Apologize for what? (by Cal Thomas)

Townhall.com ^ | April 14, 2004 | Cal Thomas

[Gritty]

Can anyone imagine reporters during World War II asking President Franklin Roosevelt if he'd like to apologize for the number of American dead and wounded, or Harry Truman if he'd like to repent for dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which forced Japan to surrender? Those were different times - when "psycho" meant you were crazy and "babble" meant you didn't make any sense.

Both psycho and babble were on display at President Bush's news conference Tuesday night (April 13). Four times, by my count, reporters tried to get the president to admit he had done something wrong. What they really wanted was a huge headline: "President Admits Fault for 9/11" or, even better (from their perspective), "President Admits Mistakes in Iraq War."

Frustrated by their inability to pry such words from the president, Don Gonyea from National Public Radio tried another tactic. Rather than asking a question, Gonyea made an accusation. He charged Bush with being a failure as a communicator because he uses the "same phrases" a lot and his speeches "don't vary from one to the next" and maybe that's a major reason "for your falling support." Reporters' questions don't vary a lot, either. If you didn't know the guy was from NPR, you might have guessed from the tone and ideology behind his question that he works for Al-Jazeera or the John Kerry campaign.

The question may have produced the best and most persuasive response of the evening. The president said he doesn't make decisions based on polls and that he hopes "I have communicated my convictions." He added that people should know by now that "when I say something, I mean it."

Why should this president apologize for toppling a murderous dictator responsible for the deaths of perhaps more than 1 million people and the rape and torture of unknown thousands of others? Why should Bush admit mistakes when he didn't start the war? That dubious honor goes to the likes of Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Osama bin Laden and terror-spawning groups named Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Why should Bush take responsibility for an intelligence apparatus that was dysfunctional when he inherited it less than seven months earlier and, by law, was designed to continue misfunctioning until disaster struck?

An apology isn't necessary because Americans are not the ones blowing themselves up and trying to take others with them. Americans don't seek territorial gains. Americans are not depriving others of humanity's most basic right - freedom. If any apologies are due, they should come from the warmongering religious fascists who fear freedom and pervert the name of God. If a mistake has been made, it is by the insurgents and terrorists who believe that the United States learned nothing from Vietnam and Mogadishu. The Bush administration knows we can't afford a replay of those conflicts.

From the comfort of the East Room and the security of their mostly high salaries and many privileges, these pampered and in many cases egotistical reporters throw around words like "quagmire" and wonder if the president accepts any "personal responsibility" for 9/11. Bush declined to enter their trap.

No wonder this president doesn't like prime-time news conferences. They are not used by reporters to transmit information to the public. Rather, they serve as fronts for the Kerry campaign (most journalists vote for Democrats in case you didn't know), and they are used as a platform for reporters to preen and pretend they are doing the people's business.

Reporters haven't asked Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry to apologize or admit error for any of his votes in the Senate. I guess he doesn't have to because on this war, as well as so many other issues, he voted on both sides, so he can claim he was right at least once.

The presidential news conference is necessary so the public can see and hear George Bush, unfiltered by some of these same sound-bite journalists who care more about how they look than about what the president says. But it is frustrating - to the public as well as the president - that in serious times too many in the media continue to play "gotcha" games.

[Molly Pitcher]

So true. So much of the media has thrown caution to the wind in their effort to remove Bush.

Really, it's getting pretty funny, altho there are still "tear your hair out" moments...

[dennisw]

truth!

[southern bale]

did anyone in the media ask clinton to apologize for okc bombing?

How 'bout ruby ridge or waco? the clinton admin was directly responsible for both of those.

[CDHart]

"At a presidential news conference what prevents the president from calling on a variety of reporters so that it balances out to one conservative to one socialist?"

There may not be any conservative reporters there --

Carolyn

[xzins]

It's the president's news conference. He can invite and give press passes to whomever he wishes. There are plenty of conservative NEWSPAPERS and Radio Broadcasters and Internet Bloggers who can be invited by the White House.

