Will Obama ever apologize to Bush?
Fat chance.
Or, as my mother would say, don’t sit on a hot stove till he does.
Clive Crook of the Financial Times seems to think one is owed, however. Crook is certainly no Bush-supporter, though; he thought Obama to be a reasonable and charismatic figure during the campaign and, in this recent column Crook holds that Obama’s newly-found positions on what used to be called the war on terror are judicious.
But Crook nevertheless has the following hard-hitting words for Obama:
Mr Obama is in the right [in his position on hows to treat terrorists], in my view, but he owes his supporters an apology for misleading them. He also owes George W. Bush an apology for saying that the last administration’s thinking was an affront to US values, whereas his own policies would be entirely consonant with them. In office he has found that the issue is more complicated. If he was surprised, he should not have been.
Not only has Obama failed to apologize to Bush, but (although Crook fails to point this out), in Obama’s recent speech he spent considerable time and words bashing the previous administration in exactly the same manner as during the campaign, as an affront to and a violation of basic US values.
And Crook himself owes a few people an apology, too, when he sets up the following strawmen on the Right:
The Democratic party’s civil libertarians seem to believe that several medium-sized US cities would be a reasonable price to pay for insisting on ordinary criminal trials for terrorist suspects. There can be no trade-off between freedom and security, because the freedoms they prioritise trump everything. To many on the other side, no trampling on the liberty of ordinary citizens, no degree of cruelty to detainees, no outright illegality is too much to contemplate in the effort to stop terrorists. On this view, security trumps everything.
Crook’s rhetoric is actually over-the-top for both sides: for example, most people on the Left who advocate trying terrorists in the criminal justice system deny the possibility that a city will go down as a result of their actions, rather than saying they would consider that to be a fair price. But at least Crook is specific about the people on the Left with whom he finds fault: those who would extend ordinary criminal trials to terrorists. And such people most definitely exist, in not-insignificant numbers.
But when Crook tries to find a similar group to criticize on the Right, he falls back on the old ploy of the exceedingly general “many.” I’d like to know exactly who these people are that Clive describes, who refuse to set any limits on the “trampling on the liberty of ordinary citizens” or on “cruelty to detainees” or on “illegality” in their efforts to stop terrorists. You know, the ones who advocate breaking their bones and pulling out their fingernails, and monitoring all of our conversations with each other, and no Congressional oversight of anything.
Crook does not name them because they do not exist, at least not in the government of Bush and Cheney, nor in the Republican Party in general.
Crook is welcome to disagree with where the last administration drew the line on treating terrorists. He thinks waterboarding should be outlawed, for example. Fine. But the position he describes as being held by “many on the other side” is unrecognizable as being held by any on the other side, except perhaps some rabid and marginal blogger somewhere, or members of some exceedingly far-out fringe group that has no influence.
I’ve always used the rule of thumb of whether I’d consider it totally unacceptable if it was done to our troops… or to someone I know…
If all they did was waterboard them a few times… make them stand a lot… mess with their sleep patterns… and then handed them back once the conflict was over… I’d be quietly relieved…
Pigs will be requesting landing permission at Reagan National before that happens.
A modest proposal: hold referenda in the major cities on whether they think terrorists should be tried in criminal courts in their fair cities. With the proviso that if the terrorists are acquitted, they’ll be settled in said city.
(After all, they were acquitted of any wrongdoing, weren’t they? Weren’t most of them just innocent goatherders, pure as the driven snow, turned in for bounty or to settle scores? Then there should be no problem, right?)
Then, when the liberals actually have some skin in the game, we’ll find out who really believes that liberal nonsense (a few probably), and who is simply striking a pose (the vast majority).
And if they vote against it, then they don’t believe those guys are innocents just ensnared in the toils of a clumsy War on Terror.
Occam’s Beard: Very good….and there is no question that the phrase “skin in the game” should be part of any such proposal. Delicious irony!! Some savvy Republican should propose such a plan and very soon.
I know that my illustrious senator Levin (Democrat-Michigan) has expressed interest in exploring the possibility of housing Gitmo detainees in the Upper Peninsula. I am sure our governor, one of Obama’s most ardent supporters (looking for that Supreme Court nod) will support the plan. Let’s see what the people say…..
We talked about this in another thread…but I suppose an Obama apology or an acknowledgement of error would be political suicide. It would be too easy for the masses to understand a direct apology or admission of substantive error whereas only people willing to read beyond the headlines can see that he has, essentially, continued the Bush policies on many issues…..all while continuing to denounce the Bush administration on a daily basis.
Obama lacks intellectual honesty or integrity and my lack of respect for him remains despite any “on the job” training he may have that leads him in the right direction. If he really wanted to challenge the conservatives like me, he would admit he was wrong or that Bush was right about certain security and intelligence matters. Then, I would be forced to consider whether his heart is in the right place with regard to the security of this nation. As someone who tries to think through issues, I would have to consider whether his apparent concern for the safety of Americans or his desire to be re-elected in 2012 guided his policy choices. At this point, it all seems to be about improving his chances in 2012.
I thought it was a big big deal that ‘Bush never would admit error’. Here we have Obama doing about faces (since he is so pragmatic) but still going on the attack on the Bush admin rather than admitting an error.
It is eerie how you publish articles those of which I have considered commenting on as well on the same day.
I passed on thoughts of publishing something today on Crook ,because in the end I did not want to recognize him as having in any manner sided with Bush. And me being depicted as less conservative than I am, by publishing a socialist opinion made by someone with whom I disagree with considerably and consistently.
Besides your ability for expression seems to arrive in a much more stabilized format to your prosencephalon than mine.
There are folks who will not be convinced of someone’s guilt until they have confessed, no matter the evidence. The Rosenberg’s sons believed they were innocent until last year when Morton Sobell confessed. People still think maybe OJ didn’t do it.
Politicians, and those who in general trade on their reputation, are aware of this, and know that if they just dig in their heels, there are some who will continue to believe their innocense. It works much better to apologise for something that other people did, especially if they are a)dead and/or b)part of the political opposition.
Note Obama’s failure to praise the results of the Surge. He’s one of those people who can’t admit he was wrong. Ever.
I keep saying, some or, eventually, many of his supporters will figure it out. Some have. But they supported him so vociferously, disputed so much that was plain and obvious and clear, and smeared those who disagreed with such venom that they–the supporters–can’t afford to admit they were hosed.
In part, it’s because of why they allowed themselves to be fooled. Simply to be the Kool Kids.
What would you say to somebody you claimed was ignorant and mean-spirited and who, it turns out, was right?
Liberals must go through life astonished, not to mention frustrated. Much like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football, every time they think they’ve finally got it right, that this time nothing go wrong, they’ve got all the pieces in place to implement their long-craved socialist utopia…life yanks the football out just as they kick.
To return to an earlier theme, what would it take to convince them that their socialist fantasia is not grounded in reality, and will never work? How many repetitions will it take before they realize that socialist policies don’t work, have never worked, and never will, because they’re fundamentally flawed?
Oops. Sorry for leaving the italics open.
I don’t expect Obama to ever stop blaming the Bush administration. Apologizing is not even a possibility.
O won’t stop blaming Bush. But the inexorable fact is that, with each day, Bush owns one day less and O one day more cannot be missed, even by a liberal.
The fallback position is that Bush left things in such a state that even a cosmic genius like O couldn’t fix the situation.
I suppose the best response to that would be a knowing grin. As in, I know you know better and I know it would kill you to admit it. But you don’t have to, because I know. And now, you know I know, and that’s just as bad as admitting it.