Oh give me a break. I kept thinking, watching Bush's last press conference, how all the reporters heckling Bush for some sort of an apology were transparently serving the liberal agenda. From their perspective, it's a win-win; from Bush's, it's a lose-lose. If Bush apologizes for something, anything, it becomes a campaign issue. If Bush apologizes for nothing, why, it's a sign of arrogance, and that becomes a campaign issue.

So, in regard to Iraq, what do you want Bush to apologize for? Not being omniscient? For willing to take action in the absence of perfect knowledge, when the alternative was to take no action at all?

Of course, Bush did himself no huge favors, fumbling around with his non-answer. For some reason, God saw fit to make Republicans a species that is notoriously rhetorically club-footed.

If I had been Bush, I would have pointed out to the press corps, with a smile and a wink on my face, that this was a "Have you quit beating your wife yet?" type of question.

I would have said, if I'd been in Bush's shoes: "Have we made mistakes? Almost certainly, because the only people who don't make mistakes are those who don't try to get anything accomplished. But what mistakes have we made? Can you ladies and gentlemen of the press specify what they are? I didn't think so. We don't have a whole lot of historical perspective on this yet, and it is history that will ultimately judge the success or failure of what we're doing. Frankly, if I were to apologize now, I don't even know what I'd be apologizing for. We have a goal, we have a vision, and we're trying very hard to work towards them without making catastrophic errors. I pray to God we succeed, and I'm willing to let the citizens and history evaluate our performance. It's the best we can do."

As for Clinton's apologies, here's a short rule of thumb: Any apology containing the word "if" is not a real apology.

I’m sure that Jacob Levy is a nice guy. There are, at least, no rumors that he tortures puppies and mugs old ladies. I read his TNR article a few days ago---and totally disagree with the central theme. What does Levy overlook? He ignores the harsh fact that the major media and intellectual institutions are out to destroy President George W. Bush. They perceived Bill Clinton as their ally and went out of their way to protect him. Please remember that it was Matt Drudge who released the story regarding Monica Lewinsky. Heck, one liberal female reporter exclaimed that she would gladly perform oral sex on Clinton! Bush is cheap shotted and unfairly savaged on a never-ending basis. The state of the current economy may be the quintessential evidence of this bias. How many people are aware that the current economy is similar to that of 1996? The unemployment rate is exactly the same. And yet there were never a constant stream of news stories about those looking for work. Many of our fellow citizens are scared crap less that they are about to lose their jobs. What is the difference? That is an easy question to answer: Bill Clinton is a liberal Democrat and Bush is a Republican. Media bias is the only reason why the economy is not a plus factor for President Bush.

Does Levy need further proof? In that case, he should discretely ask members of the academic community who specialize in statistics whether a state wide recount was possible in Florida during the last election. They know that this was impossible---but kept quiet. Another more recent scandal is the Valerie Plame foolishness. Every law professor in the country knows that the statutes covering this affair were written specifically to cover only the deadly betrayal of a Phillip Agee. Why the silence? I’ll tell you why. An unwritten rule exists in academia: thou shall not do anything which might harm the liberal cause. The same holds true for the “mainstream” media. The liberal establishment might not demand that you lie---but you are to keep your mouth shut.

Before a man can apologize, he has to believe he actually did something wrong. Bush does not believe he has botched Iraq, and does not think he could have done more about 9/11. When Bush figures things are going wrong, he can act, as the former Treasury Secretary can attest.

Appalled Moderate wrote:

Before a man can apologize, he has to believe he actually did something wrong.

This is untrue of course as the Clinton “apology” for slavery which was already abolished about 150 years before he took office is a perfect example.

