PDA

View Full Version : Obama apologizes for saying troops' lives 'wasted'



SSanf
February 14th, 2007, 07:46 AM
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is apologizing for saying the lives of the more than 3,000 U.S. troops killed in the Iraq war were "wasted."

During his first campaign trip this weekend, the Illinois senator told a crowd in Iowa: "We now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted." (Watch Obama announce his candidacy)

He immediately apologized on Sunday, saying the remark was "a slip of the tongue."

During an appearance Monday in Nashua, New Hampshire, he apologized again, telling reporters he meant to criticize the civilian leadership of the war, not those serving in the military.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/13/obama.apology.ap/index.htmlOh come on! That sounds like a gaffe Bush would make. He better not have too many of those kinds of mistakes or he will be out of the race fast enough.

Wolfpoet
February 14th, 2007, 08:40 AM
How is a statement of fact a gaffe? He needn't of apologised.

Every Dead American (and Brittish) serviceman in iraq is a wasted military life, the war has no clear benefit to either America or Britain, the conflict was started by morons for political purposes wo expected a quick and easy win to add more votes and ride the post 9/11 wave of patriotic fervour.

The result is a mess like Vietnam where victory or defeat has no real tactical or strategic benefit. They should of stayed in Afghanistan, finished the job and rebuilt the country. It would serve as a better staging area to potential (and stupid) military strikes into Iran.

It's about time a politician had the guts to admit that every damn bodybag that comes out of the Iraq war is a wasted life. These young men and women signed up to defend their country and the values of their country, not fight and die on foreign soil to further the political ambitions of men in nice suits.

SSanf
February 14th, 2007, 09:00 AM
That is going to go over with families who lost kids in Iraq like a lead balloon! I don't think most veterans will like it much either. He could have made his point without saying that. It was a stupid way to say it. Even he knows it, which is why he backpedaled so fast. Politicians need more tact. Way to lose votes!

It isn't about whether what he said is true. Everyone already knows what the truth is. This is about whether he is smart enough and capable enough to run the country. That was not smart.

Keli
February 14th, 2007, 09:08 AM
That is going to go over with families who lost kids in Iraq like a lead balloon! I don't think most veterans will like it much either. He could have made his point without saying that. It was a stupid way to say it. Even he knows it, which is why he backpedaled so fast. Politicians need more tact. Way to lose votes!

It isn't about whether what he said is true. Everyone already knows what the truth is. This is about whether he is smart enough and capable enough to run the country. That was not smart.

Yes, I understand that they probably have someone actually writing the speeches for them, but would it be so hard to proofread before they make the speech? lol

SSanf
February 14th, 2007, 10:24 AM
You know, so far the whole thing about Obama is that he has been a kind of a glamor boy for those, who want political offices open to all. But, the thing we have to really look at, before jumping on his band wagon "just on account of because", is does the guy have the moxie and the cajones for the job and, if so, are his goals the goals of the American people.

Doctor Jeep
February 14th, 2007, 05:22 PM
How is a statement of fact a gaffe? He needn't of apologised.

Every Dead American (and Brittish) serviceman in iraq is a wasted military life, the war has no clear benefit to either America or Britain, the conflict was started by morons for political purposes wo expected a quick and easy win to add more votes and ride the post 9/11 wave of patriotic fervour.

The result is a mess like Vietnam where victory or defeat has no real tactical or strategic benefit. They should of stayed in Afghanistan, finished the job and rebuilt the country. It would serve as a better staging area to potential (and stupid) military strikes into Iran.

It's about time a politician had the guts to admit that every damn bodybag that comes out of the Iraq war is a wasted life. These young men and women signed up to defend their country and the values of their country, not fight and die on foreign soil to further the political ambitions of men in nice suits.

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k144/doctor_jeep/mittens.gif

The whole dishonoring the troops thing is played out. Their honor has been earned independent of whatever job they've been asked to do. Nothing anyone says can take away from that - or add to it, as the "you must support the war!" crowd would claim.

Daniel
February 14th, 2007, 05:33 PM
Every life lost in war is a wasted life.

Fixed for accuracy. Other than that, right on.

ap Dafydd
February 15th, 2007, 09:25 AM
Dictionary definition of "waste": to consume, spend, or employ uselessly or without adequate return; use to no avail or profit; squander.

Sounds 100% accurate to me.

