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 (733 Views)
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Well that is the crux of the matter. Many are asking for Bush to apologize right now.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
Hmmm. As in, 'guilty until proven innocent,' right?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Fesarius
Apr 14 2004, 11:39 AM
^^^
Hmmm. As in, 'guilty until proven innocent,' right?

hmm that seems to be the mind set of many who oppose the president (and the media). That and putting Rumsfeld against a wall and pulling the trigger - which incidentally means tell him how they feel, and not actually shooting him.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Dandandat,

Yeah, I know. Speaking for myself, I don't want to get into the habit of throwing stones. After all, I believe that all of my moves--including speech--are being watched quite carefully, and that I eventually will have to answer for them.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Intrepid2002
Member Avatar
UNGH!
24thcenstfan
Apr 14 2004, 10:22 AM
^^
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.

Very simply put. Bravo!

Now what's so hard to understand about that? It's all about doing the right thing.
Why should there be such gross concern about an apology? It wouldn't even be an apology. It would be something similar to what Reagan said in his Iran Contra Speech.

Besides, you do the math. The Bush Administration was in office a mere few months and the Clinton team had the whole 8 years before it. The Bush Administration barely got their feet wet when all of this happened. It's not an apology people are looking for but leadership and guidance with integrity. I'm tired of watching all these politicians point fingers at each other (albeit the R's are pointing more than the D's) It just so happens George Bush II got the keys to the car when this all happened. Hazzards of the game.

It's a shame we make it so hard for the president to do the right thing, isn't it?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Intrepid2002
Apr 14 2004, 12:43 PM
24thcenstfan
Apr 14 2004, 10:22 AM
^^
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.

Very simply put. Bravo!

Now what's so hard to understand about that? It's all about doing the right thing.
Why should there be such gross concern about an apology? It wouldn't even be an apology. It would be something similar to what Reagan said in his Iran Contra Speech.

Besides, you do the math. The Bush Administration was in office a mere few months and the Clinton team had the whole 8 years before it. The Bush Administration barely got their feet wet when all of this happened. It's not an apology people are looking for but leadership and guidance with integrity. I'm tired of watching all these politicians point fingers at each other (albeit the R's are pointing more than the D's) It just so happens George Bush II got the keys to the car when this all happened. Hazzards of the game.

It's a shame we make it so hard for the president to do the right thing, isn't it?

That's bullsh|t!!!

The United States is a free and open society, and we've never operated this as Fortress America.

These Islamists scumbags took advantage of the openness of American society and used that openness against us.

The only one that should apologize is Osama bin Laden - or whomever is actually directing these terrorist movements - right before the scimitar comes down on his neck.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
anon_persona
Lieutenant Junior Grade
“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."”

The reporter asked Bush if he would apologize for the events that occurred on 9/11. He said OBL is responsible. Only those responsible need apologize, therefore his answer was a clear and concise no. Clear and concise does by no means mean no. You bring up the same argument over and over but never respond to my refutation. Are you confused because you believe a yes/no question can only be answered yes/no? If so, here is an example that proves otherwise, well incorporated into my argument. Do you believe that apologizing for something does not indicate an assumption of responsibility? I can actually see this argument to some degree, but by no means in the context of Bush’s response. You are failing to refute these blatant defeats of your arguments, which causes me to question whether you are even reading my posts, or do not understand them. I will be happy to clarify or answer questions as best I can, but I have now provided you with three or four long posts with the same refutations, but you continually retreat upon your original flawed arguments.


“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).”

You stated that if some wrongdoing should occur, even if it were not Bush’s fault, that he should apologize. I contend that an apology indicates an assumption of responsibility. You wish, that should any wrongdoing be shown, Bush be held responsible. It’s as simple as that, and that implication is ridiculous. Now, whether you intended such an implication is irrelevant, as you can imply something without intending it.

So you seem to think the words I’m putting in your mouth are that Bush is responsible for 9/11. And now I have shown you for the third or fourth time how that occurred. At least you finally told me what words. Anyway, you still haven’t even begun to argue how this is flawed,

The reason you find this argument fruitless is because you fail to comprehend my arguments, whether it be because of a lack of reading the arguments themselves, or merely because you do not follow them. Regardless, I have done my best to lay things out in a very clear manner. I have told you where your implication lies. I have explained how it came about in a clear path, from asking for an apology to how that indicates responsibility to how ridiculous Bush being responsible for 9/11 is. You seem to think the crux of your argument lies upon whether or not I placed words in your mouth. It does not. Rather, it is a question of whether I properly represented you. Therefore you still need to address how an apology does not indicate responsibility in this context, or refute my point that a yes/no question does not have to be answered yes/no. Until you do so you proceed to demonstrate your lack of understanding my comments, placing you in no position for accusations.


