Washington (FA wire) - In the wake of yet another well-photographed Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, President Bush today offered his apologies and took responsibility for the incidents.
“I’m the Commander in Chief,” he said in a press conference on the White House lawn. “The conduct of the military is therefore my responsibility. I want to apologize to the Iraqi people and the American people.”
“When you look at what happened, you have to conclude that this abuse was a systemic problem,” the President went on. “And there’s little doubt that the fact that so many soldiers believed the Iraqis were partly to blame for 9/11 had something to do with these atrocities. In retrospect, I regret that I allowed and encouraged this misapprehension for the short-term benefit of securing popular support for the war - it definitely caused our soldiers to view themselves as avengers rather than liberators. That’s my fault.”
The President went on to concede that U.S. troops believing they were fighting an enemy that had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction might have also fueled their rapacious behavior. “Another big ‘oops,’ there,” he said. “When you consider that that the enemy had no terrible weapons, didn’t really fight back, and wasn’t even remotely responsible for any terrorism against Americans…. well, letting our soldiers believe that this was the case might not have been the greatest idea. That one’s on me. My bad.”
Afterwards, Bush sent a letter of apology to France. He acknowledged that he’d recently reacquainted himself with Foreign Minister Villepin’s statements before the war, which included the assertion, “We know already and Mr ElBaradei said that in a couple of months he might be able to certify that there are no nuclear programmes in Iraq. In the ballistic, we’ve seen the progress made through the missiles. Now we come to the biological and chemical programmes. We make progress also in these fields,” and “We think that when you have a friend, sometimes this friend disagrees and it is very important for a friend to be able to tell the truth.”
“Wow,” said the President. “He was really right on with that one, wasn’t he? And to think that as President I said nothing as the Congress offered ‘Freedom Fries’ and American citizens poured bottles of French wine into the streets. Gosh, I’m sorry about that.”
____________________________________________________
[Editor’s note: Due to a clerical error and a slight tear in the fabric of the space/time continuum here at the Fanatical Apathy offices, some news items might diverge slightly from actual events. We apologize for any inconvenience, and expect to have the problem fixed by January of 2009.]





28 comments
Trackback from RelentlesslyOptimistic - President Bush: My Bad
December 15, 2004 at 9:04 pm
Marcus
December 6, 2004 at 3:01 pm
1Brilliant as usual you liberal wacko.
A bit off topic, but being a curious swede, do they call the democrats left-wing in the states?
mike
December 6, 2004 at 3:22 pm
2There’s really no need for Bush to take responsibility, as Rumsfield already did (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1131623/posts). In fact, Rumsfield took so much responsibility that he immediately resigned and surrendered himself to the authorities to answer to charges of condoning war crimes. Coz that’s what “taking responsibility” actually means, right?
Allison in Santa Cruz
December 6, 2004 at 3:35 pm
3Fantastic, Adam! Too bad I had to wake up and realize that this posting was, as usual, brilliantly satirical rather than reality. Bush, taking responsiblity for his actions? He can’t even think of anything he’s done in the past four years that he considers a mistake, much less own up to it and apologize. Sigh.
bjd
December 6, 2004 at 4:02 pm
4This should be an ongoing series, Adam. Maybe even a whole new blog section: News That Should Be.
Murray
December 6, 2004 at 4:06 pm
5W doesn’t need to admit culpability. He won the election. (God, once again has confirmed his will). That means that the country is completely behind his moves and we must stay the course.
Marcus-
The Democrats occupy the left wing of congress and the Republicans the right, hence the moniker.
Jai
December 6, 2004 at 4:25 pm
6Murray - I really really hope that your comments to Marcus were your own attempt at satire.
Marcus - Yes they refer to the Democrats as left wing, because they always sit on the left wing of an extended dining table.
Jacob
December 6, 2004 at 6:30 pm
7Another good one, Adam.
I’m waiting for the space-time continuum to rip asunder when Bush admits that the theory of “Kill Terrorists Faster” may not hold in reality. But I realize the last two words of the previous sentence ensure, when co-joined with Bush, that will never happen.
ginny
December 6, 2004 at 6:38 pm
8Well, it’s about damn time, I… whaaa? A dream? NOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Landis
December 6, 2004 at 6:41 pm
9I’m tired of this filtered news that I’m getting from the AP and Reuters. Can’t I just get all my news from the FA wire? At least until Bush resigns following Nixon’s precedent….
tess
December 6, 2004 at 7:10 pm
10Resign? Hell no! Then what does Adam, Jon Stewart, and all the other satirists out there have to write about? Though admittedly, most of them, and many of us are still crying while we laugh.
Besides, since when do honor and integrity have anything to do with the American presidency? Bush has hisself a man-date! Now all he has to decide is whether to go out with that Chinese feller or that swank Saudi guy who’s been loitering around these here parts.
Rupert
December 6, 2004 at 9:17 pm
11bjd,
There’s a whole network that broadcasts “news as it should be.” It’s called FoxNews, and we never let the facts interfere with a good story.
Tune in some time.
Auros
December 7, 2004 at 12:24 am
12Re: Left / Right wing, I believe the traditiaonl seating arrangements of liberals on “stage left” and conservatives on “stage right” (i.e. left and right relative to a speaker facing out from the central podium) started in the Revolutionary French legislature.
Wikipedia confirms: Under the Left-Right Politics article: The term originated in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791, when the moderate royalist Feuillants sat on the right side of the chamber, while the radical Montagnards sat on the left.
In other news: Did y’all see the other BBC article linked from the sidebar about hunting Satan in Falluja? Very disturbing. Right up there with Crusader Boykin.
“The enemy has got a face — he’s called Satan, he’s in Falluja, and we’re going to destroy him.”
