Apology?

[MK]

Does it seem strange to anyone else that the press is asking for an "apology" from the President regarding 9/11?

Can anyone think of another person more commited to stopping terrorism or punish the evil doers than George Bush?

That is like trying to say Martin Luther King was the cause of racism.

These thugs killed Democrates and Republicans alike. They hate Americans and the freedom we have. I don't understand why some Americans are wanting Bush to take blame for what these evil dirt bags did.

I don't recall the press asking Roosevelt for an apology for Pearl ?Harbor.

Regardless of what anyone's political affiliation is, you would think they would support the President's effort to deal with those who wish to kill us and our way of life.

There are other issues that could be questioned regarding the Bush administration, but to try and question competency on terroism is a joke at best.

I think IQs of the press dropped somewhere along the way.

 

[Andykev]

Since when

Did the press have any intelligence, or for that matter, intregrity.


Peral Harbor? Volumes have been written extolling the fact that FDR "allowed" our fleet to be bombed to bring the Isolationits into the war. HOG WASH.

George Bush would have used all his military power to stop this attack.

OK so you are not convinced. OK YOU tell me, now, right now, where is the next terrorist attack? An airliner? Rail terminal? Maybe a "dirty bomb" in L.A.? Oh, some major sporting event?


Not one person in our government today can precict the next terrrorism attack with any more accuracy that predicting the next "big" earthquake in California!!

 

[Dalexs]

First let me say that I'm not a huge fan of Mr Bush. Deep down, I guess I'm a democrat. But I'm not going to hold that against him.
I commend him on at least trying to pull in the reigns of terrorism.

EVERY president should make anything that threatens our freedom,
one of their top priorities.

(Thats why Tom Clancy novels are so popular.)

Second, as a former member of the media, I can say that I have known few media organizations who truly act on the behalf of The People.
Which, bottom line, is the reason the media exists.
There are many Individuals I know who TRY, but are usually squashed
under the managements decision to "Not go in that direction."

Be it televison or print, the news media has but one agenda,
Viewership/Readership/ratings. This translates to $$$.

This is the reason why things like "The Drudge Report" exist.

To ask for an apology to something like 9/11 is ludacras.
It is the media's way of trying to say we care about the people and you owe it to them.

Just my slightly biased opinion.

Dalexs

 

[Marlowe]

George W. Bush should apologize for 9/11/01? I don't think so, any more than Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan should. The people who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks were, after all, outlaws.

Invading Iraq, however, doesn't seem to have gotten us any closer to bin Laden and his cronies. And don't go on about what a dangerous madman Saddam Hussein was. He was, but North Korea is a much more tangible and dangerous threat, and was during the buildup to the Iraq war.

Japan SHOULD apologize for 12/7/41 (and for Nan King, "comfort women" and other atrocities), but I guess we (America) mulcted enough contrition from them over the course of the next 4 years that it's not really necessary. When you think about the stuff they did, the atrocities their armed forces committed during that was, you realize that they're lucky that, as a country, they only had two atomic weapons dropped on them.

After all, I recall the American government apologizing to citizens of Japanese descent who were imprisoned in "relocation camps" during WWII. And rightly so--it was a wrong thing to do.

This subject reminds me somewhat of Jesse Jackson and others' attemps to sue the government to get monetary compensation for "African-Americans." Am I the only one who sees gigantic holes in this? How does one prove that one's ancestors were victims of American slavery? Maybe your ancestors emigrated to the United States after the civil war. What about white people (and others) whose ancestors risked or gave their lives to defeat the Confederate States? What about white people (and others) whose ancestors emigrated to the United States after the Civil War? (And don't get me started on the "only white, establishment men can be prejudiced" attitude among many who do not fall into that category [and some who do].)

I'm not President Bush's biggest fan either. I wish I could be a Democrat (or SOMETHING) deep down, but the Democrats' attitude that individuals are not responsible for themselves and need Big Brother to watch over them and tell them how to run their lives grates on my last nerve. On the other hand, the Republicans' premise that we should all be perfectly free to get screwed over by big corporations any way they choose is little better, if any.

