Bush lets out his inner asshole

[Angakuk]

I will acknowledge that in this instance, as reported, Bush appears to have behaved rudely. I will also acknowledge that he has a history of such behavior. However, it still appears to me that, in this case, he recognized his rudeness and took steps to ameliorate its effects. As far as I can see, the facts that are in evidence, relative to this particular incident, are insufficient to justify any conclusions about his motivations for attempting to rectify the situation. In other words, the evidence is lacking that would allow us to characterize this specific act of rudeness as unabashed. Unless, that is, you are prepared to argue that Bush's character is such that he is constitutionally incapable of experiencing remorse for any of his actions.

While I think it is reasonable to take a person's past actions into account when evaluating some present action, I think we also run the risk of inferring too much. Speaking from my own experience, I have been rude, intentionally and unintentionally. I have been intentionally rude, and unrepentant. I have been intentionally rude and subsequently regretted that act of rudeness. I have been unintentionally rude and not regretted it. I have been unintentionally rude and regretted it. It is likely that I have been unintentionally rude and never had that fact brought to my attention. I have also been accused of rudeness in situations where I could find no justification for the accusation. I have often said and/or done things in social situations that my wife thought were rude, and I couldn't, for the life of me, understand why she thought that.

The assertion that someone has acted rudely is an assertion of fact, a fact which is wholly dependant upon the operative definition of rudeness. As such it is not necessarily a moral judgement, unless one's definition of rudeness includes an intention to act rudely. Otherwise, the observation of rudeness is just that, an observation that depends upon the observer's definition. However, the assertion that someone has been unabashedly rude implies that the person should have felt embarrassment or shame for their behavior, and did not. Should is a moral operator and its implied presence identifies the assertion as a moral judgement. Further, it suggests that the observer is competent to assess the other's mental and emotional state. That is sheer hubris.

So, what are the facts of the case? Bush behaved in a manner that most people would describe as rude or boorish. Or, at the very least, thoughtless and insensitive. He also (for whatever reasons) took steps to ameliorate the damage caused by that behavior. The rest is pretty much just speculation and moralizing.