But then Obama's a politician and speaking truth doesn't come easily to them...

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

Daniel
February 15th, 2007, 09:51 AM
He's more honest than a lot of them.

I don't think it's difficult for him to be honest as a human being, I think it's difficult for him to be honest without getting smeared all over the place.

God HELP us if we elect an honest President, right?

SSanf
February 15th, 2007, 10:16 AM
He's more honest than a lot of them.

I don't think it's difficult for him to be honest as a human being, I think it's difficult for him to be honest without getting smeared all over the place.

God HELP us if we elect an honest President, right?Been there, done that. You think Jimmy Carter was NOT honest? He was also one of the most ineffectual presidents we ever had. The professional politicians ate him for lunch.

It takes a lot more than honesty to get the job done. It takes a whole lot more than that.

For starters, it takes someone smart enough not to alienate a lot of potential voters before even getting out the door with their campaign. I am betting this guy goes the way of "clean Gene McCarthy".

Ptah
February 15th, 2007, 10:18 AM
He's more honest than a lot of them.

I don't think it's difficult for him to be honest as a human being, I think it's difficult for him to be honest without getting smeared all over the place.

God HELP us if we elect an honest President, right?


We did, his name was Carter, and we all know what a disaster his presidency turned out to be. That was exactly what we were saying after 2 years, "God help us!!" It proved to me there is no place in the White House for an honest man.

As far as Obama.. it just shows his defeatist attitude, if he's all ready to declare their lives are wasted.

Ptah
February 15th, 2007, 10:18 AM
Been there, done that. You think Jimmy Carter was NOT honest? He was also one of the most ineffectual presidents we ever had. The professional politicians ate him for lunch.

It takes a lot more than honesty to get the job done. It takes a whole lot more than that.

For starters, it takes someone smart enough not to alienate a lot of potential voters before even getting out the door with their campaign. I am betting this guy goes the way of "clean Gene McCarthy".


LOL you beat me by a heartbeat...

SSanf
February 15th, 2007, 10:33 AM
As far as Obama.. it just shows his defeatist attitude, if he's all ready to declare their lives are wasted.Yep.

I am still waiting to see. It is very early in the game. But, so far, I am less than impressed.

A lot of the younger people just don't really remember Carter and McCarthy so electing an "honest" president seems like a new good idea to them.

Phoenix Blue
February 15th, 2007, 11:07 AM
Dictionary definition of "waste": to consume, spend, or employ uselessly or without adequate return; use to no avail or profit; squander.
Exactly. Obama had the right word the first time around. American servicemembers' lives have been wasted in Iraq by an administration that lied about why it went in and fiddled for three years while Baghdad burned.

Temptation
February 15th, 2007, 11:16 AM
We did, his name was Carter, and we all know what a disaster his presidency turned out to be. That was exactly what we were saying after 2 years, "God help us!!" It proved to me there is no place in the White House for an honest man.

That is really depressing. So what you're saying is that the United States cannot be lead by a decent, honest human being. Which implies that the person best fit for the job would be a lying, manipulative scumbag.


As far as Obama.. it just shows his defeatist attitude, if he's all ready to declare their lives are wasted.

It's not a defeatist attitude. It's an honest, realistic one. Obama has been against the war from the start. What do you expect him to say? "Yay! Let more people die in a war I believe should never have happened."

SSanf
February 15th, 2007, 11:24 AM
Exactly. Obama had the right word the first time around. American servicemembers' lives have been wasted in Iraq by an administration that lied about why it went in and fiddled for three years while Baghdad burned.
It isn't about whether what he said is true or not. It is about whether saying it in that way was very smart for a man trying to get elected.

The question is, if he will make big boo boos like that while campaigning, what other boo boos will he make?

Even he knows it was not the thing to say, which is why he apologized. How much else will he have to apologize for?

If you feel he should have stood his ground and NOT apologized, then you are implying that he has weak character. That is not good, either. This is a lose/lose situation, that he put himself into.

That is not auspicious.

Ptah
February 15th, 2007, 11:30 AM
That is really depressing. So what you're saying is that the United States cannot be lead by a decent, honest human being. Which implies that the person best fit for the job would be a lying, manipulative scumbag.

read your history book...


It's not a defeatist attitude. It's an honest, realistic one. Obama has been against the war from the start. What do you expect him to say? "Yay! Let more people die in a war I believe should never have happened."

