It's time for you to start apologizing, Mr. Bush - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-13-2005, 09:07 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,288
Local Time: 04:19 AM
It's time for you to start apologizing, Mr. Bush

The search is officially over. The weapons inspectors and CIA analysts are done searching. Kaput. And they have now said on the record, explicitly, as has the White House, that there are NO WMDs in Iraq. Well, I'll be darned. That's a shocker if I ever heard one. So there goes your 'main' reason for invading Iraq nearly two years ago. And I've been thinking, Mr. Bush, that with all the consequences and and negative aftereffects of this war, some of which are still happening, that maybe you should be apologizing to a few people.

Why don't you start out by going to to Congress and verbally apologizing to them for blatently lying to them at multiple State Of The Union addresses.

Then you should probably call up Colin Powell(if he's already left) and apologize to him for making him speak what he knew to be lies, to the United Nations.

For that matter, you should probably make it first priority at the next cabinet meeting to apologize to any and all cabinet members whose reputations you may have tarnished during this war. Except for Donny, Dick, and Condi, of course. No point in apologizing to your partners.

At this point you should probably go on national television in prime time and apologize to the American people for lying to them, taking their country to war on false pretenses, and for pissing away unprecedented world support after 9/11 and making their country hated by much of the international community. Even if it wasn't your fault and it was in fact the fault of the CIA(EXTREMELY unlikely), you should still apologize to the American people as a symbolic gesture. That's sort of the idea of being Chief Of State. See, a U.S. President is both symbolic Chief Of State AND Commander And Chief.

And after that, you should probably get around to the most important apologies of all. The apologies that matter more than any others. The apologies that may well make their recepients only despise you more. You should write authentic letters of apology to every mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, grandmother, grandfather, and friend of any of the (now nearing) 1300 men and women in the armed forces who died in this war. And I don't mean that you should tell the appropriate people on your staff to write a letter for you to sign and them to xerox 1300 times. I mean sit at your desk in the oval office, and write that letter. It should probably be a few pages long if it is to adequately express your remorse and guilt for being responsible for their loved ones' dying for a lie. For them having to bury their loved ones. For a parent having to outlive their child. For a little kid that won't remember his/her father when he gets older. For a wife who has become a widow all too soon. For a youngest child who lost the older brother they always looked up to. For a person who lost his/her best friend. Just to scratch the surface. Tell them how profoundly and deeply sorry you are for your lie.

I realize I'm asking a lot from a guy who answered 'Oh, absolutely' when asked by Barbara Walters if he, knowing what he does now, would do it[the war] again. If, however, you do get all that done, you could try taking a nap. Apologizing for presidential mistakes is an extremely exhausting practice. Pictures of baggy-eyed Nixon and even more baggy-eyed Clinton come to mind. Yeah, other presidents have usually apologized for their fuckups. But now that I think about it, you may not be able to take a nap. I'd be astonished if you could sleep knowing what you know.
__________________

__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 09:20 PM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 05:19 AM
I don't think Dubya will ever have problems sleeping.


I'll just leave it at that.
__________________

__________________
indra is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 09:42 PM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:19 PM
So are you saying that they knew all along that there were no WMD's whatsoever and that Saddam had totally disarmed and yet they decided to go to war anyway and since then there has been zilch benefit from it?

I think that the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons speaks for itself. The regime was not entirely transparent in its disarment during the 1990's and did so deliberately. It presented a source of instability in the ME and if the regime collapsed without a force to secure it then the Iranians may well have been able to swoop through and then hold all the gulf states at their mercy. Getting rid of the regime prevents this from happening, removed the risk of WMD proliferation from Iraq too terrorists through whatever avenues and brings about the real possibility of a democratic arab nation - essentially draining one swamp of fascism and violence hopefully inspiring reform and revolution throughout the region over the next few decades delivering the cultural change that is the check mate in the war against radical Islam.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 09:44 PM   #4
New Yorker
 
Lemon Grrrrrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Hangin' out by the state line turning holy water into wine
Posts: 2,725
Local Time: 02:19 AM
Sometimes when I sleep at night I think of "Hop on Pop."
-- GWB, Pennsylvania State University, Apr. 2, 2002


I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an apology.
__________________
Lemon Grrrrrl is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 09:52 PM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,288
Local Time: 04:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
So are you saying that they knew all along that there were no WMD's whatsoever and that Saddam had totally disarmed and yet they decided to go to war anyway and since then there has been zilch benefit from it?
What I'm saying is that at the outset, Bush led Congress and the American people to believe that he was totally certain that there were WMDs in Iraq, when in fact, he was nowhere even close to approaching the vicinity of certain, and yet he continued to say that it was an 'absolute certainty' that there were WMDs there. That's what I'm saying.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 09:54 PM   #6
Refugee
 
ImOuttaControl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,340
Local Time: 03:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR


What I'm saying is that at the outset, Bush led Congress and the American people to believe that he was totally certain that there were WMDs in Iraq, when in fact, he was nowhere even close to approaching the vicinity of certain, and yet he continued to say that it was an 'absolute certainty' that there were WMDs there. That's what I'm saying.
You're unfortunately wrong. It was the majority of the intellligence in the world that believed there were WMD's in Iraq. Quit trying to rewrite history to suit your own purpose.