Bush does not believe he has botched Iraq,

He probably hasn’t. There has of course been differing opinions about things such as troop levels, whether we should have dealt more harshly with looters, disbanding the Iraqi Army, etc. However keeping in mind that perfectly reasonable people can agree or disagree over what should be done on some of the particulars (and there is no guarantee that the other policy would not have made things better), that the news in Iraq is overwhelmingly better than being reported on the “if it bleeds, it leads” media, that it will be years before we know the final outcome, and much of the criticism is opportunistic spin-doctoring by people who would just as easily criticize Bush had he done the very things they now say he should have done; it is not evident at all that anyone has “botched Iraq.”

and does not think he could have done more about 9/11.

He probably couldn’t. No one has to date come up with a policy that President Bush should have known at the time and could reasonably have been expected to implement that would have prevented 9/11.

When Bush figures things are going wrong, he can act, as the former Treasury Secretary can attest.

Oh please, Bush-haters have done everything they can do distort Paul O'Neill’s comments and criticism of his former boss. Evidently he does not share their pathological hatred of the man, since he publicly endorsed him for reelection after he pointed out how 60 Minutes distorted what he said about serving in the Bush administration.

The reporters hounding the President for an apology are not doing anything for the liberal agenda. They're basically just lazy. I'm not looking for an apology for a darned thing - what I want is an acknowledgement that this administration has screwed the pooch. Get up there and say "yeah, boy, we sure messed that one up, but here's what we're going to do to fix it!" It seems clear to most people in the country that there are ample instances where Bush or Cheney or Powell or Ashcroft (or Wolfowitz or Rice etc. etc.) have gotten it wrong - an admission of that fact and a plan to address it would go a long way to recapturing the center that is quickly slipping away. Continuing to deny it is akin to a puppy trying to cover up the mess on the carpet and what's cute in a puppy (but only barely tolerable) doesn't cut it in the leader of the Free World. We may disagree on what things this administration has gotten wrong (and we will LIKELY disagree on how MANY things it has gotten wrong) but this continual little verbal dance they do to avoid actually saying that somebody got something wrong ("the President misspoke"? What the hell is that?) only feeds the impression that the whole lot of them are out of touch with America and out of touch with reality.

Hey now, Thorley - waitaminute. I'm a compadrie, but...

AM: That was a great zinger at the end. I mean, serious , top-notch Friar's-Roast fare. Very well done, Sir.

Credit where credit is due, Winston (g) Maybe not fair, but very, very funny.

The "apology" track got going for Bush after Richard Clarke, addressing the families of terrorist victims before the 9/11 Commission, said that the government had failed to protect them. Which, of course, it had.

Well, easy enough for Clarke to say, being out of government and not required to do anything about his statement. An apology or even an admission that his administration had gotten the al Qaeda threat badly wrong before 9/11 or misjudged occupation issues in Iraq would lead to an expectation that Bush follow up, either by removing officials whose agencies failed or by changing policy.

In the Bush administration officials are held accountable for their loyalty to George W. Bush, not for their performance in office. And Bush while often willing to order daring changes in policy is utterly passive about the details of policy. He is not about to fire anyone over 9/11, let alone over insurgency in the Sunni Triangle, and will not change his approach to running the war -- which is to let his subordinates do the work and avoid detailed comment whenever possible -- either.

In his situation, an apology or anything close to it would be an admission of weakness, something that would be much less a problem for a President who was not, in fact, weak.

> The reporters hounding the President for an apology are not doing anything for the liberal agenda.

The hell they're not.

> I'm not looking for an apology for a darned thing - what I want is an acknowledgement that this administration has screwed the pooch.

What's the difference between that and an apology?

> It seems clear to most people in the country that there are ample instances where Bush or Cheney or Powell or Ashcroft (or Wolfowitz or Rice etc. etc.) have gotten it wrong - an admission of that fact and a plan to address it would go a long way to recapturing the center that is quickly slipping away.

Specifics, please. Where have they gotten it wrong, and what ought they do to fix it?

> Continuing to deny it is akin to a puppy trying to cover up the mess on the carpet and what's cute in a puppy (but only barely tolerable) doesn't cut it in the leader of the Free World.

