Personally, I find the apology thing absurd. Sorrow and regret are the appropriate sentiment, not admission or atonement. IMO, of course. But then I don't have the same attachment to apology and forgiveness that most people seem to have.
Agreed.
Call me old-fashioned or insensitive, but I think fault is a prerequisite to an apology. I don't see any fault on the part of the Bush or Clinton Administrations, so I don't see the need for an apology on the part of either. Rice got it exactly and precisely right: democracies don't respond swiftly or appropriately to the scent of a threat until after it becomes a reality because of an event, be it Pearl Harbor, the Lusitania or 9/11.
If the issue is seen a bit more broadly, i.e., a failure took place because the event occurred, and failures are unacceptable, then I can see somewhat of a justification for an apology. But it's not the way I see things. Otherwise, the President would be delivering daily apologies for all kinds of stuff large and small.
In any event, the whole issue is now politically charged and therefore devoid of any real significance except to politicos.
Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Might as well do what he believes is right. |
