1
   

Sorry for not being sorry

 
 
Fedral
 
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2004 10:46 am
Sorry for not being sorry
Neil Cavuto
April 17, 2004

So I'm watching the president's press conference this past week, and no fewer than six reporters mentioned the "a" word. Should the commander in chief apologize for 9/11? Should he apologize for Iraq? Should he apologize for not apologizing?

OK, that last one I threw in. But you get my point. Saying you're sorry is all the rage. Richard Clarke started it when he apologized to the 9/11 victims' families for not doing more to prevent the attacks. Washington and the media ate it up.

Frankly, I think the guy was playing to the crowd, and a very strident group of victims' families, who have sadly used the hearings to bash our war on terror. These folks get a great deal of coverage -- deservedly so for all their suffering. However, no one mentions those family members and friends of victims who are behind the president's ongoing war on terror; many of whom, including the solicitor general of the United States, who lost his wife in the attacks, get virtually no press attention.

But bemoaning the slanted media isn't my point here; the issue of apologizing is.

Why are we so fixated on someone, anyone, saying they're sorry?

You know what I'm sorry about? I'm sorry about our sorry state of affairs, where we are more interested in blaming the guys who didn't see those planes coming on 9/11 than the folks who commandeered those planes on 9/11.

I'm sorry we don't have the guts to say wars on terror aren't neat. They aren't clean. And oftentimes, they aren't clear.

I'm sorry we don't have the tenacity to say that although this administration might have botched things, the terrorists ruined everything.

I'm sorry that we live in a country that seems to put more value on playing political games than saving real lives.

I'm sorry that in this election year we're more interested in looking in the rearview mirror than at the very real and present danger in our front window.

I'm sorry for a nation that obsesses over things that will never bring 3,000 souls to life, while doing little to prevent other good souls from joining them.

I'm sorry for a country that would let Franklin Roosevelt fight a great enemy after Pearl Harbor but wouldn't do the same for this president after 9/11.

I'm sorry for a country that didn't focus on what FDR screwed up before Dec. 7, 1941, but can't let go of what GW might have screwed up before Sept. 11, 2001.

Mistakes were made. Communications were missed. Opportunities were lost.

They say dead men tell no tales. I disagree. I think dead men tell plenty of tales . . . about time wasted and priorities misplaced. I think dead men would look at the empty quest for an apology over acts done as secondary to girding ourselves for acts that could be done.

I always have wondered what terrorists here and abroad think of our political infighting, of our unending quests for apologies, for things we didn't create but they perpetrated.

Only in America can Osama bin Laden launch an attack, and we launch a national guilt complex. We don't ask him to say he's sorry. We prefer all of us just looking sorry.

Many say it's a testament to our free and open society that we can criticize one another and demand apologies from one another.

Some savor that. I frankly feel sorry -- for all of us -- for that.

Link
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 876 • Replies: 7
No top replies

 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2004 10:59 am
Re: Sorry for not being sorry
Fedral wrote:
You know what I'm sorry about? I'm sorry about our sorry state of affairs, where we are more interested in blaming the guys who didn't see those planes coming on 9/11 than the folks who commandeered those planes on 9/11.


The article would be more cogent if this was even remotely close to the truth.

As usual, your article is long on rhetoric and short on reality.
0 Replies
 
suzy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2004 11:27 am
"I'm sorry for a country that didn't focus on what FDR screwed up before Dec. 7, 1941, but can't let go of what GW might have screwed up before Sept. 11, 2001."

And I'm sorry for a party that can't stop blaming former president Clinton for a myriad of current problems, despite the fact that he's long out of office. And I'm sorry that American's can't accept the fact that an apology from Clarke was well-placed and sincere. And I'm sorry that something like this is such a big issue when there are far more important things to think about. The media is beating this stupid story from all angles instead of covering issues that matter.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2004 11:27 am
Re: Sorry for not being sorry
Neil Cavuto wrote:
I'm sorry for a country that would let Franklin Roosevelt fight a great enemy after Pearl Harbor but wouldn't do the same for this president after 9/11.

I'm sorry for a country that didn't focus on what FDR screwed up before Dec. 7, 1941, but can't let go of what GW might have screwed up before Sept. 11, 2001.

I'm sure that if FDR, in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, had declared war on Mexico rather than on Japan, many people would have held up his actions to the same kind of scrutiny.
0 Replies
 
suzy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2004 11:28 am
Good one, Joe. Quite true!
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2004 11:30 am
Saddam paid the families of homicide bombers for their "contribution".

I think GW got it right.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2004 11:48 am
Quote:
Frankly, I think the guy (Richard Clarke) was playing to the crowd, and a very strident group of victims' families, who have sadly used the hearings to bash our war on terror. These folks get a great deal of coverage -- deservedly so for all their suffering. However, no one mentions those family members and friends of victims who are behind the president's ongoing war on terror; many of whom, including the solicitor general of the United States, who lost his wife in the attacks, get virtually no press attention.


This second paragraph is indicative of the townhall site, and of fedral's frequent posts.

The text in red is a falsehood. The writer hasn't cared enough about what is actually true or factual, and so procedes to write that sentence because it serves his purpose, even though it is a falsehood.

As regards the portion in blue, Olson said the following on Hannity April 13th...
Quote:
The American people have got to stand behind the administration. And again, it's not a partisan thing


The following day, on Larry King, he said...
Quote:
I'm sorry to see that kind of controversy develop between people, because I don't think it's constructive. I think that some members of the [9/11] commission have attempted to exploit that sort of thing, for partisan purposes [italics Chatterbox's] or for purposes that relate to their own opportunity to be in the spotlight, and I think that's very destructive, it's very unfortunate.


All of which is unbelievable hypocricsy, given Olson's role in Whitewater, the Arkansas project, and the project to bring down Clinton.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Apr, 2004 11:58 am
This business of "we have to stand behind the president" is absolute BS. The more the Administration and its apologists say these things, the more we're reminded of Vietnam War era gov't rhetoric.

Everything will turn out fine as long as we unquestioningly support the president...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Sorry for not being sorry
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 05:41:57