2012 May 22 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2009/06/03/obamas-top-10-apologies-because-he-loves-to-apologize/
0
0
  |   71 comments

obama apologizes againThe Heritage Foundation published a list of President Barack Obama’s top 10 apologies. Be sure to read it: it’s fascinating to see all the things he has apologized for in his first few months in office. Reading the list gives you the impression that America has a whole lot of soul searching to do.

10. Apology for Guantanamo in Washington: “There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world. … Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies.”

9. Apology for the Mistakes of the CIA: “So don’t be discouraged by what’s happened in the last few weeks. Don’t be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we’ve made some mistakes.”

8. Apology for U.S. Policy toward the Americas: “Too often, the United States has not pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors. We have been too easily distracted by other priorities, and have failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas.”

5. Apology for the War on Terror: “Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. … In other words, we went off course.”

And on and on it goes. My personal favorite:

 

3. Apology to the Summit of the Americas: “While the United States has done much to promote peace and prosperity in the hemisphere, we have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms. … So I’m here to launch a new chapter of engagement that will be sustained throughout my administration. The United States will be willing to acknowledge past errors where those errors have been made.”

 

Of course George W. Bush made some mistakes during his eight years in office. What president did not? But Bill Clinton did the same. He waited too long before acting in the Balkans, and he did nothing against the genocide taking place in Rwanda, for instance. But did his successor travel around the world to offer his apologies for what he did?

No, he did not. And for good reason. If every nation in the world starts apologizing for every single possible mistake it has ever made, we’ll never stop. More importantly, perhaps, Obama is apologizing for policies deemed a-OK by a great many people. Lastly, although he think he is restoring America’s “morality authority” in the world, he only succeeds in emboldening its enemies who believe its leader to be extremely weak.

It is great Obama wants to reach out to the rest of the world, and to improve America’s relationship with it. But there is no need to beg for forgiveness and to pretend that America is the worst country on earth.

