Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Why this registered Democrat admires Ronald Reagan
Topic Started: Apr 13 2004, 09:08 AM (734 Views)
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
anon_persona
Apr 13 2004, 11:51 PM
“Don't put words in my mouth.”
I will apologize if I did, but I’m afraid I didn’t catch where I did so.  Please tell me where so I can apologize if I was responsible.



You said:

Quote:
 
“How can anyone possible even IMPLY that Bush is responsible but not Usama bin Laden and his cronies?!!?!  That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.  Do you somehow thing Bush was piloting those planes that hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon?!!?!”

Your questions weren’t really questions, they were statements/implications disguised as questions. You were therefore assuming that the information that I relayed was my personal opinion. It was not. It was a simple relaying of information. However, I would be more than happy to chalk this up to a miscommunicaton between the two of us and move on.

Quote:
 
Bush clearly showed he will not apologize - by going beyond the call of duty and not only answering, but explaining his answer. 

Bush evaded the question. He gave what is commonly known as a non-answer answer by providing a flowery reply.

The question was: “Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?” The answer should have been, "yes" or "no."

Instead, Bush said, "Look, I can understand why people in my administration anguished over the fact that people lost their life. I feel the same way. I mean, I'm sick when I think about the death that took place on that day. And as I mentioned, I've met with a lot of family members and I do the best I do to console them about the loss of their loved one. As I mentioned, I oftentimes think about what I could have done differently. I can assure the American people that had we had any inkling that this was going to happen, we would have done everything in our power to stop the attack.

Here's what I feel about that. The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That's who's responsible for killing Americans. And that's why we will stay on the offense until we bring people to justice."
LINK

All Bush did was assign blame to OBL. Bush in no way indicated whether or not he would offer up an apology (no matter the circumstances).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
anon_persona
Lieutenant Junior Grade
“Your questions weren’t really questions, they were statements/implications disguised as questions.”
They’re rhetorical questions designed to emphasis the ludicrousness of your implication.


“You were therefore assuming that the information that I relayed was my personal opinion. It was not. It was a simple relaying of information.”
I never assumed it was your opinion. Where do you read into that? You can imply something without believing in it. You did imply something and you attest you don’t believe in it. Fine. That doesn’t mean you didn’t imply it. It was the implication, not the motive, that I was arguing against.


Evade - to avoid facing up to (Encyclopedia Britannica website)

Bush clearly showed he will not apologize - by going beyond the call of duty and not only answering, but explaining his answer. The media has a love of sound bytes and misrepresentation through them, so for Bush to say no and then explain he’d be chastised for the no. He answered the question clearly and concisely – with reason, he did not evade it.

If you have an exam question that says “Is Hong Kong part of China?” is “Hong Kong joined China in 1999. It had been part of the UK until a treaty between China and the UK expired in 1999” an acceptable answer, or is the ONLY possible answer “Yes.” No.

“I am not sure. However, as the President, Bush represents more than his own actions. If there was a gross misconduct on any level of government that contributed to 9/11, then as the President he should apologize.”

What if it was the Clinton Administration’s fault? I’m not saying it is, but would Bush have to apologize for it if that was so? Let’s say Bush did a commendable job to prevent 9/11, but something out of his control was the “gross misconduct” you speak of. Shouldn’t the person responsible apologize, not someone only associated through title, but not in actuality with the misconduct in question? Why didn’t Clinton apologize for the Hubbles? Why doesn’t Kerry apologize for the people that put the hit out on Rumsfeld? If you’re not responsible you shouldn’t apologize. You can say you’re sorry, you sympathize, maybe even you empathize, but now you’re just asking people to be foolish.

Bush said: “Here's what I feel about that. The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That's who's responsible for killing Americans. And that's why we will stay on the offense until we bring people to justice." Is there anything that could be clearer than the word no that will answer that question? He’s clearly not going to apologize and that quote is why! Like the definition says, to apologize is to face up to. If Bush says it’s someone else’s fault it means that person should face up to it. Indeed Usama did face up to it! If Bush says Usama is responsible that precludes Bush from taking that very responsibility.

So, to make it clear for you:

Evade - to avoid facing up to (Encyclopedia Britannica website)

To evade Bush must not face up to the question of will you apologize ie not answer it. To NOT evade Bush must answer the question. The assumption that a yes/no question can only be answered thusly is fallous, as a reason for why yes is so, or why no is so, can be sufficient. Bush gave a reason why no, which directly implies no.

