What's With the Dems' "Sorry" Obsession?
Harry Reid has once again materialized to demand that President Bush and Vice-president Cheney apologize for the actions of their aides.
Hmm. Just like President Clinton apologized for the indictments of: Associate Attorney General Web Hubbell, HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Agriculature Secretary Mike Espy (later acquitted), or small fry Stephen Smith -- not to mention the grandaddy of them all, Sandy "Docs in Socks" Berger?
Nor has Senator Clinton apologized for the behavior of some of her fundraisers, including David Rosen, James Levin, Raymond Reggie and Aaron Tonken.
And though there weren't any indictments, I can't recall any apologies forthcoming for the behavior of Craig Livingstone and Anthony Marceca, the gruesome twosome who improperly obtained FBI background files on various Clinton adversaries, which comes suspiciously close to violating the Privacy Act of 1974. And there were no apologies -- merely excuses -- for the slander directed at members of The White House Travel Office when they were fired.
When their political adversaries engage in wrongdoing, or are accused of it, Republicans don't fall victim to the fixation on extracting apologies, the way Democrats and the press has when it comes to President Bush. Sometimes I suspect it's because they fear that, despite their best efforts, they won't be able to convince the American public that the President has anything to be sorry for, unless he helps them out by admitting it.
Hmm. Just like President Clinton apologized for the indictments of: Associate Attorney General Web Hubbell, HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Agriculature Secretary Mike Espy (later acquitted), or small fry Stephen Smith -- not to mention the grandaddy of them all, Sandy "Docs in Socks" Berger?
Nor has Senator Clinton apologized for the behavior of some of her fundraisers, including David Rosen, James Levin, Raymond Reggie and Aaron Tonken.
And though there weren't any indictments, I can't recall any apologies forthcoming for the behavior of Craig Livingstone and Anthony Marceca, the gruesome twosome who improperly obtained FBI background files on various Clinton adversaries, which comes suspiciously close to violating the Privacy Act of 1974. And there were no apologies -- merely excuses -- for the slander directed at members of The White House Travel Office when they were fired.
When their political adversaries engage in wrongdoing, or are accused of it, Republicans don't fall victim to the fixation on extracting apologies, the way Democrats and the press has when it comes to President Bush. Sometimes I suspect it's because they fear that, despite their best efforts, they won't be able to convince the American public that the President has anything to be sorry for, unless he helps them out by admitting it.
posted by LadybugUSA at 12:40 PM
4 Comments:
And so much for innocent until proven guilty.
Better question:
What's with the Bush administration's refusal to admit mistakes? (especially given they make so many).
I agree Carol. Besides, how could Libby get a fair trial if his jury hears Bush or Cheney apologize for what he did?
Libby was the only one indicted. What did Bush or Bush Administration do that obligates them to apologize?
Post a Comment
<< Home