“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.”

I understand Bush’s roles. What you do not seem to understand is that just because the government does something wrong, it does not follow that Bush did something wrong, man or Prez. Again your argument has nothing to do with my point. The point here is how Bush should only take responsibility for what he is responsible for, not governmental actions he was not aware of or around to participate in.


“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.”

As Emeril would say, BAM. These guys should apologize. Bush should not unless he is somehow responsible.


“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).”

Again, you totally ignore my argument and use snippets (media would call them “sound bytes”) of my argument that do not lie on the crux thereof. In this instance I was explaining how a yes/no question does not have to be answered yes/no and yet it can still be clear and concise. For example: Can a yes/no question be answered without a yes/no answer? Indeed it can. You don’t even mention this, much less attempt to refute it, demonstrating a lack of understanding of my argument.


“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).“

He did say that! How can Bush and OBL be responsible? He said OBL was responsible, precluding his own responsible-ness. You seem to practically agree with me here, and yet you somehow can find a difference between these two statements:

1) Hypo Bush: “I was not responsible for committing the 9/11 atrocities.”
2) Real Bush: “The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden.”

How can Bush and OBL both be responsible? As the others on this board correctly identified there is one culprit: Al Qaeda.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
anon_persona
Lieutenant Junior Grade
I have to give you credit though 24th Cent Fan, at least you try to defend yourself. I have been the last poster on a number of topics that just float away because people don't defend themselves. Thanks for at least trying.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
^^^Oh, please...stop with condescending remarks Anon.

We are going around in circles on this issue. I have clearly stated my position several times over, backed up my position with facts and addressed your position several times over. If anyone else wants to pick up on this fruitless, circular debate they are more than welcome.

I don’t do this very often, but I am officially bowing out of this debate right now. Not because I think I am wrong in my position, but because I am not going to continue to address the same questions/scenarios (which I have done sufficiently) over and over with you.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
anon_persona
Lieutenant Junior Grade
Sorry but I did not mean to be condescending. I was serious when I said other people don't defend themselves. You can look in all of the following categories; I was the last to post, and those people failed to defend themselves:

The US Constitution
Kerry Speech from 2002
A Tipping Point?
Investigation into Corruption
Bush Jr.’s politics
Fiscal Policy

I don't want to mention names, but you're the only person that's held up their end of the argument beyond one or two posts. And even when most others do post more than once they tend to just attack others but never defend their own points. You at least tried to do so.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
^^Anon, I do apologize for misconstruing your comment.

I do enjoy debating with you....you are an intelligent individual. When debates are progressive, I stay in until they peter out. However, IMO, we were going in circles on this issue. That is why I chose to bow out of the debate. Unlike a couple of other wonderful people on this board, I do not enjoy circular debating. :no:

Cheers,

24.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
anon_persona
Lieutenant Junior Grade
All's well that endswell (sic ; )
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
And even when most others do post more than once they tend to just attack others but never defend their own points.

Anon,

You've hit on a very important point, at least where I'm concerned. I won't debate with anyone who is not civil--they are not worth my time. Thankfully, 24 is always civil and courteous. This allowed me to get to know 24 somewhat better. It all comes back (as was mentioned peripherally in another thread) to having been taught (or not having been taught) manners and common courtesy. This makes all the difference in the world. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Adrian
Lieutenant Commander
Okay, I'll stick my neck out here: if we don't have a policy on terrorism for eight months and then get hit with a terrorist attack, shouldn't the policy maker (Bush)get hit with some derelction of duty? He's not responsible for the attack, but didn't he made it easier for the attack to take place?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
By that logic, why weren't we in a higher state of readiness during the last administration? After all, the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, wasn't it? 6 people died, didn't they? What about Khobar Towers, our African embassies, and the attack on the USS Cole?

By your logic, Clinton's doing nothing made it easier for those attacks (note the plural) to take place.

This fingerpointing is one-upmanship BS.

Let's remember who is TRULY RESPONSIBLE for 9/11, okay? Osama bin Laden and al Quida.
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