Replies

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.

I must disagree in this respect: the President is the highest elected representative of our country and the CinC of its military.

Nations, through their leader and agents, make moral decisions. Some are appropriate. Some are not. In this case, the actions of some of those individuals whom the POTUS commands were not appropriate. They were perverted. It does not matter what other nations do. In addition, no one could make the argument that these actions could do anything to facilitate the cessation of hostilities or reduce out casualties. In point of fact, they could only have the opposite effect.

A POTUS need not apologize for the death of a soldier, marine, sailor or airman who dies in the service of his country. The man did his duty as directed by those in command, starting with the POTUS.