringe, and dealing for a moment with the average Arab citizen.

Why would you assume that an apology would not mean anything? Nobody can deny that a great wrong has been done to a number of Iraqis. Bush came in claiming to be a liberator and with the best interests of the Iraqis at heart, this demonstrates that perhaps not all souldiers share that belief. Given the play it will be given by anti-US forces in the region, common Arabs and Iraqis might be forgiven for thinking this is even more widespread than it is.

So, the reality is, Iraqi citizens suffered humiliation and toprture at the hands of occupying American soldiers.

What trait of the arab people, what personality quirk, what evidence do you have that makes you assume that an apology will not have some effect on these people? The rest of the world appreciates an apology if they see themseleves as wronged. We can see it every day in people demanding apologies from this government or that government, for this incident or that incident, even for incidents generations ago, people seem to want the heads of state to apologise on behalf of their countries and their countryment.

So why would this be any different?

The rhetoric is fast and furious here:
"An apology would be seen as a sign of weakness" or
"They would never accept such an empty throwaway gesture"...
and so on.

Really? I tend to assume that if a person feels he or his people have been wronged, and apology can go a long way to redressing that. Perhaps you have evidence which demonstrates otherwise?

I am a little bit baffled by this line of reasoning. Is Bush to be held directly responsible for the actions of everyone in government? Exactly where does this 'responsibility' stop? Not to skirt the issue here--I am a strong believer in personal responsibility. But Bush can't possibly exercise any control over the individual actions of each soldier. This doesn't make any sense--leading one to question whether the cry for the apology isn't politically motivated, thereby providing, as turnea points out, an opportunity to score some political points.

However, I also agree with Vermillion--there isn't any reason to think that an apology (especially if backed up with meaningful repurcussions to those involved) wouldn't go a long ways. It is certainly a relations disaster--one of the main reasons we are doing what we're doing is to eliminate the negative impressions the Middle East has of us. Incidents like this certainly put a kink in those plans--it is certainly a major issue to be dealt with.

I think the domestic vs. internation pros and cons were weighed, and the prudent course of action was determined to be meaningful action coupled with the statements of regret that were issued. This seems appropriate. The 'apology' phase would have opened up Pandora's box: exactly which actions of which soldiers would then require Presidential apologies?

This goes back to the barrage of questions directed at Bush in his last press conference? What exactly is the goal of such 'apology' sentiment? Would those on the left actually think any better for Bush if he apologized for these things? I don't see that happening. I do see turnea's case being borne out, though, with such apoligies being used for political gain. So, what really is the point?

Don't get me wrong. I consider them no different from myself. If I were in their position an apology in addition to what Bush has already said would have made a slim to none difference in how I felt about the incident. I would be interested almost only in the fact that the problem with prisoners be addressed and the perpetrators punished.

Sure the rest of the world demands apologies, but that doesn't mean they appreciate them.
I've seen that most of these apologies are superficially received and lauded even while the askers seek a new line of attack. I sincerely doubt most people really care that governments apologize for actions in which the apologizers have no real involvement. Repudiation and justice is enough.

Certainly an apology wouldn't be worth the feeding-frenzy when the soundbiters got a hold of it, see the last presidential press conference for more perspective...

This article turned up on CNN ten minutes ago:

"Bush 'sorry for humiliation' of Iraqi prisoners"

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/06/...main/index.html

Well it is about time, unfortunately I doubt that it will have the desired effect since it took so long to drag those small little words out of his mouth.

Bush had an opportunity and he blew it, now people will question the sincerity of the apology since he only caved under pressure.

Edited to add: I am glad that Bush finally apologized as well. However, despite the fact that I disagree with him on almost every issue I would have had a lot of respect for him if he had done this right away. The apology is there, but it feels cheap to me, you only get one chance to make a first impression and his first impression was one of avoidance.

I guess this debate is moot.

Bush muttered the "S" word.



He's sorry because Abu Ghraib has blown up into such a shytstorm.

Now, who takes the fall? And don't tell me some Sergeant at Abu Ghraib.