You're begging the question by assuming their policies are wrong. That's precisely what's to be debated: are they?

> ...this continual little verbal dance they do to avoid actually saying that somebody got something wrong ("the President misspoke"? What the hell is that?) only feeds the impression that the whole lot of them are out of touch with America and out of touch with reality.

You and the news media just want admissions of errors, and to me it doesn't even look like you care what they were. Something, anything, to focus media fire power on.

Lee, there *is* a difference between an apology and what I said I would like to see (and frankly what I think would help the credibility of this administration tremendously). Bush said a number of times while running for this office that he'd run it like a business (insert snide joke about his effectiveness in the business world here). Well I'm in business and the way you deal with mistakes in business is not to apologize for them but to acknowledge them WITH A PLAN FOR FIXING THE PROBLEM. Saying you screwed up without a plan for fixing it in business is suicide. NOT admitting that something is wrong means that problems never get fixed - a slower suicide that tends to take more people with you. People make mistakes (to paraphrase Herb Tarlek from WKRP, "As God is my witness, I thought Saddam had WMDs!") - it's how you respond to those mistakes that determines how good a leader you are.

As for what they've gotten wrong, I could list off a couple hundred things that *I* think they've gotten wrong and point to a dozen websites off the top of my head that have even more comprehensive lists. You might not agree with most or even any of those points, but it's becoming more apparent that an awful lot of people in America do agree. And I find it hard to believe that there's anyone left that can listen to a playback of the statements made by the administration in the run up to the invasion of Iraq and not believe that they were sadly mistaken (and I'm being kind) about their rationale for war. But let me turn that around - are you saying that they have made NO mistakes? Not a single misstep? Nothing that in previous administrations wouldn't have gotten at least a couple of undersecretaries fired?

You say I want admissions of error - actually, I think the bastards are doing things just right to ensure that they get replaced in this election. It appears that he's quickly losing what few moderates there are left in the country and that can only help end his presidency that much sooner. But frankly, I am not one who wants to see problems continue to mount in order to help my guys win an election. So I'd rather see him at least attempt to clean house, even if it means another four years of the guy.

“And I find it hard to believe that there's anyone left that can listen to a playback of the statements made by the administration in the run up to the invasion of Iraq and not believe that they were sadly mistaken (and I'm being kind) about their rationale for war.”

Iraq is about the size of California. There is no way to thoroughly search this large country without invading it. Saddam Hussein continued defying the United Nation’s resolutions. We therefore had to put a stop to his nonsense. The question whether there were weapons of mass destruction is actually a secondary matter. Christopher Hitchens recently said it best:

“I debate with the opponents of the Iraq intervention almost every day. I always have the same questions for them, which never seem to get answered. Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein's regime was inevitable or not? Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better? Do you know that Saddam's envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea (vide the Kay report) as late as last March? Why do you think Saddam offered "succor" (Mr. Clarke's word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York? Would you have been in favor of lifting the "no fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original "Gulf War"? Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us? Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose?”

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004903

I am utterly convinced that many political scientists and other scholars want to help John Kerry get elected---and are playing the role of the intellectual slut. They would be saying the exact opposite if Bill Clinton was currently in the White House.

"... last week seems to me to have reached a point where even hopeful, pro-war, Bush supporters like me have to acknowledge the epic mishandling of the post-war occupation. The U.S. is beginning to look both cruel and (a much bigger problem) weak. The huge propaganda victory handed to the enemy by the celebrations in Fallujah by Islamo-fascists shouldn't have happened. Nor should the disgusting pictures of prisoner abuse and humiliation simply exist in a military as professional and ethical as that of the U.S. The misconduct is unforgivable, and shows simply a lack of control of the situation. The complete disarray in Fallujah - the inability of anyone from Bremer up even to expain what's happening, let alone tell us what they're doing about it - is a further sign of drift. It is no longer unreasonable to surmise that the administration is preparing to hand over power to any U.N.-blessed Shiite or Baathist general it can find, while indicating to the wider terrorist enemy that we will buckle under to pressure. At a critical moment when Fallujah should have been the occasion for a critical wiping out of the terrorist and insurgent infrastructure, we seem to have blinked. The consequences for our future credibility, for the lives of coalition servicemembers, for the lives of Western civilians, could not be graver."