It is defeatist... there is no other way to describe it. "Their lives are wasted"says that it is a lost cause and he is admitting defeat.

How about,"We honor the sacrifice those brave young men and women have made in the service of their country. We can only hope that sacrifice hasn't been in vain and I will make sure, if elected President, that is not the case..."

SSanf
February 15th, 2007, 11:38 AM
read your history book...



It is defeatist... there is no other way to describe it. "Their lives are wasted"says that it is a lost cause and he is admitting defeat.

How about,"We honor the sacrifice those brave young men and women have made in the service of their country. We can only hope that sacrifice hasn't been in vain and I will make sure, if elected President, that is not the case..."On target!

But, like I said it is still early in the campaign. However, this will come back to haunt him until the very end. He just gave opponents a club to whack him over the head with.

If he makes too many errors of this kind, he is dead in the water.

AmericanMe
February 15th, 2007, 12:23 PM
Like we're supposed to believe that presidential candidates tour the country telling people whatever pops-in their heads? Unbelievable.

Seems Obama is taking a cue from Kerry and Biden. Too bad waffling doesn't cure foot-in-mouth disease.

Daniel
February 15th, 2007, 12:58 PM
Too bad waffling doesn't cure foot-in-mouth disease.

Please to explain how Obama is waffling.

I've seen you make this accusation several times, and I'd like you to illustrate what you're talking about.

Daniel
February 15th, 2007, 01:00 PM
How about,"We honor the sacrifice those brave young men and women have made in the service of their country. We can only hope that sacrifice hasn't been in vain and I will make sure, if elected President, that is not the case..."

I've got a better one:

"We honor and the sacrifice those brave young Americans have made in the service of their country. As President, I will do everything in my power to ensure that more lives are not lost in vain."

AmericanMe
February 15th, 2007, 01:26 PM
Please to explain how Obama is waffling.

I've seen you make this accusation several times, and I'd like you to illustrate what you're talking about.

So I have to spell it out? What he said wasn't an "accident," he meant it. He's only sorry that it pissed so many people off. Now he "apologizes" because public opinion didn't approve of his opinion. That's waffling in a nutshell.

Daniel
February 15th, 2007, 01:43 PM
So I have to spell it out? What he said wasn't an "accident," he meant it. He's only sorry that it pissed so many people off. Now he "apologizes" because public opinion didn't approve of his opinion. That's waffling in a nutshell.

That reads an awful lot like making a mistake in the words he chose.

Human beings do that from time to time. Politicians are human beings.

I don't see how this is "waffling."

Keli
February 15th, 2007, 02:11 PM
Exactly. Obama had the right word the first time around. American servicemembers' lives have been wasted in Iraq by an administration that lied about why it went in and fiddled for three years while Baghdad burned.

What I'm not understanding (and please don't take this to mean that I think the lives of these people have been wasted) is why, if that is the way he feels, did he feel the need to apologize in the first place? If he feels their lives were wasted, as y'all do, then there is no need to apologize. That is something I have never understood........the need to apologize just because you might have hurt someone's feelings. If you did, the apologize to that person. Until then, say what you mean and mean what you say.

Keli
February 15th, 2007, 02:14 PM
Like we're supposed to believe that presidential candidates tour the country telling people whatever pops-in their heads? Unbelievable.

Seems Obama is taking a cue from Kerry and Biden. Too bad waffling doesn't cure foot-in-mouth disease.

They have speech writers. They need to get better proofreaders. lol

gourd_one
February 15th, 2007, 02:21 PM
they weren't wasted, they were sacrificed. :devil:

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/uploads/oil-god.gif

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/uploads/oil-god.gif

Ptah
February 15th, 2007, 03:43 PM
they weren't wasted, they were sacrificed. :devil:


You are assuming, of course, that all 21,500 are going to die. We haven't lost anywhere near that many so far, with close to 150,000 in theater for three years.

Its hard to imagine you and RTK on the same side....lol
This is priceless...

gourd_one
February 15th, 2007, 03:50 PM
and I was simply mocking Bush's unsettling sacrifice rhetoric

who the hell is RTK? I never met the punk

AmericanMe
February 15th, 2007, 03:50 PM
That reads an awful lot like making a mistake in the words he chose.

Human beings do that from time to time. Politicians are human beings.

