Aa
GOP Congressman Blows Up At CNN Host: ‘
I Don’t Care What Fact Check Says,’ Obama Apologizes For America!
During an appearance on CNN’s Starting Point on Monday, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) could not explain when President Obama “apologized” for the United States, despite repeatedly claiming that he went on an “apology tour” across the Middle East shortly after becoming president.
Since violence broke out across the region, Republicans have charged that Obama’s “defeatist” policies have caused the unrest and contributed to the death of Libyan ambassador Christopher Stevens. But pressed to detail where Obama has apologized for America by CNN host Soledad O’Brien, King came up short:
O’BRIEN: Never once in that speech, as you know, which I have the speech right here. that was — he never once used the word “apology.” He never once said “I’m sorry.”
KING: Didn’t have to. The logical — any logical reading of that speech or the speech he gave in France where he basically said that the United States can be too aggressive. [...]
O’BRIEN: Everybody keeps talking about this apology tour and apologies from the President. I’m trying to find the words ‘I’m sorry, I apologize’ in any of those speeches. Which I have the text of all those speeches in front of me. None of those speeches at all, if you go to factcheck.org which we check in a lot, they all say the same thing. They fact check this and they say this whole theory of apologies…
KING: I don’t care what fact check says.
O’BRIEN: There are fact checks. You may not care, but they’re a fact checker.
KING: No. Soledad. Any commonsense interpretation of those speeches, the president’s apologizing for the American position. That’s the apology tour. That’s the way it’s interpreted in the Middle East. If I go over and say that the U.S. has violated its principles, that the United States has not shown respect for islam, that’s an apology. How else can it be interpreted?
O’BRIEN: I think plenty of people are interpreting it as a nuanced approach to diplomacy is how some people are interpreting it. So I don’t think that everybody agrees it’s apology.
Watch it:
As the Washington Post put it, “the apology tour never happened.” Rather, shortly after becoming president, Obama traveled to the world introducing himself and differentiating his foreign policy from that of President Bush. “This is typical of many new presidents,” including Bush himself, who “quickly broke with Clinton administration policy on dealings with North Korea, the Kyoto climate change treaty and the international criminal court.”
The manufactured attack, which Republicans kicked off in 2009, “feeds into a subterranean narrative that Obama, with his exotic, mixed-race background, is not really American in the first place.”
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/09/17/856661/king-obama-apology/
I am with Brice and think the whole issue truly is a matter of interpretation. I personally have never thought Obama apologized for the US. In fact, when the Republicans started that whole issue with the statement that Obama apologized after the Libyan ambassador was killed, I was totally perplexed as to how they got that. He said "let me be clear, there is no justification for this type of attack" or something along those lines. But apology? Not from where I am sitting. The situation in Egypt a few years ago? I guess I can see how some might have taken it that way. But, perception is reality. In my opinion, Obama's attempts at diplomacy are a good thing, and my personal opinion is that he represents you well.
LOL !
Am I the only one who finds it strange that Vance is talking about an apology?
In none of these cases does Obama actually use a word at all similar to "apologize." The Latin American comment might have resonance with Rove's old boss, since that was Bush's charge against the Clinton administration in the 2000 campaign. The Prague and London quotes are not apologies at all. The Paris quote, which is often cited as an apology, is taken out of context.
In Paris, Obama was trying to rebuild relations with Europe, where opposition to the Iraq war had run high. The quote in Paris often cited by conservatives is this: "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."
That doesn't sound like much of an apology, more of a statement of fact that few international-relations experts would quarrel with. But Obama was making the case that both sides had misunderstood each other, and so he also said: "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."
The two sentences are a matched pair; there is no apology.
The Heritage Foundation list is also a stretch. Again, nothing akin to the word "apology" is ever used by Obama. In most of these cases, Obama is trying to make a clear distinction with his predecessor, much as Ronald Reagan did with Jimmy Carter, or George W. Bush with Clinton. Guantanamo or the war on terrorism figures in four of the so-called apologies -- and it is noteworthy during the 2000 campaign that Obama's GOP opponent, Sen. John McCain, also had said he would close the facility. Obama's comments express a disagreement over policy, not a distaste for the nation.
Another Heritage example is a speech Obama gave in April 2009 to the Turkish parliament, in which he was trying to urge that country to come to terms with its tragic history with the Armenians: "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."
But compare what Obama said to what George W. Bush said at Senegal's Goree Island in 2003. Bush called the U.S. constitution flawed and said that America is still troubled by the legacy of slavery. This does not seem like an apology, either -- but it is even more sharply framed than Obama's comments.
We can fairly judge the past by the standards of President John Adams, who called slavery "an evil of callosal magnitude." We can discern eternal standards in the deeds of William Wilberforce and John Quincy Adams, and Harriet Beecher Stowe and Abraham Lincoln. These men and women, black and white, burned with a zeal for freedom, and they left behind a different and better nation. Their moral vision caused Americans to examine our hearts, to correct our Constitution, and to teach our children the dignity and equality of every person of every race. By a plan known only to Providence, the stolen sons and daughters of Africa helped to awaken the conscience of America. The very people traded into slavery helped to set America free. My nation's journey toward justice has not been easy and it is not over. The racial bigotry fed by slavery did not end with slavery or with segregation. And many of the issues that still trouble America have roots in the bitter experience of other times. But however long the journey, our destination is set: liberty and justice for all.
Why would Obama's comment on slavery be considered an apology and not Bush's?
Similarly, Bush's secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice suggested in Cairo in 2005 that U.S. policies were directly responsible for the terrorism that had struck the United States: "Our policies to try and promote what we thought was stability in the Middle East had actually allowed, underneath, a very malignant, meaning cancerous, form of extremism to grow up underneath because people didn't have outlets for their political views."