You may next argue that this is not as clear and concise as possible, but I explained why with the media bias explanation. He answered no as clearly and concisely as he could under the circumstances.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
anon_persona
Apr 14 2004, 12:41 AM
“Your questions weren’t really questions, they were statements/implications disguised as questions.”
They’re rhetorical questions designed to emphasis the ludicrousness of your implication.

I was not implying anything by my statement. Therefore you are putting words in my mouth.

Quote:
 
What if it was the Clinton Administration’s fault? I’m not saying it is, but would Bush have to apologize for it if that was so? Let’s say Bush did a commendable job to prevent 9/11, but something out of his control was the “gross misconduct” you speak of. Shouldn’t the person responsible apologize, not someone only associated through title, but not in actuality with the misconduct in question? Why didn’t Clinton apologize for the Hubbles? Why doesn’t Kerry apologize for the people that put the hit out on Rumsfeld? If you’re not responsible you shouldn’t apologize. You can say you’re sorry, you sympathize, maybe even you empathize, but now you’re just asking people to be foolish.

It doesn't matter if the misconduct or negligence happened under the previous Administration. If the gov't was negligent in anyway, then as the current representative of our gov't Bush must take responsibility for those actions on behalf of the gov't. This isn't about Bush the person, it is about Bush the President (the representitive of an entitiy greater than himself). This doesn't mean that Bush has to stand by and take it up the proverbial wazoo if the misconduct/negligence happened under Clinton's watch. I am sure he will assign blame where blame is due (in addition to apologizing if warranted).

Quote:
 
Bush said: “Here's what I feel about that. The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That's who's responsible for killing Americans. And that's why we will stay on the offense until we bring people to justice."  Is there anything that could be clearer than the word no that will answer that question?  He’s clearly not going to apologize and that quote is why!  Like the definition says, to apologize is to face up to.  If Bush says it’s someone else’s fault it means that person should face up to it.  Indeed Usama did face up to it!  If Bush says Usama is responsible that precludes Bush from taking that very responsibility.

Bush doesn't have to apologise for UBL. Everyone knows UBL is responsible for carrying out 9/11. However, this is not what people IMO expect Bush to apologize for. They want an apology if the gov't was negligent in any fashion. If the gov't was...then as the representitave of our gov't he should apologize on their behalf.

Quote:
 
You may next argue that this is not as clear and concise as possible, but I explained why with the media bias explanation.  He answered no as clearly and concisely as he could under the circumstances.

No he didn't. A clear and concise answer involves a direct answer (not an implied answer) to the question. There was no direct answer to the question. Therefore he evaded the question (he did not face up to the question).

Edit: It is late here on the East coast. If you reply, then I won't be able to get back to it until late tomorrow. --24
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Adrian
Lieutenant Commander
Actually there is one point that truly disturbs me. At one point, a reporter asks: "What would be your greatest mistake as president?". He hummed and hawed and couldn't come up with anything.
Who hasn't had at least one mistake? What, this guy is the perfect president?
I'm not looking for "Those tax cuts for the rich, woa, were those out of line!" or "If I could've gone back and re-thought this Iraq thing!" or even "I really should've invited that Jeffords guy to that reception!". But nothing? How about those three nominees that went over like a lead balloon? The senate didn't approve them, it would be okay to admit some gaff.
Maybe it's a political strategy, but the only people I've ever met that couldn't admit they ever committed a mistake were fanatics and meglomaniacs (and usually ideologs to boot).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
anon_persona
Lieutenant Junior Grade
24th: “Your questions weren’t really questions, they were statements/implications disguised as questions.”

Mwa: "They’re rhetorical questions designed to emphasis the ludicrousness of your implication."

24th: ”I was not implying anything by my statement. Therefore you are putting words in my mouth.“
I didn’t realize this was where I was putting the words in your mouth. In fact, it couldn’t have been, because you said I was putting words in your mouth in a post prior to the one above! I agree this statement was not implying anything – I never argued it was. Here is where the implication was: “Bush evaded the question by placing sole blame for 9/11 on OBL and the terrorists who committed the atrocities.” I’m afraid you’re in a downward spiral of total misunderstanding. I told you where I found the implication. I still can’t find the point where I put words in your mouth, nor have you shown it. It is hard to defend against the concept that I am putting words in your mouth when I cannot find these words and you fail to produce them. Can I have a quote or something?