Well, this post might get some people going, but I felt I had to call it like I see it.

P.S. To those of you in the U.K or Canada or Mexico or France or wherever: we Yanks put the month first, then the day of the month, then the last two digits of the year--12/7/41. But you probably already knew that.

 

[farnham54]

Well Marlow, I can see your point. Ultimatley, pointing the finger at anyone particular government is ludacrous. We could blame the American regimes of the 70's and 80's who tried to put in Democracy Freindly rulers in the middle east. We could blame the Communist factions for forcing the USA's hand in doing this. We could blame the Saudis for harboring terrorists. Heck, you could probobly blame ME for something if you looked hard enough.

Fact is, tossing blame around isn't going to get all those innocent lives back. It isn't going to bring justice to the families. And it isn't going to capture the people who are responsible for the horrible act.

Personally, I don't thing the Gulf War was done in the best way. You guys should have skipped the UN and gone right in. I can guarantee that Georgie would have found WMD's then, but as it stands, Saddam had months to move the things out of the country, a process that literally only takes a few days or weeks, if everything is properly catologued. I think it's about damn time the world had a powerful person who ruled, as I have said before, on principle rather then opinion polls. Opinions can be influenced easily by people who are really not qualified to make any assesment of the given situation, which is why these polls are flawed (and as such, why governments should not rule on them). When you vote Republican or Democrat, you should be voting for a set of values that will direct the country for the next 4 years, not until there is a crisis and a CNN Gallup poll says that 54% of those polled want X done.

Okay, my rant is over. By the way, Marlowe, what is that quote in your sig from?

Regards,

Craig

 

[Kilgour Trout]

It's all for the story

When I look at this, I have to ask the question.."Who is asking for the apology"? As someone who got their diploma in broadcasting/media communications and then refused to go into it because of "what" media was becoming..I'm not at all surprised. Only the media could possibly go so far as to make this kind of accusation. Even if the Government got their priorities out of whack, the activities of these terrorists were being tracked. There is no way (as far as I'm concerned)that if there was any indication this was coming it wouldn't have been acted on. (Did that make sense?)...
The unfortunate fact is...there doesn't need to be a real story to be a story. All it takes is the opposing interest of a media baron to create and escalate a story. Sensationalism and tabloid interest have replaced objectivity and truth. So..are we surprized? This is one area where Ralph Nader is on the ball. He states in one of his speaches that the media barons have stolen the airwaves from the common people regardless of political stripe. They have the modern day pulpit and intend to use it.
Anyone really interested in this ought to read Marshall McLuaghn. He saw it long before it happened.

Warm Regards
Kilgour Trout

 

[Art Fawcett]

Marlowe, I agree that invading Iraq appears to not have gotten us closer to Bin Laden on the surface, but I urge you to look deeper, beyond that narrow premise. Getting Bin Laden isn't going to end the suffering that brings these people to the point of murdering babies and innocents just to make a point. Prosperity and self guidance just might. If there can be a form of Democracy in that part of the world that proves to the inhabitants that they don't HAVE to live like they have been for centuries, that they CAN control at least some of their destiny, perhaps they can be more content in life and not have to look for outside sources for their misery. I know that this might sound naive, but I believe in capitalism ( yes, the owners of big corporations have been paying my bills for years- Thank you), I believe that God gave us freedom- men take it away, I beleive that if I fail or succeed it's from my OWN doing, not the curse or grace of others, and i have the absolute freedom to express my contradictory views with all who will listen. Isn't it time that those of lower status in that region get a taste of what I have had all my life. If this can be accomplished, don't you think that the stupid violence has a chance to end for good? Or at least for a long time until some other group decides to be martyrs? Do you think that if we can succedd in Iraq, then the rest of the region might start believing that they can also do it?

I see this solution as WAY more than just invading Iraq. Unfortunately, because of many in this country in power, largely the media & Hollywood liberals, and ugg, current Democrat leadership, I don't see us having the balls to stay the course. I think that as always they will beat down anything that smacks of courage and foresight and right, unless of course it lines their pockets. Note...see French & Russian resistence...food for oil anyone?

