Apology Derangement Syndrome
While everyone knew that the Republican primary candidates would all be displaying plenty of "Obama Derangement Syndrome" during the campaign, this week the rhetoric took a bizarre tangent which might be called "Apology Derangement Syndrome." The concept is not only laughable, it is easy to prove what rampant and stinking hypocrisy those espousing it are truly guilty of displaying.
First, the facts of this tempest in a teacup (at the Mad Hatter Tea Party which the GOP primary process has devolved into). In Afghanistan, a Koran was burned in a trash-burning pit. Details are sketchy, but at least one Koran (possibly others, possibly other Islamic religious books as well) was at least partially burned. Details have not been forthcoming from the military, but apparently someone in charge of the library for Afghani prisoners decided to take these books away from the prisoners, possibly because the prisoners were breaking the rules by either communicating (by writing in them) or spreading jihadi slogans. Whatever the reason, the person responsible ordered that the books be disposed of. Trash is commonly burned on the base, and nobody apparently thought twice about tossing the books on the "burn pile." When the people doing the actual trash-burning threw them on the fire, Afghan workers noticed and put a stop to it. Those are the facts, such as they are. The U.S. military is investigating the incident, so perhaps more solid details will emerge in the future.
President Barack Obama then did what any United States president would do in such a situation: he apologized to Hamid Karzai, the leader of Afghanistan.
The Republican candidates (who are not named "Ron Paul") saw this as a political hot button, and immediately denounced Obama's apology. Newt Gingrich was pithiest, calling Obama an "appeaser" and stating "It is Hamid Karzai who owes the American people an apology, not the other way around."
Obama Derangement Syndrome is, of course, the knee-jerk opposing reaction to anything the president says or does -- no matter what. It can be summed up as the attitude that "Everything is Obama's fault. Everything." But the "Apology Derangement Syndrome" strain that's going around is quite easy to defeat. All you have to do is go back to George W. Bush's presidency to see that -- gasp! -- presidents apologize all the time when America does something wrong, or stupid, or both.
A quick check on Lexis Nexis reveals 210 articles written during Bush's time in office which use the phrase "Bush apologizes." Now, many (if not most) of these articles are written about demands from outside groups (foreign and domestic) who were calling on Bush to apologize for one thing or another, so just looking at the numbers isn't sufficient.
What also must be ignored are stories where President Bush was offering up personal apologies for his own behavior -- such as "Bush apologizes for not taking Laura to India's Taj Mahal," from March of 2006; or "Bush apologizes after telling blind reporter 'I'm interested in the shade, look, seriously' " when the president, in June of the same year, teased a member of the press for wearing sunglasses when it wasn't all that bright out.
This leaves us with the list of Bush apologies to foreign nations (or heads of state) for international incidents caused by the United States (mostly, the American military). The first of these occurred almost immediately after Bush took office, in February of 2001, when George W. Bush apologized to the Japanese prime minister for a joyriding captain of a U.S. submarine who was impressing his guests by surfacing the sub quickly -- which, tragically, destroyed and sunk a Japanese fishing vessel which happened to be occupying the same piece of ocean. Fishermen's lives were lost. Bush apologized, as everyone expected him to.
The second big apology was forced out of Bush -- that's right, forced out of a United States president -- by China. This was due to an incident involving a U.S. spyplane and a Chinese fighter pilot, that killed the Chinese pilot. The spyplane was forced to land in China, who promptly demanded an apology from Bush. Bush resisted, and really didn't want to apologize, but realized after many days that it was the only way we were going to get the spyplane's crew repatriated to America. He wrote a letter which used the words "very sorry" twice, and the crew was released. Bush, in this case, really didn't have any other option than apologizing.
In 2002, Bush apologized to foreign leaders twice, once to Canada for a friendly fire incident which killed Canadian soldiers, and once to South Korea when an American armored vehicle ran over and killed four Korean schoolgirls. In neither case was the apology contentious politically in America, because it was seen as the right and proper thing for Bush to do.
The biggest and most sustained apology the Bush administration was forced into was over the notorious Abu Graib photos, which surfaced in May of 2004. Bush again resisted the calls for apology for a few days, but then apologized personally during a visit by King Abdullah of Jordan. Other Bush administration officials would wind up apologizing for the Abu Graib photos for months to come.
In 2006, Bush issued one non-controversial apology, to Tony Blair for shipping bombs through air bases in the U.K. (which was very contentious in Scotland at the time). This didn't receive much press in America, though.
In the last year of Bush's term, he personally apologized to the same man that Barack Obama just did -- Hamid Karzai, leader of Afghanistan. At the time, Bush was apologizing for civilian deaths. I don't remember Republicans badmouthing this apology, at the time.
Two Bush apologies really stand out, though. The first was a personal apology. From the Washington Post of September 1, 2007 comes an article titled "Bush Apologizes to Wiccan Soldier's Widow for Meeting Slip-Up":
President Bush has apologized to the widow of a Wiccan soldier after she was excluded from a Nevada meeting this week that the president held with the families of soldiers killed in combat.
Roberta Stewart, whose husband, Sgt. Patrick Stewart, was killed in Afghanistan in 2005, was left off the invitation list for the private meeting Tuesday even though other members of her husband's family were invited.
When she heard about the exclusion from her mother-in-law, Stewart said, she concluded that it was done because of her public fight to force the federal government to engrave the symbol for the Wiccan faith on her husband's marker on a memorial.
"I was devastated," Stewart said. "I was crying and upset. I couldn't believe that my country would continue this discrimination."
Now for just one tiny nanosecond, let's all imagine what Republicans would be saying now if President Obama had (as they would surely put it): "apologized to a witch!" Just picture in your mind the fury which Republican candidates would unleash upon Obama if that had been him instead of Bush.
But the most relevant Bush apology to the current debate happened in May, 2008, when President Bush (are you sitting down, Mitt and Rick and Newt?) apologized for an American soldier mistreating a Koran. Here's the full story:
The U.S. military said Sunday that it had disciplined the sniper and removed him from Iraq after he was found to have used Islam's holy book for target practice May 9 in a predominantly Sunni area west of Baghdad. The book was found two days later by Iraqis on a firing range in Radwaniyah with 14 bullet holes in it and graffiti written on its pages, tribal leaders said.
