The Secretary Of Defense Apologizes To Americans

When a person makes a mistake, the correct action is to apologize for it. But that rarely happens in the political world.

Most of the time, elected and appointed political figures either deny the mistake, try to justify it, or issue a non-apology apology -- like "I'm sorry that people misunderstood what I did" or "I'm sorry that people felt hurt by my action".

Those are not real apologies. They shift the blame for the mistake from the person who did it to others. Trying to shift the blame for mistakes is not apologizing. It's just another pathetic attempt to justify the mistake.

In December, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin had a procedure to cure his prostate cancer. In early January, he was experiencing some medical complications from that procedure and went into the hospital. Being a private person (as many people are), the Secretary did not notify the president or the American people of his hospitalization.

Secretary Austin, being a private person (as many of us are), did not notify the president or the press (which had the effect of keeping it a secret from the American people). 

The nation's defense was not in jeopardy since either the Secretary or Assistant Secretary was in charge at all time. But the failure to notify was a serious mistake. The president and the nation have a right to know about the hospitalization of such an important government official.

To his credit, Secretary Austin did not try to deny his mistake, justify it, or shift the blame. He issued a real apology on Thursday' press conference, saying, "I want to be crystal clear. I did not handle this right. I should have told the president about my cancer diagnosis. I should have also told my team and the American people, and I take full responsibility. I apologize to my teammates and to the American people."

It is refreshing to see a government official recognize a mistake and issue a real apology for it. Others serving the American people should take note and do the same when they make mistakes. The American people deserve honesty from their officials.

I commend the Secretary for recognizing his mistake and issuing a real apology!

Letters Of Apology To The People Of Georgia

Scott Hall

Sidney Powell

Kenneth Chesebro

As a requirement of their plea agreements, the defendants in the Georgia election indictments were required to apologize to the people of Georgia for their actions.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has reprinted three of those letters of apology.

The top letter is from Scott Hall. He took the requirement seriously, and wrote a sincere and acceptable apology.

I cannot say the same for Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro. Their hastily scribbled "apologies", in my opinion, are an insult to the people of Georgia.

To Our Heroic Health Care Workers - We Are Sorry

The true heroes of this pandemic are the health care workers. They have sacrificed to save the lives of Americans, and some of them have even died doing that. The sad part is that the pandemic could have been over if people had just worn masks and gotten vaccinated. Too many refuse to do either, and their refusal has caused the virus to come raging back. 

Now the health care workers are facing full hospitals, staff shortages, and continuing deaths (most of which could have been prevented). Do the unvaccinated (mostly right-wingers who whine about masks and vaccinations) even care about what they are doing to those health care heroes? They don't seem to care!

The following is from Dan Rather at steady.com. I think he speaks for most decent Americans.

Dear American Healthcare Workers,

On behalf of our nation, I am sorry. 

I am sorry that we are where we are today with a raging pandemic when free, incredibly effective vaccines are readily available. I am sorry the ICUs and emergency rooms are full with people who did not need to get this sick. I am sorry that selfishness, ignorance, and arrogance has exacerbated this crisis and that you have had to bear the burden of life-and-death battles, hospital bed by hospital bed. I am sorry that elected officials have tried to score political points by stoking anti-science narratives based on lies around this virus, the vaccine, and bogus treatments, while attacking your credibility and service. It is beyond shameful. I am sorry that you have been subjected to verbal and even physical abuse while you have risked your lives and the lives of your families. 

I remember in the early days of the pandemic when we would gather nightly in New York to applaud your sacrifice. In those days, there was no vaccine. There was no expectation that there would be any protection anytime soon. And yet, day after day, you went into the fight, trying to save lives. How long ago those days seem now. How much has transpired, some of it hopeful, much of it deeply discouraging. 

I would like to believe that the vast majority of Americans value your service, even if they will never know the full horrors you have had to endure. Like soldiers constantly on the frontlines, tour after tour, you have had little time for rest. I understand why you are drained, frustrated, and angry. I understand why many of you may choose to leave a profession that has been your life’s work. In times of war, many glibly thank members of the armed forces for their service, never understanding the full measure of their sacrifice. So is it with you today. We owe you much more than our gratitude. We owe you our lives. And we owe you the freedom that allows us to dream of a healthier future. 

