Bush 'sorry for humiliation' of Iraqi prisoners

CNN ^ | 05/06/2004 | Breaking

[Glenn]

President Bushj says he is sorry for the humiliation suffered by Iraqi prisoners at the hands of U.S. troops. Details soon.

[onyx]

Like CWOJackson, pointed out,
this "abuse" looks more like a
college frat prank.
Not only that, but the reservists
in the photos, look like college age kids.
I'll bet they got the idea from frat initiations.

AND, the resounding complaint from the "abused"
was "they made us look like women."
HA!
How awful.

[Big Horn]

The way I understood Rush was it is all over for freedom in America, because the majority will not fight for freedom.

[BOOTSTICK]

Ohh boo hoo, the poor terrorist, err insurgents, err I mean prisoners. Could be worse, at least they weren't beheaded like the WSJ reporter Pearl. Yes the Muslim street must steer the war effort, what fools!

[LucyJo]

"I apologize" for thinking that you were on the team. You obviously want to rely only on your own limited perception of events, and of how things should be done, despise constructive criticism of the few for the betterment and reputation of the whole team, second guess every move of the coaching staff, and tolerate no setbacks, without knowing or apparently caring about knowing the overall "strategery" and objectives which involve more than simply defeating the other team. You aren't on the team, you're not even much of a fan if you'll withdraw support when the going gets tough (even if you disagreed with certain calls before, during or after the tough times)...especially with the certain result, and perhaps intent, of helping the opponent.

[onyx]

You're voting CP.
Take your Bush bashing elsewhere.
You're enjoying yourself too much.
Not much difference between you and the gleeful media.

[Mortimer Snavely]

There is no no such thing as a moderate Leftist. Any accomodation of their desirs only results in gradual destruction. The radical positions of forty years ago are now considered conservative.

Affability and being sensitive to the feelings of those who seek your destruction is idiocy. Bush is master of this. His craven behavior today is yet another example of how this country is drawing a dotted line on its neck and handing its enemies a razor.

[BOOTSTICK]

The only problem with your argument, and the Administrations stand, is that these people do not get excited by the prospect of democracy, but only get excited by their idiot God Allah. The "Hearts and Minds" approach is at best naive, we are dealing with fanatics and suicidal ones at that. The key to winning this conflict is to study the American solution to Japanese fanaticism in 1945.

[XEHRpa]

I was discussing this with a friend and an aspect of the whole situation I note (and this goes to the heart of the liberal's demand for an "I'm sorry") is the dichotomy of feelings among conservatives & liberals on whether the Presidency represents an office or a person.

I believe strongly that the former interpretation is the correct form, as it helps to avoid cults of personality, and instills the proper civic lesson in both the Pesident and the populace. A president is merely the man (or woman) who is temporarily occupying the office of "The Presidency".

President Reagan, for example, always wore a coat and tie in the Oval Office, out of respect for "the office". In contrast, Bill Clinton "personified" the presidency as had never been done before, and certainly he developed a cult of personality among his loyal followers. During impeachment, for example, his defenders never addressed the question of whether the office of the Presidency was being damaged by the occupant's various illegal and insulting behaviors, but rather personified it completely as an issue of "personal" behavior (also, just look how the Democrats can't wait for the Hillary to return them to "the throne"... more cult at work).

The concept of a president "feeling our pain", as Pres. Clinton so often voiced, is alien to the way all prior president's had behaved. Leaving aside his personal reprehensible behavior (I know it's hard to do), I am nonetheless very against with the personal "feel your pain" demeaner that President Clinton brought to the office. To me, it was totally inappropriate for the office of "the Presidency." And it carried over into his official behavior, not only in terms of his Oval office trysts (while literally on the phone with Congressmen and international leaders!), but even in terms of simple snubs to "the office" like Oval Office pizza parties.

And this leads to my main thrust. An individual can say "I'm sorry" for their personal transgressions. A nation cannot say "I'm sorry" (it's even the wrong verb tense), but instead can have their "regret", etc. expressed on behalf of the nation by its leader.

The President speaks for the nation, not as an individual. For a president to say "I'm sorry" for either national policy or a gross perversion of it by his subordinates is, to me, misguided. When the President meets with with families of deceased servicement, he doesn't say (nor should he) "I'm sorry your son/daughter died." And that is because (despite what many libs think) the president, not as an individual but as a duly elected officer of the nation, sent their family member to war. As such, he "expresses the thanks and condolances, on behalf of the nation, for the loyal service of their family member," using words very similar to this (that's 300,000,000 expressions of condolance, not just 1). To me, the closest a President could come to saying "I'm sorry" in an official capacity would be for him to "express the sorrow felt by the nation."

