Monday, February 12, 2007

Obama Wasted

Barack Obama isn't such a golden boy after all.

A little of his luster has been lost, if you're paying attention and if you value the sacrifice of our troops in Iraq.


The lib media aren't dwelling on this. In fact, I'd say they're downplaying it.

You have to listen to what Obama says. You can't get caught up in the Obama-Mania.


AMES, Iowa -- A day after jumping into the presidential race, Democrat Barack Obama began the courting of Iowa party activists Sunday with a blistering critique of the war in Iraq.

More than 6,000 people who came to hear him at the Iowa State University campus saved their biggest cheers for his criticism of the war.

"We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and to which we now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted," Obama said.

What a horrible choice of words from the articulate Obama!

Then again, maybe it wasn't. Perhaps the truth came out.

Maybe Obama truly believes that the American troops who gave their lives in service to our country were WASTED.

I'd like Obama to say those same words to the families of the fallen.

"Your son's life was wasted."

That would have a much different impact than when he said it in front of the cheering throngs in Iowa.

True, Obama has apologized for his "poor choice of words."

OK.

How would he have rephrased his remarks to make them more acceptable?

"We now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans ______.

Fill in the blank.

What would be a proper choice of words?

The fact is Obama believes that the deaths of these brave Americans were a waste and their mission was a mistake.

There are two possibilities:

1. Obama meant what he said, that American lives have been WASTED in Iraq.

2. Obama isn't as articulate as he's made out to be.

I don't know. It's a tough call.

He's certainly no Abraham Lincoln.


Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

--ABRAHAM LINCOLN


_______________________________

UPDATE--

From
The New York Times, "Obama Restructures a Remark on Deaths:"

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois said Monday that he had misspoken when he suggested that the lives of more than 3,000 American soldiers killed in Iraq had been “wasted.”

As he arrived in New Hampshire, Mr. Obama said he would “absolutely apologize” to military families if (emphasis mine) they were offended by a remark he made in Iowa while criticizing the Bush administration’s Iraq policy.

“What I would say — and meant to say — is that their service hasn’t been honored,” Mr. Obama told reporters in Nashua, N.H., “because our civilian strategy has not honored their courage and bravery, and we have put them in a situation in which it is hard for them to succeed.”

Obama "restructures" his remark.

Good grief.

Blah, blah, blah, Oblahma.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have to say I agree. Their lives were wasted. Sad but true. Our men and women were sent over seas for one reason then made to fight for another. We wanted justice for the attacks on our country by an organization, not a country, not because of oil, not because of weapons of mass destruction (how many do we have?). I hope they all come home soon so that this mistake can be put behind us and we can move on to a brighter future.

Mary said...

I have to say I hope you don't mean that.

You agree with Obama that those brave Americans wasted their lives? Aren't you proud of what our troops have accomplished in Iraq?

Don't you care about the death and horrible atrocities that the Iraqi people suffered under Saddam Hussein?

Factor in the death toll of the Iran and Iraq war and over a million Iraqis were killed.

Remember that it was Bill Clinton and his administration that wanted the Iraqi tyrant deposed. It was their intelligence that declared Saddam's regime and weapons to pose a grave threat to America.

I hate that the Islamic threat and instability and extremism were allowed to fester in the Middle East during the 1990s, in spite of repeated attacks on America and American interests. I hate that Saddam Hussein didn't comply with the terms of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire and other UN resolutions.

I hate that there have been over 3,000 American fatalities in Iraq.

If only we had reacted differently to the attacks during the 90s. If only we hadn't cut and run from Somalia after Mogadishu.

I hope the troops all are able to come home very soon and get the heroes' welcome that they deserve.

jimspice said...

How about "cut short unnecessarily". It wasn't NECESSARY to go into Iraq -- it was one option. Personally, I think it was the wrong option. Please feel free to disagree.

As for "wasted", that's more a question of whether it was a good investment or not. It's easier thinking about these things on the money side. Is X dollars a reasonable sum to pay to be rid of Hussein? If not, that money was wasted. It's much more difficult to gauge the cost of lives. The average age of a soldier killed in Iraq is 27; what would each of those individuals have contributed to society over the 40 or so odd years otherwise remaining in their lives. As we're talking about some of the best, brightest and most selfless among us, that would be a big hurdle to leap. The return had better be HUGE. I'm not convinced it is proving to be so.

The bottom line, I didn't take Mr. Obama's words to be a judgment on the choices of the soldiers, which I think we would all agree are not in question. His target was the president. To suggest he intended to disparage the troops is, I'd say, a bit disingenuous at best, and perhaps more accurately mean spirited.