Similar perceived insults against Islam in Europe and elsewhere have sparked violent protests, and American officials appeared eager to contain the outrage.
Al-Maliki, a Shiite, told Bush of the "disappointment and anger of the people and government of Iraq over the soldier's disgraceful action," according to a statement from his office.
Al-Maliki's office said Bush told the prime minister that the sniper would face trial, but Perino did not say whether Bush made such a promise. Military officials have not spoken of any further action against the soldier, who has not been identified.
Where were the Republican howls of outrage over Bush doing exactly what Obama just did in the exact same circumstances, one wonders. What did Mitt, Rick, and Newt have to say about it? Nothing. Where was their outrage? Silent. When a member of their own political party apologized to the leader of a country for Koran desecration by Americans in uniform, Republicans had no problem with it.
One wonders what happened to Republicans venerating the advice of the "generals on the ground," as well. Generals on the ground, in the GOP way of thinking, always have to be listened to. Where is one single American general agreeing with the Republicans that Obama shouldn't have apologized? When Bush apologized for the Koran shooting, an American officer "kissed a copy" of the Koran before he presented it to local Iraqis, as a way of apologizing. Again, what would Republicans now be saying if this had just happened in Afghanistan? Because Bush was in the White House, Republicans had nothing to say on the matter.
When Barack Obama does the same thing Bush did four years ago, however, all sorts of nasty things are said about him by prominent Republicans. Apology Derangement Syndrome seems to be erasing Republicans' memory. They've made such a honking big deal out of Obama's apology that the news media has jumped on the story and continues to push it.
Of course, all of these "journalists" have the same access to the Lexis Nexis site which I have. Searching for these stories isn't all that hard to do. I'm sure that every other president in modern history has made similar apologies at some point while they were in office, I merely used George W. Bush as the handiest of examples to show what hypocrisy and selective outrage Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich are currently displaying.
To put it another way: this story wasn't all that hard to research and write. One wonders why the overpaid folks in the mainstream media haven't done the same research. Especially on that Koran-shooting story.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
A great post, Chris -- so great that I subbed it to Reddit. But I'm going to take this opportunity to address a pet peeve of mine, which is common Arabic transliterations. "Koran" is the more common English spelling and appears in the style manuals, but it's also less phonetically correct. "Qur'an" is actually spelled and pronounced with a q-sound at the beginning and a glottal vowel in the middle that does not connect to the preceding consonant -- it's COUR-AHN, not CORE-RAN.
Unlike, say, the name of a former Libyan strongman, the word is also derived of the purest Quraysh Arabic. Yes, one of the difficulties of North African Arab names is that many of them are more ancient than Islam. Ghadafi and Gaddafi and Khadafi and Kadafy are all actually wrong, but it matters less than "Qur'an" because (a) he's dead (b) the first consonant is not even used in the English language. "Giin" is a sound closer to the French "r." You make it in the back of your mouth at the beginning of your throat, and it sounds exactly like a Wookie gargling.
Of course, Qur'an is like any other Arabic word: it breaks down into three consonantal roots (Q R *A -- in Arabic, the glottal *A is considered a consonant.) "-an" also infers plurality, so while it has been translated as "recitation" it is better understood as "recitations." Which makes sense, for while Arabic script predates Islam the Qur'an was transmitted only orally for the first decades of its existence -- and even when written down, Arabic had not developed the diacritical marks that separate a J from a Ch.
So while it is important to respect a piece of scripture (who would burn a prisoner's bible?), those of us who study these things objectively agree that the Qura'an (or Koran) is no more reliable than any other work of scripture.
BTW, when you learn to write Arabic script it becomes readily apparent that it was created by people who had sand for a chalkboard.
Osborne -
I thought about spelling when I wrote this, and should have at the very least checked how I spelled it in past articles, for internal consistency's sake, but neglected to get around to it (I think I usually go with Quran, although I likely omit the apostrophe, although I couldn't swear to it). I usually am pretty good about these sorts of things (like always using "Ba'ath Party" or "Shi'ite") but for some reason wasn't up to my usual standard today. The articles I read used various forms of spelling, and I think it was just that I had read it so much as "Koran" during the day that when I sat down to write that's how it came out.
In other words, sheer laziness. No excuse, really.
That bit you added at the end about sand was fascinating, though, because I never thought I about that before. But it makes perfect sense. The script of Arabic could indeed be easily written by one finger in sand...
-CW
Wasn't sand for a chalkboard was common in a bunch of locations around the world?
/me glares resentfully at the stray "was" that found its way into the previous comment.
Of all the apologies from Bush that you name, only one has any relevance to the here and now..
That would be the Koran mistreatment...
All the others were Bush apologizing to fellow Americans (which I think is great) or Bush apologizing when deaths of foreign nationals have occurred accidentally at the hands of Americans.
Both instances are perfectly acceptable and is not in ANY way comparable to what Obama has done...
And the problem with Obama isn't the single act. Sure, his apology caused MORE bloodshed and MORE anger and rage from savages...
No, the problem with Obama is the PATTERN of behavior.. From bowing to every leader he could find, to apologizing for every little transgression, it's becoming clear that Obama is placing the world before his own country...
THAT is what is pissing people off...
Matt,
So while it is important to respect a piece of scripture (who would burn a prisoner's bible?),
Who would scorn a pro football player for praying after a great play??
The answer to both questions is the same.
Practically everyone on the Left..
Michale...
As I mentioned in the previous commentary, here is the skinny on the apology..
Those who would accept the apology are the ones who really don't care about the issue anyways...
The ones are doing all the pillaging and killing are only INFLAMED by the apology, as it validates their violent actions...
So, tell me??
What was Obama's reasoning for offering the apology??
Besides natural inclination, I mean...
Michale.....
As I predicted, Obama's poll numbers are going back down...
Of course, there are several factors... Gas prices probably predominantly amongst them..
But this Koran apology thing definitely hasn't helped...
Michale.....
Who would scorn a pro football player for praying after a great play?
Well, there's the guy he's supposedly praying to. Here's what He had to say on the matter: "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (Matthew 6:5-6)
Yea Yea... You can find a page in the bible that says to pay in private..
I can find a page in the bible that says glorify your faith in god and bring others into the fold..
yada yada yada yada, blaa, blaa, blaa and so on and so on and so forth...
