I’m sitting in front of my computer screen tonight, appalled at Bush’s response to the recent abuse of Iraqi prisoners.
The man never actually apologized in his entire speech. Usually an apology involves acknowledgement of doing something wrong, pledging that it will not recur, and saying you’re sorry. Bush stated he was “sorry for the humiliation suffered” by the Iraqi prisoners.
No apology for the conduct of the soldiers involved.
No apology for allowing it to happen.
Just a lame expression of empathy.
I’m usually a supporter of Bush on most issues, but this growing tradition in government and corporations of “third-party apologies”, like “I’m sorry for the pain you suffered”, or “I’m sorry you are offended” aren’t real apologies at all. They are a way of ducking responsibility while sounding sympathetic. And it just makes me want to vomit.
It’s not just him… he’s just the latest example of this trend that’s been bugging the heck out of me for months. I listen to it in corporate meetings. I read it on mailing lists. “I’m sorry you took offense at what I said”. Bah. Own up to your opinions, own up to what you’ve done wrong, own up to the fact you, personally, are responsible for the actions of your underlings, and must make personal restitution for them if they cannot.
I find myself wondering if this tendency springs out of having such a litigious society: if you acknowledge fault, you’ve just lost all chance of “plausible deniability” in court. What do you think?
EDIT by matthew: Broken link brought to my attention by an alert reader. Fixed.
Love Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry
Actually, I believe that this is a sign of Bush’s own personality (and that of his closest associates) rather than a sign of society at large. After all, Clinton was a world-class apologist. He felt our pain, remember? Say what you will about his presidency, the guy knew how to make a well-crafted mea culpa.
The Bush Administration, however, operates on a system of black and white. To admit the merest possibility of a mistake or an error in judgment would call into question their entire ideology. You heard the press conference a few weeks ago, didn’t you? Several times, Bush was asked point blank either to apologize for intelligence failures or to admit a mistake, and he stubbornly refused, saying he could not think of a single mistake he has made in his presidency. What incredible chutzpah this man has!
He lives in a world where moral ambiguity is unheard of. He is the ultimate Machiavellian — any action is justified if the end (democracy in Iraq, or whatever the buzzwords are this week) is achieved. Therefore, even if there were no WMDs, the war was justified to oust Saddam Hussein. If prisoners are being tortured, it will be justified if the tiniest link between Hussein and Al Qaeda can be either revealed or coerced. Why let something as silly as the Geneva Conventions get in the way of a President ordained by God?
— Ben Schuman Mad, Mad Tenor
Admission of Guilt
Matt, I’m sorry that you were offended by my delay in responding to your original post. (couldn’t resist!)
Here’s how bad it’s gotten. Say you get in a car accident, a little fender-bender at a traffic light in the neighborhood. You cannot, under any circumstance, utter the words “I’m sorry” to the other driver involved in the accident, regardless of whether the accident was your fault or not. Lawyers or insurance agents involved with the case will use that statement against you as an admission of guilt.
Legally, saying “I’m sorry” or offering an apology infers fault. Politically, issuing apologies is construed to be a sign of weakness.
Now, on the Bush apology issue, even though I’m not a fan of the man, I don’t think he should be apologizing for anything. President Bush wasn’t directly involved, didn’t give any direct order or had any knowledge ahead of time about what was happening. Having said this, I believe that our military has been torturing people for information for quite some time. Maybe this is what led Bush to issue the non-apology statement?
Get In Groove, Sammy G
Sorry seems to be the hardest word…
Well Sammy, he IS the Commander-in-Chief, the Chief Executive of the country — therefore, he is ultimately responsible, if not directly responsible, for everything that happens under his watch. Even though he did not give the direct order, an apology would still be in order that this sort of thing happened in his administration (whether or not it happened in previous administrations).
The ironic thing is that a sincere and contrite apology would almost certainly lead to higher poll ratings for Bush. If he were to take responsibility, express *real* emotion, and promise to crack down on it, even *I* would have more respect for the man.
— Ben Schuman Mad, Mad Tenor
Realism
Bush is very black and white…it’s part of his religious nature, if you ask me. He probably believe his God is the only God, and anyone who believes in anything else is on the fast-track to eternal damnation and needs to be saved.
However, if he had to apologize for everything wrong the gov’t has done since he took office, he’d be a busy man.
Everyone talks about how much worse it is now than before, but I disagree. The media just show more and more of what really goes on than what used to be acceptable. It must such for the gov’t tp have the press always in the mix, but it’s good for us. The bad part is that it make the press that much more powerful, and I doubt the people running the press are any better than the people running the gov’t.
Power corrupts, and you know the rest.
My $.02 Weed