tags  
|
  1. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #95736
    Doomed NPR's Justice correspondent Ari Shapiro has learned of a heated meeting Tuesday involving Obama Administration officials and congressional types over President Barack Obama's controversial plan to close Guantanamo and continue the Bush Administration tack on military tribunals, with some tweaks, for detainees. Congressional Democrats continue to feel like the administration has left them holding the bag by announcing its plan to close Guantanamo without actually having a plan about what to do with the detainees, obviously a key detail. Gee now I wonder why the Democrats would be upset over OBAMA not closing down Gitmo immediately and CONTINUE with Plans that were similar to BUSH's. Sources close to the action revealed that it was those far left leaning congressional types who are the most adamant about closing Gitmo and closing it quickly. They are incensed that the tribunals will continue with some minor tweakings which slaps them in the face and advocates that Bush co. had it right all along. Jeb you can spin this all you like but the fact of the matter is that the moderates are taking a wait and see approach while the More exteme left of this party are angry with Obama for not doing what they want done with Gitmo. If you want I can pull up a lot of information from Democratic leadership groups that advocates not falling into the FAR LEFT traps of Move on dot org and Michael Moore types. Yes they use that ugly label inside their own party. FAR LEFT. The shifting sands journolisting that is hitting the internet the last few weeks is not going to fly because everyone knows that Obama wants to be a moderate but the trick for the far left is to TRY AND MAKE FAR LEFT POLICIES SEEM MODERATE.
  2. Posted by CStanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #95737
    CStanley Jason, in your expert knowledge of the field (which I'm not disputing, you certainly have more background and credentials than I do) can you give any examples historically of this kind of outward expression of a country's admission of errors has been cost free and beneficial?
  3. | Quote | Trackback | Link #95738
    Jason Arvak Actually, that is fairly easy, Christine. In fact, Germany's credibility in Europe and the western world since WWII has been built precisely on its willingness to openly acknowledge and atone for the crimes of the Nazi era. This process has taken place independent of the Nuremburg trials and has included both Germany developing a strong reputation as a champion of human rights and a supporter of Israel's right to exist. It was very striking, for example, when the Green Party foreign minister responded to the threat of an EU boycott against weapons to Israel by stating flatly that Germany would feel a unique historical duty to ensure the security of Israel regardless of what the EU did. That statement alone, because of its implied acknowledgment of Germany's past errors, was enough to completely kill the boycott movement. In the former Soviet Union, Khrushchev was able to gain significant traction with regards to giving the USSR new breathing space by undertaking explicit criticism of the excesses of the Stalin era. In fact, his efforts at admitting errors were so effective that they allowed the Khrushchev regime to continue many of the same practices while receiving basically a pass from much of the rest of the world. And, of course, Gorbachev was able to build a whole new relationship with the West and especially the United States by admitting errors in the Communist system. Yeltsin reaped a decade of benefits from this policy, which petered out only when the excesses of the Putin regime began to come to light. China was able to build a reputation for reform and trustworthiness that survived even the travesty of the Tienanmen Square massacre by just vaguely acknowledging errors during the Mao era. This is a much more ambiguous case because China continues to be politically repressive, but the point is that the acknowledgment of errors during the "Cultural Revolution" and the "Great Leap Forward" did not in and of itself cause any negative repercussions for China. Among more minor cases, Argentina and Chile have been able to significantly refurbish their international images and the willingness of other countries to work with them by admitting (to varying degrees) the errors of their military government eras. It hard to identify any "punishment" or "costs" that Argentina and Chile have suffered for having admitted to flaws and errors in their approach. The United States has also admitted error without negative outcome in the past. Apologies were given and reparations paid to Japanese-Americans who lost property and freedom during WWII. And President Clinton's apology for slavery during his trip to Africa in the last days of his term, while trivial and self-serving, didn't cause any observable harm to U.S. interests. Indeed, other that purely wounded pride, I can't think of a single instance of a country's leader admitting past errors resulting in ANY significant cost or negative outcome. The idea that such admissions "show weakness" and thus invite exploitation has no foundation empirically that I can think of. Now this isn't to say that just wandering around admitting error and apologizing for stuff is some kind of magic wand. And if taken overboard, it could just get to be a tedious, backward-looking distraction from what needs to be a practical engagement with current problems. But in the first few months of his new Presidency, I don't really have a problem with Obama using this purely rhetorical tool in an effort to try to elicit a new atmosphere with current and potential allies. And I haven't heard a single piece of evidence from critics that actually explains what is wrong with it other than a vaguely nationalist wounded-pride rant. P.S. There is actually a whole chapter on apologizing in international affairs in Barry O'Neill's study Honor, Symbols, and War. He identifies 121 cases of apologies of various types in international affairs. While O'Neill finds that apologies in the international arena are often insincere and are generally far less effective than interpersonal apologies, I can find no evidence for the allegation that they actually cause any harm.
  4. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #95739
