Our Troops In Iraq Have Been Used In A War That Has Severely Damaged The United States

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 04:15:52 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Apparently, Barack Obama apologized for saying that US troops' lives have been wasted in Iraq:

Obama has twice apologized since implying that U.S. troops had died in vain, telling a rally crowd in Ames, Iowa, on Sunday, "We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized, and should never been waged, and on which we have now spent $400 billion, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted."
. . . In an interview with the Des Moines Register, the leading newspaper in the critical first-in-the-nation caucus state, immediately backpedaled saying, "I was actually upset with myself when I said that, because I never use that term."
But, the first-term Senator's use of the term in a very public setting has forced Obama to elaborate on that apology, telling a house party crowd of potential supports in Nashua, N.H., Monday night, "Even as I said it, I realized I had misspoken."

Obama did indeed misspeak. The fact is our troops in Iraq have not been wasted, they have been used in an enterprise that has been as damaging to the United States as any in memory. They were worse than wasted -- they were employed in a Debacle that was foretold from the first moment PNAC dreamed up this insane scheme in the 1990s.

I am not sure about the politics of it all. Chris Bowers is upset with Obama.

I am upset with the Bush Administration, which has done severe damage to our country and in the process caused the death and maiming of tens of thousands of our fine soldiers, who have, in the main, acted in the best traditions of our country. I feel tremendously sad for the families of our brave soldiers, who must realize what Bush has wrought and at what cost. I would certainly not want to see them caused further pain. But the truth is the truth.

< Military Accepts More Recruits With Criminal Records | Justice Scalia's Daughter Arrested >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Our Troops In Iraq Have Been Used In A War That Has Severely Damaged The United States | 34 comments (34 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The truth is the truth.... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by kdog on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 04:28:31 PM EST

What do you call all those who are killed and disabled? Maybe it just needs a few apt qualifiers like "tragic, shameful, treasonous waste of heroic humanity".

You can't say a soldier who dies trying to save the soldier next to him dies for no reason or no purpose. That's an honorable, noble, heroic death.

You can say sending soldiers thousands of miles from home when it is not essential to our safety serves no noble reason or purpose.

: Well said, Kdog (none / 0) (#2)
by Peaches on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 04:31:43 PM EST

The truth is (4.50 / 2) (#12)
by Che's Lounge on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 11:16:02 PM EST

We have the oil. We may not be extracting it, but we're sitting on it. It's ours. That fact alone give us tremendous power. The troops are there to defend it. They are not leaving. The civil strife is irrelevant.

Once you gain power, you do whatever is necessary to keep it.

They Gave Their Lives For Halliburton (none / 0) (#18)
by john horse on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 05:51:02 AM EST

Che,
I agree with you. These soldiers did not die for nothing. In addition to the oil lets not forget the billions in profit that have been made off of this war by corporations like Halliburton.


: These soldiers... (none / 0) (#21)
by desertswine on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 10:29:08 AM EST

did not die for nothing. They died for this man, and others just like him.

Upset (4.00 / 1) (#16)
by LarryE on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 01:23:25 AM EST

I agree with Chris Bowers in being upset with Obama, who not only apologized needlessly, but did so repeatedly.

So what do I think he should have said when questioned about the use of the word "wasted?" How about something along the lines of

"Yes, their lives were wasted. They have been killed, their futures erased; their parents grieve, their brothers, sisters, spouses, cry for the empty space in their lives.

"Those soldiers were sent to fight in an illegal war, a war built on lies about weapons of mass destruction, on deceit about a connection between Iran and al-Qaeda, on fantasies about joyous crowds throwing flowers in their path.

"And now, nearly four years later, all we have in Iraq is chaos and civil war.

"That's what has taken the lives of over 3,000 Americans: chaos produced by lies, deceit, and fantasies. I call that a waste, a terrible, tragic waste of life. What would you call it?"

He knew he was wrong. (2.00 / 1) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:57:57 AM EST

Obama apologized because it was an offensive remark to many people, and he knew it.

In addition he knows that these words will come back in little clips on TV should Hillary decide to allow him to be the VP nominee.

There are many other words and ways he could have expressed his feelings.

Historical Analogies are not trolling (1.00 / 1) (#8)
by jarober on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 07:28:27 PM EST

It's not trolling to make a comparison - one I consider to be very relevant. Just as the person I linked to is looked at with disdain (when he's remembered at all), today's "surrender at all costs" left will be disdained (when they are remembered at all) in the future.

: OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#10)
by Sailor on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 10:20:16 PM EST

: jarober (none / 0) (#17)
by cpinva on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 01:47:39 AM EST

your comparison is specious, at best. inapt at worst. i'll take inapt for $500 alex!
i too am irked at obama for apologizing. he had nothing to apologize for, and should have told those demanding it to stuff it.
"i'll apologize after bush does."

Translation (1.00 / 1) (#11)
by jarober on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 10:53:10 PM EST

"I don't like the comparison you've made - it hits way too close to home. Please moderator, delete it so that the incipient cognitive dissonance fades"

: This isn't about right or left (none / 0) (#15)
by Al on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 01:21:53 AM EST

This is about young people dying. Have some manners.

And yet bush wants another war (none / 0) (#3)
by Sailor on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 05:55:37 PM EST

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called into question assertions by three senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad on Sunday who said the highest levels of Iranian government were responsible for arming Shiite militants in Iraq with the bombs
[...]
On Monday, Pace said he had no firm knowledge that the Iranian government had sanctioned the arming of the insurgents
Navy Adm. William J. Fallon, the top commander in the Middle East, said he didn't know.
"I have no idea who may be actually hands-on in this stuff

a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad would not confirm recent military statements that Iran's leadership is directing the production of an armor-piercing explosive said to be supplied to extremists in Iraq.
"I think people want to make an inference," Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said at a briefing. "I think people want to hype this up.
At a White House press conference Wednesday, Mr. Bush acknowledged that the United States had no proof that top Iranian leaders such as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had approved the shipment of the explosively formed penetrators.
[...]
"What's worse? That the [Iranian government] knew? Or that it didn't know?" said Bush

Just to recap; An Army general and official spokesman, on the record, says it's hype. The top military commander in the Middle East says he has no idea and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says he has no proof. And finally, Bush says he has no proof.

What's worse, Bush getting caught lying about it or getting caught lying about it and still trying to justify it?

Spurs a memory (none / 0) (#4)
by jarober on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 06:02:36 PM EST

That's rhetoric worthy of an infamous Democratic politician of yore.

Remind me again what his legacy is?

: OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#9)
by Sailor on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 10:19:16 PM EST

Wasted? No... (none / 0) (#5)
by Erevann on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 06:20:34 PM EST

misused, abused, neglected...

Yeah, I'm sure we could come up with several more appropriate adjectives too.

Still, I wouldn't hold it against Obama. When treading on that ground, it's probably wise to be as precise as possible with your meaning.

If for no other reason than to be sure you are conveying the meaning you wish to.

jarober (none / 0) (#6)
by TomStewart on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 06:22:09 PM EST

Please, take the off-topic trolling elsewhere, like over to 'the corner'. I understand they really like Clinton penis jokes also. I'm betting you probably know a few...

Appreciating Obama (none / 0) (#7)
by MSS on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 07:02:56 PM EST

Obama fights back against the Right - which I think is a great idea.

Rather than quibble about 'wasted lives,' Obama is focusing on the point -- that this is a wrong war, wrong place, no focus, no possibility of winning.

If his words about 'wasted lives' touched a nerve for soldiers and families, then it's a good idea for him to apologize.

He's not apologizing for his opposition to the war. Just for hurting the feelings of some of the soldiers who have fought there.

As an American... (none / 0) (#13)
by sfflyman on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 12:21:21 AM EST

with a conscience it is hard for me to place our losses above those whom we have unleashed our military upon. When I consider the human costs of this war the Iraqi losses come first. That being said, I'm in total agreement with the points you've made in this piece.

A soldier's commitment (none / 0) (#14)
by Al on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 01:20:12 AM EST

Soldiers offer their very lives to defend their country. And the military being a rigidly hierarchical organization, they even forfeit the right to decide when and where to fight for their country to their leaders.

The head of that hierarchy is the President, entrusted with this responsibility by the citizens. So when he uses the power that has been delegated in him for his own political benefit, even to the point of sending people to die, not in defense of their country, like Bush has done, it is nothing short of treason. It's the worst kind of treason, that manipulates the noblest of sacrifices.

Unlikely (none / 0) (#20)
by Claw on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 10:12:08 AM EST

I'd be surprised if Hillary used the "wasted" comment (perfectly apt, by the way, though not politically wise) to attack Obama. I don't think she'll want to do anything that makes him look more opposed to the Iraq war than she is. Keep in mind this is a Democratic primary. I think most Democrats know exactly what Obama meant by "wasted" (tragically, needlessly lost) and probably agree with him. I know I do.

used, not wasted (none / 0) (#22)
by leoncarre on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 01:00:39 PM EST

Senator Obama was right and he was wrong.
He was wrong in that the lives of these people were their own, to live, to develop, even to waste.
He was right in that the Bush admin. used their lives and wasted them in a pointless, tragic, illegal war.
It's a subject/object thing.
The Bush govt. used these people like objects, but as subjects their lives were their own. Many, many young people enlisted as a means of self-development, education, etc.
It occurs to me that no one, except your most intimate relative or friend can say to you "you're wasting your life," meaningfully... and even then they may get slugged for saying it.

: You can't say..... (none / 0) (#23)
by kdog on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 01:29:56 PM EST

"You're wasting your life" to a dead man...there is nothing to waste, they are dead.
What you can say to a dead man is "you're precious, heroic, life dedicated to self-sacrifice has been wasted"

It's apparent that (none / 0) (#24)
by Edger on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 01:54:30 PM EST

the only people who consider what Obama said to be an offensive remark are the same offensive people who are not offended by, and try to justify

a war that should have never been authorized, and should never been waged, and on which we have now spent $400 billion, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.

IOW, The same offensive people who are not offended by:

the Bush Administration, which has done severe damage to our country and in the process caused the death and maiming of tens of thousands of our fine soldiers

If they want to see real offensiveness the mirror is a good place to start looking for it, instead of running for cover and trying blame Obama.

IMHF'ingO.

It sure is laughable.... (none / 0) (#25)
by kdog on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 02:22:30 PM EST

death, destruction, casualties on a large scale...no offense taken.

Saying our soldier's lives have been senselessly wasted....how dare you!

I guess denial makes it easier to sleep at night.


: F'ing amazing, aren't they? (none / 0) (#26)
by Edger on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 02:27:43 PM EST

: Kdog (none / 0) (#29)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 10:26:48 PM EST

Obama may believe, you may believe... that their lives were wasted.
But common decency dictates that you don't say such a thing to the parents, loved ones and friends of the dead soldiers.
That he used the term at all indicates that he has a long way to go in politics. That's inexperience.
But worse, it indicates a total lack of sensitivity, a huge dollop of bad taste and no common courtesy.
Further, it indicates that he shares a trait with many on the Left, that is to politicize everything, and to use this for political gain.
For a group that screams loudly everytime Bush mentions 911, which was a national tradegy and should be spoken of as a national tradegy, it smacks of a massive double standard.

That's billions, with a B... (none / 0) (#27)
by desertswine on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 04:57:42 PM EST

Billions Squandered in Iraq.

Of the $10 billion in overpriced contracts or undocumented costs, more than $2.7 billion were charged by Halliburton Co., the oil-field services company once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.

Here is how bush 'supports' the troops (none / 0) (#28)
by Sailor on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 05:49:49 PM EST

Obama is castigated for saying 'wasted' while bush lays waste to them.

: Sailor, (none / 0) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 11:33:17 AM EST

"Waste" is a negative word. It was chosen by Obama because he wanted to make an easy comment on the war, and on Bush, without thinking about the people he was denigrating.
People who spend more than they make and wind up in financial trouble are called "wasteful."
People who are drunk or on dope are referred to as "wasted."
People in the US are often referred to as "wasteful" because it is claimed they are using more than their fair share of the Earth's resources.
I do not say that Sailor is a waste, but if I did you would say that I have insulted you and claim I have made a personal attack. And you would be correct.
There are numerous other ways that Obama, and you, could characterize the deaths of these American military men.
For example. It could be a "tragedy ".... caused by Bush's illegal war.
For example. "The death of these gallant men is hurtful to the family and loved ones and a loss to the nation. Their loss is directly caused by Bush's war.
I could go on, but I see no need.
I am convinced that Obama will continue to waste the good public relations he has built up by wastefully using words such as wasted. Campaigns are the test of the both the public and private man. No matter how much slack his troops want to let him have, the truth will shine through.

The warmongers (none / 0) (#30)
by Edger on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 08:20:33 AM EST

who attack Obama for mere words that they are so determined to politicize and find offense in, while they continue to support and find no offense in Bush causing the death and maiming of tens of thousands of American soldiers, not to mention hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian Iraqi children, women, and men, are the same wingers who have conspicuously ignored and refused to or been unable to bring themselves to answer a simple and direct question put to them on this site by John Horse on Feb. 06/07:

What Did Cpl Langarica Die For?

I assume that those of you who support the war believe that the life of Cpl Langarica was not meaningless. So please tell me why Cpl Langarica died.
...
Those of you who support this war have an obligation to tell soldiers like Cpl Langarica why they are fighting in Iraq. It may be another lie, but if they believe that lie maybe they won't feel like they are dying for no good reason.

John asked a simple, honest question. Bush supporters have an obligation, if they are going to support policies that result in the deaths of so many soldiers, to answer John.

If they can...

: Edger - I reply to the surrenderers... (none / 0) (#32)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 11:08:01 AM EST

He died because he joined the military and the elected leaders of that military..all three branches of government...sent him to do a job.
Now that I have answered John's and your question, will you please tell me why you do not agree that the protests and demonstrations of the anti-war Demos and the anti-war Left emboldned the enemy he was fighting by improving their morale and given them the belief that they did not have to win a great military victory, just kill enough soldiers to allow the protests to continue until the Left and the Democrats get enough political power to surrender and leave.

: That is... (none / 0) (#33)
by Edger on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 11:33:16 AM EST

...if they can answer it with a real answer instead of a non-answer and immediately trying to change the subject.

Lets (none / 0) (#31)
by jondee on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 09:04:17 AM EST

see some evidence that U.S citizens who weren't already Fox Kool-Aid drinkers, are "offended" by Obama's remarks.