 

[farnham54]

Well said Art, but I would be cautious of just throwing Democracy into the area.

Whos to say they won't vote in a Fundamentalist of some kind and start the whole process over again? No, I think Iraq should be administered by US-Friendly or neutral Iraqi dictators for lack of a better word (a US-appointed parliment, perhaps) for a good long time until education and other things are sufficiently cleansed of religious brainwashing that goes on there. That way, you can guarantee that they will progress, rather then elect a newer, younger, but ultimatley identical version of Hussein.

Regards,

Craig

 

[Art Fawcett]

Agreed Farnham, that would be the downside of the mess. I just have to believe that this is the right thing to do and offers so many more possitive possibilities. It might take generations to get the mindset out of fuedalism and into democracy, but what are the other options? Status quo? Status quo has gotten us burial pits, rape rooms, poison gasses, and very little hope in that region. Please don't misunderstand my empathy with their plight. No matter what the conditions it does NOT warrant killing innocent citizens. Not on their side, not on ours. If brute force and power are the only things respected in that region, then we need to show brute force. Islamic law dictates ( I believe) that a thief must lose his hand, adultry is reason for stoning to death, severe punishment is the rule. Then we must present a severe front with a reward at the back side to be understood AND respected. It can really be brought down to it's simplest form. The school yard bully or fanatic. Once you kick his butt he becomes more civil, in fear that it will happen again. Even if you don't win the fight, he at least remembers getting stung and avoids you again.
Sorry, it's the John Wayne syndrome kicking in. Yes, he was only an actor, but his characters always stood up for whats right no matter the cost. I grew up with those thoughts and images and values and will not let them go. Deciding whats right is often tough, but doing whats right is tougher. Whether GW were my friend or foe I respect that he is doing what he feels is right for all Americans and in turn whats right for the rest of the world ( arrogant as that might sound)and in this case I agree.

 

[farnham54]

Very, very good point. Every good leader must be respected by those who are being led. If that involves stepping into the ring and putting up a fight, then that's what needs to be done.

Well said, Art.

Regards,

Craig

 

[Michaelson]

Well, it was just a matter of time before an 'apology' was 'demanded' by somebody. I read last week that the Illinois legislature apologized to the Mormon church for the murder of John Smith and the running out of the church body back in the 1830's. What next? It just seems to go on and on, I suppose. Maybe if we get Adam and Eve to apologize to the snake for stomping it on the head in the Garden of Eden, we can nip all this in the bud. Regards. Michaelson

 

[Marlowe]

Originally posted by farnham54
By the way, Marlowe, what is that quote in your sig from?

Regards,

Craig

Chapter 34 of "Farewell My Lovely" by Raymond Chandler.

Cheers,

Marlowe

 

[havershaw]

Here's the problem I see - and I'm not a very political person, so here comes what I suspect is a very uninformed opinion. i would appreciate being informed, so set me straight where necessary.

No matter what happens, the problem (as I see it) is a bunch of folks who want to kill us. I mean, ultimately, that's what we're trying to prevent, right?

As I see it, those folks will always hate us. If we use brute force and kill many of their people, their descendants will hate us for what we did to their fathers/mothers etc., and nevermind the hows and whys. They are too young to have known what really went down or why, they just know they have to avenge their families killed by America.

They will continue to fight and attack the US in any way possible (these people can a hold a grudge like no one's business!) until they commit acts against the US heinous enough that we will strike back, and in a big way. And that will spawn a whole new generation who will eternally hate us for what we have done to their parents.

It's going to go on and on like that, and I can't see how it will all end. My mom thinks that if we use enough force, we can keep people in line using fear, because that's all those people undertand.

My thought is, you want to keep people from wanting to kill you, fear is not the answer. Fear only causes people to hate that which is making them afraid, and after a while, the fear gives way to rage and that's nothing but bad news.

I guess my opinion is...I would rather our country be respected than feared. That's the bottom line, for me. When I was a pretty young kid, I could be kind of unruly in school - and I behaved far better for the teachers I respected than the teachers I feared.