    Doomed Jason I know that many JAG officers have dissented over this. That is not my contention. I have been scouring the internet looking for a proclamation that the JAG OFFICE is opposed to tribunals. Jeb is making it play out as if the Official Policy of the United States JAG is dissent with the processes that takes or took place. Heck....1/3 of the GOP's is in favor of closing Gitmo of which I am one. That does not mean that I hold a majority opinion within the GOP party. GITMO must be closed to get it out of sight and out of mind. Everything about it reminds the world of Auschwitz. But when some lawyers say its a bad...that does not mean its an official position. Many Moderates and conservative GOP'ers were opposed to invading Iraq but we did anyway. Just because there is dissent does not mean its an offical position.
  5. | Quote | Trackback | Link #95740
    Jason Arvak The JAG office does not take policy positions, Doomed, then or now. But I think you're splitting hairs. And unless I just missed the stories about the gas chambers at Gitmo, I think the Auschwitz comparison is way over the top.
  6. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #95743
    Doomed Yes the Auschwitz thing was intended to be way over the top. The entire Gitmo, JAG, War on Terror, Iraq thing has been way over the top. However the antiwar has won the day and now we are fighting an illusion in which the president is apologizing to the world for all our transgressions in the middle of two wars. Nothing about the entire process since 911 was been conducted without hollering and screaming at each other. Everything about everything about the last 8 years has been over the top. Instead of coming together as a nation to fight a war we have nearly torn ourselves apart. Its time to end this crap and approach the war on terror as a police action in which an international task force is created and the terrorists are hunted down with international authority.
  7. Posted by Jeb
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #95748
    Jeb Doomed, I am not saying that those on the left or far left (whatever those terms mean) do not argue forcefully for the closing of Gitmo and giving detainees habeus corpus right. I am arguing that closing Gitmo and giving detainees the right of habeus corpus is not inherently a left wing position and it is certainly not a far left position. It is the considered legal opinion of the JAG corps, it is also the operational opinion of all of the top military brass that I have seen comment on it. To argue that it is a far left position because of recent polling is not instructive. Other recent polling has the population split. Does that then make it a moderate postion? Polling a year ago has strong majorities for closing Gitmo. Was it a far right position to leave Gitmo in operation then and now its ideological roots have changed with the polling? Obama promised during the campaign that Gitmo would be closed and he criticized the Bush administration for not extending habeus corpus rights to detainees. He has not moved quickly and decisively on either and has upheld some of the same policies that he criticized as candidate Obama. It was stated early and often that the left would not criticize Obama for partisan reasons. The left has roundly criticized Obama for this as have some moderates. The far left has complained the most loudly and some of their criticism is unrealistic. That is typical of the political fringes.
    Nothing about the entire process since 911 was been conducted without hollering and screaming at each other. Everything about everything about the last 8 years has been over the top.
    That is certainly true though I would extend the timeline back further than 8 years.
    Its time to end this crap and approach the war on terror as a police action in which an international task force is created and the terrorists are hunted down with international authority.
    That would be a better approach than what we have been doing.
  8. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #95751
    Doomed The left and Far left are quite clearly defined. You do yourself an injustice by pretending they are some dark and sinister term that I invented. But I go back to my original point. Moderates are what is going to bring some degree of sanity to the American political process. Until they begin speaking up we are in trouble because while I used the Gitmo poll as an example of moderates not speaking up the real problem is their silence on 1.7 trillion dollar deficits. GWB was going to destroy the world with 500 billion dollar deficits howled the left. Now that they are in charge they are defending 1.7 trillion dollar deficits because? Because its now their wish list we are talking about. In the meantime those with the power........MODERATES........are silent. As optimistic as I am, I hold out NO, ZERO, ZILCH hope for America in the coming future. The internet will inspire world wide anarchy and as we rush to armageddon...not the biblical one...A world in which we can no longer support our own population....see this months National Geographic....we will have attained what?
  9. Posted by CStanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #95752
    CStanley Thanks, Jason, for the detailed response. At a purely gut level, my reaction is still that those situations aren't comparable to the level of apology that the US currently ought to feel is necessary (particularly, for instance, a comparison to Nazi Germany which I don't think you intended to be similar in scale, or even to the need for the US to apologize for interrment of Japanese Americans in WWII.) Another difference between those situations and present day anti-American sentiment is that I feel there is a small portion of legitimate complaint and then a huge amount of anti-Americanism that is based on convenience for political leaders around the world to scapegoat to deflect from their own internal problems. That is why I don't see the apologetic stance as being without cost- as you well know, there are times that it's rhetorically beneficial to concede points to one's opponent but other times when that does have a negative effect, when the opponent isn't being intellectually honest and instead seizes on admissions and concessions. Personally I think that is how both our allies and our enemies will behave. On this: In fact, his efforts at admitting errors were so effective that they allowed the Khrushchev regime to continue many of the same practices while receiving basically a pass from much of the rest of the world. This is precisely what I feel Obama is doing, and while it could work out in the short run for him I don't think it will in the long run. Just as in domestic policy I think people will eventually see the huge disconnect between words and actions (which I believe is not just a temporary situation due to the need for time to enact political changes), I also believe that it will play out that way on the global scene.
  10. | Quote | Trackback | Link #95756