– Lt Col Brandl, US Marine Corps.
Maybe we ought to start renaming our troops using the kind of titles favored by the Protoss.
tess II
December 7, 2004 at 12:54 am
13Apparently there’s been another slight tear in the space/time continuum, this one of a slightly more malignant variety in which Rupert Murdoch has bought out FA and is attempting to foist Fox News on this little corner of cyberspace. Scary.
Jerry
December 7, 2004 at 5:15 am
14True, Auros…you don’t hear of the Zealots suing the Protoss for keeping them for twice the tour they signed up for!
Tess II - In my local reference system the Space/Time Continuum isn’t just torn, it’s shredded! Here, George Bush was re-elected (or sort of elected for the first time, depending on your viewpoint)!!!
Skernik
December 7, 2004 at 10:41 am
15Jerry,
The first time indeed, since he didn’t win in 2000, I guess he can run for re-election.
Get ready for the Bush/Schwarzenegger ‘08 campaign! (You know, the one where the Dems are dumb/desperate enough to run Hillary…)
ABM
December 7, 2004 at 1:25 pm
16Who says he won this time? With malfunctioning Diebold machines and no paper trails. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him try to name himself as dictator like he once joked about - or was it a fruedian slip??
Rusty
December 7, 2004 at 2:27 pm
17I’ve heard two quotes this week almost verbatim in language, if not in spirit, with Caddyshack.
First, I was at a concert at a Masonic lodge, and the grand poobaa was telling us what Masons are. He said, “one of the defining characteristics of a Mason is that you have to believe in God. So we got that going for us.”
Had to bite my lip to keep from laughing at this sincere auspicious occasion. I’m happy for them that they will attain total consciousness on their deathbeds.
Turning to the news today: ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - Navy Secretary Gordon R. England urged Americans to avoid forming conclusions about recently published photographs of Navy special forces capturing detainees in Iraq.
Again, I feel like I’ve been transported to Carl Spackler land. “Pay no attention to that bush, moving around over there by that tree, it’s just a bush. Nothing to look twice at. Nothing to be alarmed about.”
The first incident is just funny. The second is disturbing. Englund is saying don’t think. Don’t judge. Don’t hold anyone to account. Sorry, this gopher is smarter than that.
Jerry
December 7, 2004 at 6:13 pm
18God, YES, America…Don’t come to conclusions based on those damn pesky “facts” that keep surfacing!! And continue to pay NO attention to the Bush moving around over there!
Jerry
December 7, 2004 at 7:40 pm
19Ya know, Skernik, at first I laughed, but on reflection, it would not be beyond this crowd to go to the Supreme Court, acknowledge (with “new” evidence from Florida, circa 2002) that Bush had not won then, and was therefore eligible for a ‘third’ term.
Sharon
December 8, 2004 at 9:46 am
20Jerry, fortunately, I don’t believe they can or would do that. Just as Kerry’s concession speech had no legal effect, neither would the Bushies’ repudiation of the 2000 election results. Besides, that would be admitting to wrong-doing, and they will never do that. Still, I do shudder to think what could happen in 2008, when we’re still “at war”.
Just remember what happened in Nixon’s second term. The truth will out, there is justice in this world, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Auros
December 9, 2004 at 11:02 pm
21Schwarzenneger’s agitating for a Constitutional Amendment to allow foreign-born citizens to run for Prez. Why not repeal that pesky two-term limit, while he’s at it? I mean, the Repubs have already all reneged on their promises to self-term-limit in Congress, and have repealed that rule about not letting felony-indicted Congresscreeps run committees…
Sharon
December 10, 2004 at 9:28 am
22Auros, the same thought crossed my mind a few weeks ago, but I checked the Constitution, and it takes a super-majority (three-fourths) of the States to ratify an amendment. The Red States aren’t there yet. If the DNC doesn’t veer even further to the right, they never will be.
What concerns me more is a president who claims more and more power for himself, under the cover of being “a war president”. He could keep this going for a very long time.
Murray
December 10, 2004 at 4:23 pm
23I believe that it is the 28th ammendment that was pushed by the Republicans after FDR to prevent another Democrat from being in the White House too long.
They talked about repealing after Reagan but he was already talking to the wall by then.
They will never do it, even if they thought that they could keep W in office forever because it would allow Bill Clinton to sweep back into office and stay there.
Clinton would mop the floor with W and any other Republican.
tribolumen
December 10, 2004 at 4:55 pm
24Re a third term for Bush, the Constitution prohibits it regardless of whether he was elected in 2000. The 22nd Amendment states that “no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once”. While it’d be hard to argue that he’s acted like a President, he’s definitely held the office for more than two years of “his” first term. Repudiating the results of the 2000 election would be an admission that someone else was elected, so it would still prevent him from being elected more than once (which he seems to have been in 2004, much as I hate to say it).
Although, maybe he could repudiate both the 2000 and 2004 elections… OK, now I’m creeping myself out.
hedera
December 12, 2004 at 1:04 am
25I agree with Murray - the Republicans will never even try to repeal the Roosevelt amendment while Bill Clinton lives, because they’d never get him out of office again.
Murray
December 12, 2004 at 6:30 pm
26Opps, make that the 22nd amendment.
Thanks, tribolumen.
Thompson
December 12, 2004 at 7:33 pm
27Note for the regs. Came across something while reading up on the amendment in question. Do a search on yahoo using the words constitution amendment president term limit. It’ll pull up a bunch of pages (per the yahoo standard), but one of the top articles will have something to do with two attempts made to repeal the 22nd in early 2003. Six dems and two repubs got in on the action, provided it’s not a joke.
Please let it be a joke…