It is a cruel irony that those who denigrate basic measures of public health under the misguided banner of “freedom,” have confined you to continued imprisonment in a nightmarish world of endless waves of new cases. And now the enemy has regrouped with a deadlier variant, and once again you are asked to man the battlements and repel the invaders. People who blithely castigated your knowledge and the vaccines now selfishly demand that they get every possible treatment. Their presence in crowded hospitals also means there is less time and fewer beds - if any at all - for you to treat patients with other medical needs, like strokes, trauma, and heart disease. The stress on the system builds. 

My hope is that your allies across the country, the tens of millions who have been vaccinated, who are trying to protect others and themselves from the virus, have also had enough. Mask mandates are growing, and politicians who try to ban them are receiving serious pushback. Vaccine mandates are also on the rise. This is all progress. But when the pandemic eventually fades, we will need to more than just acknowledge these measures of necessity. We will need to have a deep introspection, an after-action report, to understand how we pushed our healthcare system to the brink and how we make sure nothing like this ever happens again. 

Your heroic service deserves to be long remembered and celebrated. But I suspect, more than anything, you would yearn for the appreciation that comes from the humbling knowledge that our public health demands that we look out for each other, that we do all we can to protect our communities and the broader world. I pledge, and I ask others to do so as well, that we will not let this issue fade as the case numbers hopefully decrease. We must demand of our leaders that they fortify our nation for the public-health battles ahead. We need the press to be engaged and we need every platform that disseminates information to make sure that they ferret out the lies, and promote the truth. 

That is the least you deserve. 

With deep gratitude, 

Dan Rather 

We Have A Duty To Criticize Military Officers When Wrong

Too often in this country, we fail to criticize senior officers (and ex-officers) of the military when they are wrong (just like we do with religious figures and doctors).

This was illustrated this last week, when the White House Press Secretary berated the media for questioning ex-general Kelly. Kelly had been wrong when accusing Rep. Wilson of misdeeds. But Press Secretary Sanders said it was wrong to question a "four star general". She was wrong.

In this country, no one is above the law -- and no one is above being questioned and criticized when they screw up. And that includes the military.

Consider this from USA Today:

Since 2013, military investigators have documented at least 500 cases of serious misconduct among its generals, admirals and senior civilians, almost half of those instances involving personal or ethical lapses, a USA TODAY investigation has found.

Many cases involve sex scandals, including a promiscuous Army general who led a swinging lifestyle, another who lived rent-free in the home of a defense contractor after his affair fell apart and another who is under investigation for sending steamy Facebook messages to the wife of an enlisted soldier on his post.

Now these weren't enlisted personnel or junior officers. They were SENIOR OFFICERS in all branches of our military.

I'm not trying to denigrate the military in general. Most of our military personnel (at all levels) serve honorably, and they deserve our unflinching gratitude. My point is that those senior officers in the military are human beings (just like the rest of us) -- and some of them are not very smart or ethical or moral human beings (again, just like the rest of us).

They should not be put on a pedestal and never questioned. And when they do stupid or unethical or immoral things, they need to be criticized -- and they should be expected to apologize.

General Kelly owes Rep. Wilson (and all Americans) an apology -- and he should not be excused from making that apology just because he was a four star general.

Trump Administration Actually Apologizes (Or Did They?)

Last Thursday, White House Press Secretary tried again to defend Trump's outrageous claim that President Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower. He told the press:

"Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command . . .didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he didn't use the FBI, and he didn't use the Department of Justice. He used GCHQ. What is that? It's the initials for the British Intelligence Spying Agency."

That was just another lie. And it was even a worse lie than Trump's original lie -- because it accused the British government, America's closest ally, of spying on the president-elect of the United States. It was a lie that could easily have damaged relations between the United States and Great Britain -- and the British were quick to deny it had ever happened.

The Trump administration is not viewed very favorably in Great Britain anyway. A large poll showed that a majority of the British public did not want Trump to visit their country, and the British parliament voted to ask the prime minister to rescind her invitation for Trump to visit. The Trump administration couldn't afford to further damage relations with Great Britain. That means an apology was in order.

But Trump, because of his serious narcissistic disorder, is incapable of apologizing for anything -- not for an outrageous lie nor an egregious mistake. He is quick to demand apologies from others, but absolutely refuses to apologize for his own errors.

A real president would have immediately picked up the phone and called the British prime minister, and issued a personal apology. That would have been the appropriate and ethical thing to do. But our narcissist-in-chief could not bring himself to do that -- not even to smooth over relations with our closest ally.