Yep. That's what I think. I'd rather we be respected than feared.

 

[Art Fawcett]

OK Havershaw, I agree with you in principal, but now comes the tough part. How do we accomplish that respect? What you are saying I think I can safely say that almost all Amercans want, but the real question is how to reach that point. I say with friendship that idealism has it's place but at some point hard reality has to take over to survive.
If you are in the woods with weapons and survival gear and the largest bear you've ever seen becomes bent on eating you what are you going to do? Seems to me you have two choices. Either talk to him about being friends and apologising for his hunger ( b'bye) or you can drop him before he eats you , then deal with whatever consequences that brings. I truly see that situation with the middle east and it might just be the most difficult position we have ever been in as a nation. Pearl harbour was pretty clear- military to military. This is quite different and more difficult to see clearly.

 

[Marlowe]

Okay, here's the thing--something you don't hear of too much on TV or in the paper. At least not American TV or papers.

The middle east is not in an uproar just because of Arab recalcitrance or just because Jerusalem is the epicenter of 3 major world religions. The middle east is in an uproar because after World War II, people showed up in the neighborhoods of people who lived in Palestine (the name of the region back then) with guns and told the residents that they had to leave, that there was a new nation here now (Israel) and that they (the residents) no longer owned their homes. Naturally, the Palestinians were not happy about this turn of events. They're still not. They have been fighting back for a long time, as best they can.

(I would hope that if someone here in the United States showed up on my doorstep with a gun and told me that I no longer owned my home and that someone else would be living there from now on, that there was a new government now, that I needed to leave, that I was no longer a citizen of nor welcome in the land of my birth that I would likewise have the gumption to shoot them, kidnap them, rocket them and blow their asses to bits.)

The amazing thing is that hardly any Americans know anything about this historical fact. And why not?

I know Palestinians that live here in the United States that still carry the keys to the front doors of their houses in Palestine on chains around their necks.

I believe that the reason that the state of Israel was set up so completely and without regard to the people already living on the real estate in question is a religious concept known as Zionism. That is, many fundamentalists believe that "the Jews returning to the Holy Land" is the fulfillment of a biblical prophecy and will hasten the onset of "Armageddon" and "The Rapture." (There seem to be a lot of other theories about "the Jews retuning to the Temple" that are held dear by fundamentalists of several religions and sects.) Since most Americans, especially in the immediate post-WWII period, were Christians (of varying degrees of fundamentalism) it wasn't a difficult sell to encourage the United States to recognize the government of Israel as legitimate. Naturally, many other nations--especially Arab nations--did not. Foreign aid to Israel from the United Staes was crucial to Israel's survival as a nation-state. In its favor, Israel IS just about the only reliable democracy in the region.

Arabs are impatient with the U.S.A. They feel that Jews tell the CIA how to dictate American foreign policy. This is understandable, considering that we give Israel about a billion dollars a week in foreign aid.

I am not going to argue for or against Israel's right to exist as a state. Just be aware that there are legitimate arguments for both points of view. American media sources have been incredibly incompetent at showing both sides of the question in anything like a reasonable light.

 

[havershaw]

marlowe, that's some food for thought for sure.

art - I agree with you completely. What I didn't really mention in my post was, while I would rather be respected than feared, I think it's probably too late. I wish thre were another way around it, but I think we're doing some of the only things we can do in our position. The whole situation is kind of painful to think about - if we don't kill them, they will indeed kill us. I have no doubt about that, and no real moral issues with that - but in defending ourselves, we are creating more grudges against us. And I don't know what can be done about it. You know, it's not like we can go to the Arab nations and terrorists, etc., and say, "OK, OK. What exactly do you want from us? What can we do to make this right?" Because what they seem to want from us is all of our deaths. It's sort of like an African-American saying to the KKK posse who are putting a noose around his neck, "OK, fellows - what do you want from me? How can we work this out?" There's nothing to be worked out. In other words, I'm not sure I feel like the terrorism aimed at the US is an attempt to get our country to change our policies, or take some kind of action. It's "death to the infidels" - and I don't think there's much we can do to change our status as infidels.