I, for instance, would think it an incredible thing for the President to acknowledge the NEW MEDIA by giving them press passes to a Presidential News Conference. I would invite Mark Steyn, Jim Robinson (or designee), NewsMax, World Magazine, CBN, Rush Limbaugh, etc.

We must admit it, given the book "Biased" and the fact that the alphabet reporters are known liberals/socialists and supporters of John Kerry, we might as well recognize reality and, at least, give a news conference that is bi-partisan.

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

most journalists vote for Democrats

Stop the presses, breaking news alert!

[Alamo-Girl]

I agree with your suggestion! Thanks for the ping!

[Conspiracy Guy]

Sad but true.

[pawdoggie]

While we're at the "apology" game... I demand that President Polk apologize for preemptively invading Mexico. I want William McKinley's apology for letting the "Jingos" push him into war with Spain because the Maine had a coal bunker fire. I want Franklin Roosevelt to apologize for the unpreparedness and errors that contributed to the Pearl Harbor disaster. I want Harry Truman to apologize because his Secretary of State, Acheson, did not mention Korea as being in the US "sphere of influence" (thereby precipitating the North Korean invasion). I want Teddy Kennedy's brother to apologize for the Bay of Pigs, and for the displays of weakness during the Bay of Pigs and at the Vienna summit that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. I want Lyndon Johnson to apologize, not for the Gulf of Tonkin, but for leading us into a war that we now know (from his White House Tapes) he had no intention of winning. I want Jimmy Carter to apologize for Desert One in Iran (he may have "accepted responsibility", but he never apologized), and for showing such cowardice of the Soviets that they invaded Afghanistan. I demand that Bill Clinton stop blaming Bush '41 and apologize for Somalia.

Now, I realize that most of these guys are dead (and mostly Democrats, for that matter), but we may be able to work something out with the help of a good medium like, say, that John Edward guy on the Sci-Fi Channel. Or their heir and assigns could issue the apologies for them.

[MeekOneGOP]

I would LOVE to see Rush go in and ask a question. haha! That'd be great.
Or "Doug from Upland" here at FR !

FOX News was there. I think Jim Angle got a question in.

I heard quite a while back that Bush's favorite newscaster is mine too !:
Brit Hume. I always make it a point to watch his Special Report at 5 p.m.
Central.

It's coming up in just a couple of minutes, in fact ...

[Jack Armstrong]

I was sort of hoping (at the start of the Iraqi War)...
When I heard the term, "IMBEDDED REPORTERS" I sort of hoped it meant that Ameriaca would actually be witnessing the liberal media in IRAQ with their Heads imbedded up their Arshes!
I remember before the age of instant media, when Americans used to think for themselves, not let Dan Rather do it for them.
Sedition and Treason are words that need to be applied to those who seek to destroy the freedom and liberty given to us.

[Travis McGee]

I honestly wish the President would do the following at the next press conference.

Three sentences into a speech/question setup by a "reporter," he should cut him off. "Bob, if you can't come here prepared with a question, I'll have to move to a reporter who's ready. Mary, what's your question tonight?"

You can bet after losing their big chance once or twice and being humiliated on national TV, the reporters would drop the speechifying, and get right to real questions.

[onyx]

I seem to recall he once interrupted a really rude
reporter (Terry Moron I think) by asking "you have
a question in there somewhere?"

For the life in me,
I know I couldn't endure their hostility.

[Travis McGee]

That's better than nothing, but not enough. He's got to make them lose their turn, if their agenda is to speechify and embarrass him. "Terry, if you're not ready, I'll move on. Jill, do you have a question today?"

That would stop them short.

[onyx]

He ought to do it your way.
I'd pay to see it.

[kellynla]

Thanks for posting. Excellent piece by Cal Thomas.

[kellynla]

AMEN! Your memory of the history is admirable. :-]

[Publius6961]

If any apologies are due, they should come from the warmongering religious fascists who fear freedom and pervert the name of God. If a mistake has been made, it is by the insurgents and terrorists who believe that the United States learned nothing from Vietnam and Mogadishu.

Or of more immediate concern to us, the rats among us who would be either dead or in jail for treason and sedition as little as 50 years ago...