I don't see how this is "waffling."

A "mistake" of what? Saying what you really think?

Daniel
February 15th, 2007, 04:05 PM
A "mistake" of what? Saying what you really think?

Well, since I actually bothered to research what kind of mistake Obama made, I will explain it in simple terms so that there's no room for misunderstanding.

Obama wasn't trying to say that our soldiers had wasted their lives. He was trying to say that our soldiers had given their all, but that their level of commitment was not being mirrored in Washington. Observe:


In an interview following the rally, Obama, who said he has visited with the families of military personnel who have been killed in the war, said he regretted saying the lives had been "wasted."

"I was actually upset with myself when I said that, because I never use that term," he said. "Their sacrifices are never wasted.... What I meant to say was those sacrifices have not been honored by the same attention to strategy, diplomacy and honesty on the part of civilian leadership that would give them a clear mission."

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007702120332

In other words, almost immediately after saying that word, Obama gave an interview to clarify that he had chosen the wrong words to express his frustrations -- those frustrations being with the leadership and not the soldiers.

SSanf
February 15th, 2007, 11:13 PM
What he was trying to say or what he meant is not even the issue. Whether he was right or wrong is not the issue. The issue is that he flubbed it up and had to backpedal with an apology and an explanation. That is definitely not good.

He can, possibly, get by with doing that once or twice. Any more than that will probably cost him the nomination and if nominated, it will cost him the election. He just can't afford those kind of mistakes.

If he does too much foot in mouth stuff, people will think he is going to be like Bush, believe it or not! I know that isn't rational in any way but they WILL make the connection and reject him.

Doctor Jeep
February 16th, 2007, 01:13 AM
I don't see how this is "waffling."

Simple, Dan. When a Democrat does something like this, it's waffling. Had it been a Republican, there'd be a good explanation for it all.

Keli
February 16th, 2007, 07:54 AM
.

Temptation
February 16th, 2007, 08:26 AM
What he was trying to say or what he meant is not even the issue. Whether he was right or wrong is not the issue. The issue is that he flubbed it up and had to backpedal with an apology and an explanation. That is definitely not good.

He can, possibly, get by with doing that once or twice. Any more than that will probably cost him the nomination and if nominated, it will cost him the election. He just can't afford those kind of mistakes.

If he does too much foot in mouth stuff, people will think he is going to be like Bush, believe it or not! I know that isn't rational in any way but they WILL make the connection and reject him.

You may have a point. As a presidential hopeful and possibly one to make history as the first black president, his every word is now going to be dissected by the media ad nauseum from here on out. If this kind of "Oops! Wrong word, sowwy!" keeps happening on a regular basis, then yes, he might have a problem.

SSanf
February 16th, 2007, 10:34 AM
You may have a point. As a presidential hopeful and possibly one to make history as the first black president, his every word is now going to be dissected by the media ad nauseum from here on out. If this kind of "Oops! Wrong word, sowwy!" keeps happening on a regular basis, then yes, he might have a problem.Thank you. That is exactly what I am saying.

Keli
February 16th, 2007, 02:08 PM
Thank you. That is exactly what I am saying.

I agree. I think it would have been better for him to stick to his guns and not say anything about it. If he meant what he said, then he meant what he said. He shouldn't feel the need to apologize for something he meant.

Temptation
February 16th, 2007, 02:22 PM
I agree. I think it would have been better for him to stick to his guns and not say anything about it. If he meant what he said, then he meant what he said. He shouldn't feel the need to apologize for something he meant.

Well, the thing is, he didn't mean it the way it came out and he did feel the need to clarify his intent. There is really nothing wrong with that. Why should he stick to his guns and not say anything, when he felt he didn't adequately express what he wanted to say?

Didn't something similar happen to John Kerry recently? He said something about the troops in Iraq that the media pounced on and he had to come out and explain what he had actually meant to say. People thought he had insulted the troops when the one he was really insulting was Bush.

Ptah
February 16th, 2007, 02:38 PM
Simple, Dan. When a Democrat does something like this, it's waffling. Had it been a Republican, there'd be a good explanation for it all.

The same light shines on all... it just hasn't been shining on the Democrats because the Republicans were in control of Congress. I can't believe you haven't seen all the Bush mis-speak lists. Or noticed how many times those Bushisms get ressurrected and thrown around. Get used to it there's an election a'coming....