More generally, when will the Bush Administration finally get around to dealing with the core problem facing us: the Saudi deal-with-the-Wahhabist-Devil and their ongoing practice of providing funding to support export of Wahhabist extremism all over the world? Before this war can end, that is one of the things which has to stop.

The biggest long term benefit from crushing the Taliban, crushing Saddam, and rewarding Qaddafi, is to establish a strong precedent for others in terms of what they can expect from us. But by letting Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia get away with murder (and in that I'm not speaking figuratively), we blow that precedent.

Instead, we establish an entirely different one: we make clear that we can be mollified by empty gestures and insincere promises. That is not the message we want to send to the governments of that region; it will ultimately cause far more damage than we would suffer even if all three of those nations were ultimately taken over by radical Islamists.

What I sincerely hope is not the case is that Bush and/or his campaign strategists have decided that we Americans can be mollified by empty gestures, insincere promises and tough talk. This war isn't even close to being over, and this is no time for Bush to start taking his foreign policy cues from Senator Kerry.

I think Levy's case is well made. An apology on behalf of the country to the people of Iraq for the actions of all the responsible parties at Abu Ghraib is a perfect example where an apology is merited.

Bush was not ordering the torture so none would be misled into thinking so because of his apology. Yet it could quell anger in Iraq, which might save lives.

Sometimes the greater good must be advanced, without regard to the impact on the next election.

That was Arthur Carlson, not Herb Tarlek. I'm embarrassed to be able to remember that.

Holy crap. There really are some hardcore partisan Republicans on this board. Bush has yet to acknowledge a single frigging mistake in Iraq, when even serious (yet intellectually honest!)conservatives (like Tacitus!) can list about 50. Is it a lose-lose situation for Bush? Yup. That's what happens when you screw up badly and continually.

I just can't buy any Republican who denies that Bush constantly looks inflexible, uninformed and - yes - intellectually dishonest. No one expected Bush to be omniscient, but we have the right to expect adaptability, forthrightness and diligence from any president.

Bush fatigue, anyone?

They always say he made mistakes, but they never specify what they were, so that we can put them in perspective, just like any other issue.

If you'll check some of my other posts, you'll realize I'm not a knee-jerk Bush supporter. I just get tired when his critics run around begging the question all day long, is all.

Sorry, I'm not going to assume he's making mistakes just because you assert it's true. Make your case.

Just a few, then, Lee (and I make no claim to have generated these myself - I admittedly cribbed 'em from Center for American Progress):

Ignored the advice Gen. Eric Shinseki regarding the need for more troops in Iraq – now Bush is belatedly adding troops, having allowed the security situation to deteriorate in exactly the way Shinseki said it would if there were not enough troops.

Wildly underestimating the cost of the war.

Including discredited intelligence concerning Nigerian Yellow Cake in his 2003 State of the Union.

Diverting $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress.

Focusing on missile defense at the expense of counterterrorism prior to 9/11.

Telling Americans there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

Issuing inaccurate budget forecasts accompanying proposals to reduce the deficit, omitting the continued costs of Iraq, Afghanistan and elements of Homeland Security.

Saying: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."

If we get into matters of policy, I'd go on for hours. But I tried to keep it to items that I think a bi-partisan case can easily be made that these were mistakes (we might not even agree on what MAKES them mistakes). Frankly, some of the above should have gotten Cabinet members' resignations.

> Just a few, then, Lee (and I make no claim to have generated these myself - I admittedly cribbed 'em from Center for American Progress):

Never heard of them. Very high-minded name, but then again so is People for the American Way, and all that is, is another liberal pressure group.