Believe it or not, I am going to stick to what I said I would do, and applaud Bush for apologising. Yes he should have done it sooner, and perhaps he was motivated by the number of people complaining about the absence of an apology, but he is also not a man known for second guessing his own actions or decisions (even when he should) so I for one am pleased that he had the decency to actually apologise for the behaviour of these troops.

I don't know if his apology will make any real difference, but it cannot have hurt...

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but please forgive me if I speak up for my profession.

The press has handled this situation with restraint. They have not worsened the situation by publishing these horrible photographs. They are not putting the lives of American soldiers and civilians at risk.

The American military police at the Abu Ghraib did. They---and their supervisors---should face a stern punishment for their cruelty and stupidity. They are the individuals who have to face the music for their war crimes.

You can blame the messenger for bringing the bad news, but you can't fairly criticize the media for doing their jobs. You can't just have only good news out of Iraq. "Good news" is just another way of saying you want slanted propaganda. I get sick of updating the casualty count in my signature. It gives me no pleasure, but it does give me information and that's more important than merely being amused and entertained. If you want to be amused and entertained, the Friends finale is tonight.

I want more from the media than flags in the lapel and embedded reports from journalists. I want to know about the reopened schools, the functioning hospitals, the repaved streets and the good works that America is bringing to Iraq.

But I also want the sour as well as the sweet. I understand that even if Bush had said he was sorry, few hearts and minds would have been moved by the gesture. On the other hand, a sincere apology backed by swift and decisive action, such as firing the smugly, arrogant snot Donald Rumsfeld would be a good start. Bush can't be blamed for what he didn't know because his Secretary of Defense didn't bother telling him. The President of the United States shouldn't have to watch 60 Minutes II to find out what's going on in Iraq.

I'm glad Bush said he was sorry. But he squandered the opportunity to do it when it really could have meant something. Those who hate America are still inclined to do so and nothing Bush says could change that. But there is a moderate Arab somewhere out there who isn't quite as sure about the good intentions of America as he or she once was.

Before Bush said he was sorry, Rumsfeld should have said it first. To both the Arabs AND the American people. Bush should accept Rumsfeld's apology and then go Donald Trump on his butt and say, "You're Fired."

The President did the right thing, the Presidential thing. As was pointed out, it was only a gesture, but it was a significant one. It was honorable. It showed respect for the feelings of the victims and their families.

Kudos to President George Walker Bush.

Sorry if I offended you, but I still don't buy this "public right to know". Is that why the media starts a circus around any big court case and finds people guilty before a trial? It that the reason they badger people who have been through terrible experiences?

Like I said earlier, this is a waste of time. Has any person here really changed their position in the last 3 years?

The President did apologize so all should be a little less stressed than earlier.

Have a good day.

President Bush Jr is the President of the United States.
He is the leader/figurehead of the country.
A leader takes responsibility for his leadership.
A good leader acknowledges problems, takes responsibility, and works to resolve the problem.
-
Acknowledging making a mistake or having a problems is only human.
Saying that you never make mistakes, have problems, and refusing to apologize for having problems or making mistakes is trying to say that you are more than human and better than everyone else in humanity.
-
Unfortunately, reality isn't part of politics.
Error is seen as weakness. Any small flaw tends to be blow out of proportion. Politicians are forced to cover up their inadequecies because that's how the game is played.
-
So should President Bush have apologized?
In the best world - yes.
In the current American political system - how can he?
In the Middle East - He should be flailing himself, nashing his teeth, and throwing ashs on his head while he wails and pleads for forgiveness for the crimes of his people.

Bush did apologize..........to the King of Jordan. "I told King Abdullah that I was sorry............" That was a nice gesture.

Bush has not apologized to the Iraqis, and Bush has not apologized to us Americans.

He is amazing.

