Bush isn't apologizing to make Iraqis feel better. He's saying to Iraqis : this is what democracy is. Democracy doesn't require that there are no idiots; it's compromised by them, fixes it, and then continues uncompromised. That's how democracy can work even though there are idiots, say in Iraq. Clinton was always trying to please somebody.

Touchy-feely talk as gone empty on what an apology is. Here's Erving Goffman

``A further illustration of the difference between ritual concerns
and substantive ones comes from occasions of accident in which
the carelessness of one individual is seen as causing injury or
death to another. Here there may be no way at all to compensate the
offended, and no punishment may be prescribed. All that the offend[er]
can do is say he is sorry. And this expression itself may be
relatively little open to gradation. The fact - at least in our
society - is that a very limited set of ritual enactments are
available for contrite offenders. Whether one runs over another's
sentence, time, dog, or body, one is more or less reduced to saying
some variant of ``I'm sorry.'' The variation in degree of anguish
expressed by the apologizer seems a poor reflection of the variation
in loss possible to the offended. In any case, while the original
infraction may be quite substantive in its consequence, the remedial
work, however vociferous, is in these cases still largely expressive.
And there is a logic to this. After an offense has occurred, the job
of the offender is to show that it was not a fair expression of his
attitude, or, when it evidently was, to show that he has changed his
attitude to the rule that was violated. In the latter case, his job
is to show that whatever happened before, he now has a right
relationship - a pious attitude - to the rule in question, _and this
is a matter of indicating a relationship, not compensating a loss_''

Goffman's emphasis.

_Relations in Public_ ``Remedial Interchanges'' p.117-118

Re: the Apology Fetish.

Liberalism is about parading one's superior virtue in public, to be admired by oneself and others.

Everything that a liberal does, from cocktail party conversation to mass demonstration, gratifies the same adolescent need; and nothing is a greater affront than the non-liberal who ignores the liberal's moral primacy - in this case, George W Bush.

When liberals demand an apology, they demand the abasement of the pretender, and acknowledgement of their own moral authority.

Maybe I'm confused due to my faith tradition, but i thought apologies or requests for forgiveness should come from those who committed the acts. We can all express remorse, or sadness for the evil deeds done in the prison in Iraq. Likewise, we can praise those who are doing the right thing in bringing justice to this situation--but we don't get to take credit for that either.

And while I'm thinking about it, i, too, thought that rebroadcasting the abuse pictures was degrading to those involved, even if we can't see the victims faces. In a way, the fact that some of the faces aren't seen further dehumanizes them--can't we honor the victims by NOT showing the pictures?

I can't imagine asking someone to apologize to me. But as a parent, I sometimes tell one of my children to apologize. I guess that's what's happening—certain people are telling others they ought to apologize.

BUT, such a demand would normally imply a next step of forgive-and-forget. Which is what is so totally bogus about the demands for apologies we are hearing. They are really saying, "apologize so we can tell everyone you admitted you were wrong, and rub it in for the next 30 years"