So, he sent two of his White House flunkies to do what he would not do -- apologize. General McMaster apologized to Sir Mark Lyall Grant, the prime minister's national security advisor. Sean Spicer apologized to Sir Kim Darroch, Britain's ambassador to the United States. The two flunkies also promised British officials that it would not happen again. Considering Trump's loose mouth, complete disregard for truth, and his chaotic administration, I doubt that's a promise that can be kept.

This is probably as close to an apology we'll ever hear from our liar-in-chief. Enjoy it, because it is unlikely to ever happen again.

NOTE -- It looks like I may have spoken too soon. Spicer is now saying he just "explained" the situation to Ambassador Darroch, but did not apologize -- and Trump is saying they did nothing to apologize for. He's wrong, of course.

I'm so ashamed that Trump is in the White House. To my British friends -- Your country is definitely owed an apology, but don't hold your breath.

Public Is Not Happy With Trump's Handling Of Sex Scandal

Donald Trump offered sort of an apology for his lewd tape describing how he sexually assaults women (and can get away with it because of his celebrity) in the last debate. But mainly, he just tried to minimize his behavior by calling it "locker room" banter -- suggesting that this is common behavior by most men. Then he brought up Bill Clinton's past to try and smear Hillary Clinton.

He may have thought he had successfully defused the scandal, but the American public has a different view. Most thought his apology was inadequate (51% to 31%), and they also didn't like his attack on Bill Clinton to cover his own misbehavior (55% to 37%). And those same opinions crossed all gender, age, and racial groups.

Trump still has a lot of work to do, and he's running out of time to do it.

The charts above are from a recent YouGov Poll -- done between October 10th and 12th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, with a margin of error of 4.6 points.

A "Bernie Bro" Apologizes To Hillary Clinton

(This photo of Hillary Clinton is from hillaryclinton.com.)

The following post is by Isaac Saul at aplus.com:

When this election began, I was like millions of millennial men: a "Bernie bro" rooting hard for Sen. Sanders.

Watching the candidate of my dreams get steam late and lose in the primary wasn't so different from watching my favorite football team not have enough energy to complete a fourth quarter rally. Hopeful, exciting, but ultimately deflating and disappointing.

When Hillary Clinton became the presumptive Democratic nominee, I was distraught. Months before I had written about her, explaining that I despised her not for her gender — as some of her supporters accused — but for her hawkishness, her center-left policies, her husband's crime bill that incarcerated so many people of color, her support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and her inability to get progressive on climate change policy.

I've spent almost every waking hour of every day following this election, reading about Hillary, Donald Trump, both parties' platforms, and the under-qualified Libertarian and Green Party candidates running. During these months of obsessing over my choice, I've watched my position slowly shift. I've felt myself start advocating for Hillary more than advocating a vote against Trump, culminating in last night's debate when she finally, totally, completely won me over.

In an election that features one of the most well-documented liars and scam artist businessmen to ever run for public office, much of the attention has been on him — how we can't put him in office, give him keys to a nuclear warhead, trust him in the most powerful position in the world. Some of it has been more positive: how he'd turn the system on its head, be a Washington outsider, completely rewrite the script. While it's easy to make the case for voting against Trump, it occurred to me during the debate last night how much we've taken Clinton for granted.

Let's start with a simple but important position: Hillary Clinton is the most qualified person to ever run for president.

Measuring qualifications, of course, is somewhat subjective. She's never served in the military, something previous candidates have done. But she was a secretary of state for four years, a U.S. senator for eight years, a first lady who lived in the White House, saw the challenges of being president up close and personal for eight years, a first lady of Arkansas, and a law professor and a partner at a law firm to boot. If she were elected, she'd be the first former cabinet member to become president in almost 100 years.

Just months before 9/11, Hillary Clinton became a U.S. senator in New York. She served for eight years in the city and was a key architect of the $21 billion federal aid bill that helped rebuild the city after her term started with the worst tragedy New York had ever seen. But perhaps what she is most remembered for is fighting for the health bill that served first responders in the first 48 hours after the attack. While Donald Trump bragged about his building now being the tallest in New York City, Clinton was fighting the Environmental Protection Agency to admit the air wasn't safe to breathe. That's why Clinton has the support of so many 9/11 first responders and survivors: they remember her work as a senator of New York.

