[John Burns]

Per Senate Leader, Frist, Dick Clarke had no right to apologize to the relatives of the 9/11 victims. Am I missing something again? I was taught that an apology is a GOOD thing - not something to CRITICIZE someone about. Are we now so "perfect" that we do not apologize for anything we do - or fail to do? Please someone tell me that apologies are still okay. When a US Senate Leader makes a statement like this, I wonder where this Country is going.

I am editing this post so all the facts are present, so I will not be called close-minded - lol! Dr Frist said "In his appearance before the 9-11 Commission, Mr. Clarke's theatrical apology on behalf of the nation was not his right, his privilege or his responsibility. It was not an act of humility, but an act of supreme arrogance and manipulation." Maybe Dr. Frist should have apologized. Maybe he should have told us who apologized that has the "right".

Sorry, folks, but this just pissed me of a whole lot.

So much in fact that I would like to go to Washington and muss up Dr. Frist's sprayed patent-leather looking hair - lol!

[oldie]

Unfortunately John - nope I will rephrase that - fortunately John - you possess old fashioned values

Ciao ciao - Oldie

[ComputerFix]

Was it a bit theatrical? Maybe.

Was it wrong? No.

He has been the "terrorism czar" for how long? What is the single most memorable incident of terrorism in the US during his time in that job?

I suspect he actually meant it, and had there been not a single camera or reporter there, he would have still done it. I don't think he holds some sort of singular responsibility, nor do I think that every bad thing can be prevented, but I viewed it as a bit more symbolic. He was making sure that those people realized that someone still knew what the whole bit is about.....what happened to them and their lost ones. He accomplished that, and Frist shoulda kept his mouth shut.

[bassetman]

I agree with everything said here so far!

Just from what I have read in this thread, perhaps Senator Frist's point was that Mr. Clarke may have every right to speak for himself, but not the authority to speak on behalf of the whole administration, and that to presume to do so was arrogant. Maybe I'm too sensitive, but I also detect an underlying premise that we are to blame for the fact that we were attacked, that we were somehow asking for it. Therefore we owe someone an apology. Bill Clinton more or less made statements to that effect within days after 9-11. I don't buy that from him or any one else.

[oldie]

Originally posted by bassetman:
I agree with everything said here so far!

Sure thing bassett - diplomacy now the order of the day

[ComputerFix]

Originally posted by oldie:
Sure thing bassett - diplomacy now the order of the day

LMAO.....

[bassetman]

LOL

[GoneForNow]

Oh Boy! Allow me to be the fly in the ointment or the finger in the eye.

First, understand that my comments are about the person and the position that person holds who gave the apology not the content of the apology.

Ask yourself whether Clarke would have given that apology if he still worked at the Whitehouse. The answer is of course he wouldn't because he doesn't have the authority to apologize. To quote the late Freddie Prince: "Not my job." The reason its not his job is because he can't speak for the Administration, that's the purpose of the press secretary, who speaks for the Administration.

The fact that Clarke has left his job doesn't create the right to apologize for the Administration, in fact, he has less authority to do so. Further, those who wish to make political hay from the apology will now say that Bush acknowledged his failure (which he hasn't nor will, because he believes he hasn't failed anyone) by apologizing. A cynic could argue that its a crafty little ploy to make the President look bad by apologizing for the Nation.

I believe that Clarke's apology was heartfelt as well, but for himself and no one else.

[cnimbus]

Originally posted by John Burns:
Per Senate Leader, Frist, Dick Clarke had no right to apologize to the relatives of the 9/11 victims. Am I missing something again? I was taught that an apology is a GOOD thing - not something to CRITICIZE someone about. Are we now so "perfect" that we do not apologize for anything we do - or fail to do? Please someone tell me that apologies are still okay. When a US Senate Leader makes a statement like this, I wonder where this Country is going.