> Ignored the advice Gen. Eric Shinseki regarding the need for more troops in Iraq – now Bush is belatedly adding troops, having allowed the security situation to deteriorate in exactly the way Shinseki said it would if there were not enough troops.

Yawn. I think they needed more troops at D-Day. I think they needed to cut off the Bulge and surround the Germans. I think Lincoln was a nut to send an army to face Lee in Virginia who had never been anything but an armchair general.
I think Roosevelt blew it in oh so many ways: getting caught with our pants down at Pearl Harbor (why didn't he pay attention to his intelligence briefings?); having a weak military at the beginning; letting Montgomery call too many of the shots; and, lest we forget, the granddaddy of them all, ceding half of Europe to Stalin at Yalta.

Do you see where this is heading, yet? It's a lot easier to pick apart someone's performance after the fact than it is while the decisions are being made. I'm sorry Shinseki wasn't happy with the respect accorded to his recommendations, but for every Shinseki, I'll bet there was a Tommy Franks or some other expert saying, we have enough, don't worry.

I think in these sorts of situations, grand strategy is ultimately more important than specific decisions. This is so because we are who we are, the most powerful nation in the world. Lincoln's grand strategy was to do what it takes to preserve the Union, and for the time being, casualties be damned. History sees him as a great president. Roosevelt's grand strategy was to rid the world of two fascistic, dangerous national governments, and mistakes aside, history sees him as a great president.

Bush's grand strategy is to treat terrorists as if we're in a war situation, when the alternative is to treat it like a law enforcement situation. Just what we need, a gazillion Dershowitzes running around worried sick that we're not according al-Qaida terrorists their Constitutional rights. Doing that didn't work. Doing nothing, i.e., what his predecessor did, didn't work. I think we should worry about the nitnoys at a later date; in the meantime, we have things to accomplish.

> Wildly underestimating the cost of the war.

Yawn. I'm sure Roosevelt had World War II itemized down to the nickel by Dec 8, 1941.

> Including discredited intelligence concerning Nigerian Yellow Cake in his 2003 State of the Union.

How does that compare with blowing up a Sudanese aspirin plant?

> Diverting $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress.

Yawn. Maybe he should have diverted more, if he was as short of resources as you claim.

> Focusing on missile defense at the expense of counterterrorism prior to 9/11.

How many U.S. cities would it take to get hit by North Korean missiles for you to change your tune?

> Telling Americans there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

I'm not convinced there wasn't.

> Issuing inaccurate budget forecasts accompanying proposals to reduce the deficit, omitting the continued costs of Iraq, Afghanistan and elements of Homeland Security.

Yawn. So far, a lot of your complaints involve accounting. I couldn't be more bored.

> Saying: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."

I don't recall him saying that. As I recall, they were pretty circumspect, every time they found something that looked, well, promising. I'm still not convinced they won't find them, or find out what happened to them. To judge from some of Kerry's remarks, maybe he won't be surprised either.

> Frankly, some of the above should have gotten Cabinet members' resignations.

If Janet Reno's career could survive Waco, I don't think anyo Bush's boys have to worry. The people I'd be firing, were I in Bush's shoes, work for the State Dept.

>> Ignored the advice Gen. Eric Shinseki regarding the need for more troops in Iraq – now Bush is belatedly adding troops, having allowed the security situation to deteriorate in exactly the way Shinseki said it would if there were not enough troops.

>Yawn. I think they needed more troops at D-Day.

Sorry to bore you. The fact remains that clearly troop strength was underestimated, there were lots of people in positions to know that who said so and were ignored. I'd call that a mistake.

>> Wildly underestimating the cost of the war.

>Yawn.

Ok, I know it's late. Again, there were lots of people in positions to know that said the cost was being underestimated by large amounts (and being "undersold" that way to the American public). Mistake (or lie - take your pick).