Now maybe it's different when the president is talking between peers, as in the case of the Jordanian King, but I'm opposed to the President using the words "I'm sorry" when speaking on matters of policy gone awry.

[onyx]

Japan was isolated.
You're talking about blowing-up
the entire Middle East if we act
too rashly.
I TRUST President Bush.
He knows more than all of us combined.

[rwfromkansas]

Alright, the President apologized for the actions of a small minority of soldiers who abused some Iraqi prisoners. Some may use semantics to try to deny this, conveniently ignoring the fact that he said this: "I told him I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners..."

Now what do we do? Why not start by thanking God that we have a President that is on his knees seeking His guidance? Why not thank God that we have a President with a heart growing in faith and sanctification to see evil as evil?

Woe to you who call evil good!

Abusing a human being is not good; it is evil, and war does not change that. Scripture is full of godly men who were warriors, but they did not resort to immoral actions in war. They did what was right and RELIED on God to grant them victory. They did not torture prisoners of war.

The fact that the Islamicists will not apologize for their brutality does not matter! Because one person does something wrong, it means we also can? Come on! The President is concerned with recognizing when our soldiers do something wrong, so sorry if he pisses you off for trying to take an ethical stand instead of worrying about poll numbers. Got a problem with that?

I do not care if this is war. We correct our errors even in a time of war. This is America, not Iraq. We have higher standards. And if you don't like it, you can get out.

If some of you honestly think that we need more of these depraved people in our military, you put shame on this site. You put shame on this country. You put shame on the human race.

Let's go forward from this incident with a recognition that we need to fix our mistakes when we make them, and it doesn't matter whether it is in peacetime or wartime.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Saying that one is sorry for hitting a bully below the belt is not the same as saying that you are sorry for fighting the bully.

Nations, corporations and churches are moral agents. We elect or appoint representatives to speak, act, fight and decide and deliberate in the name of those they represent.

Armies as assembled represent the nation that sent them. Armies have rules of engagement and regulations governing the treatment of prisoners. Failure to abide by those rules and regulations leads to a breakdown of civilian authority and control.

One does not need a code of conduct to know that the trash displayed in those photos comes from a depraved mind. The Commander in Chief, in a real sense, is the ultimate representative of the US military. It was altogether proper for him to apologize for the unprofessional and immoral behavior of perverts.

[rwfromkansas]

Exactly.

[PhiKapMom]

I agree with your comments about a frat prank. These pictures look staged and when you stop to think about it these kids could be college fraternity people that were called in Active Duty with the Reserves. One of my son's fraternity brothers was called up by the Marine Reserves and was in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Live in a college town, my son is in a fraternity, and I would hate to report what has happened on occasion even though hazing is outlawed.

Not condoning this behavior but I do believe that some folks are blowing this totally out of proportion compared to the number of security police that would never do something like this. Certain Freepers are tarring and feathering everyone in the Chain of Command which is flat out wrong.

One thing that bothers me about the one picture of Iraqi prisoners is the fact they don't look Middle Eastern and they are in great shape.

[ohioWfan]

Brava, Lucy!

[Neenah]

You know, I hear that Neenah is next on the Islam road map for a mosque with a P.A. system.

LOl...sorry, Neenah has too many steeple's with crosses on top, and very loud bells ! They would drown out any stupid P A System.

[rintense]

And you know he has willing Clinton leftovers in the pentagon...

[Howlin]

In other words, you can say anything you want here

Evidently you think you can; you made an accusation against me in #18 that was obviously false because you have yet to produce the link to what you say I said to you.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

rw, my brother, well said.

General R.E. Lee fought like a rabid dog but said that it is a good thing that war is so horrible, else we would grow too fond of it. Lee understood that nations and their armies are moral agents with moral responsibilities. Accordingly, a nation's leader has a moral obligation to conduct warfare, as horrible as it is, in a noble and upright a manner. Since the days of Gen. Lee, nations have adopted a pragmatic and amoral attitude toward warfare. Such was not the case in our earlier days.

If a commander took chickens from a farmer's barn, a General Lee or Gen. Washington would have apologized for the error and recompensed the farmer. Like those great men, Pres. Bush, recognizes the need for a moral compass on the battlefield.

Like you, I thank God that I have such a godly man for my President. It would have been easy to say nothing. W is my kind of man.

[Teplukin]

He apologized for the actions of our soldiers. So what? It was the right thing to do.

Thank you - that was very well put.

Rather shocking how many freepers are talking like kooks this evening, isn't it?