Obama on Afghan apology - "Everything else...I'm not worried about"

[Balt Observer]

President Obama said his formal apology to Afghan President Hamid Karzai for the burning of Korans by U.S. troops last week has "calmed things down" after the incident sparked an outbreak of violence across the country.

Still, the president's critics and some members of the military have questioned the appropriateness of the move, given the subsequent murder of two U.S. military officers at the hands of an Afghan inside one of the capital's secure ministry buildings.

"Everything else -- the politics or second guessing of these various decisions -- I'm not worried about," Obama said.

http://news.yahoo.com/president-obam...-abc-news.html

So now the weaselly huckster-in-chief isn't worried about the consequences of wrongly apologizing and showing weakness? Two soldiers were subsequently murdered. Sickening. What a fool and embarrassment to America this guy is.

[Calamari]

Obama took the high road by apologizing. He did the right thing.

I don't remember you saying this nonsense about Bush's apology in 2008.

[Balt Observer]

And when exactly did his words "calm things down"? What a baldfaced liar.

[Balt Observer]

Obama took the high road by apologizing. He did the right thing.

I don't remember you saying this nonsense about Bush's apology in 2008.

Obama's not going to be able to weasel his way out of this one. His cowardly response to this incident ended up costing American lives.

[ms maggie]

So now the weaselly huckster-in-chief isn't worried about the consequences of wrongly apologizing and showing weakness? Two soldiers were subsequently murdered. Sickening. What a fool and embarrassment to America this guy is.

Can you not read? He clearly, sorry but VERY clearly stated he isn't worried about the politics or the second guessing.

Now how do you take from that he isn't concerned about the lives of our armed forces?

Partisanship is cute up to a point. But try not to be a drolling moron. READ and COMPREHEND. Sorry it's back to ignore for you, you'll have to earn your way back.

[Balt Observer]

Can you not read? He clearly, sorry but VERY clearly stated he isn't worried about the politics or the second guessing.

Now how do you take from that he isn't concerned about the lives of our armed forces?

Partisanship is cute up to a point. But try not to be a drolling moron. READ and COMPREHEND. Sorry it's back to ignore for you, you'll have to earn your way back.

His apology was meant to stem the violence and protect American lives, was it not? What actually happened when he apologized?

[OnlyTheTruth]

Obama's not going to be able to weasel his way out of this one. His cowardly response to this incident ended up costing American lives.

How has his response end up costing American lives?

[Balt Observer]

How has his response end up costing American lives?

The violence worsened and the two American soldiers were murdered after the apology.

[OnlyTheTruth]

The violence worsened and the two American soldiers were murdered after the apology.

Do you believe that was cause and effect or just coincidence? Did the killers kill the two soldiers in response to Obama?

[Balt Observer]

Do you believe that was cause and effect or just coincidence? Did the killers kill the two soldiers in response to Obama?

Two US soldiers were murdered on the same day that Obama issued his apology for the burning. It was dead wrong to apologize after US soldiers had been murdered over this.

I believe that the apologies worsened the violence by showing weakness to the enemy. The violence did get worse and two more soldiers were murdered. Then Obama has the gall to do an interview and claim that his apology "calmed things down". I think it's sickening.

[AttackPlanR]

The violence worsened and the two American soldiers were murdered after the apology.

Your hypocrisy is pretty annoying. On other threads you whine about how "libs" seem to have a crystal ball about how the auto-bail out (or some other topic) would have turned out. Yet here you seem to be insightful enough to know how they would have reacted in Afghanistan if Obama did not issue an apology.

He did do the right thing. When a mistake is made, you take ownership of it. He is the CIC, his troops did make a mistake. He stepped up like he should of. How the Afghan's react to it is beyond his control.

[Calamari]

Note his deliberate avoidance of Bush's apology in 2008 as well.

[Balt Observer]

Your hypocrisy is pretty annoying. On other threads you whine about how "libs" seem to have a crystal ball about how the auto-bail out (or some other topic) would have turned out. Yet here you seem to be insightful enough to know how they would have reacted in Afghanistan if Obama did not issue an apology.

He did do the right thing. When a mistake is made, you take ownership of it. He is the CIC, his troops did make a mistake. He stepped up like he should of. How the Afghan's react to it is beyond his control.