“It doesn't matter if the misconduct or negligence happened under the previous Administration. If the gov't was negligent in anyway, then as the current representative of our gov't Bush must take responsibility for those actions on behalf of the gov't. This isn't about Bush the person, it is about Bush the President (the representitive of an entitiy greater than himself). This doesn't mean that Bush has to stand by and take it up the proverbial wazoo if the misconduct/negligence happened under Clinton's watch. I am sure he will assign blame where blame is due (in addition to apologizing if warranted).”
In other words you believe you should apologize, and imply your responsibility for things you are not responsible for? Again, should Clinton apologize for the Hubbles? FDR for Pearl Harbor? Of course not. Look at it the other way around. If you did a great job on some project for work and your boss said he did it you’d be pissed. People shouldn’t be asked to take responsibility for that which is not their responsibility.

“If the gov't was...then as the representitave of our gov't he should apologize on their behalf.”
Why Bush? Why not the person/people responsible? Shall there be no accountability for actions in this country? Why do you proceed to assume that people should apologize and/or accept responsibility for things they are not responsible for?

Me: “You may next argue that this is not as clear and concise as possible, but I explained why with the media bias explanation. He answered no as clearly and concisely as he could under the circumstances.”

24th: “No he didn't. A clear and concise answer involves a direct answer (not an implied answer) to the question. There was no direct answer to the question. Therefore he evaded the question (he did not face up to the question).”

I totally tagged you on this one. I explained why it was illogical to answer it as he did, and so he answered it as clearly and concisely as he could. He said no.
Q: Will you apologize?
A: Someone else is responsible.
He simply could not have been more clear.

No one takes responsibility for what they are not responsible for. If they do they are either idiots (for taking responsibility for bad things they didn’t do) or evil (for taking responsibility for good things they didn’t do). If Bush apologizes he would be taking a bullet for Usama. It’d be like taking responsibility for what your brother stole – sure he’d appreciate it but it’s not right, as the person who did the wrong is not being held responsible.

You seem to fail to find a link between apologizing and responsibility. This is erroneous. Anyone who apologizes is assumed to accept that responsibility. How can someone do so without explicitly stating otherwise? And Bush would never have that chance, again because of the bias.

24th: “No he didn't. A clear and concise answer involves a direct answer (not an implied answer) to the question. There was no direct answer to the question. Therefore he evaded the question (he did not face up to the question).”

I’m not even sure you can call his answer implied.
Q: Will you apologize?
A: Someone else is responsible.
He not only answered explicitly, but also explained why. Who says one must be a slave to the yes/no question form? In court, when you are cross examining you must ask yes/no questions. If the witness does not answer the question you can get the judge to force him to answer the question. You cannot, however force him to answer yes or no. This means that the answer to a yes/no question does not have to be yes/no in many cases. If this were not true I’m sure of all people lawyers would figure it our. And this part of our legal system isn’t even slightly in dispute – everyone agrees with it. Everyone agrees you can answer a yes/no question with a reason rather than the actual yes/no.

Q: Can you answer a yes/no question with anything other than yes/no?
A: Indeed I can!
Q: Will you apologize for 9/11
A: I will most certainly not!

You would have as much an argument with Bush’s answer as this one? I told you one doesn’t have to answer a yes/no question with a yes/no. I’ve explained why, how, and given examples. In relation to the specific question, I’ve given reasons why he could not answer yes/no, and how his answer did so by not only answering no, but explaining why. What more can I do?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
anon_persona
Lieutenant Junior Grade
"Those tax cuts for the rich, woa, were those out of line!"
Prior to these “tax cuts to the rich”, the top 10% of the nation paid 63% of the total tax burden. Now the top 10% pays for 64% of the total Federal tax burden. Tax cuts for the rich indeed. - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Iraq is brilliant. Everyone knows it.

And just because you can’t think of a mistake doesn’t mean you’re arrogant. You seem to assume that by not answering he thinks he’s infallible. How about he doesn’t want people like Adrian posting his mistakes all over the net, in his own words. Or perhaps his biggest mistake has been something sexual with his wife, or something intelligence related he should not discuss.