    Jason Arvak The JAG lawyers I have seen complaining have criticized the earlier process, but I do not think it is accurate to say that they are calling for full habeus corpus rights. As I have said, there are unique legal problems here and trying to deal with them using standard criminal procedures without any modification is not, in my opinion, a reasonable or even rational position. Demanding that detainees simply be released outright under a habeus petition is what far left people like Glenn Greenwald APPEAR to be advocating (it is tough to be sure since they refuse to address the question directly), and I think criticizing such an advocacy as a far left, anti-American position would be a fair criticism.
  11. | Quote | Trackback | Link #95757
    Jason Arvak
    when the opponent isn’t being intellectually honest and instead seizes on admissions and concessions
    And does what exactly? This is the gaping hole I always see in the criticism. I don't know what enemies or allies "do" with an acknowledgment of error or apology that somehow hurts us. Will anti-Americanism still exist among the embittered left in Europe (and in the U.S. for that matter)? Yes. Would it exist in more or less the same form and amount without the apology? Sure, probably more so, since it could also draw in moderates. The acknowledgment/apology approach is not a panacea, but is net-beneficial. I think we are seeing evidence of that in the global reaction to Obama's speech.
  12. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #95764
    Doomed There is a a unified effort going around the blogsphere recently in which the far left is trying repackage their agenda and make it appear as if it is mainstream and moderate. I saw this exact same tactic used during the entire Obama campaign especially early on as he was trying to establish himself and as Moveon.org and Michael Moore jumped on his ship. Once that happened the minions swept out thru the blogsphere reshaping every far left attack into a strawman. It was very effective. Very effective. Once Obama took office his minions have contiuned the same tactic whenever he does anything that is bound to be noticed they control the spin. They are excellent at doing this. It is an outstanding strategy. His minions sweep into every blog and shape the comment section into a debate about something that totally deflects the debate away from the topic. If we are talking about Obama apologizing then we end up talking about Gitmo. They always pull the debate to a track that they have lots of traction and ignore the intentional attempt at keeping on subject.
  13. Posted by CStanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #95779
    CStanley Jason: I believe that the admissions (particularly when overdone, which I think they already are) feed the anti-American propaganda- and especially so when the words are unaccompanied by actions toward actual change in the policies.
  14. | Quote | Trackback | Link #95780
    Jason Arvak Having read Revel's excellent analysis of anti-Americanism (I highly recommend it), I am convinced that most anti-Americanism is unaffected either way by apologies or arrogance or whatever. Anti-American propaganda relies on themes that are far more persistent than the events of the moment. The issue, then, is how to vary its effectiveness on broader discourse. And I've found that perceived arrogance helps its effectiveness while perceived humility undermines it. Agreement with anti-American sentiment in Europe ran as high at 70% a few year ago, and is dramatically in decline now. I consider that concrete evidence that the arrogance displayed by Rumsfeld's comments about "Old Europe" and "fish with a bicycle" made anti-American propaganda more effective while President Obama's approach has thus far undermined it. It is worth remembering that then-Governor Bush used to champion this idea for foreign policy in 2000. Only after hyper-nationalism took over as the basis for foreign policy after 9/11 did arrogance of power become the "conservative" basis for foreign policy. Perhaps conservatives should not be too wedded to that, as it may have been a strategic and philosophical error. So, Christine, I guess what I am saying to you is two things: 1) You have no specific scenario on exactly how harm results from acknowledging error or making apologies. The vague notion that it will somehow help anti-American propaganda and then that will turn into....something, I guess...lacks detail or impact. 2) Even your vague scenario contradicts the available evidence in public opinion polling.
  15. Posted by CStanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #95781
    CStanley I'm not sure what you mean by #2, but I do get your criticism that my opinion is strictly a gut level reaction and I can't really deny that. I don't really feel you've proven your case that these policies are cost free though because (as I tried to point out) the examples you gave were situations much different in degree and in relative strength/weakness of the countries involved. Do you see my point there at all? BTW, in criticizing the defensive posture I'm not espousing the opposite, arrogant stance either. I think that an American president can speak with more pride and positivism toward his country, and less outward self criticism, without coming across like an arrogant ass. To some extent, GWB was guilty of the latter though I often think it was exaggerated, and you're right that Rumsfeld was a better example of the wrongheaded approach (though the fact that GWB stood by him so long was certainly not helpful.) And finally, my critism of Obama's current use of this technique also includes the fact that he's sharply rebuking policies that in some cases he seems VERY unlikely to change. I know some people are assuming that he still will enact more change but has to step through the politics carefully, but my reading of situations like indefinite detention and warrantless wiretapping is that he intends to continue the policies even as he's strongly implying to the rest of the world that the Bush era policies led the US astray from our core values. I just don't know how that's not harmful- to say we're wrong but guess what, we're going to keep doing these wrong things.
  16. | Quote | Trackback | Link #95782
