When President Bush apologized for the events at Abu Ghraib prison I thought it was a mistake. At the time I believed that the apology would send the wrong message to the Arab street and be perceived as a sign of weakness. I felt it would imply that both the military and the Administration were not only responsible for the atrocities but culpable for the actions of a few criminals.
I was wrong.
Blackfive posts an email from a Marine Colonel in Iraq who claims the apology had a surprising effect:
"Why does Arab media fail at self criticism and why can't Arab human rights NGOs pressure Arab governments the way their counterparts do in America?", asked the host of satellite news channel al-Arabiy's (one of the harshest critics of the United States) "Spotlight" news program. The follow up commentary was even more astounding, given the source. "The Americans exposed their own scandal, queried the officials and got the American Government to accept responsibility for the actions of its soldiers," stated the host before asking her guests why this sort of open and responsive action isn't taken in the Arab world.
One of the largest newspapers in the Pan-Arab world raised the stakes even higher yesterday with this editorial comment: "Bush has apologized and claimed that democratic regimes make mistakes, but that the guilty will be punished. What happened at Abu Ghuraib is not surprising as there are many stories of horror inside Arab jails. The abuses that the Arab governments condemn at Abu Ghuraib are nothing compared to what happens in these governments' jails. Will the Arab regimes go on TV and apologize to their people in the same way President Bush did?"
My colleague who heads our Arab media unit here in Baghdad called these statements nothing short of revolutionary for the Middle East media. And while they may not seem that profound on the surface, they are threads of a far greater, and still unfolding, story. Yes, the horrific actions of a few have tainted the good work of the many. But they have unwittingly done something else. The events of the past several days have given democracy a global stage within which to prove its worth.
In all their lives, the citizens of Iraq never heard Saddam Hussein apologize. Not once. Not when he gassed more than 10,000 of his own people on an April morning a decade ago. Not when he dragged 300,000 men, women and children from their homes in the dead of night to be driven into the desert and summarily executed and buried in mass, unmarked graves. And not after decades of war and isolation that left a once prosperous land completely crippled and devoid of even the most basic of freedoms.
No, the first time the people of this land ever heard an apology it came from the leader of the world's oldest democracy. He was apologizing on behalf of a nation that had spent more than $100 billion to liberate their country from a brutal tyrant. He was apologizing on behalf of a people that sacrificed more than 700 sons and daughters to bring freedom and hope to a region devoid of such notions. He was apologizing because in this instance, we were wrong.
1
Wow...powerful stuff, Joe. I often wonder about real perceptions in the Middle East. I can conjecture about how I would feel in the situation in Iraq or in Afghanistan, but I must also realize that I am quite a different human being in quite a different environment than those who have suffered under oppressive regimes for so long. I guess you can't ever really tell how something is perecieved.
That is one of the things I like about the President. Sometimes I really get the feeling that he just does what he thinks is right rather than doing what he thinks will win him a few votes or a marginal edge in the uncertain polls. Bush was right to apologize--not for the way it might be received, for good or bad, but because qwe shouldn't have done it, and he had the guts to say that. Bravo.
posted on 05.17.2004 9:11 PM2
Now imagine the power a Bush apology might have had if he had been given the opportunity by Rummy et al. to apologize BEFORE the photos were released. In that case, Bush would not only have had the power of the apology, he would have been able to claim the moral high ground of recognizing the Abu Ghraib debacle BEFORE the stinking pile of doo doo was shoved in his face.
If only Bush would apologize for attacking Iraq without enough troops to maintain the peace. Even I might be impressed by "this President" if that were to happen. But it won't. And that's why he won't be President for much longer.
posted on 05.17.2004 10:06 PM3
Matt, short an to the point. One, we didn't attack Iraq as a whole, but it's regime (bent over backwards to avoid casualties, limited our targets to those being used by enemy troops, dropped food, etc.)
Second, they didn't no about the photos before the leak. Yes, there was abuse and it was being dealt with by the military authorities in Iraq, but the photos and the extent of the abuse were not known before hand, so he couldn't have apologize before hand (ere go, he apologized after finding out...).