It’d be nice to have a humble and modest president, but it’d also be nice to have one that doesn’t lie, or call his opposition Nazis, or put out hits on members of the other party, or throw human waste on the opposition (PETA), or lie about the economy, or tax cuts, or get us into Vietnam, Somalia, or Kosovo and then turn around and claim something’s wrong with Iraq. That’d be nice too, but politicians have to watch themselves and you shouldn’t blame Bush for something any politician would do, and every politician does.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Adrian
Lieutenant Commander
I agree, it probably was a political strategy: if I don't admit to it they can't use it against me. The problem is the strategy makes you look worse that admitting to something minor. The Jeffords debacle would've been a perfect answer; everyone knows the administration blew it on that one, but the story is old so it just gets passed by. Unfortunatly this administration is a little paranoid (in case you haven't noticed) and they took an extreme position so they wouldn't be attacked.
If I were Kerry, I'd have my attack dogs (right now Ted Kennedy) go after him, incinuating he's a man convinced of his own perfection.
Actually, everyone know's the jury is still out on Iraq. Stay tuned for details.
Yes, the top earners bring in most of the tax burden (progressive tax). Do you want those that can least afford it to pay even more?(regressive tax)
In the Bush tax plan, bigger earners recieved the bigger absolute cuts (42% went to thetop 1%), they were also largest in percentage terms for the highest brackets. The richest 1% earning more than $337,000 annually will have a 15% reduction in taxes (2003-10), while the remaining 99% recieve only a 7% reduction. Also, the Citizens for Tax Justice (a nonpartisan, nonprofit research and advocacy organization) found that the share paid by top earners fell. (CTJ Link)
Okay, that was off topic, sorry. We now return you to your normally scheduled programming.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
anon_persona
Lieutenant Junior Grade
“I agree, it probably was a political strategy: if I don't admit to it they can't use it against me. The problem is the strategy makes you look worse that admitting to something minor.”

Ah but that’s the brilliance of Bush’s response. What is minor? What is major? What is his biggest mistake? Any answer is bound to please but a few interest groups and anger the rest. Is his biggest mistake to oppose abortion? Now everyone that opposes it is offended. To cut taxes? Everyone that works is offended. To invade Iraq? Everyone with a legitimate moral compass is offended. Again, Bush simply cannot answer this question correctly, and not answering is the best alternative.


“The Jeffords debacle would've been a perfect answer; everyone knows the administration blew it on that one, but the story is old so it just gets passed by. Unfortunatly this administration is a little paranoid (in case you haven't noticed) and they took an extreme position so they wouldn't be attacked.”

What is this controversy? I know he switched sides but how is that the Bush Administration’s fault? Or their mistake?


“If I were Kerry, I'd have my attack dogs (right now Ted Kennedy) go after him, incinuating he's a man convinced of his own perfection.”

Again with the negative campaigning. Why go for the little stuff? Call him a Nazi and put a hit out him in the Florida papers already. It's such a pitiful little nothing that no one else thinks is important.


”Actually, everyone know's the jury is still out on Iraq. Stay tuned for details.”

Let’s keep my proof Iraq was great to the other list – I hate repeating myself so often.


“Yes, the top earners bring in most of the tax burden (progressive tax). Do you want those that can least afford it to pay even more?(regressive tax)”

No, I was merely proving that the tax cuts were more for the lower tax brackets than everyone. Bush made the tax MORE progressive – more advantageous to the poor than the rich. You seem to think otherwise. You can give raw numbers all you want, but they don’t have any purpose without a comparison. The cite you gave brilliantly displays this point!