    Jason Arvak Well, as you know, Christine, it is impossible to prove a negative. Therefore, it is not possible for me to prove that acknowledging mistakes (I think the term "apology" does not accurately describe most of what Obama has been doing) is "cost-free". But it should be very easy to disprove my claim if I were indeed wrong. All that my opponent would need to do is show one example of a clear cost resulting from an acknowledgment of a mistake. The fact that no such example appears available is very strong evidence that I might be correct. My #2 criticism above is exemplified by today's column from Mark Steyn -- a claim of devastating negative consequences (total collapse of American cultural prestige) resulting from too much contrition, but no causal story whatsoever to justify his scenario. It's a version of the underwear gnomes problem. He has step 1 (too much apologizing) and step 3 (collapse of American cultural prestige), but step 2 is still a question mark. I do agree with you, however, that the President would be better off mixing his acknowledgment of mistakes with greater attention to acknowledgment of American successes as well. If kept up too long (and we are still in very early stages -- too early to make the kind of sweeping characterizations that Obama's critics seem prone to), the current pattern could skew too far in the opposite direction. And while I do not agree that it would constitute a "cost" (in that I don't think acknowledging mistakes causes any actual harm), it would constitute a missed opportunity (a lack of gain).
  17. Posted by CStanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #95783
    CStanley Well, I enjoy Steyn's writing but as a thinker he can be sloppy and tends to be much better at speaking to the converts than at convincing others. As for lack of examples of this type of policy causing harm, the paucity of examples is as much from no one ever having done it to this degree under similar circumstances, as far as I'm concerned. It's uncharted territory, and although I think you're sincere in your belief that it will have more benefit than cost, I simply disagree. We'll have to give it time to play out to see which of us is more correct.
  18. Posted by Kastanj
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #95845
    Kastanj "Well, I enjoy Steyn’s writing but as a thinker he can be sloppy and tends to be much better at speaking to the converts than at convincing others." I find him quite funny from time to time and he appears to actually work with some journalistic integrity. But he doesn't try and fail to convince people outside the choir, he simply doesn't try to. I'm not interested in multi-layered sarcasm and irony where you pretty much have to be a convert to understand what he is slyly and contemptuously hinting at. Another factor is how he enjoys the idea of European women being stabbed in the back by their "best friends" the muslims, etc. He comes across as a resentful and boorish nihilist.
  19. Posted by Interested
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #95984
    Interested
    Jeb : Doomed, Interested, Perhaps you did not notice that my comment you excerpted was in response to CStanley who said, I disagree with the statement on two fronts. 1) It may be an indicator, but certainly in and of itself the number of terrorist attacks in two different 8 year periods of time is not proof of the effectiveness of our grand anti-terror strategy over the times in question. Also see Jason’s comment below. 2) I am near certain (and am verifying now) that by whatever reasonable measure is settled upon there have been more attacks in the 8 years of the Bush strategy than in the 8 years of the Clinton strategy. 3) If I were being dishonest I would simply show #2 and claim that it proved the opposite of what was claimed. Your attack on me amounts to attacking me for honestly defending my position.
    How many citizens of any country would prefer that the rights of terrorists superceed the rights of their own brethren?
    1) The threat you identify is nebulous and uncertain. It does not require the life of a single person to allow detainees the right of habeus corpus. 2) We are talking about terrorist suspects not just terrorists. Many of these people were picked up by Afghanis for bounty are not terrorists. We offered substantial money to bring terrorists and shockingly enough Afghani warlords saw a profit in turning over foreigners to US troops regardless of whether or not they were terrorists. Our record keeping with these detainees has been so poor that in many cases we simply do not know if they are innocent or guilty. Denying them due process because we are scared is unconscionable. 3) If I were being dishonest I would simply show #2 and claim that it proved the opposite of what was claimed. Your attack on me amounts to attacking me for honestly defending my position.
    nope, 1) my life and that of my family, then my country is worth more than any citizen in any other country. 2) see #1 3) I'm probably just more honest about it than you are. But I'd bet push come to shove, you'd be at #1 before you knew what hit you. Jeb, the question that CS posed, went still unanswered by you. Smoke and mirrors are just that - smoke and mirrors
  20. Posted by Interested
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #95985
    Interested
    CStanley : Well, I enjoy Steyn’s writing but as a thinker he can be sloppy and tends to be much better at speaking to the converts than at convincing others. As for lack of examples of this type of policy causing harm, the paucity of examples is as much from no one ever having done it to this degree under similar circumstances, as far as I’m concerned. It’s uncharted territory, and although I think you’re sincere in your belief that it will have more benefit than cost, I simply disagree. We’ll have to give it time to play out to see which of us is more correct.
    Quite true, Jason's points were correct - for those given regions. American's, English, even Russians have much in common in ancestors than comparing American's to Egyptians or the like. In order for any apology to be effective, the one receiving needs to believe that the giver understands them.
  21. Posted by Kastanj
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #95993
    Kastanj "my life and that of my family, then my country is worth more than any citizen in any other country." Reagan disagrees with you, as do I. Perhaps I'd turn into a fascist if one of my family members was in danger during a "ticking time-bomb" scenario, but in a less emotional state I'd realize that if I can deny someone habeas corpus because I'm scared or self-righteous, someone else can use the excessive power I've given my government against me or my family members. "I’m probably just more honest about it than you are. But I’d bet push come to shove, you’d be at #1 before you knew what hit you." Which is why people with a backbone sign America up for an obligation: to deny you the capacity to mistreat people out of a misdirected and self-aggrandizing desire to protect one's family at all costs.