But guess what? Google "Clinton health bill 9/11" and you'll find nothing but results about her nearly fainting outside a 9/11 memorial service, one she attended while diagnosed with pneumonia. 

That wasn't the first time Clinton had advocated for a strong health care bill, though. In 1994, a universal health care bill that Hillary Clinton pushed for had failed as the Clinton administration came into office. Then Democrats lost the House and then lost the Senate for the first time in 40 years. Democrats had essentially given up on health care reform, until First Lady Clinton helped the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). She's largely credited with getting the bill into law, and it became the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded health insurance in three decades. 

Today, the bill has resounding bipartisan support, and 8.4 million children — many of them low-income — are enrolled in its program. 

As she mentioned in the debate, her time as secretary of state required everything from traveling to 112 countries and debating peace deals and ceasefires, to negotiating the release of dissidents — men and women who pushed back against authoritarian regimes. What she didn't mention was just how real that "stamina" was: she set records for travel as secretary of state. 

But during Clinton's time as secretary, she also advocated a powerful, important worldview: that the United States could be a force of good and progressivism across the world, advocating for human rights, development, and equality in nations that may not know any of those things. She pushed for investment and accommodation with Asian powers such as China, who she knows we can share mutual goals with like preventing war in the Asian Pacific and spurring economic growth by investing in the future of technology. 

In the beginning of her term as secretary of state, Clinton had to win over President Barack Obama — something that, at the time, was not guaranteed. They had a heated primary battle and many thought they may never mend those wounds. But today, Obama is one of her biggest advocates. Despite publicly disagreeing with her at times, most notably on the specifics of Syrian intervention, he's come to trust her counsel and had her present for some of their biggest moments in the situation room, such as when she helped him coordinate the assassination of Osama bin Laden.

Perhaps Clinton's greatest blemish on her record is the destabilizing of Libya, which led to the Benghazi diplomatic compound attack. Certainly, it was one of the career bullet points that made me despise her. But despite $7 million dollars spent on Benghazi investigations, 1,982 published pages of reports on Benghazi, 10 congressional committees participating in investigations, 3,194 questions asked in a public forum, Clinton and her administration have been found guilty of zero wrongdoing. No "stand down" call was ever found, one of the cornerstones of the Republican claims. The family of Chris Stevens — the ambassador who became the face of the Benghazi tragedy after he was killed in the siege — has publicly objected to blaming Clinton for Benghazi.

Even more lost in the Benghazi witch hunt is a simple reality: during George W. Bush's presidency, there were 13 attacks on U.S. embassies that killed 60 people. Yet his career and record were not marred by these. Despite that, Trump and his campaign still thought it should have been brought up in last night's debate.

Throughout her time in public service, Hillary Clinton has negotiated ceasefires in Israel, put the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Equity Act into law, authored the Pediatric Research Equity Act (which helped re-label drugs to keep millions of children safe), and she got the EU, Russia, China and other world powers to participate in the crippling sanctions on Iran that forced the country to negotiate its nuclear plan out of existence. All while enduring propaganda that thrust Benghazi and the Clinton Foundation — from which there's also been no evidence of wrongdoing, in fact, quite the contrary — into the public's mind.

And throughout all that time, Clinton has traveled the world advocating a better life for women in places where that concept wasn't even on the radar. She's pushed for paternity leave here in the United States, and became a symbol of women's rights and women's progress everywhere. Looking at Secretary Clinton and reading about her accomplishments, it's tough to think that it was just 100 years ago the U.S. elected the first woman to Congress. That 100 years later, she's our first female candidate for president to win a primary.

And what does she get for all of this work? As the debate wrapped up on Monday night, Clinton endured Trump's threats to mention her husband's adultery despite the fact he's had three marriages, and been accused of rape and adultery himself. As she eviscerated him on calling women pigs and dogs, Trump lied about his position on the Iraq War, lied about his reasons for not releasing his tax returns, lied about his belief that climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese, lied about his feeling that pregnancy is an "inconvenience" for businesses, lied during his defense of unconstitutional stop and frisk, lied that crime is getting worse in New York, and then lied when he said his temperament was his greatest quality. And what did Clinton get?

On Fox News, they cut to their political analyst Brit Hume describing Clinton: "The TV audience saw the faces of the two candidates," Hume said. "And she looked composed, smug sometimes … not necessarily attractive."