From the notes at the bottom of page 1:
“If major sunsetted provisions (primarily tax cuts on dividends, capital gains and corporate profits and alternative minimum tax
relief) are extended, the tax cuts in the upper-income groups will be substantially higher.”
This means if the tax cuts for the rich end earlier their taxes will be substantially higher! How is this possible? Easy – your cite incorporates “corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes and estate taxes.” This totally allows a fudging of the facts in any direction – by selectively choosing what taxes to and not to incorporate. I was under the impression we were discussing income taxes. Any time you include these other tax forms the rich will benefit because excise taxes are unaffected and people have more to spend in general. This means that while it seems like the rich are getting an advantage from income taxes, it is merely because they have more money to spend and so are affected by excise taxes more. However with more of an affect from excise taxes and less from income taxes the rich will appear to benefit because excise taxes are not progressive. However excise taxes cannot be adjusted to income levels. And the Dems made them, as well as income taxes in the first place. Here’s a cite that lays it out without all of the usual fudging and obfuscation. A good old American saying it like it is: http://www.useless-knowledge.com/articles/new/035.html
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Adrian
Lieutenant Commander
Actually, I don't want to get too far into this because it's off topic (perhaps in another thread?) but your site is the one that does the fudging.
PS The average median household savings were a measly $227.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
anon_persona
Lieutenant Junior Grade
Again you merely make a statement with nothing to support it. I showed you why your site was wrong with specific quotes, reasoning, and then presented my own case. "You site is wrong." What am I to do with that? How can I refute your total lack of argument? How about this: You're wrong. How are you to respond. How are you wrong? You have no clue if I am referring to a specific topic or in general, and If I say "You're wrong about the economy" you still have the ambiguity problem and a question of, how are you wrong? I address specific issues with reasons they are wrong, facts that refute them, and then produce the proper thesis. By merely saying this is wrong, that is wrong. Prove it. Defend your arguments. Show me you're right. You proceed to change the subject, fail to defend your arguments, make indefensible attacks, etc. etc. Let's get on topic, address specific issues, and when doing so 1) say what is wrong, 2) say WHY it's wrong, 3) if necessary, include facts as proof, 4) provide an alternative thesis as to how things truly are. I am trying to improve your technique; trying to help you here.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Intrepid2002
Member Avatar
UNGH!
doctortobe
Apr 13 2004, 09:42 PM
And why should he apologize? Unless President Bush is found to be directly responsible for allowing 9/11 to happen, any apology is only self serving and is meaningless (taking notes Mr. Clarke?). Why should Bush stoop down to Clarke's level of giving an empty "I'm sorry" to the American people? Did FDR apologize for Pearl Harbor?

I must be reading the Iran Contra speech differently than others. No one is asking for an apology and I'm not naive to think that an "I'm Sorry" would fix everything.
I just admire the way Reagan acted and what he said. He stepped up to the plate. No squirming, no evading, no dodging the bullet (oops I take that back, I might be accused of subscribing to that rag in FL referred to in the drudge report)
I mean issue.

I was flipping through the channels recently and actually saw and heard the man give the speech. It would be enough to make any Dem on the fence vote for him.
You could feel the sincerity of the man oozing from the television despite the political turmoil he was in. This is what President Bush needs. I don't know if it's something he can learn within the remaining time in his term but it would certainly make things easier to swallow if he could communicate with us better.

No wonder they called Reagan the great communicator.

p.s. that apology from Clarke didn't seem empty to me. but that's just our opinion.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Intrepid2002
Member Avatar
UNGH!
24thcenstfan
Apr 13 2004, 08:23 PM


Regardless, it doesn't look like it is going to happen anyway. In tonight’s Presidential press conference, Bush was asked point blank if he would be willing to apologize on behalf of the gov’t (in the way Clarke did to the 9/11 commission). Bush evaded the question by placing sole blame for 9/11 on OBL and the terrorists who committed the atrocities.

President Bush was also asked why he and Vice President Cheney had to testify together in front of the commission. He didn't answer that question either. I bet there'll be a lot of foot kicking under the table. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
anon_persona
Apr 14 2004, 02:05 AM
I’m afraid you’re in a downward spiral of total misunderstanding.  I told you where I found the implication.  I still can’t find the point where I put words in your mouth, nor have you shown it.  It is hard to defend against the concept that I am putting words in your mouth when I cannot find these words and you fail to produce them.  Can I have a quote or something?

I am not in a downward spiral of total misunderstanding. To make it clear for you once again: I said: “Bush evaded the question by placing sole blame for 9/11 on OBL and the terrorists who committed the atrocities.”

I intended this as a straight-forward comment...no implications. What did Bush do when asked the questions by the reporter? After a little bit of filler he finally said: “Here's what I feel about that. The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That's who's responsible for killing Americans. And that's why we will stay on the offense until we bring people to justice."

Bush evaded answering the direct question by placing sole blame on UBL.

You then replied with: “How can anyone possible even IMPLY that Bush is responsible but not Usama bin Laden and his cronies?!!?! That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Do you somehow thing Bush was piloting those planes that hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon?!!?!”

It was obvious that your questions were not questions (they were statements disguised as questions). You then admitted to these being rhetorical questions, not actual questions: "They’re rhetorical questions designed to emphasis the ludicrousness of your implication."

You admitted to asking rhetorical questions to an implication that I did not imply. You were assuming a meaning to my words (putting words in my mouth).

