View Full Version : Obama apologizes for saying lives ‘wasted’

02-13-07, 02:12 PM
Obama apologizes for saying lives ‘wasted’

The Associated Press
Posted : Tuesday Feb 13, 2007 12:56:05 EST

NASHUA, N.H. — Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., repeated his apologies for an offhand remark that the lives of U.S. troops killed in Iraq were “wasted.”

At an appearance in Iowa on Sunday, the Democratic presidential candidate told listeners: “We now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.”

He immediately apologized Sunday, saying the remark was “a slip of the tongue.”

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

“Even as I said it, I realized I had misspoken,” Obama said. “It is not at all what I intended to say, and I would absolutely apologize if any [military families] felt that in some ways it had diminished the enormous courage and sacrifice that they’d shown.”

Obama made his second visit to New Hampshire on Monday, following a weekend speech in Illinois announcing his candidacy for president and a visit to first-caucus state Iowa.

02-13-07, 02:29 PM
Oh Geez! Is he taking Kerry lessons? Hillary is going to eat his lunch if he keeps this up!

02-13-07, 02:38 PM
I heard he is doing the mombo with hanoi Jane and the billy bop with Bill. They all suck...... Vote all the bums out in 08...............................

bootlace15 out

02-13-07, 02:39 PM
Where is Jeb????????????????

bootlace15 out

02-13-07, 02:58 PM
I can see how a life can be &quot;wasted&quot; if a Marine, let's say, decides to step in front of an 18-wheeler, just for sh**s-'n-giggles. <br />
<br />
However, why are these deaths &quot;wasted&quot;? Why is it that those who...

02-13-07, 03:00 PM
:evilgrin: GUESS WHAT? I'M NOT WAST'EN A (VOTE) ON (YOU'R) LYING AZZ :evilgrin:

Phantom Winger
02-13-07, 05:15 PM
It appears politicians are slow to catch on that it's difficult to support the troops while slinging mud on their Commander and Chief. A little diplomacy and respect go a long way. You may not like the man but you have to respect the office, regardless of which party he belongs to.

02-13-07, 05:43 PM
i'm glad to see everyone one here is sick of all this back tracking bull**** talk.
I would rather have a guy who sticks to what he says and takes **** for it rather than these jerkoffs always trying say people miss quoted them. Is there a book of liberalisms like they have bushisms for our president.

02-14-07, 08:22 AM
The Ever-'Present' Obama
Barack has a along track record of not taking a stand.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

[AD] Finally and officially, Barack Obama is running for president. His symbolic announcement, in the Land of Lincoln, called for a new era in politics. Obama downplayed his thin federal experience while championing his record on the state and local level, and he talked about the need to change Washington, set priorities, and "make hard choices."

"What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics--the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions," Obama said in his announcement speech. But a closer look at the presidential candidate's record in the Illinois Legislature reveals something seemingly contradictory: a number of occasions when Obama avoided making hard choices.

While some conservatives and Republicans surely will harp on what they call his "liberal record," highlighting applicable votes to support their case, it's Obama's history of voting "present" in Springfield--even on some of the most controversial and politically explosive issues of the day--that raises questions that he will need to answer. Voting "present" is one of three options in the Illinois Legislature (along with "yes" and "no"), but it's almost never an option for the occupant of the Oval Office.

We aren't talking about a "present" vote on whether to name a state office building after a deceased state official, but rather about votes that reflect an officeholder's core values.

For example, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted "present" on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.

In 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1. Also in 1999, Obama voted "present" on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.

In 2001, Obama voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In his book, the "Audacity of Hope," on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no."

And finally in 2001, Obama voted "present" on SB 609, a bill prohibiting strip clubs and other adult establishments from being within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and daycares.

If Obama had taken a position for or against these bills, he would have pleased some constituents and alienated others. Instead, the Illinois legislator-turned-U.S. senator and, now, Democratic presidential hopeful essentially took a pass.