So I'm not against our taking military action - I just wish there were another way, but I don't think there is. Because, like I said, it's just creating new nemesis. Every time we create another orphan or another widow, we create a new reason for vengeance for those orphans and widows, a fresh and very personal grudge that can't be satisfied until we're all dead.

 

[Kilgour Trout]

Good Point!

Good point Marlowe..it often really matters where you get info from in formulating opinion. When I lived in the UK I was amazed at the breadth of countries, issues and histories dealth with by the BBC. Having had a friend who was part of the British occupation forces post WW2, his perspective on things was very interesting. The terrorists they had to worry about were not the Arabs but former Prime Minister Begin and his friends capturing and stringing up British soldiers (How times have changed). The other aspect which I find interesting is how Christian Palastinians always seem to be ignored in the mix. Don't get me wrong..I think for better or worse Isreal is a reality that is not changing but being a Christian does not necessarily mean defacto support for everything Isreal does. Non-premils, such as myself don't have any special tie to the Middle east except to be interested in its history. To say the whole area is a muddled mess would be understating the truth. I think that unless there is someone on both sides with the power to reign in extreme factions the whole area is going to continue to boil. To me history is a double edged sword, it gives identity but it can bring up a lot of harmful anger. Every time I watch Braveheart...I'm spoilin for a fight. It makes me thankful that I'm living in a place that doesn't remind me of injustices...that is unless I happen to find any First Nations blood in my history and then "here we go again...".

Warm Regards
Kilgour Trout

 

[Art Fawcett]

Marlowe, I completely agree with your analysis of the history. Yes, I am aware of how the nation state came about and I also have aquaintences that hold their homeland, or more accurately what was their homeland dear. They were never paid for their property, just told to leave and this has never been right! Neither was the Japanese internment in WWII of which I am intimately familiar. They were never paid for their property loss either until reparations a few years ago that were a pittence of what was confiscated.
Now, the question is ..does that make murdering innocents justifyable? There have been efforts for over 50 yrs to try to solve or apease the situation with the Arab nations acting more against the Palistinian cause than for it. The Palistinians have been treated like unwanted stepchildren from the beginning of this mess and it does'nt look like it's going to change any time soon. The only possibility that i see there is to actually support a Palestinian government that actually works for the benefit of its people, not its own ambitions. How much help do you think Arafat has given the people out of the billions given to support him? Precious little might be an acurate answer. The money has gone to support a military and terrorisn and line his own retirement fund. Until there is actually a "for the people" govt, I can't see it changing.

Was it right going into Iraq?..don't really know. But, I DO know that doing nothing or worse yet, letting another body of Govt ( UN) decide would be a disaster for our country. Since every intelligence source in the world said that Iraq had WMDs, since we already know what Sadam was capable of, since there WERE ties to terrorist organizations despite what the Dems say now, I see it as a good strategic move. Would I want to have to make that decision? nope..too heavy for me. But I do understand why it was made, yes, and now that it has I need to support the guys out there risking their lives in my name ( the royal My ie: American).

I am also idealistic. I truly wish that everyone could just find a way to live without this crap. Life is way too short and tough to have to deal with this..but here we are. I had this same discussion of sorts a few years ago with a gentleman from Ireland ( in an LA bar of course) who was raising money for "the cause" yup, IRA. We got so intense that janene just left the bar & went to our room ( she hates confrontation) but it ended up with a better understanding by both of us of the others views. Not too long after that the truce was announced and I can tell you with confidence that both he and I were relieved. Life can now go on!!

Hey, maybe that's the answer!!! More bars!!

 

[Art Fawcett]

Havershaw, I missed reading your post before answering Marlowe's. Well said my friend. You and I are of similar mind.

 

[MK]

I love this place. We can have discussions about sensitive issues without the drama of it getting personal. Everyone is expressing their thoughts and ideas while respecting the other members....even if they disagree. How many boards do you know where this happens?

You guys are the best.