All this work, and what did Clinton get? She got an actual smug, young journalist named Isaac Saul writing about how I despised her, when I hardly knew the depth of her accomplishments, when I was clinging to the pipe dream of a Bernie Sanders presidency that may have never been in the cards, when my own father got ignored while he tried his best to talk some sense into me.

Secretary Clinton, I'm sorry. And I retract my previous position of hatred and angst towards you. You have made mistakes, some of them grave, and some of them unforgivable. Unfortunately, that comes with decades of life in the public eye, pressure, and microphones in your face. But you have also accomplished far more in your life as a public servant than just about anyone that's run for this office, and certainly far more than I ever will. When November rolls around, you'll have my vote.

And you'll get it enthusiastically.

Apology

I apologize to all my readers for not posting today. I spent 14 hours working the election polls yesterday (and processed over 500 voters). By the time I got home, I was too tired to post anything. Regular posting will resume tomorrow.

Don't Expect Donald Trump To Apologize - He Can't

(This Trump cartoon is by Dave Granlund at davegranlund.com.)

This exchange happened at a Donald Trump question and answer session with his supporters on Thursday:

TRUMP: Okay, this man, I like this guy.

UNIDENTIFIED JACKASS: (Unintelligible) We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims. We know our current president is one.

TRUMP: Right.

UNIDENTIFIED JACKASS: You know he's not even an American.

TRUMP: (Big smile) We need this question. This is (unintelligible).

UNIDENTIFIED JACKASS: But anyway, we have training camps, growing, where they want to kill us. That's my question: when can we get rid of them?

TRUMP: We're going to be looking at a lot of different things. I mean you know a lot of people are saying that and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening out there and we're going to be looking at that and plenty of other things.

And on Friday, the media went crazy about it -- with many of them, and some other candidates, saying Trump should apologize for the bigotry he displayed in accepting the questioner's premise without correcting him. All I can say is don't hold your breath for a Trump apology. It won't happen.

Trump not only won't apologize -- he can't. He's a narcissist, and has never apologized for his idiocy or his bigotry. He's simply incapable of admitting he might be wrong.

But perhaps more important is the fact that an apology would cost him support (and Ted Cruz, who exhibits the same kind of bigotry, would pick up many of Trump's supporters). Just look at who Trump's supporters are. They are the angry teabaggers, who hate the president and are willing to believe anything they consider to be negative about him -- and most of them consider being a muslim to be a negative.

In fact, a recent poll showed that around 43% of Republicans believe the president is a muslim -- and many of that 43% are supporters of Donald Trump (because he has shown himself to be a "birther" and a bigot in the past -- which they love). While Trump is a despicable person, he's not a complete idiot (despite what some of us might think). He's not about to anger a substantial portion of his base with an apology -- no matter how much it is deserved.

Apologies

I can understand how these good folks feel. Living in Texas, I feel the same way at lot of the time.

After all, we have given the world Ted Cruz (the new Joe McCarthy), inveterate liar John Cornyn, Rick Perry (who thinks the rich shouldn't have to pay taxes and the poor don't deserve medical care), Louie Gohmert and Steve Stockman (who make Michele Bachman look nearly sane), a state Republican Party that wants to ban the teaching of thinking skills in schools, and a State School Board that wants to screw up schoolbooks around the nation.

I used to hope Texas would enter the 21st Century, but now I would be satisfied if we could just make it into the 20th Century (something the Republicans seem determined to prevent).

Hagel Apologizes For Anti-Gay Slur

It has been rumored for quite a while now that former Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel will be President Obama's choice to become Secretary of Defense when Leon Panetta retires early next year. While I am not exactly thrilled that a Republican will be nominated, the two-time senator does have some things in his favor.

First, he is not a teabagger, but a moderate who has the courage to oppose his own party when necessary and the intelligence to compromise when appropriate. He is a decorated veteran (which should probably be a requirement for Secretary of Defense) and served in Vietnam. He was also one of the first senators to realize the Iraq War was a mistake, and voted with Democrats for a plan to withdraw.

Another thing in his favor is that the teabaggers don't like him. Just a few days ago Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) came out in opposition to Hagel's nomination -- and frankly, anyone Cornyn doesn't like is worth consideration at least.