>> Including discredited intelligence concerning Nigerian Yellow Cake in his 2003 State of the Union.

> How does that compare with blowing up a Sudanese aspirin plant?

Who the hell cares? We've already established that Clinton apologized if it rained on your birthday or if your football team lost. He's not the President anymore. Get over it. Bush screwed this one up.

>> Diverting $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress.

> Yawn. Maybe he should have diverted more, if he was as short of resources as you claim.

Yeah, it's just that the action taken by the administration was a little unConstitutional.

>> Focusing on missile defense at the expense of counterterrorism prior to 9/11.

> How many U.S. cities would it take to get hit by North Korean missiles for you to change your tune?

US cities attacked by North Korean missiles to date - 0. US cities attacked by foreign terrorists not affiliated with any particular government of which we had forewarning - 2. Clearly a mistake.

>> Telling Americans there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

> I'm not convinced there wasn't.

Where's the evidence?

>> Issuing inaccurate budget forecasts accompanying proposals to reduce the deficit, omitting the continued costs of Iraq, Afghanistan and elements of Homeland Security.

> Yawn.

Sorry, thought you were a conservative. I seem to recall conservatives as being folks that cared a bit about things like government spending and deficits. Obviously a paradigm shift has occurred in the last few years.

>> Saying: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."

> I don't recall him saying that.

Interview with Bush on Polish television during his visit a year ago:
"Q But, still, those countries who didn't support the Iraqi Freedom operation use the same argument, weapons of mass destruction haven't been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war?

THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

Well, no we haven't, despite the troops we've sent to Iraq. In fact, they don't seem to have spent very much time looking for them, despite that being the original rationale used to justify our invasion of the country.

All this is to say that yeah, it seems pretty clear that the President and his administration have made some mistakes. Do I want to see the kind of constant apology described in the article Dan mentioned? Nah. Would I like to see an acknowledgement that mistakes have been made (preferably with a plan for how to correct them)? Well, yeah, although I think NOT getting that will help get these bozos out of DC a lot quicker.

The data cited by Mr. Plutonium contains several misrepresentations. Bush never said anything in any SOTU about uranium from Niger (still less Nigeria). There were many links between Saddam and alQaeda (see the DOD report printed in the Weekly Standard last November). Many WMD programs and components have been found in Iraq, and if we are not yet sure what happened to the large stocks of ready-to-use chemical and biological weapons that Saddam once had, the justification for the invasion never depended on that. To say Bush favored missile defense 'at the expense of counterterrorism' is meaningless unless you can show the two ends were in competition. Before demanding apologies for the current Iraq war we need to wait and see if there is anything to apologize for. But the main point is that this political scientist who has so inexplicably impressed the normally sensible Mr. Drezner belongs to the Oprah Winfrey school of international relations. Bush had no need to apologize for 9/11. What he did to the Taliban a month later was much better than an apology. FDR never apologized for Pearl Harbor, and had no need to. Apology for the atrocity at Abu Ghraib has already been made. It took the form of arresting the soldiers responsible and putting them on trial.

Thanks for your observations, doyne dawson.

Tony, we seem to have reached an impasse, but I would like to comment, or at least clarify, my position on a couple of points.

Yes, I'm a conservative; no, I don't like out-of-control budgets. As a rule. But I'm willing to put it in perspective; first things first. The war on terror is a first thing. I'll worry about the cost after we've accomplished the objective, and I'll probably figure that it was worth it. Where you save money is: on domestic entitlements; foreign aid; pork. Dubya has definitely been asleep at the wheel on his budgeting, no argument here. But you don't save money by fighting a war on the cheap. Win the war first, then make it balance out.