Forget religion... What happened to the Left and their vaunted respect for other people's feelings???
Doesn't ridiculing ANYONE over ANYTHING violate everything a Liberal stands for??
It sure used to...
Michale.....
Yea Yea... You can find a page in the bible that says to pay in private..
Errr...
That would be *PRAY* in private... :D
Freudian Slip there.. :D
Michale.....
I would also point out that Bush's apology was more of a "yea, we screwed up.. Sorry about that"....
Where as Obama's CONTINUING apologies are more of a "oh my god, we're soooo sorry.... could you please forgive us" type variety...
In other words, Bush was simply acknowledging a mistake and taking responsibility for it.
Obama's apologies are more of the "begging for forgiveness" type of apology..
Begging from a world leader???
How class-less....
Personally, I think the BEST "apology" for that particular region is a Hellfire missile right up the arse...
"I got yer 'apology', buddy!"
But, that's just me....
Michale......
Michale -
Doc, we've got a serious case of ADS here, 10CC's of facts, stat!
Heh.
Name me one other instance where Obama apologized for ANYthing to a world leader where Americans didn't kill someone (using your standard, in other words). Please present your facts, in other words. And I do mean "apologize" as in saying "sorry" in one form or another.
I've listed my facts, so let's have your list.
Oh, and here's the main question: should Bush have apologized? Why or why not?
As for the bowing, at the time I said he shouldn't have done it (look it up), but Bush kissed a Saudi prince, and held hands with him for a walk in the garden. Heh.
-CW
Michale -
You do realize, don't you, that you are proving without doubt one of your main talking points: Republicans are just as bad as Democrats -- when it's "their guy" doing X, then it's horrible, but when it's "our guy" doing X, then it's just fine and dandy.
I mean, seriously, the "type" of apology? You're grasping for straws, dude. A member of the American military disrespects a Qu'ran in a war zone. The president apologizes to the leader of the country. No difference whatsoever. None. Zero. Nada.
And I'd like you to provide a quote from ONE SINGLE "general on the ground" advising the president that the apology was a mistake. I bet 10,000 Quatloos you can't find one. Because they -- the sainted "generals on the ground" -- all know Obama did the right and proper thing.
-CW
Michale -
Also waiting for: ONE instance of a Republican decrying President Bush for his Qu'ran shooting apology.
Hypocrites, all.
-CW
Also waiting for: ONE instance of a Republican decrying President Bush for his Qu'ran shooting apology.
Hypocrites, all.
You think I am going to disagree with you!?? Yer preaching to the choir...
I mean, seriously, the "type" of apology? You're grasping for straws, dude.
Not at all..
There is a HUGE mountain of difference between taking responsibility for a mistake and begging for forgiveness...
Now, you might argue that Bush's apology wasn't the former and Obama's apology wasn't the latter, but you cannot deny that there is a difference in the mindset of the two types of apologies...
-- all know Obama did the right and proper thing.
Yea... Tell that to the people who have been killed SINCE his apology.. I think they would disagree...
By apologizing in the manner Obama did, he merely validated the actions of the savages who were murdering innocent people..
Has Obama CONDEMNED those actions??
No he has not...
He is sure quick to apologize.... A little slower to condemn....
Michale....
As for the bowing, at the time I said he shouldn't have done it (look it up),
So, we're agreed..
Bowing was a bad idea for Obama..
Add THAT to the excessive apologies and a disturbing pattern emerges...
Obama appears to be a America Laster...
Michale....
He is sure quick to apologize.... A little slower to condemn....
Let me clarify that to read that Obama is sure quick to apologize when America screws up..
Considerably slower to condemn when Americans are attacked and/or brutally murdered...
It goes back to that idea I mentioned a bit ago how the Left also seems to blame America first for every bad in the world..
Michale.....
Michale -
Still waiting for one single example (much less a nice list, as I provided) of Obama "excessively apologizing".
In other words, let's see some links and data.
As for one being "begging" and one "apologizing", let's see you back that claim up, too. Excerpt the words from both, and please inform us all of the difference.
To me it sounds like: "this is the way the Right wing has told me to view it, so I don't need any actual facts -- Waaah! Waaah! Obama BAD!! Waah!"
Put your links and ACTUAL QUOTES (not what some right winger interpreted it to mean) up, and make your solid argument. Prove it, in other words.
-CW
There is a HUGE mountain of difference between taking responsibility for a mistake and begging for forgiveness...
... the letter after the name of the guy doing it.
Still waiting for one single example (much less a nice list, as I provided) of Obama "excessively apologizing".
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22Obama+Apologizes%22&pbx=1&oq=%22Obama+Apologizes%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=6668l9721l1l10374l2l2l0l0l0l0l1513l1513l8-1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=d876ffafd7c19c2&biw=1680&bih=901
I am sure you can find what yer looking for amongst the one MILLION one hundred and 90 thousand choices.. :D
Now, when you google "Bush Apologizes"......
About 48 thousand hits....
Even allowing for overlap and redundancy, it's clear that Obama has the lead in apologizing...
How often have we read about the Bush Apology Tour?? How often have we read about the Obama Apology Tour???
Where there's smoke.......
As far as proving the difference between begging and taking responsibility, that's just my opinion...
Psychologically speaking, Obama's apology did more harm than good...
Michale....
We can go (and have!! :D) back and forth on this subject til the cows come home to roost...
But one thing is abundantly clear and simply undeniable.
Democrats in general and President Obama in particular seem to care more about the religious freedom of foreigners (especially those foreigners that do their damnedest to kill Americans) more than they care about the religious of their fellow Americans.
At the end of the day, THAT is what pisses me (and most Americans) off.
The "Americans Last" attitude....
Michale.....
Even allowing for overlap and redundancy, it's clear that Obama has the lead in apologizing...
To be more precise, Obama has the clear lead in MEDIA REPORTS of his apologizing..
But, as I said, where there's smoke... There's usually fire...
Michale.....
... the letter after the name of the guy doing it.
Actually, that appears to be the Left's (and, to be fair, the Right's) bailiwick, not mine..
For example..
When is torture, rendition and summary executions of Americans a GOOD thing, a DEFENSIBLE thing??
Answer: When it's a guy with a 'D' after his name (instead of an 'R') who is doing it...
See how that works?? :D
Michale...