Agreed, on both counts. I don't think this is a 'media frenzy' story at all. As nighttimer points out, if anything, I think it has been handled with restraint, certainly given the potential magnitude of the issue. And, don't be fooled, this IS a big issue. There is certainly no way we can claim to be any authority on law and justice and freedom without dealing with this situation quickly, and effectively. I am personally more interested in actions here than words. If this is brushed under the rug--I want the nighttimers out there to find that out, and tell us abou it, because it's something we should all be concerned about. If it is handled, I want to know what the Middle East reaction is. I want to know if such actions are still going on. If not, I'd like to know what new policies were put in place to prevent it--and whether our allies, or the average Middle Easterner are away of what was done. The media will likely be the only sources for these answers.

What would Bush say? i am sorry that the soldiers did what they did? He isnt responsible the least bit. He cant apologize for others, he can only look to the future and say what is expected of an American servicemen and woman and prosecute the violators for their crimes.

As others have said...what will an apology accomplish? Will you feel any better or worse about the situation? Will the world? Will people respect us more for it? Fact is it accomplishes nothing but instead it hurts us. *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** happens...(pardon the french ) and there is nothing you can do about it. We just have to go on with our lives and finish the mission.

Better late then never. This is the appropriate gesture. This was the presidential thing to do. Stubborness isnt any good if your wrong. This is the first time I have ever seen Bush act like a man. No this isnt a typographical error...Bush finally did the right thing.

How would an apology hurt us exactly?

Yes I would feel better about the situation, because I would know that we had a leader at the helm with some honor and integrity. I would know that we had someone in charge with the foresight to see that setting this right is beyond politics.

Yes the world community would respect us for it. We have already started to take some flack from various countries for chiding them over human rights violations when we are guilty of them ourselves. I believe there was a specific incident at the UN a few days ago when the delegate for the Sudan made a remark. Not that they have a great human rights record, but others are thinking it too.

How would an apology hurt Bush politically exactly? The Democrats sure couldn't go anywhere with it. Suggesting Bush was behind it would be absurd especially since Rumsfeld has already been slapped on the wrist from keeping it from him. By refusing to apologize Bush is allowing this to be a much bigger political issue because people can ask "why won't you just apologize?" If he had done it to start with it would never have been an issue.

What should he say? He should say that the buck stops with him. He should say that as Commander in Chief of our commanding forces the ultimate blame is on his shoulders and that he is taking full responsibility to insure that this never happens again. That is what a true LEADER would say. To say that he isn't responsible in the least is suggesting that he isn't the President or Commander in Chief of our armed forces. Bush is in charge of these troops and is directly responsible for their actions.

The press of Italy is free, freer than the press of any other country--so long as it supports the regime. (Benito Mussolini)



Thanks and a tip o' the hat to my friend, Hobbes. I share Lethalletha's scorn for the media's fixation on celebrity scandals and other trivialities. But if stories about Laci Peterson or Kobe Bryant didn't sell, the press would not fixate on them.

Here's the facts. There is an excellent chance that by this time in 2005, George W. Bush will still be President of the United States. Now, like it or not, he is the only President we've got, to paraphrase Lyndon B. Johnson.

I think more highly of Bush by apologizing than I would if he had not. If a Bush supporter resents his apology, I would say you need to reevaluate why that is.

Another fact is the Bush Administration has constantly changed the reasons of why we went into Iraq. First it was 9/11. Then no link to 9/11 and Saddam Hussein could be found. Then it was the weapons of mass destruction. And no WMD's have been found.

But we could always hang onto the belief that a greater good was being served by liberating Iraq from Saddam. We could always tell the rest of the world as Bush has been doing on the campaign trail that the mass graves and the torture and the rape rooms were bitter, but soon to be forgotten memories of a bad time.

Now, as SLATE puts it, the rape rooms are back and under new management.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100014/

Nobody in the press wants to cause more bloodshed and suffering in Iraq by inflaming people with these appalling and repulsive pictures. However, for far too long the only images of war we've seen have been only sanitized, Pentagon-approved images that don't reflect the ugly realities of the war.

There is much that is good and positive going on in Iraq since Saddam's ouster, but there is still much pain, death and evil still occurring. I don't see a need to view the smoking remains of a body blown apart by a landmine, but neither do I need a sugar coated presentation that won't offend my sensibilities.