Third, the number of troops required is a debatable point, though I personally agree that more would be a good idea, there are enough to accomplish the job, as attested to by the progress being made. And don't go on about Sadr, becuase I can virtually guarantee you that anything you say about uprisings is inaccurate.
Last, if people keep putting President in quotes I am going to track down every last piece of info on the Florida ballot case I can and explain precisely why he is legally Preident. But to keep it short and sweet I am posting the link to this American Thinker article, (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3364) The Myth of the Stolen Election.
posted on 05.17.2004 10:23 PM4
I believe that Iceland is the oldest continuing democracy.
The united States is a democratic republic, a rather different animal.
posted on 05.18.2004 11:48 AM5
"Second, they didn't no about the photos before the leak. Yes, there was abuse and it was being dealt with by the military authorities in Iraq, but the photos and the extent of the abuse were not known before hand,"
What???? Who is "they"? The only person who allegedly hadn't seen the photos was our clueless out-of-the-loop miserable excuse for a President. And what is "before hand"?? Before what??? Are you saying that the photos weren't known before the orders were given to take such photos for interrogation purposes? If so, I agree, but who the hell cares.
"Third, the number of troops required is a debatable point, though I personally agree that more would be a good idea, there are enough to accomplish the job, as attested to by the progress being made. "
David pull your head out of the sand and pull Karl Rove's hand out of your butt.
If there are enough troops in Iraq to accomplish the job, then why are we going to take thousands of them from Korea and sending them to Iraq? And why are we preparing to call up the inactive reserves any day now???????
"I can virtually guarantee you that anything you say about uprisings is inaccurate."
Who the hell are you? Uri Geller? It's obvious you're nothing but a shill for the RNC who doesn't actually read news but prefers instead to have propoganda spoon fed to him by conservative bloggers. What a sick joke you make out of our nation's discourse.
"One, we didn't attack Iraq as a whole, but it's regime (bent over backwards to avoid casualties, limited our targets to those being used by enemy troops, dropped food, etc.) "
Yeah, we "bent over backwards." All that Chimp and Co. bent over backwards for was to avoid doing anything that might jeopardize public support for the attack, such as being honest and forthright with Americans about the cost, how long it was going to take and how many troops were needed.
Sheesh, even the most die-hard conservative pundits admit that the Administration fxcked this war up big time. How far right do we have to go to find wingnuts like you?
posted on 05.18.2004 2:36 PM6
Matt - Still waiting for you to back up your statement that there are "MANY MORE ATROCITIES coming down the pike which will be much more disheartening than the Abu Ghraib photos or Berg's decapitation."
posted on 05.18.2004 2:54 PM7
sigh.
Is there one single thread on any single blog in the entire blogverse that doesn't contain some discussion-hijacking Bush-hating jackass?
Hell. Frankly I thought the apology was a complete disaster myself. I'll admit that I'm wrong and that he was right to apologize. That the Arab media is now questioning the activities of their own governments is absolutely a step in the right direction.
posted on 05.19.2004 9:45 AM8
Who told that Marine Colonel in Iraq that the US is the world's oldest democracy? Biggest, richest, lots of superlatives, but oldest, no.
posted on 05.19.2004 1:24 PM9
I agree with John, this is powerful stuff. And we better stop it before it spreads.
On 5/18/04 the Wall Street Journal had a front page story with the headline: "Doctors' New Tool To Fight Lawsuits: I'm Sorry."
Pretty soon, everybody is going to want to take responsibility for his own actions and screw-ups.
And right after that, some self-help guru is going to repackage Matthew 5-7 as the secret, insider's way to power and respect just like Jim Collins took John 13, called it "Good to Great", and flogged it as the latest, greatest management philosophy.
We've got to stop this before people figure out that the Bible is, in a practical sense, the Owner's Instruction Manual as written by the Manufacturer.
P.S. I have learned though, how shall I say this, 'discussions' with my wife, that a real apology begins and ends with the words, "I was wrong". I don't know that the President got that quite right, but you did. Good work, Joe.
10
The United States is the world's oldest constitutional government.
posted on 05.20.2004 10:59 AM