But in the last few days, Hagel has also run into a little trouble with progressives. They don't like an insensitive (and rather stupid) statement he made back in 1998, when James C. Hormel was nominated by President Bill Clinton to be ambassador to Luxembourg. Hagel said Hormel was "openly aggressively gay" and wouldn't properly represent the "values" of Americans. Last Friday, Hagel apologized for that. Here is what he said:

“My comments 14 years ago in 1998 were insensitive. They do not reflect my views or the totality of my public record, and I apologize to Ambassador Hormel and any LGBT Americans who may question my commitment to their civil rights. I am fully supportive of ‘open service’ and committed to LGBT military families.”


Now I don't wish to make excuses for Hagel's original anti-gay statement. He deserved to be raked over the coals for it. But I do think progressives should consider a couple of things before writing Hagel off as not fit to be appointed. First, the statement was made 14 years ago. This was a much different country then, and in the last 14 years a lot of progress in equal rights has been made -- and a lot of the American public have changed their minds about the LGBT community. Isn't it possible that Hagel is one of those people?

Second, this didn't sound to me like the basic Republican non-apology apology. This sounded like a real apology. I'm not ready to whitewash him and forgive him of all his sins, but I do think he deserves the chance to prove that he has changed and really believes in equal rights. What do you think?

Is Willard's Apology Real ?

(This caricature of Willard is by DonkeyHotey.)

It looks like Willard Mitt Romney (aka Wall Street Willie) has finally realized that he seriously wounded his campaign when he expressed his disdain for 47% of all Americans to a group of his rich donors. In an effort to try and stop the bleeding, Willard has now offered up an apology (or at least what passes for an apology for toady's Republicans). here is what he told Sean Hannity on Fox News:

“Clearly in a campaign with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you are going to say something that doesn't come out right. In this case I said something that's just completely wrong. And I absolutely believe, however, that my life has shown that I care about 100 percent. And that has been demonstrated throughout my life.  And this whole campaign is about the 100 percent. When I become president it will be about helping the 100 percent.”

Is he telling the truth? I don't doubt that he regrets saying it, because it has upset a lot of people and cost him some votes. But what about his statement in this apology about how his life has shown that he cares about the 100%? Frankly, looking at his life, I just don't see it. He certainly didn't care about 100% of his peers at his posh private school, or he wouldn't have instructed his buddies to hold a student down while Willard cut his hair. And he certainly didn't demonstrate he cared for 100% of Americans while he was at Bain Capital -- and destroyed or outsourced many thousands of jobs and bankrupted many companies, just to provide himself and his rich buddies with windfall (and unearned) profits.

We have to ask ourselves one question. Was Willard telling the truth when he thought the cameras were off and he was talking with his rich peers, or was he telling the truth when he knew the cameras were on and he was appealing for votes? I'm betting on the former. It is far more likely that Willard was telling the truth when he thought he was having a private conversation with his rich buddies, than when he was on TV in campaign mode and talking to voters. After all, Willard has a history of flip-flopping and telling campaign crowds what he thinks they want to hear.

The Apology Akin Should Have Made

By now you've probably heard that Rep. Todd Akin (R-Missouri) has made an apology for disprespecting women who have been raped. Well, it was sort of a non-apology apology -- the kind Republicans are famous for making. What he actually said was the he had "mis-spoke", but what he meant was that he should have known better than to tell the truth in an election year.

But The Onion, America's premiere humor and satire site, has their own version of the Akin apology -- and personally, I think it's the one he should have made. Here is part of the Onion version (and I urge you to read the whole thing -- it's hilarious):

As a politician, I often find myself in situations where, unfortunately, I express a certain thought or idea poorly, or find my words taken out of context. Indeed, that is what happened this weekend. Upon reviewing the impromptu remarks I made Sunday afternoon, I can now see that I used the wrong words in the wrong way. I would now like to set the record straight with the American people and clear up some confusion about what it was I intended to convey.

You see, what I said was, “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” But what I meant to say was, “I am a worthless, moronic sack of shit and an utterly irredeemable human being who needs to shut up and go away forever.”

It is clear to me now that I did not choose my words with care and did not get across the point I was trying to convey. In hindsight, I guess instead of using the words “legitimate rape,” I should have used the words “I am an unforgivable, unrepentant, and unconscionable subhuman dickhead.” Or better yet, “I am an evil, fucked-up man who should never have been elected to the United States Congress, and anyone who would vote for me is probably a pretty big fucking dumbshit, too.” See how much more sense that makes? It’s amazing how a few key word changes can totally alter the meaning of a statement.