I guess in hidsight you can see things so clear.
__________________
ImOuttaControl is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 09:57 PM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:19 PM
I think that the reason there were no WMD is because Bush did not rush to war, he fucked around in the UN knowing full well that it would give the regime months to destroy or remove anything incriminating.

Intelligence is rarely a business of certainty.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 10:00 PM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,288
Local Time: 04:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ImOuttaControl


You're unfortunately wrong. It was the majority of the intellligence in the world that believed there were WMD's in Iraq. Quit trying to rewrite history to suit your own purpose.

I guess in hidsight you can see things so clear.
Oh, so THAT'S why all of the international support we had after 9/11 suddenly morphed into international disbelief and resentment. And THAT'S why our list of allies with regards to Iraq is pathetically short. Thank you for finally shedding light on that.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 10:02 PM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,288
Local Time: 04:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I think that the reason there were no WMD is because Bush did not rush to war, he fucked around in the UN knowing full well that it would give the regime months to destroy or remove anything incriminating.

Intelligence is rarely a business of certainty.

He didn't 'fuck around' in the UN enough. Certainly not enough to prevent the international community for giving a collective metaphorical middle finger to the U.S.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 10:02 PM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 02:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I think that the reason there were no WMD is because Bush did not rush to war, he fucked around in the UN knowing full well that it would give the regime months to destroy or remove anything incriminating.
So you think rushing to war's a good idea?
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 10:03 PM   #11
Refugee
 
ImOuttaControl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,340
Local Time: 03:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR


Oh, so THAT'S why all of the international support we had after 9/11 suddenly morphed into international disbelief and resentment. And THAT'S why our list of allies with regards to Iraq is pathetically short. Thank you for finally shedding light on that.

Living in denial. Do you want me to list all the sources that said Iraq had WMD's?
__________________
ImOuttaControl is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 10:06 PM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,288
Local Time: 04:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ImOuttaControl



Living in denial. Do you want me to list all the sources that said Iraq had WMD's?
Intelligence can be flawed. It's the president's job to to decide which of it is accurate and which of it isn't. If he's not sure about the accuracy of certain intelligence, he doesn't act on anything based on that intelligence until he gets more, more accurate, intelligence. Period. Bush failed that test. The intelligence wasn't accurate enough and he went ahead anyway.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 10:07 PM   #13
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Zwischen Null und Zero
Posts: 2,025
Local Time: 04:19 AM
He did apologize, in an inscription behind George Tenet's Presidential Medal Of Freedom.
__________________
bayernfc is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 10:08 PM   #14
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:19 PM
It is not the presidents Job to decide the accuracy of intelligence, that is the job of intelligence analysts who make the assesments that wind up at the presidents desk - the president counts on the agencies assessments when making decisions to attempt to unload failures onto Bush alone makes a mockery of the way the system works.

Unless you are now or ever have worked directly in the intelligence community or within a presidential administration I do not think you are in any position to unload blame upon any single party. Most intelligence services in the world thought that the regime still posessed banned weapons. The history of aquisition was there, the obfuscation of weapons inspectors was there and the removal of inspectors and subsequent years of unchecked actions were there. Making it out like all the intelligence that suggested weapons being there is totally wrong is dishonest and implausible. I think that the truth of the matter lies somewhere in between the regime having nothing and the regime having fully stocked arsenels. They had bits and pieces, expertise and programs ready to be reactivated when sanctions were dropped. Read the senate report into WMD intelligence before jumping on the President for his decisions.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 10:12 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 05:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ImOuttaControl



Living in denial. Do you want me to list all the sources that said Iraq had WMD's?
And they were dead wrong.

The denial is that the US administration and intelligence agencies (and those of other nations such as Britain) really thought there were WMDs. They saw "evidence" of WMD because they wanted to see evidence of WMD's, not because it was actually there. And it's not just that there are no WMD's, there is extremely little, if any, evidence that there were any (or even serious research/development) for the past several years before the was began.
__________________

__________________
indra is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com