Michale -
Nice try, but a Google search doesn't count.
Find the data. Present it. Otherwise, you are talking trash with nothing to back it up, and I will henceforth ignore your posts on the matter as nothing more than: "Help, I've fallen into a Right-wing fantasy, and I can't get up!!"
To recap:
Where are your links or quotes to back up the following claims?
{1} ONE instance where Obama apologized for something where a life wasn't lost due to American actions. If you're right, there should be whole WEBSITES dedicated to this theme on the Right-wing side, so this shouldn't be too hard to reasearch. So where's your link?
{2,A&B} Two side questions you refuse to answer: was Bush right to apologize for the Qu'ran shooting? How about for the China spyplane incident, where Bush was FORCED to apologize? Still waiting for those answers...
{interlude} I tried to search for the Saudi bow thing, because I distinctly remember taking a lot of crap from the Left over that one, but I could not find it as an actual article, so the debate must have raged in the comments, perhaps on HuffPost. I do remember taking a strong "Obama should not have bowed to the Saudi royalty, because America was BORN on the concept that NO AMERICAN -- up to and most assuredly not our PRESIDENT -- would EVER bow to ANY KING ANYWHERE, ever again." But I couldn't find it on my own site, sorry. But I did look, because you and I were indeed on the same side of this argument, as I distinctly recall.
{3} Any evidence to back up that "type of apology" claim you made? Anything? At all? Bush made some sort of "acceptible to the Righties" apology back then, versus some sort of "begging for forgiveness" Obama apology? One quote? Anything? Buehler?...
{4} ONE SINGLE QUOTE from any "commander on the ground" backing up the Republican position that Obama's apology was a bad thing, versus any number of "generals on the ground apologizing on their own" for the Qu'ran burning, that I've seen recently in the media? One? One quote? Remember when you used to be all about the "generals on the ground"?? It wasn't that long ago, dude....
{5} ONE example -- just ONE, mind you -- that anyone out on the streets in Afghanistan directly said that Obama's apology was the reason why (even a TANGENTIAL reason why) they were out on the streets protesting. Because if you don't have such a quote, you are merely being led, sheep-like, into the Republican talking point maze of explaining "what the enemy thinks" to further their own political point of view. Which, I hasten to point out, independent voters aren't supposed to succumb to. Just sayin', dude...
OK, that is five questions. If you can't provide solid evidence for at least three of them, I'm going to tune you out as being just another Republican partisan flack. And, yes, that was an insult.
That's a pretty solid gauntlet to lay down on your feet. Do your best. I'm still betting you can't deliver. Repeating Fox News opinions isn't fact, and I thought you knew the difference between the two, but I'm now beginning to wonder.
-CW
Michale -
Here's a handy debunking link to help you out:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/obamas_apology_tour.html
:-)
-CW
It finally hit me...
Obama apologizing to Muslims reminds me of the guy in MEN IN BLACK II who begs Agent J not to be neuralized over some imagined transgression..
That same "please don't hurt us or kill us" expression that the actor in MIBII displayed...
It's a position of weakness, pure and simple...
Michale....
WOW... Someone is up early... Or up late?? : D
CW,
Nice try, but a Google search doesn't count.
CW:"In other words, let's see some links and data."
I gave you PLENTY of links with PLENTY of data.. :D Don't blame me because it was easy.. :D
{1} ONE instance where Obama apologized for something where a life wasn't lost due to American actions.
I am not sure what you are asking here.. I don't think I commented on anything Obama said w/ regards to loss of life by an American against an innocent foreigner. In the case you mentioned regarding Bush's apologies, I said that an apology in that situation was warranted...
{2,A&B} Two side questions you refuse to answer: was Bush right to apologize for the Qu'ran shooting?
No, he wasn't.. I believe I said that the first time you brought it up, back in the http://FTP.. I believe my exact words were, "Bush was a ninny"...
How about for the China spyplane incident, where Bush was FORCED to apologize? Still waiting for those answers...
There was loss of foreign life in this incident so, yes.. As much as it galls me to admit it (they're the enemy, after all) an apology was warranted...
I do remember taking a strong "Obama should not have bowed to the Saudi royalty, because America was BORN on the concept that NO AMERICAN -- up to and most assuredly not our PRESIDENT -- would EVER bow to ANY KING ANYWHERE, ever again." But I couldn't find it on my own site, sorry. But I did look, because you and I were indeed on the same side of this argument, as I distinctly recall.
And you were (and are) dead on ballz accurate...
"My friends. You bow to no one"
-Aragorn, LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
{3} Any evidence to back up that "type of apology" claim you made? Anything? At all? Bush made some sort of "acceptible to the Righties" apology back then, versus some sort of "begging for forgiveness" Obama apology? One quote? Anything? Buehler?...
Nope.. It's just my opinion that a "taking responsibility" apology is far FAR different than a "{begging} please don't hurt me or kill me" apology..
The former is a signal of strength and integrity. The latter is an example of whiny cowardice...
It's my opinion. YMMV :D
{4} ONE SINGLE QUOTE from any "commander on the ground" backing up the Republican position that Obama's apology was a bad thing, versus any number of "generals on the ground apologizing on their own" for the Qu'ran burning, that I've seen recently in the media? One? One quote? Remember when you used to be all about the "generals on the ground"?? It wasn't that long ago, dude....
After the McChrystal debacle, do you HONESTLY think there would be ANY general who would go on record as disputing their CnC???
However, speaking as a military person I can assure you that such claims were most definitely made off the record...
{5} ONE example -- just ONE, mind you -- that anyone out on the streets in Afghanistan directly said that Obama's apology was the reason why (even a TANGENTIAL reason why) they were out on the streets protesting.
I never claimed that. I merely stated that, by apologizing, Obama has validated the brutal protests and killings. Such a claim is psychologically sound...
OK, that is five questions. If you can't provide solid evidence for at least three of them, I'm going to tune you out as being just another Republican partisan flack. And, yes, that was an insult.
Ouch! And the ref takes a point away!! :D
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/obamas_apology_tour.html
That's one person's opinion..
An opinion not borne out by facts..
Sure, you can show me link after link that calls into question the apologies..
Just as I can find link after link that shows that the apologies did happen. Over one million links, to be precise...
But the simple fact that it is a point of contention SHOULD indicate that there is SOME validity to the accusation...
Or are you claiming it is simply a vast Right Wing conspiracy?? :D
Michale....
Ooops Got to many links in there DOH!! :D
Anyways, what it all boils down to is this..
President Obama is too quick to admit to our mistakes, but hesitates to expand on our greatness..
He puts the feelings and concerns of foreigners and doesn't rise to defend our troops or fellow Americans..
Can you point to ANY report that Obama demanded an apology from Karzai over the murder of our troops in the past week??
No you cannot...
And WHY can't you??
Because it didn't happen.
And WHY didn't it happen?
THAT is the question that concerns me most...
Michale.....
But, as I said, where there's smoke... There's usually fire...
There's the right's strategy in a nutshell: put up a smokescreen, and you've "proved" that there's a fire.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/20/us.military.bibles.burned/
Where was Obama's apology to Christians??
Seems it's only Muslims who rate an apology...
Christians?? Awww, they're nobodies... They don't deserve any kind of apology...
Once again, the determining factor seems to be Americans rate way down on the list and foreigners who are doing their best to kill Americans are a higher priority...
Michale....
There's the right's strategy in a nutshell: put up a smokescreen, and you've "proved" that there's a fire.
Touche' :D
As we have established, perception is far more important in an election than reality.
And the perception is that Obama apologies and admits mistakes to our enemies a LOT more often than he should...
And, like all perceptions, there is a modicum of facts to support the perception.
Don't blame me because Democrats can't properly fight the perception... Blame your Democrats...
Michale.....
. Blame your Democrats...
Unfortunately for me, they are "my" Democrats too... :(
Michale.....
NOW it looks like the Afghanistan Government (such as it is) is looking to put the Americans responsible for the Koran burning on trial...
A thousand quatloos says that the Afghanis will use the apology as proof in a trial...
Yea... Obama's apology REALLY did some good..
Michale.....
I'll tell ya'all right here and now...
If Obama allows the Afghanis to put American troops on trial for burning the Koran....???
Obama won't be able to get elected as a county dog catcher...
Michale.....
Couple of interesting facts about the desecration of the Koran..
Writing in the Koran is an act of desecration.. So, the scumbags at Bagram were the ones who desecrated the Koran, not American troops..
Another interesting fact. When a Koran is desecrated and fallen into disrepair the ACCEPTED METHOD OF DESTROYING THE KORAN IS TO BURN IT!!!
So.... Someone remind me again exactly what Obama apologized for???
Michale.....
And the perception is that Obama apologies and admits mistakes to our enemies a LOT more often than he should.
Only inside the right-wing echo chamber. Please don't go actually believing your talking points.
Only inside the right-wing echo chamber.
And THAT belief is only inside the LEFT-wing echo chamber... :D
It works both ways... :D
Michale.....
Michale -
That's what I thought. You got nothin'.
Now, to be fair, perhaps your links got messed up in your answer (there's one that looks really weird), so I'll allow you to try again.
{1} Let me rephrase this one, because it may have been confusingly-worded. ONE instance where Obama apologized for ANYthing -- other than when foreign lives were lost due to American actions (I'm using your definition here, so this really shouldn't be confusing). You excused Bush from most of his apologies for a reason, so the same reason holds for Obama, to put it another way. Please provide ONE link to an apology made by Obama which is outside this definition of excusable apologies. Just one -- a link to a media story about it, a link to the text the president said... anything.
{2} OK, you at least answered these two questions, I'll give you credit for that.
{3} Your opinion is based on absolutely nothing. Not a single fact to back it up, not a single incident of anything like what you describe. You don't even have any data for Bush's apology, either, you just automatically assume what "type" of apology each was -- without even a single quote to back it up. Your opinion is based on a right-wing fantasy image of Obama which has no basis in reality whatsoever. Otherwise, you could back it up with facts, which you cannot.
{4} You can "assure" all you want, but lacking facts, I am not convinced. I saw multiple officers on television apologizing, telling their troops what was going on, and stating exactly what the president stated. Please tell us how not apologizing helps, militarily. You cannot, because it does not. You scream about the "generals on the ground" when you think they back you up politically, but when they do not, you are silent. Sounds like you are the one disrespecting the opinion of the commanders on the ground. Not Obama.
{5} Once again, you have no proof other than your own gut feeling, which is invalid because you are making it up out of thin air.
I'm not asking for a Google search. I'm asking for ONE factual article which clearly states Obama apologized for ANYTHING.
You can call a duck a fire extinguisher. You can get all your friends to call it a fire extinguisher. You can even paint it red and put it in the hall. But all of that does not make it a fire extinguisher. Not even if every person on earth agreed it was a fire extinguisher.
There WAS NO "APOLOGY TOUR". It did not happen. It is a right-wing fantasy. It is not backed up by a single fact, as that Fact-Checker article points out (with facts, not opinions). Obama does not apologize to world leaders at the drop of a hat -- in fact, he does not apologize to them at all when there is no reason to do so. Again, it is a fantasy, not reality. It is wrong, wrong, wrong.
The only conceivable case that could be made is his Cairo speech, so go have a look at it. But... whoops!... what he was acknowledging was the fact that the CIA had overthrown the government of Iran back in the 1950s (which is indeed a historical fact)... which caused plenty of loss of foreign life, so by your rules even that one doesn't count.
You have been caught believing something which is false. You can either continue to believe it, as a matter of faith, or you can examine the evidence yourself and decide you had been misled. It's up to you, but I am still waiting for ONE SINGLE LINK to ONE SINGLE FACTUAL ARTICLE which even REMOTELY backs up the utter fantasy of Obama's "Apology tour" or him "apologizing" to ANY world leader.
Just one. And you have not been able to provide it, because it DOES NOT EXIST.
-CW
Michale -
Oh, and go look at that Qu'ran-shooting article again. It also said that Maliki demanded the American soldier be put on trial in Iraq. This, of course, never happened. And it will not happen in this case, either. Just to lay your mind to rest.
-CW
And it will not happen in this case, either. Just to lay your mind to rest.
If it "won't happen" why won't the Obama Administration come out and SAY it won't happen??
The longer there is ambiguity, the more damaging to moral it will be...
Michale.....
As far as {38} goes, there are tons of links I have provided that shows Obama going around the world, admitting America's mistakes... That is an "apology tour"...
Sure, the words "I APOLOGIZE" were never uttered, but the meaning was clear both to the people Obama was apologizing to and the people here at home who HAVEN'T drank the Obama koolaid...
Now I realize that will likely not suffice, but it's good enough for me..
I have already addressed the generals on the ground issue. After the McChrystal debacle, you won't catch ANY General officer who will speak publicly against Obama. But to cite that as "proof" that the Generals are completely on board with Obama's apology is to show complete ignorance of the military mindset.. No offense intended whatsoever..
"There is no dishonor in not knowing everything."
-SubCommander T'al, STAR TREK, The Enterprise Incident
Of course, you can choose not to believe it, as it tatters the pedestal that Obama has been placed on, but the fact is the grunts on the ground wish that Obama would show them the respect and deference he seems to show to the people who do their best to kill Americans. I know this as well as if I was there with them and heard it...
I know, I know.. You don't believe it. But you don't believe because you don't WANT to believe it..
You keep asking for articles of this and articles of that, as if an article in cyber-space is proof-positive of ANYTHING....
As your own commentaries have stated over and over, the media is not the end all get all of facts in this world...
I would THINK that personal experience would count more than a thousand "articles"....
It's obvious that we're at an impasse over this..
Obama's apology was a bad idea... Especially in light of the fact that the ONLY desecration was committed by the Afghani prisoners and NOT any US personnel...
Obama jumped the gun on the apology before all the facts were out. Just like he did when he said the Cambridge cops acted "stupidly"...
Obama frak'ed up....
Wonder if he will admit THAT. Apologize for THAT...
Somehow, I doubt it...
Michale.....
But this whole incident DOES produce an interesting quandary...
Exactly WHAT could these Americans be charged with???
In the Bush/Koran incident, the soldier discharged his weapon, so there would be several charges under the UCMJ that could work..
But in this case, American troops followed standard procedures... Nothing illegal or violations of the UCMJ were committed by these troops..
Given these facts, this begs the question...
Why doesn't Obama tell Karzai to go frak himself regarding putting those troops on trial??
Unless, of course, Obama is considering adopting Sharia Law as an addendum to the UCMJ.....
Michale....
I do remember taking a strong "Obama should not have bowed to the Saudi royalty, because America was BORN on the concept that NO AMERICAN -- up to and most assuredly not our PRESIDENT -- would EVER bow to ANY KING ANYWHERE, ever again." But I couldn't find it on my own site, sorry. But I did look, because you and I were indeed on the same side of this argument, as I distinctly recall.
Lemme ask you something...
We agree that Obama bowing and kow-towing to foreign leaders is wrong...
Why is THAT wrong, but going around the world telling millions of foreigners how bad America has frak'ed up is perfectly OK???
Why is it OK for our President, our LEADER, to travel to foreign lands and tell foreigners of all the mistakes we have made, what a mess we have made???
Both serve the purpose of denigrating our country...
Why is the former bad and shouldn't be done, but the latter is perfectly OK, nay even encouraged??
Michale.....
Michale -
RE: the likelihood that an American president would turn over a soldier to any country we are currently militarily occupying -- anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows this is never going to happen.
I have no idea what Afghani law states, so I have no idea what they'd charge him with, but since it is never, ever going to happen, it is beside the point.
Obama doesn't say "it ain't going to happen" because everyone on the planet (except you, I guess) knows it ain't going to happen.
-CW
Michale [41] -
So, you still got nothin'. Not a single link, nothin'. Zero. Zippo. The big goose egg. Nada. Rien.
Michale: "Here, try some of this KoolAid, it's really tasty..."
Me: "No thanks, I am thirsty for facts, not KoolAid... do you have a single fact?"
Michale: "This KoolAid is actually delicious, let me pour you a cup..."
When did President Obama go "around the world admitting America's mistakes"? I like how you're changing the subject, here, but even this watered-down version never happened.
"...the words "I APOLOGIZE" were never uttered..."
Aha! Doctor, the patient seems to be coming out of his ADS haze, there may be hope for him yet...
You have a caricature image of Obama that the entire right wing believes is true. It is not. You have not one single fact or article to back your caricature up with, because they simply do not exist.
Obama did exactly the right thing, which is exactly what Bush did, and his critics are looked upon by most sane people as baying at the moon.
I thought Republicans were going to have a chance this election year. Now, it looks to me like they are blowing any possible chance they have sky-high, with every opportunity they get. Check out just about any poll of independents on Romney-v-Obama if you don't believe me.
And as for the "apology tour" that never happened, you have proven that for you it is a matter of faith, not facts. That's fine with me, but I never argue religion or faith with a true believer, because it is both a waste of time and just annoys us both. You keep on believing whatever you want to believe, but there are ZERO facts to back up your faith. I will continue residing in the reality-based universe, myself.
-CW
RE: the likelihood that an American president would turn over a soldier to any country we are currently militarily occupying -- anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows this is never going to happen.
The why is the White House not confirming this??
A good LEADER would come out unequivocally, side with our troops and plainly tell Karzai to take his demand and shove it..
I have no idea what Afghani law states, so I have no idea what they'd charge him with, but since it is never, ever going to happen, it is beside the point.
The penalty for desecrating the Koran is death...
Lovely people, ain't they.... :^/
Obama doesn't say "it ain't going to happen" because everyone on the planet (except you, I guess) knows it ain't going to happen.
No.. Obama won't say "it ain't gonna happen" because he is too afraid of offending our Afghan
"allies"....
I am not surprised Obama is not commenting on it.. While it WOULD surprise me (a little) if Obama actually DID turn over the troops to the Karzai government, it won't surprise me when Obama tries to charge those troops with SOMETHING..
He has said as much...
"The error was inadvertent; I assure you that we will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible,"
Accountable for what!?? DOING THEIR JOBS!!???
Michale....
3. NATO officials promised to meet Afghan nation’s demand of bringing to justice, through an open trial, those responsible for the incident and it was agreed that the perpetrators of the crime be brought to justice as soon as possible.
http://www.gmic.gov.af/english/index.php/features/255--joint-statement-by-the-delegations-assigned-to-probe-bagram-incident
Why isn't the White House denying this??
Michale.....
"When Muslims want to respectfully dispose of a text of the Qur'an that is no longer usable, we will burn it,"
-Imam Jihad Turk
Director Of Religious Affairs
Islamic Center Of Southern California
I'm just sayin'......
Michale....
Obama did exactly the right thing,
No, he didn't..
There was nothing to apologize for..
And I have the quotes to prove it.. :D
The only desecration acts were by the Afghani prisoners who wrote in the Koran.
Desecrated or disrepair Korans are burned.
These are the facts...
Check out just about any poll of independents on Romney-v-Obama if you don't believe me.
General Election Polls are like the weather in Florida.. Wait 10 minutes and they'll change... :D
Michale.....
But I have to admit, you were correct...
There was no "Apology" tour...
It was more of a "America Frak'ed Up This and America Frak'ed Up That And America Is Always Frak'ing Up" tour...
Personally, I fail to see the distinction..
But because we're all such good pals here, I must in good conscience acknowledge the distinction that ya'all apparently see.. :D
Michale.....
And THAT belief is only inside the LEFT-wing echo chamber.
The left-wing echo chamber is tiny and isolated. If you want Democratic talking points, your options are limited to http://www.chrisweigant.com and basically nothing else. Then there's the non-partisan sub-wing of the left wing. It's also tiny and isolated. There are some people who comment on Mother Jones stories with enthusiastic agreement, but even most of the far left (me, for example) doesn't really want to have much to do with echo-chamber publications like MoJo.
The left-wing echo chamber is tiny and isolated.
Oh come on... Not even YOU don't believe that..
HuffingtonPost
Daily Kos
MSNBC
NEW YORK TIMES
CBS
NBC
ABC
Every Blog On Banter Wire
About the only place that is NOT a Left Wing Echo Chamber is the one you mention. CW.COM
Michale.....
Not to beat this topic to death (I am sure ya'all are sick of it) but if my assessment of what the grunts on the ground are saying about Obama's apology is not sufficient ( {{{sniffle}}} {{sniffle}} :D ), you can peruse any of the thousands of military blogs in cyberspace..
That would give you a really good feel for what the grunts on the ground are thinking..
You'll find that they are thinking the same things I have been saying..
No apology was needed.. Obama is simply kow-towing to foreigners at the expense of Americans..
Of course, you will find people who agree with you... But, amongst the military, they are in the overwhelming minority..
Michale.....
The MSM is, in effect, extremely biased in favor of the Republicans. They're completely cowed by the decades of screeching about the supposed "liberal media", so they've absolutely abandoned any effort at objectivity in favor of a sick sort of even-handedness. If the Republicans literally said "the earth is flat, and all those 'round-the-world plane trips people think they've taken are just a hoax", the MSM would cover the difference of opinion with completely equal weight to both sides, and absolutely no hint that there even is any such thing as facts.
When the left says something loony, the MSM either derides it or ignores it. That's as it should be, but the right never gets the same treatment.
The MSM is, in effect, extremely biased in favor of the Republicans.
Wrong. The MSM is extremely biased in favor of what ever is a good story...
It just happens to be that "good stories" favor the Right.. Usually.. :D
But it's clear that the totality of the Media (with VERY few exceptions) in this country is in the bag for the first Black POTUS... So much so that anything said against the first Black POTUS is immediately ridiculed as "racist", regardless of the validity of the charge.....
For example, if it was learned that Bush was born in Texas, but has the SSN of a Connecticut resident, the Left *AND* the MSM would have gone batshit...
But for the first Black Potus, not a word is said...
Michale....
Desecrated or disrepair Korans are burned.
So are worn-out flags, traditionally. But your side is all about passing constitutional amendments to ban flag-burning (along with a smaller but still depressing number on my side).
You can't possibly believe that BS about the supposedly liberal media. Why not stick to stuff that's at least minimally plausible?
So are worn-out flags, traditionally.
For your comparison to be comparable, the Left would have to actually use worn out, disrepaired flags..
Such was never the case...
You can't possibly believe that BS about the supposedly liberal media.
Not only do I believe it, but examples of it are all around.. From "tingles" to ignoring blatant racism on the part of our POTUS.....
The MSM is clearly in the bag for Obama...
Here's one current example..
What would the MSM do if Romney put out a campaign, "WHITES FOR ROMNEY"???
It would be like throwing chum to sharks...
Yet, Obama puts out "BLACKS FOR OBAMA" and the MSM doesn't bat an eye....
How is that not being in the bag for Obama???
Michale....
For your comparison to be comparable, the Left would have to actually use worn out, disrepaired flags..
Such was never the case...
However, in the case of the Koran burnings, it IS clear that the Korans had already been desecrated and were in a state of disrepair...
Therefore, disposing of them via burning would be the correct procedure..
So what crime has been committed???
"Lieutenant? Dawson brought a hungry guy some food. What crime did he commit??
-Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN
Michale.....
For your comparison to be comparable, the Left would have to actually use worn out, disrepaired flags.
So, what does the right use worn out Korans for?
If someone wants to burn a Koran as part of a protest, in the US, as a civilian, as a private individual not a representative of government, in circumstances where it doesn't constitute a threat or fraud or whatever against anyone, then every single person on the left (in the US) will agree that they have the right to do so. Not just 99.9%, not just 99.99%, all of us.
Many on the left would say it was a scumbag thing for them to do. But they would all acknowledge that the Koran-burner has the right to do so, just as the neo-Nazis have the right to spew their hate (with the same list of caveats).
Lots of Democrats are not at all on the left, and those who endorse flag-burning amendments well might also deny
Not only do I believe it ...
I don't believe you. You simply can't be that stupid.
So what crime has been committed?
In the military, you don't need a crime. If something happens that's severely detrimental to the mission, there's an inquiry. If someone is found to have screwed up, they can be punished in various ways as prescribed by law and by whatever orders were in effect.
There's no question, the Koran-burning was detrimental to the mission, big time.
President Obama: Koran Apology to Afghans 'Calmed Things Down' - ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/president-obama-apology-afghans-calmed-things/story?id=15819707#.T07HzswSK1M
So, what does the right use worn out Korans for?
Not sure if the "right" uses Korans..
The Korans were used in Bagram Prison for the prisoners.. The prisoners desecrated them by passing messages in them.
So they were burned, as per Islamic procedure...
What's the problem???
Oh, that's right. The Local Nationals are savage morons...
If someone wants to burn a Koran as part of a protest, in the US, as a civilian, as a private individual not a representative of government, in circumstances where it doesn't constitute a threat or fraud or whatever against anyone, then every single person on the left (in the US) will agree that they have the right to do so. Not just 99.9%, not just 99.99%, all of us.
Bull crap.. That happened recently down here in FL.. And everyone here totally attacked the guy for doing it...
I don't believe you. You simply can't be that stupid.
It's not stupidity.. It's logical... Insofar as you cannot explain the examples I gave by any other way but conceding that the MSM is in the bag for Obama...
In the military, you don't need a crime.
As I explained already, this is simply not accurate.. For the kind of "punishment" that Obama implied in his apology to Karzai, you DO need a crime..
CB,
President Obama: Koran Apology to Afghans 'Calmed Things Down' - ABC News
I wonder what the weather is like in Obama's little world...
Soon after Obama made that totally ludicrous and bogus statement, more soldiers were killed by our supposed "allies"....
When's the apologies going to start coming TO the US, instead of always FROM the US???
Michale.....
On another tack, since it's obvious nothing new can be said about Obama's moronic apology...
http://news.yahoo.com/energy-secretary-chu-admits-administration-ok-high-gas-193900713.html
Let's talk about Obama's moronic plan to keep gas prices higher and higher...
Michale.....
The price of gasoline should reflect the entire cost -- geopolitical effects, military expenditures related to geopolitical effects, subsidies to oil companies, cost of oil-related demands on infrastructure, costs of cleanup ....
You right-wingers ought to like gas taxes. They directly advance your prime directive of making the poor pay.
You right-wingers ought to like gas taxes.
A> I don't speak for the "right-wingers".. I speak for the Independents and NPAs..
And
2> The price of gasoline reflects poor leadership.. At least that's what you left-wingers claimed when Bush was president..
Michale.....
I don't speak for the "right-wingers".. I speak for the Independents and NPAs.
Keep your day job: the comedy gig isn't going to pan out.
At least that's what you left-wingers claimed when Bush was president.
Left-wingers say stupid stuff sometimes, but that sounds more like a partisan-Democrat line than a left-wing one. I'm both, of course, but I'm pretty sure I never made such a ridiculous over-generalization about the relatively weak connection between presidential leadership and gas prices. Starting a war in the Middle East certainly is a point of overlap, though.
Keep your day job: the comedy gig isn't going to pan out.
"That's humor. I recognize that."
-JT Walsh, GOOD MORNING, VIETNAM
Naw, what has ya'all really perturbed is that I *AM* representative of how Independents and NPAs view the president..
Left-wingers say stupid stuff sometimes, but that sounds more like a partisan-Democrat line than a left-wing one.
This implies that Left Wingers and Partisan Democrats are different.
I see no evidence of this..
I'm pretty sure I never made such a ridiculous over-generalization about the relatively weak connection between presidential leadership and gas prices.
YOU may not have. But Left Wingers/Partisan Democrats sure did...
Starting a war in the Middle East certainly is a point of overlap, though.
{{{cough}}} {{{cough}}} Libya {{{cough}}}
:D
Michale....
Michale [64] -
No, no, when Bush was in office, he was "keeping gas prices high because of his greedy oil buddies"
At least, that's what I remember the talking point was from the Left.
Heh.
:-)
-CW
This implies that Left Wingers and Partisan Democrats are different.
Some left-wingers are also partisan Democrats. Most left-wingers are not partisan Democrats. Most partisan Democrats are not left-wingers.
However, there's something that Partisan Democrats and Left Wingers have in common: they are all Bertrand Russell, and they are all the Pope. That is, there's no such thing as either Partisan Democrats or Left Wingers. Capitalization makes it a proper noun, and there is no organization or movement or whatever that uses either term as its proper name. There are Liberal Democrats in Japan, and Social Democrats in Germany, but no Partisan Democrats anywhere.
{{{cough}}} Libya {{{cough}}}
Ah, I think I see where the confusion is coming from. When there are already a lot of people killing each other in large organized groups, and you send your military in and make it stop, that's not called "starting a war". That's known as "ending a war". When there aren't a lot of people killing each other in large organized groups, and you send your military in and then there are, that's called "starting a war".
CW,
No, no, when Bush was in office, he was "keeping gas prices high because of his greedy oil buddies"
Exactly...
Bush got the blame..
dsws,
However, there's something that Partisan Democrats and Left Wingers have in common: they are all Bertrand Russell, and they are all the Pope. That is, there's no such thing as either Partisan Democrats or Left Wingers. Capitalization makes it a proper noun, and there is no organization or movement or whatever that uses either term as its proper name. There are Liberal Democrats in Japan, and Social Democrats in Germany, but no Partisan Democrats anywhere.
Uh... Who'se on first???
Ah, I think I see where the confusion is coming from. When there are already a lot of people killing each other in large organized groups, and you send your military in and make it stop, that's not called "starting a war". That's known as "ending a war". When there aren't a lot of people killing each other in large organized groups, and you send your military in and then there are, that's called "starting a war".
Why not just say what you REALLY mean??
It's different because it's Obama (a Democrat) and not Bush (a Republican)
Wasn't that so much easier?? And a LOT more accurate... :D
Michale.....
Do you really think there's no difference between intervening in a war that's already going on, and starting a war where there wasn't one?
Do you really think there's no difference between intervening in a war that's already going on, and starting a war where there wasn't one?
Insofar as how it impacts the global oil market and gas prices..
Not a damn bit o difference whatsoever..
Michale
Do you really think there's no difference between intervening in a war that's already going on, and starting a war where there wasn't one?
I am also constrained to point out that Libya & Iraq were similar actions insofar as the ultimate goal was to remove a brutal dictator that was murdering his own people..
Which makes the fact that we are avoiding Syria at all costs all the more perplexing..
Michale.....
Proxy wars suck. If we must to go to war with someone, let us go to war with them, not with their underlings.
Proxy wars suck.
Which is exactly what Obama did in Libya...
If we must to go to war with someone, let us go to war with them, not with their underlings.
I agree completely. Take the fight to the real bad guys..
Did fiddle fart around with UN resolutions or other crap like that..
"True peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice."
-Harrison Ford, AIR FORCE ONE
Michale....