Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (39446)	4/14/2004 5:15:24 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793897

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.