Now, for the last time, I was not implying anything by my statement. You were therefore putting words in my mouth. When someone tells you that there was no further implication intended in his or her words, the proper thing to do is to say ok and move on. Yet you continue to argue this fruitless point. Why is it fruitless? Because, I am in no way ever going to admit to an implication that I did not make. The only productive outcome would be for us to agree to disagree. So how about we do that right now and save ourselves some needless typing.

Quote:
 
In other words you believe you should apologize, and imply your responsibility for things you are not responsible for?  Again, should Clinton apologize for the Hubbles?  FDR for Pearl Harbor?  Of course not.  Look at it the other way around.  If you did a great job on some project for work and your boss said he did it you’d be pissed.  People shouldn’t be asked to take responsibility for that which is not their responsibility.

What you are failing to understand is that Bush has two roles. Bush the man (something he personally was responsible for), and Bush the President (a representative of our gov’t). If the 9/11 Commission discovers gross misconduct/negligence committed by either Bush or our gov’t, then Bush should apologize. He will have to do so in a way that clearly shows which role he is playing when he does.

Quote:
 
“If the gov't was...then as the representitave of our gov't he should apologize on their behalf.”
Why Bush?  Why not the person/people responsible?  Shall there be no accountability for actions in this country?  Why do you proceed to assume that people should apologize and/or accept responsibility for things they are not responsible for?

In addition to an apology from Bush (on the behalf of those he represents), the person or people who contributed to the negligence should take responsibility for their actions as well.

Quote:
 
I totally tagged you on this one.  I explained why it was illogical to answer it as he did, and so he answered it as clearly and concisely as he could.  He said no.

The answer was not clear and concise. Bush gave a non-answer answer. Nowhere did he specifically say that he would or wouldn’t apologize (even if the gov’t was found negligent in anyway).

Quote:
 
You seem to fail to find a link between apologizing and responsibility.  This is erroneous.  Anyone who apologizes is assumed to accept that responsibility.  How can someone do so without explicitly stating otherwise?  And Bush would never have that chance, again because of the bias.

I am not failing to see anything. When someone does something wrong they should apologize. If neither Bush nor our gov’t were negligent in any way, then Bush should not have to apologize. However, if either Bush or the gov’t was negligent…then Bush should apologize for himself or on behalf of the gov’t he represents (whichever may be the case). This does not preclude those elsewhere in gov’t from having to be accountable for their actions as well.

Quote:
 
You would have as much an argument with Bush’s answer as this one?  I told you one doesn’t have to answer a yes/no question with a yes/no.  I’ve explained why, how, and given examples.  In relation to the specific question, I’ve given reasons why he could not answer yes/no, and how his answer did so by not only answering no, but explaining why.  What more can I do?

Bush didn’t have to answer with a yes or no. However, he would have had to answer the question directly for it to be clear and concise. He did not even come close to directly answering the specific question asked. He gave a non-answer answer. The correct answer to the reporter’s question would have been something similar to, “ I was not responsible for committing the 9/11 atrocities, and therefore I have nothing to apologize for.” Or something more diplomatic (but still direct).

Instead, he simply said: “Here's what I feel about that. The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That's who's responsible for killing Americans. And that's why we will stay on the offense until we bring people to justice."
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
If the 9/11 commission has not even decided who is to blame, then why should Bush be expected to give, or be expecting to give an apology? If he is expected to give one before the commission has ruled, then people are assuming he is guilty without proof. If he is expecting to have to give ann apology, then obviously he is holding something back from both the public and the commission.

If he does not expect to apologize, that means he either does not know he was responsible or that he knows he wasn't responsible. Now we must leave the realm of logic and go into the realm of politics. If Bush knows that his opposition would benefit by his even mentioning that he would apologize if he were wrong (this being because it would seem that Bush did not know what was going on), and asdsuming that he either did not know he did something wrong or he knows that he didn't do anything wrong, why give his opposition the satisfaction when he believes that he did nothing wrong?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
^^
In my mind this isn’t about what Bush should or shouldn't do to get “one up” on the opposition party. It is about doing what’s right. IMO, if the 9/11 Commission concludes that either Bush or our gov’t was grossly negligent, then he should offer up an apology on either his behalf (if he was somehow negligent), or on the behalf of the gov’t (if they were somehow negligent…regardless if it was under Clinton’s watch).

To me that is the right thing to do.

IMO, Bush shouldn’t apologize for anything right now. Neither Bush nor the gov’t have conclusively been shown by the 9/11 Commission to have been grossly negligent. Only if it is proven so, should anyone have to apologize.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus