Obama "Apologies"?

QuickSilver

SF VIP
Location
Midwest
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Misty Do other leaders from other countries, apologize for their country, as our leader does when visiting other countries, or is it just our leader that finds it necessary?

This gem came from another thread... It's been a favorite talking point on the right for years... In fact Romney even wrote a book about it.. So I thought I'd take a look to see what they are actually calling apologies.. See if you think they are..



France

Obama took questions at a town hall meeting in Strasbourg, France, on April 9, 2009. He opened the meeting with remarks on the U.S.-Europe relationship and said that the U.S. and Europe need to work together.

"Not more than a generation ago, it would have been difficult to imagine that the inability of somebody to pay for a house in Florida could contribute to the failure of the banking system in Iceland. Today, what's difficult to imagine is that we did not act sooner to shape our future. Now, there's plenty of blame to go around for what has happened, and the United States certainly shares blame for what has happened. But every nation bears responsibility for what lies ahead, especially now, for whether it's the recession or climate change, or terrorism, or drug trafficking, poverty, or the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we have learned that without a doubt there's no quarter of the globe that can wall itself off from the threats of the 21st century."

At another point, Obama addressed transatlantic attitudes:

"In recent years we've allowed our Alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there's something more that has crept into our relationship. In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive. But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad. On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth. They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated."

England

During a visit to London in April 2009, Obama answered questions at a press conference. A reporter asked Obama which country was to blame for the financial crisis:

"I would say that if you look at the sources of this crisis, the United States certainly has some accounting to do with respect to a regulatory system that was inadequate to the massive changes that had taken place in the global financial system."

At another press conference, a reporter said Obama during the campaign had spoken of the "diminished power and authority of the United States over the last decade" and asked if Obama was seeing evidence of that.

"Well, first of all, during the campaign I did not say that some of that loss of authority was inevitable," Obama said. "I said it was traced to very specific decisions that the previous administration had made that I believed had lowered our standing in the world. And that wasn't simply my opinion; that was, it turns out, the opinion of many people around the world. I would like to think that with my election and the early decisions that we've made, that you're starting to see some restoration of America's standing in the world. And although, as you know, I always mistrust polls, international polls seem to indicate that you're seeing people more hopeful about America's leadership."

Turkey

Obama gave a major address to the Turkish parliament in April that seemed to be largely a diplomatic outreach to an Islamic ally and to the Islamic world at large.

"I know there have been difficulties these last few years. I know that the trust that binds the United States and Turkey has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced. So let me say this as clearly as I can: The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam."

He also said this:

"Every challenge that we face is more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation. This work is never over. That's why, in the United States, we recently ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. That's why we prohibited -- without exception or equivocation -- the use of torture. All of us have to change. And sometimes change is hard. Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans. Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past."

Cairo

The Obama administration billed a speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009, as a major diplomatic outreach to the Islamic world.

"Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year. ...

"In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward."

CIA headquarters in Langley, Va.

On April 20, 2009, Obama visited the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Va. Much of his brief remarks were thanking the CIA officers for their work. But he visited them not long after his administration released records on brutal interrogation tactics. Whether those methods met the legal definition of torture is one thing; they certainly met the common usage definition, "to cause intense suffering." Obama's visit was seen as a move to reassure the agency's staff.

"Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes. That's how we learn. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be President of the United States, and that's why you should be proud to be members of the CIA."

The National Archives in Washington, D.C.

Obama used the setting of the National Archives to discuss his thoughts on fighting terrorism, particularly about how terror suspects should be tried. During the speech, Obama said he intended to keep some prisoners in indefinite detention.

"After 9/11, we knew that we had entered a new era -- that enemies who did not abide by any law of war would present new challenges to our application of the law; that our government would need new tools to protect the American people, and that these tools would have to allow us to prevent attacks instead of simply prosecuting those who try to carry them out.

"Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight; that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, too often we set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And during this season of fear, too many of us -- Democrats and Republicans, politicians, journalists, and citizens -- fell silent.

"In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach -- one that rejected torture and one that recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay. ...

"There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. In fact, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law--a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

"So the record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies."

United Nations General Assembly

Obama addressed the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 23, 2009, in New York City. Obama urged countries to work together under the auspices of the UN to address issues such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change and economic development. Obama also used the speech to discuss his actions since taking office only nine months before.

"I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. And this has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction. ...

" For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.
On my first day in office, I prohibited -- without exception or equivocation -- the use of torture by the United States of America. I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example. ..."

"Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside. Each society must search for its own path, and no path is perfect. Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people and in its past traditions. And I admit that America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy. But that does not weaken our commitment; it only reinforces it."


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mitt-romney/obama-remarks-never-true-apology/

But as we looked over Obama's remarks, we noticed that he never used the word that is the universal hallmark of apologies: "sorry." Merriam-Webster defines an apology as "an admission of error or discourtesy accompanied by an expression of regret." If someone is apologizing, it seems that is a discrete act that can be verified and fact-checked. We set out to discover how accurate Romney was in describing Obama as constantly apologizing.











[h=3][/h]
 

The facts matter not to those who want to cast their hatred for this President, but you'll notice when pressed for a reason, none is forthcoming, it's pure hatred.
 
All of the instances shown came directly from Mitt Romney's book titled "No Apology" and were part of his failed campaign strategy in 2012. Does anything in any of the examples look like an apology for anything? Not to me... they look like an intelligent assessment of the difficult world situation... and not the rantings of a war mongering, chest thumping blowhard.. as our previous President and his side-kicks. I think some folks, not bothering to find out what was REALLY said are just eager to buy into the talking point without the benefit of any real thought or research.
 

All the President is saying we've got one world and we've got to work together to get along. The right has never liked this president and when they can't find something to blame him for they make it up. He sounds like a reasonable man to me.
 
I did not read about Mitt Romney's book....and from what you posted above, your examples do not show Pres. Obama saying "I'm sorry", instead what he is doing is criticizing the U.S, such as in the first example, he mentioned Europe's leading role in the world, and then criticizes us by calling us arrogant, dismissive and derisive.

In the rest of those speaches are mentioned some other criticism's of America. When he was running for office and gave a speech in Germany, he mentioned that we have made our share of mistakes, and his country has not perfected itself, and that our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.

I have not heard, unless I missed it, other leaders of their countries, criticize their country to Obama, while giving speeches.
 
I don't see it as criticizing... I see it as him being realistic, and not an arrogant blowhard like Bush, who made the rest of the world hate our guts.

As for other leaders of other countries.... I don't know if they do or not.. ...because I'm not multi-lingual... I don't listen to all their speeches... Do you? So "not hearing" them means nothing... Unless you have followed them, how do you know?
 
That is sort of new news to me that the rest of the world hates the US. And I never new that Bush caused all that hate either. During Bush's years we sent our military into two areas with the UN's support in Afghanistan from the beginning and with UN's support after the invasion had begun in Iraq. A number of countries went along with us on both occasions and it was a British General that said it was right for a coalition to enter Iraq on the second time without new permissions because Iraq had broken the agreements they surrendered to the first time a UN approve attack was made.

So it was not just Bush that made that decision. Best to put hate away and look for facts.
.................................
An English General that totally dislikes G Bush said the extension of the Iraq war was legitimate after 10 years of Saddam's defiance of the UN and the surrender terms.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1561891/Gen-Sir-Mike-Jackson-attacks-US-over-Iraq.html

Sir Mike says he satisfied himself on the legality of invading Iraq by careful study of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and concluded that action was "legitimate under international law without a 'second' resolution
 
President Obama wasn't apologizing or criticizing from all I've heard, just being realistic. The apology attack...http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/08/31/krauthammer-urges-gop-to-attack-obama-using-rid/182633



"The claim that Obama repeatedly has apologized for the United States is not borne out by the facts, especially if his full quotes are viewed in context.


Obama often was trying to draw a rhetorical distinction between his policies and that of President Bush, a common practice when the presidency changes parties.

The shift in policies, in fact, might have been more dramatic from Clinton to Bush than from Bush to Obama, given how Obama has largely maintained Bush's approach to fighting terrorism.


In other cases, Obama's quotes have been selectively trimmed for political purposes.

Or they were not much different than sentiments expressed by Bush or his secretary of state.

Republicans may certainly disagree with Obama's handling of foreign policy or particular policies he has pursued, but they should not invent a storyline that does not appear to exist.


Note to GOP speechwriters and campaign ad makers: The apology tour never happened. [The Washington Post, The Fact Checker, 2/22/11]"
 
I don't see it as criticizing... I see it as him being realistic, and not an arrogant blowhard like Bush, who made the rest of the world hate our guts.

As for other leaders of other countries.... I don't know if they do or not.. ...because I'm not multi-lingual... I don't listen to all their speeches... Do you? So "not hearing" them means nothing... Unless you have followed them, how do you know?

I watch quite a few speeches from Foreign leaders who visit the White House, and also read articles on Foreign Leaders speeches, and have not seen or heard them criticize their country or as you mentioned, being realistic about their countries faults.
 
I watch quite a few speeches from Foreign leaders who visit the White House, and also read articles on Foreign Leaders speeches, and have not seen or heard them criticize their country or as you mentioned, being realistic about their countries faults.

Then that makes us candid and honest. It is not a sign of weakness as you seem to think for us to make diplomatic overtures when speaking to foreign heads of state. We have always admitted mistakes, exposed failures to the world. It's one of the high water marks of a free and open society.
 
That is sort of new news to me that the rest of the world hates the US. And I never new that Bush caused all that hate either. During Bush's years we sent our military into two areas with the UN's support in Afghanistan from the beginning and with UN's support after the invasion had begun in Iraq. A number of countries went along with us on both occasions and it was a British General that said it was right for a coalition to enter Iraq on the second time without new permissions because Iraq had broken the agreements they surrendered to the first time a UN approve attack was made.

So it was not just Bush that made that decision. Best to put hate away and look for facts.
.................................
An English General that totally dislikes G Bush said the extension of the Iraq war was legitimate after 10 years of Saddam's defiance of the UN and the surrender terms.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1561891/Gen-Sir-Mike-Jackson-attacks-US-over-Iraq.html

Sir Mike says he satisfied himself on the legality of invading Iraq by careful study of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and concluded that action was "legitimate under international law without a 'second' resolution

After 911 the rest of the world empathised with the US, waving American flags in the UK and other countries. But it turned to hate when Bush went into Iraq misleading the American public by insinuating Iraq was responsible for 911 - in fact many Americans still think that. All that rubbish about hating France for not agreeing to go to war and using the term 'freedom fries' instead of French fries made Americans look like idiots, just like Bush.

Tony Blair is still being bashed for going into that war with Bush and has been called his poodle. Too bad. I really liked Blair. Labour candidates running for office right now really don't want him to give his support for them, that's how unpopular he is.

And you are totally blind if you don't see how much anti-Americanism there is in the world. But of course I'm banging my head against a brick wall to reply to you.
 
So are you denying that the British General was inspiring others to go after the non caring leader of Iraq after more than 10 years of his torturing and attempting to create nuclear items and such in disguise of other actions, including building rockets larger than allowed. Saddam was a danger to the area and most new it prior to the second invasion.

It is OK to have truth and facts about events even when it is not what a person would like to hear.
 
So are you denying that the British General was inspiring others to go after the non caring leader of Iraq after more than 10 years of his torturing and attempting to create nuclear items and such in disguise of other actions, including building rockets larger than allowed. Saddam was a danger to the area and most new it prior to the second invasion.

It is OK to have truth and facts about events even when it is not what a person would like to hear.

Would love some links proving the existence of "disguised nuclear items and giant rockets".. Truth and facts must be proven.. Give it a try.
 
President Obama wasn't apologizing or criticizing from all I've heard, just being realistic. The apology attack...http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/08/31/krauthammer-urges-gop-to-attack-obama-using-rid/182633


"The claim that Obama repeatedly has apologized for the United States is not borne out by the facts, especially if his full quotes are viewed in context.


Obama often was trying to draw a rhetorical distinction between his policies and that of President Bush, a common practice when the presidency changes parties.

The shift in policies, in fact, might have been more dramatic from Clinton to Bush than from Bush to Obama, given how Obama has largely maintained Bush's approach to fighting terrorism.


In other cases, Obama's quotes have been selectively trimmed for political purposes.

Or they were not much different than sentiments expressed by Bush or his secretary of state.

Republicans may certainly disagree with Obama's handling of foreign policy or particular policies he has pursued, but they should not invent a storyline that does not appear to exist.


Note to GOP speechwriters and campaign ad makers: The apology tour never happened. [The Washington Post, The Fact Checker, 2/22/11]"

No disrespect to you, Seabreeze, but I think of what President Obama has said about our country as an apology tour too. It looks to me as if the President is apologizing for our arrogance, dismissiveness, our darker periods, being disengaged, dictating our terms, making mistakes, hasty decisions, fear based decisions, trimming facts and evidence, set our principles aside and went off course. Those were the words that the President used to describe us to other countries, that were listed in QuickSilver's post. We will just have to agree to disagree. :)
 
I still fail to see how admitting ones mistakes and owning up to them is synonymous with an apology...But then again, I've always seen that as a sign of strength... not weakness. BUT... you are entitled to believe what you want.
 
Would love some links proving the existence of "disguised nuclear items and giant rockets".. Truth and facts must be proven.. Give it a try.

I can likely do that for you with not much effort. But why don't you do that for yourself and enrich your knowledge of our past. And then you can admit some of your mistakes and show your strength.
 
I can likely do that for you with not much effort. But why don't you do that for yourself and enrich your knowledge of our past. And then you can admit some of your mistakes and show your strength.

Nice try. You have been challenged to back up your claims. It's not her job to support your argument, it's YOURS! Unless you do, I call bullshit!
 
After 911 the rest of the world empathised with the US, waving American flags in the UK and other countries. But it turned to hate when Bush went into Iraq misleading the American public by insinuating Iraq was responsible for 911 - in fact many Americans still think that.
And you are totally blind if you don't see how much anti-Americanism there is in the world.

You're right about 9/11 Ameriscot, an Iraq invasion started by Bush under false pretenses, and yes, many Americans are either ignorant of that fact or in denial.

It looks to me as if the President is apologizing for our arrogance, dismissiveness, our darker periods, being disengaged, dictating our terms, making mistakes, hasty decisions, fear based decisions, trimming facts and evidence, set our principles aside and went off course. We will just have to agree to disagree. :)

You're right Misty, we disagree and that's okay. Many people take our stands on this on both sides of the aisle. I don't see it as apologizing, and for the President of the United States to publically acknowledge our arrogance, poor decisions and acting as a dictatorship, to me (and many others) is refreshing. I'm happy to see a change from the attitudes of Bush and Cheney. I think we did set our principles aside and go off course, and if we don't get back on course soon, some people will get another war like they're itching for, maybe WWIII.
 
Then that makes us candid and honest. It is not a sign of weakness as you seem to think for us to make diplomatic overtures when speaking to foreign heads of state. We have always admitted mistakes, exposed failures to the world. It's one of the high water marks of a free and open society.

Thanks for your thoughts, and I respect your opinion, AZ Jim. My opinion is different, and I don't look on what the President has said about our country as weakness, I think other countries would think better of us, if we talked about the good things about our country. If I met someone and they kept talking about their faults, it wouldn't make me like them better.

I prefer a President that shows pride in our country, and feels we are exceptional too, as Pres. Obama feels that Europe is the leader of the world, I would like him to feel the same about us. I think all countries should see themselves as exceptional, except the countries that kill their own people, or behead them etc.
 
Thanks for your thoughts, and I respect your opinion, Art. My opinion is different, and I don't look on what the President has said about our country as weakness, I think other countries would think better of us, if we talked about the good things about our country. If I met someone and they kept talking about their faults, it wouldn't make me like them better.

I prefer a President that shows pride in our country, and feels we are exceptional too, as Pres. Obama feels that Europe is the leader of the world, I would like him to feel the same about us. I think all countries should see themselves as exceptional, except the countries that kill their own people, or behead them etc.

Whose "Art"?
 
I know it's off topic, but your sentence brought this to mind. http://www.usslibertyveterans.org/files/War Crimes Report.pdf


WOW.. In 1967 I was 18 and this wasn't on my radar then. Israel? Really?

On June 8, 1967 while patrolling in international waters
2 in the Eastern Mediterranean
Sea, USS
Liberty (AGTR-5) was savagely attacked without warning or justification
by air and naval forces of the state of Israel.
3
Of a crew of 294 officers and men
4 (including three civilians)5, the ship suffered
thirty four (34) killed in action and one hundred seventy three (173) wounded in action.
6
The ship itself, a Forty Million ($40,000,000) Dollar state of the art signals intelligence

authorities,
 
Thanks for your thoughts, and I respect your opinion, Art. My opinion is different, and I don't look on what the President has said about our country as weakness, I think other countries would think better of us, if we talked about the good things about our country. If I met someone and they kept talking about their faults, it wouldn't make me like them better.

I prefer a President that shows pride in our country, and feels we are exceptional too, as Pres. Obama feels that Europe is the leader of the world, I would like him to feel the same about us. I think all countries should see themselves as exceptional, except the countries that kill their own people, or behead them etc.

Whose "Art"? Not sure where the "President thinks Europe is leader of the world" came from. I prefer we not project our smugness or arrogance to the rest of the world.
 


Back
Top