user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
It is a bit unusual. I never really hear any US leader openly admitting ANY mistakes, be they from left wing or right wing.
^ nicely put
by mojo on Fri May 26, 06 8:46am
[+]
Bush is now willing to admit his mistakes because he knows he will be out of office in less than two years. He wouldn't admit these mistakes if he had his second term re-election coming up or something.
I was positively impressed. Credit should go to both of them.
No, it was almost certainly carefully choreographed by spin-doctors to maximise public appreciation. Besides which, too many people have died for me to admire either of those two bastards.
They can admit to making as many mistakes as they'd like but if they don't do anything to correct themselves, then that they may as well not admit they did anything wrong at all. When you admit that you made a mistake you should correct it, not make that mistake worse. So far they haven't done anything to correct the big mistakes. Like the shortage of troops in Iraq, the shortage of equippment and funds, the installation of another barbaric Iraqi government, and so forth.
Haven't read Blair's statements, but I have read Bush's. Re: Bring 'em on -- that's no apology, he places the blame squarely on 'others misperceptions.' At best, it is a minor, quasi-apology. As for Abu Ghraib ... where exactly is the apology or admission of wrongdoing? All he did was acknowledge that there have been repercussions. That is NOT an apology.
How low have our expectations sunk that we are so ready to latch onto ANY possibility that the man will recognize a mistake when he commits one?!? And how closely do we have to parse his words to catch yet another lie/ spin/ deception?
Not really. I think that Bush was apologizing to the Euro audience, and probably didn't mean it anyways.
If Bush’s popularity wasn’t so low a million soldiers could have died and he would never have admitted any wrong. He does not have a conscience and you can claim I’m just bashing him but that is the cold hard truth of the matter. No amount of apologies (fake or otherwise) will ever bring back the lives lost in this senseless war.
Actually, it's called "covering one's a$$".
I'd admire them more if they told the *truth*, and began a sane prosecution of this war.
Notice how they say mistakes and nothing about lying to us to get us there.
by seon on Fri May 26, 06 5:10pm
[+]
^well maybe that is because they didn't lie?
^Blair was told that WMD were "sparce" even "non existent" by the intelligence services. He was also warned that the intelligence we did have from within Iraq was seriously out of date. Ten minutes later, in the house of commons, he removed those caveats and declared that the UK could be hit within 45 minutes. That's a lie. He is a liar. He's a politician and an ex lawyer for christ sake.
You haven't demonstrated anything more than you "think" he lied. I don't think he or Bush lied. We don't really need to discuss it further, and ad hominem attacks on Blair don't help YOU make the case that he is a liar.
Actually your right Ignatius_J_Reilly the Reagan administration soled saddam weapons of mass destruction in the 80’s when saddam was Americas sweetheart.
by seon on Sat May 27, 06 8:07pm
[+]
Is that your opinion?
|
|