Obama is indeed the commander in chief, and he is responsible for the lives of soldiers under his command. He decided to apologize, the violence worsened, and two more US soldiers were murdered. The CIC is ultimately responsible for the lives of his men, is he not?

Let's see Obama step up like he should and express regret that his own soldiers were murdered. He's done enough apologizing about the burning of some other country's precious books.

[AttackPlanR]

Your rah-rah partisan masochism is boring too.

How do you know the reason for the violence was because of the apology? If memory serves me right (and I'm pretty sure it does) the violence is happening because of the burning, not the apology. To say those officers would or would not have been killed mocks your repetitive "crystal ball" analogy used towards others on other threads.

[Balt Observer]

Your rah-rah partisan masochism is boring too.

How do you know the reason for the violence was because of the apology? If memory serves me right (and I'm pretty sure it does) the violence is happening because of the burning, not the apology. To say those officers would or would not have been killed mocks your repetitive "crystal ball" analogy used towards others on other threads.

Yeah, US soldiers die and it's not a big deal to you. That's the problem with bleeding heart libs, they're more concerned about the feeling of their adversaries than the lives of their troops.

No, I don't have a crystal ball and don't know what would have happened if Obama didn't apologize. That does not let Obama off the hook. He made the decision and more US soldiers died. And now he's doing an interview claiming that things calmed down because of his apology. That's pretty sick in my book.

[OnlyTheTruth]

Obama is indeed the commander in chief, and he is responsible for the lives of soldiers under his command. He decided to apologize, the violence worsened, and two more US soldiers were murdered. The CIC is ultimately responsible for the lives of his men, is he not?

Let's see Obama step up like he should and express regret that his own soldiers were murdered. He's done enough apologizing about the burning of some other country's precious books.

It's apparent that you only agree with things if the right wingers endorse it and you shut off anything that deviates from that. It is true Obama is responsible to to anything to ensure the safety of the troops. And if an apology will help save a soldier, then it is the right thing to do. There is no credible evidence that his words killed those two soldiers. If there is, please present it. I am far from being an Obama supporter, but in this case he did the right thing. There is nothing wrong for him to apologize for what a few soldiers inadverantly did.

[Balt Observer]

It's apparent that you only agree with things if the right wingers endorse it and you shut off anything that deviates from that. It is true Obama is responsible to to anything to ensure the safety of the troops. And if an apology will help save a soldier, then it is the right thing to do. There is no credible evidence that his words killed those two soldiers. If there is, please present it. I am far from being an Obama supporter, but in this case he did the right thing.

Your comment about my only agreeing with things if right wingers endorse it is dead wrong. I read the article I posted on this thread and wrote about my own personal feelings on the matter. I didn't look at what Fox News had to say about it or any other "righty" source.

In this case, the apology apparently didn't help save a soldier. Instead, two more got murdered. It looks like he might have chosen the wrong course of action. I feel that he made the wrong decision, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. Of course, you're free to have your own opinion.

[OnlyTheTruth]

Your comment about my only agreeing with things if right wingers endorse it is dead wrong. I read the article I posted on this thread and wrote about my own personal feelings on the matter. I didn't look at what Fox News had to say about it or any other "righty" source.

In this case, the apology apparently didn't help save a soldier. Instead, two more got murdered. It looks like he might have chosen the wrong course of action. I feel that he made the wrong decision, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. Of course, you're free to have your own opinion.

My comments were extended from what you said in another thread when I gave you links about the London riots and you dismissed them stating that the source was liberal and equivalent to the New York Times.

And you are right, it is your opinion and you have every right to express it, just as I have the right to disagree with it.

[AttackPlanR]

So, by applying your "thinking", B.O. I could just as easily say that Obama's apology saved at least three American lives. Right? I mean you are claiming that the apology caused the death of two officers so I can say that it saved three or more officers' lives.

[Balt Observer]

My comments were extended from what you said in another thread when I gave you links about the London riots and you dismissed them stating that the source was liberal and equivalent to the New York Times.

And you are right, it is your opinion and you have every right to express it, just as i have the right to disagree with it.

I think you confused me with someone else. I saw a thread about the London riots but I don't think I ever posted on it. Do you have a link?