Spice

Mary said...

I think it's funny, though not surprising, that there are so many Obama worhshippers willing to grab any excuse they can to rationalize Obama's WASTED remark.

Even Obama apologized for saying something so horrible.

(Read the link on my post to The New York Times.)

"Mean-spirited"?

HAHAHA

Isn't it "mean-spirited" of Obama to target the president, as you put it, with WASTING precious lives UNNECESSARILY?

Being just a tad disingenuous, aren't you?

Dave said...

Umm if you believe going into Iraq was a mistake then we have wasted lives and dollars.

"Don't you care about the death and horrible atrocities that the Iraqi people suffered under Saddam Hussein? " Not a reason given for us going in originally. (sounds good now though). And are they truely better off? bomb kills 85 today, yesterday hell seems like everydat.

"Remember that it was Bill Clinton and his administration that wanted the Iraqi tyrant deposed. It was their intelligence that declared Saddam's regime and weapons to pose a grave threat to America. " True but they didn't go in... wonder why.


"I hate that the Islamic threat and instability and extremism were allowed to fester in the Middle East during the 1990s, in spite of repeated attacks on America and American interests. I hate that Saddam Hussein didn't comply with the terms of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire and other UN resolutions. " Ummm the threat started well before 1990...

Mary said...

Davey, may I call you "Umm"?

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your own FACTS.

The resolution cited many factors to justify action:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors

Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"

Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"

Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"

Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War

Members of al-Qaida were "known to be in Iraq"

Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations

Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States

The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them

The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for
the President to fight anti-United States terrorism

________________

Some advice: Try to be rational.

Anonymous said...

He said the truth their lives have been wasted by Bush and Co.

Everything those soldiers could have been and done is lost, all for a war with no benefit

Anonymous said...

"You agree with Obama that those brave Americans wasted their lives? Aren't you proud of what our troops have accomplished in Iraq?"

Nope, because nothing has been accomplished, as Iraq slides to Civil war

"Don't you care about the death and horrible atrocities that the Iraqi people suffered under Saddam Hussein?"

How about the deaths and atrocities they suffer now?

"Factor in the death toll of the Iran and Iraq war and over a million Iraqis were killed."

Thanks in no small measure to the weapons we supplied to Iraq

"I hate that the Islamic threat and instability and extremism were allowed to fester in the Middle East during the 1990s, in spite of repeated attacks on America and American interests. I hate that Saddam Hussein didn't comply with the terms of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire and other UN resolutions."

It was allowed to Fester thanks to the GOP after the Afghanistan war with the soviets, and Saddam was never officially decalred in breach of 1441

"I hope the troops all are able to come home very soon and get the heroes' welcome that they deserve."

I'd rather they come home alive, rather than in coffins

Anonymous said...

"The resolution cited many factors to justify action:"

Afraid not, you see the UNSC never actually stated that Iraq was in breach, the US knowing any such action would be vetoed by france and russia made a run around the UNSC and on their own authority made that decision, ignoring that they had no such authority to do so.

In addition the words of the resolution never gave them the authority to invade, rather to take "all means necessary", however what that entailed was never determined by the UNSC, as Bush never brought it before them, and in light of the fact that no WMDs were ever found we can safely rule that invasion was not necessary.

Mary said...

It's difficult to respond to these comments since everyone is named "anonymous."

Just click on other and make up a name, any name but "anonymous."

I'll speak generally.

Reiterating the Dems' talking points is so predictable and so inadequate.

As far as the resolution goes, there's some confusion. I'm talking about H.J.Res. 114.

I'm not talking about the impotent, corrupt, anti-Semitic UN.

Anonymous said...

I'm afraid that international law trumps US law when dealing with international matters Mary, and you can call them talking points all you'd like, but the fact is that its the truth, the legality of this war is dubious at best (with legal experts still debating the matter, and we have not benefitted from it, nor have the Iraqis. All we've done is waste lives and money and destabilized the region, in addition, we've wasted resources that could have been better used against North Korea and Iran

Mary said...

You've changed the subject.

By "resolution," I was specifically referring to H.J.Res. 114.

Instead of admitting that Dems voted for THAT resolution, you declare that U.S. law is trumped by international law.

What?

Your deflection is more revealing than you seem to realize.

Anonymous said...

Oh its not a deflection, it doesn't matter what the dems or congress or the GOP did with regards to that resolution since it was in violation of international law

Mary said...

To "Anonymous 11:31 PM, February 14, 2007" --

That's spoken like a true lib.

(By the way, did you forget? You're banned from this blog.)