On the troop strength issue: I thought I was clearer earlier, but apparently not. All commanders-in-chief are going to make decisions that, from some perspective, in retrospect, will look relatively bad. There will always be at least two factions within the halls of government that disagree on the proper approach. When one approach is adopted, the other side gets surly. And when things don't work out perfectly, the other side will have the urge to say, "I told you so." But the truth is, before the fact, you could make a very good argument that we had enough troops. And it's a dead certainty that, had we waited around until we had the troopse Shinseki needed, and if the waiting had allowed Saddam to prepare a better defense, people would be criticizing him for that as well. We haven't yet fought a war where critical misjudgments didn't abound. I choose to put things like this in perspective: Bush brought Saddam down, maybe not in the optimum manner. But bring Saddam down, he did. That's more than anyone before him had accomplished.

I'm not crazy about an unconstitutionalities, either. Truth is, I don't know the extent of it, so I can't argue from a position of knowledge. But this I do know: Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in an unconstitutional manner, and today he's a hero. Frankly, I'd be very surprised if FDR didn't play fast and loose with the finances during wartime. Eventually, we'll know more, and Congress ought to take action against Bush on that score if their own prerogatives have been preempted. Furthermore, it would give Bush a chance to explain his actions.

Like doyne, I too don't understand why it was a "mistake" to focus on missile defense before 9/11. I don't see why we still can't pursue it while also pursuing the war on terror. Can you talk and tie your shoes at the same time? If government can only do one thing at a time, let's also shut down the entire welfare apparatus, while we're at it.

The impetus to get Bush to apologize about something, anything, with regard to the war on terror is tantamount to simply demanding that he hand the Democrats an issue. If Republicans had demanded the FDR make apologies for mishandling Pearl Harbor, or the Normandy Invasion, or the Battle of the Bulge, or anything else, they would have been properly chided for not supporing their commander-in-chief in time of war.

Tony Plutonium wrote:

Just a few, then, Lee (and I make no claim to have generated these myself - I admittedly cribbed 'em from Center for American Progress):

So you’re basically just regurgitating talking points from a partisan organization rather than thinking for yourself. That’s good to know as it enables you to throw out whatever smear you like without having to assume ownership for the claims that you make.

Ignored the advice Gen. Eric Shinseki regarding the need for more troops in Iraq – now Bush is belatedly adding troops, having allowed the security situation to deteriorate in exactly the way Shinseki said it would if there were not enough troops.

As Lee pointed out, there were other generals who said that we had enough troops on the ground to do the job. Moreover, troop levels are a matter of tactics rather than strategy and it perfectly appropriate to make changes in tactics (adding or moving around personnel as needed) as the situation warrants it.

Wildly underestimating the cost of the war.

I don’t recall being quoted an amount in advance as to the costs.

Including discredited intelligence concerning Nigerian Yellow Cake in his 2003 State of the Union.

The British stand by their claim that the former Baathist regime attempted to purchase uranium in Africa. While the CIA said that they could not confirm this, it does not mean that it was ever “discredited.”

Diverting $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress.

Untrue, the only complaint being made is that the notification provided to Congress may have been overly-broad concerning the intended use of the money. However it is worth pointing out that (a) it was considered a relatively small portion of the appropriation bill, (b) the money was intended for use in that region and was used in that region, and (c) there is no record of any requesting more specific details at the time the White House notified Congress.

Focusing on missile defense at the expense of counterterrorism prior to 9/11.

There are two responses to this:
1) National security requires that we focus on a number of different threats including terrorism and rogue nations trying to build WMDs and longer range ballistic missiles. Of course the government is going to have to deal with both and since the President had regular meetings on the issue of terrorism prior to 9/11 (and after) there is no evidence that one was at the expense of other.
2) Does this mean then that we can claim that John Kerry is focusing on expanding socialized medicine and expanding corporate welfare industrial policy at the expense of counterterrorism, because that’s the focus of his campaign?

Telling Americans there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

Which there is.

Issuing inaccurate budget forecasts accompanying proposals to reduce the deficit, omitting the continued costs of Iraq, Afghanistan and elements of Homeland Security.