I am editing this post so all the facts are present, so I will not be called close-minded - lol! Dr Frist said "In his appearance before the 9-11 Commission, Mr. Clarke's theatrical apology on behalf of the nation was not his right, his privilege or his responsibility. It was not an act of humility, but an act of supreme arrogance and manipulation." Maybe Dr. Frist should have apologized. Maybe he should have told us who apologized that has the "right".

Sorry, folks, but this just pissed me of a whole lot.

So much in fact that I would like to go to Washington and muss up Dr. Frist's sprayed patent-leather looking hair - lol!

Dick Clarke has the right to aplogize for his own actions, but what gives him the right to aplogize on behalf of others? What an arrogant c0ck. If those other people think an apology is warranted, then it is up to them to apologize. And Clarke apologized on behalf of an entire nation? Since when did he represent the entire US? I wasn't aware he had been elected President.

Clarke also stated that the Bush administration told him to "vigorously pursue" the Clinton administration's policy of removing Bin Laden from the picture. When was Clarke lying, then or now? And why did he wait so long to voice his current concerns? Could he be taking advantage of election year politics to promote his book? Naaaah...

The recent controversy is about $$$, not national security, accountability or policy. Using the 9/11 tragedy for personal financial gain is the epitome of cynicism, IMO at least.

[John Burns]

Let's hear it for Dr Frist- he is the hero here - guess I am in the minority again. But I think Frist had nothing but a political reason for standing up in front of the Senate and making that statement. Clarke - may or may not have made the apology sincerely - but I really believe Bush and Clinton owe the apologies - and none have been made so far - so at least they now have ONE from Clarke, right or wrong. So we just go on as if no one in the Bush and Clinton Administrations screwed up? I give up! Forget this thread - it's not worth it.

[Wino]

John B - com'on, give Frist a break! He hasn't been in the news much lately - needs something to grab headlines - like opening sealed classified documents and apology he wish he had thought of first, just to nail that double-crossing Clarke!

[cnimbus]

Originally posted by John Burns:
Let's hear it for Dr Frist- he is the hero here - guess I am in the minority again. But I think Frist had nothing but a political reason for standing up in front of the Senate and making that statement. Clarke - may or may not have made the apology sincerely - but I really believe Bush and Clinton owe the apologies - and none have been made so far - so at least they now have ONE from Clarke, right or wrong. So we just go on as if no one in the Bush and Clinton Administrations screwed up? I give up! Forget this thread - it's not worth it.

But the people involved in the 9/11 attacks don't have an apology from Clarke. Statements that amount to "I am sorry someone else screwed up" do not constitute an apology, only muckraking. The victims of 9/11, their families and friends, and the American public deserve better. Ever notice that Clarke never seems to accept any blame for himself? Of course not, that wouldn't be good publicity and might hurt book sales. One would think that a counter-terrorism czar would bear at least some of the blame if a very large scale, very destructive terrorist attack occurred.

Does anyone seriously believe that Bush, Clinton or any other president would not do everything in their power to prevent terrorist attacks against their people? Sure mistakes were made, but hindsight is always 20/20. The important thing to note is that major changes were made to address faults that existed in our national security infrastructure. Claiming that Bush and Clinton should apologize for 9/11 is like claiming FDR should have apologized for Pearl Harbor.

Why is this thread not worth it? Because some posters had the temerity to disagree with your original statement? C'mon, it's not a personal rebuke, only differing opinions. The chances of making a political statement on an Internet forum without any disagreement are rather small.

[bassetman]

...But the people involved in the 9/11 attacks don't have an apology from Clarke. Statements that amount to "I am sorry someone else screwed up" do not constitute an apology, only muckraking. ...

I guess you didn't hear his apology! He said "I am sorry" as part of it!

[eggplant43]

What I heard Clarke say was "we failed you, I failed you". Was it inconvenient to include that fact in making your point, or was it simply an oversight?

There were failures that led to the totality of destruction that occurred on 9/11, that is what this commission is about. To have recognized that fact in the face of the survivors, IMO, was a classy thing to do. You can attribute his motivations for doing so to any number of things, it really doesn't matter. What truly does matter is the impact it had upon the survivors, which I believe, was profound.