These are terrible things to see but can we really afford to look away and pretend they don't exist? I think not if we wish to remain true to the principles of America.

OK:

You are the CEO of a large corporation.

You have a board of directors:

A President of the Corporation is put into place.

He has 6 Vice Presidents:

Each Vice President is responsible for 6 Regional Vice Presidents.

Each Regional Vice President is responsible for 6 District Managers.

Each District Manager is responsible for 12 local managers.

Each Local Manager has 4 Assistant Managers

Each Assistant Manager is responsible for 20 employees.

Now:

An employee has committed a personal injury crime while on the job.

Another employee finds out about this crime and reports this to one of the 6 Corporate Vice Presidents.

The Corporate Vice President calls the Police with the evidence that the 2nd employee brought him and asks those below him, in the chain of command to start an investigation.

Why would the CEO appologies?

Seems illogical to me

Red

Great Analogy Red! Why? because there is always the question "does the corporate culture, despite what is in written policy, encourage this behavior?" - if the answer is "yes"- then the CEO and all the board members are as responsible as the perpetrator- and this is also the heart of the Nuremburg trials- saying "I was out of the loop"- and ignoring evidence of bad behavior, you are still culpable for the crime.

This is such a case, as we have been presented so far:

1) The CIA encouraged this behavior
2) We used foriegn operatives to torture our prisoners
3) the contract employees were also encouraging this

leading to the "corporate culture" that this was okay.

These folks weren't hiding thier behavior, they were flaunting it, so it appears that it was condoned at a very high level.

The Slate's headline is totally out of line.

There are no rape rooms in Iraq. A single accusation of rape of a detainee by a guard does not a "Rape Room" make.

Totally out of line.

Also, the characterization of these activities, as out-of-line as they were, is hardly a "torture chamber". Completely bogus reporting, yellow journalism at its finest .

Have abuses occurred: the answer is yes.

Is this a systemic, deliberate pattern which would be condoned by the President? According to Bush: NO.

There are 15,000 detainees in Iraq, according to Al-Jazeera. The US puts that number at 8,500. If one out of 100 have been abused they would make headlines (and likely are...) There are 17 soldiers charges in this case, and the 60 Minutes II story says that a mere 5 soldiers and 2 NCOs in charge of the 900 prisoners.

There are 140,000 US troops in Iraq. If even 1 out of 1,000 are out-of-line, they would be the ones making headlines (and likely are...). There are 17 soldiers charges in this case, and the 60 Minutes II story says that a mere 5 soldiers and 2 NCOs in charge of the 900 prisoners.

Let us keep in mind that the US military had already removed these soldiers from duty and were actively prosecuting them before this story broke.

Were they trying to keep this story quiet: Undeniably, the answer is yes.

Were they already moving to correct the situation? Undeniably, the answer is yes.

If this is true, then you must answer the following questions:

If they were "flaunting their behavior", then why did it take a "wistleblower" to root them out?

Makes zero sense.

If it were condoned at the highest level, then why would the investigations have begun, and proceeded, Months prior to the 60 minutes showing of the photo's?

It appears to me that quite the opposite is true, that is unless you have any compelling evidence, to the contrary. If not, it would appear that the proper steps were taken and the guilty will be punished.

From Hobbes

Well, it boils down to this Hobbes. The President of this country gets 100% of the credit for things that go well, sometimes even if they aren't his to take credit for (cough: Homeland Security). Kind of like landing on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit. He didn't fight that war but he's definitely going to take credit for its success He also accepts 100% of the blame for those in his command when they screw up.

When I was in management, if one of my employees screwed up, I accepted the blame as well. Was it my fault? Nope. Is it fair that he gets the blame for what one of his 150,000 employees in Iraq does? Maybe not, but that's the burden he accepts when he takes that oath.

I'll accept your argument that some people are using this to score political points. I could care less personally what this means in the political spectrum. However, a few of the men and women that I am proud to have represent my country have screwed up and their chief of command should accept part of the blame for that, even when it wasn't his fault. I think that's a small price to pay for being leader of the free world.

Doc