Supplemental appropriations bills are not included in budget forecasts, this (for better or worse) is standard practice, as they tend to be one-time expenditures and nearly impossible to predict. Considering as well that we are soliciting foreign contributions for the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan, we are still negotiating the forgiving of the odious debt incurred by the Iraqi Baathists, and getting the Iraqi oil fields restarted – it makes sense that no one has produced any hard figures yet. Moreover, by not committing to spend X dollars in advance, it can be used in negotiation with other nations for their own contributions.

Saying: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."

So what do you think that they were used for? As others have pointed out, the administration has claimed (rightfully IMNHO) as has David Kay that we found WMD-related programs and components of these programs. Given the history of the regime we removed, I am less inclined as so many in the “loyal” opposition seem to be, to believe that the Baathist had intended some benevolent purpose for dual-use technology which they agreed under the terms of the 1991 cease-fire not to have, failed to declare, and took such great pains to hide.

Impasse accepted. And one point of clarification - I still maintain that this whole "apology" thing is stupid media tricks. I don't think it plays into the hands of conservatives or liberals - I think it's a distraction from real issues. Has this administration done a good enough job on national security and the economy (add the environment, other foreign policy, whatever *substantive* issues you like) to be returned for a second round? That's what the media ought to be covering, instead of leaving it to the bloggers to do their jobs! :-)

I believe that a real apology demands several things -- genuine recognition of personal responsibility in hurtful actions (or inaction); true empathy for the victims of one's actions (or inaction); and a demonstrable resolution to change. Given that, here's my idea of what a true apology for the abuses at Abu Ghraib from George Bush might sound like:

Citizens of the World:

I am sorry.

The atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq have revealed to me the mistakes I have made in my leadership of United States policy in the wake of the attacks of September 11th. Although I truly have meant well by my actions, it is clear to me now that I have been blinded by the anger I have felt toward those who attacked our country. I have personalized the conflict. I have allowed the idea of “evil-doers” to spread in the minds of the American people, from those who attacked us directly to the whole of the Islamic world. This has led to an atmosphere in which it has become acceptable in the minds of many to humiliate those in the Islamic world. I wish I could say that I myself would never commit such acts. But in all honesty, I am not sure. I suspect that the actions carried out in the prison were enactments of the thoughts of many Americans; indeed, they were an enactment of my own thoughts and fantasies. It has taken my seeing these images enacted to comprehend how powerful the words I use are. I see now that the very images I carry in my mind have power. I am sorry that I have not understood this until now and I resolve to clear my mind of thoughts, images and fantasies that may harm others. In humiliating others – even if only in our thoughts – we render ourselves less human.

There are those who will try to distance themselves from these horrific acts. They will attempt to portray them as the acts of individuals, not as a reflection of the United States as a nation. Although I am naturally tempted to protect myself in this same manner, in all honesty I cannot. These acts were committed by the military which serves under the government I lead. They could not take place without an underlying atmosphere of hatred. And as your leader, I cannot separate myself from the atmosphere that has been created in the country under my rule. Although I did not commit these acts, I have been largely responsible for creating the atmosphere which made them possible. For this I am very sorry.

While I must of course offer this apology to the Islamic people, I must also apology to our allies and especially to the citizens of my own country. I am sorry that I have brought upon you more of the rage that I said I was trying to stem. I am sorry that through my words and actions I have placed you at even greater risk. I am sorry that I have used my role as leader to act out my personal struggles.

To the Islamic people, I understand that under these circumstances it will not be easy for any of you to forgive me or the nation I lead. I understand that my actions and those of my countrymen are likely to remain with you for years, even generations, and that the anger created by our actions are likely to lead further attacks against us. I would like to stop, rather than amplify this cycle of violence. And so I resolve in the future to try to see any such attacks in the light of my own actions, to understand them as something that we are all capable of (as indeed my own private fantasies have revealed to me). I resolve to try to find forgiveness for those who hurt us and always to hold in mind our common humanity.

Sincerely,

George W. Bush

President, United States of America