Some of these bills may have been "bad." They may have included poison pills or been poorly written, making it impossible for Obama to support them. They may have even been unconstitutional. When I asked the Obama campaign about those votes, they explained that in some cases, the Senator was uncomfortable with only certain parts of the bill, while in other cases, the bills were attempts by Republicans simply to score points.

But even if that were the case, it doesn't explain his votes. The state legislator had an easy solution if the bills were unacceptable to him: he could have voted against them and explained his reasoning.

Because it takes affirmative votes to pass legislation in the Illinois Senate, a "present" vote is tantamount to a "no" vote. A "present" vote is generally used to provide political cover for legislators who don't want to be on the record against a bill that they oppose. Of course, Obama isn't the first or only Illinois state senator to vote "present," but he is the only one running for President of the United States.

While these votes occurred while Obama and the Democrats were in the minority in the Illinois Senate, in the "Audacity of Hope" (page 130), Obama explained that even as a legislator in the minority, "You must vote yes or no on whatever bill comes up, with the knowledge that it's unlikely to be a compromise that either you or your supporters consider fair and or just."

Obama's "present" record could hurt him in two very different ways in his bid to win the Democratic presidential nomination and, ultimately, the White House. On one hand, those votes could anger some Democrats, even liberals, because he did not take a strong enough stand on their issues. On the other hand, his votes could simply be portrayed by adversaries as a failure of leadership for not being willing to make a tough decision and stick by it.

Obama is one of the most dynamic and captivating figures in American politics at this time, and he has put together an excellent campaign team. He clearly is a factor in the race for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

But as Democrats--and Americans--are searching for their next leader, the Illinois senator's record, and not just his rhetoric, will be examined under a microscope. As president, Obama will be faced with countless difficult decisions on numerous gray issues, and voting "present" will not be an option. He will need to explain those "present" votes as a member of the Illinois Legislature if he hopes to become America's commander-in-chief.


02-14-07, 10:43 AM
All of us have, at one time or another, made a statement we wished we could take back. I know I have. And I will at least give Obama a little credit for two things. He admitted he made a mistake. And he apologized, immediately.
However, when you have plans to take on the most important job in the world, you need to be careful when you speak.

"Careful" - Full of care.

If Obama "cared" about our troops, he might have stated that it's "sad that these Americans have died, trying to make the world a safer place."

02-14-07, 01:18 PM
Lastnight I was watching a deal on TV that said "both Bushs were members of Skull and Bones at Yale univ. so is Clinton and skeathead kerry".

02-14-07, 03:34 PM
Maybe what he's really saying is that those who have died have "wasted" their chance to save themselves by avoiding service to their country and that HE was the smart one by ditching military service and the oncoming bullet in battle. He seems to be saying that he is the smart one for turning his back on serving and protecting his country and for having lived because of said avoidance.
This is the way of todays politicians, privileged and well placed, too smart to serve. As Kissinger said in General Haig's presence, referring pointedly to military men as "dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy.
There will never be level playing field in America, because if there were privileged and well placed would have to expose themselves to being maimed or killed like a "dumb stupid animals to be used."

Just think if the privileged and well placed had to serve, maybe there would be sanity before running off to spill American blood on foreign soil.

No one expresses himself more passionately about this than Colin Powell, who came up from the streets of the Bronx and was President Bush's secretary of State. In his 1995 memoir, "My American Journey," General Powell wrote: "I particularly condemn the way our political leaders supplied the manpower for that war [The Vietnam War]. The policies determining who would be drafted and who would be deferred, who would serve and who would escape, who would die and who would live, were an anti-democratic disgrace.... I am angry that so many sons of the powerful and well-placed ... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units. Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to our country."

Powell couldn't have realized in 1995, as Joint Chiefs chairman, that he'd be talking about, among others, his future commander in chief, who was one of the privileged and well-placed.

There is some irony in the fact that the Bush National Guard
controversy came to the surface when the president announced that he is "a war president." http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/18.gif

Sgt Leprechaun
02-15-07, 09:54 PM
I'll pass on voting for "Obamsama", thank you.

Hillary!?? No.

I don't see anyone who really interests me at this point, truth be told. Both the demo front runners just scare the crap outta me.