Obama, meanwhile, has refused to apologize for past CIA meddling in Latin America. "I'm interested in going forward, not looking backward," Obama said after talks with Chilean leader Michelle Bachelet. "I think that the United States has been an enormous force for good in the world. I think there have been times where we've made mistakes. But I think that what is important is looking at what our policies are today, and what my administration intends to do in cooperating with the region."
But Bush on several occasions apologized to foreign governments for actions taken by U.S. soldiers, such as for the shooting of a Koran or prisoner abuse in Iraq. "I told him I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families," Bush said at a news conference with Jordan's King Abdullah.
Finally, critics point to another April 2009 statement by Obama as evidence that he does not believe in American exceptionalism.
Asked by a British reporter if he thought the United States was uniquely qualified to lead the world, Obama answered: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." As Romney put it in his book, this "is another way of saying he doesn't believe it all."
But Obama was just getting warmed up. His very next sentence was: "I'm enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world." Obama continued: "If you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional."
In the early months of his presidency, Obama had a way of backing into his answers, starting off with a humble tone ("just as I suspect the Brits...") that some supporters of American power may have found grating. But snippets of his answers do not do justice to his complete remarks.
The Pinocchio Test
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.
In Paris, Obama was trying to rebuild relations with Europe, where opposition to the Iraq war had run high. The quote in Paris often cited by conservatives is this: "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."
That doesn't sound like much of an apology, more of a statement of fact that few international-relations experts would quarrel with. But Obama was making the case that both sides had misunderstood each other, and so he also said: "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."
The two sentences are a matched pair; there is no apology.
The Heritage Foundation list is also a stretch. Again, nothing akin to the word "apology" is ever used by Obama. In most of these cases, Obama is trying to make a clear distinction with his predecessor, much as Ronald Reagan did with Jimmy Carter, or George W. Bush with Clinton. Guantanamo or the war on terrorism figures in four of the so-called apologies -- and it is noteworthy during the 2000 campaign that Obama's GOP opponent, Sen. John McCain, also had said he would close the facility. Obama's comments express a disagreement over policy, not a distaste for the nation.
Another Heritage example is a speech Obama gave in April 2009 to the Turkish parliament, in which he was trying to urge that country to come to terms with its tragic history with the Armenians: "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."
But compare what Obama said to what George W. Bush said at Senegal's Goree Island in 2003. Bush called the U.S. constitution flawed and said that America is still troubled by the legacy of slavery. This does not seem like an apology, either -- but it is even more sharply framed than Obama's comments.
We can fairly judge the past by the standards of President John Adams, who called slavery "an evil of callosal magnitude." We can discern eternal standards in the deeds of William Wilberforce and John Quincy Adams, and Harriet Beecher Stowe and Abraham Lincoln. These men and women, black and white, burned with a zeal for freedom, and they left behind a different and better nation. Their moral vision caused Americans to examine our hearts, to correct our Constitution, and to teach our children the dignity and equality of every person of every race. By a plan known only to Providence, the stolen sons and daughters of Africa helped to awaken the conscience of America. The very people traded into slavery helped to set America free. My nation's journey toward justice has not been easy and it is not over. The racial bigotry fed by slavery did not end with slavery or with segregation. And many of the issues that still trouble America have roots in the bitter experience of other times. But however long the journey, our destination is set: liberty and justice for all.
Why would Obama's comment on slavery be considered an apology and not Bush's?
Similarly, Bush's secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice suggested in Cairo in 2005 that U.S. policies were directly responsible for the terrorism that had struck the United States: "Our policies to try and promote what we thought was stability in the Middle East had actually allowed, underneath, a very malignant, meaning cancerous, form of extremism to grow up underneath because people didn't have outlets for their political views."
Obama, meanwhile, has refused to apologize for past CIA meddling in Latin America. "I'm interested in going forward, not looking backward," Obama said after talks with Chilean leader Michelle Bachelet. "I think that the United States has been an enormous force for good in the world. I think there have been times where we've made mistakes. But I think that what is important is looking at what our policies are today, and what my administration intends to do in cooperating with the region."
But Bush on several occasions apologized to foreign governments for actions taken by U.S. soldiers, such as for the shooting of a Koran or prisoner abuse in Iraq. "I told him I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families," Bush said at a news conference with Jordan's King Abdullah.
Finally, critics point to another April 2009 statement by Obama as evidence that he does not believe in American exceptionalism.
Asked by a British reporter if he thought the United States was uniquely qualified to lead the world, Obama answered: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." As Romney put it in his book, this "is another way of saying he doesn't believe it all."
But Obama was just getting warmed up. His very next sentence was: "I'm enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world." Obama continued: "If you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional."
In the early months of his presidency, Obama had a way of backing into his answers, starting off with a humble tone ("just as I suspect the Brits...") that some supporters of American power may have found grating. But snippets of his answers do not do justice to his complete remarks.
The Pinocchio Test
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.
"I think he had made a practice of trying to apologize for America. I personally am proud of America."
--Former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Feb. 20, 2011
"I will not and I will never apologize for America. I don't apologize for America, because I believe in America."
--Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (author of "No Apology: The Case for American Greatness"), Feb. 11, 2011
"Mr. President, stop apologizing for our country."
--Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, Feb. 11, 2011
The Fact Checker senses a campaign theme emerging: Obama the apologizer.
As the above quotes illustrate, it is an article of faith among top Republicans that President Obama has repeatedly apologized for the United States and its behavior. Even more, the argument goes, he does not believe in American strength and greatness. The assertion feeds into a subterranean narrative that Obama, with his exotic, mixed-race background, is not really American in the first place.
The claim that Obama is an apologist for America actually began to take shape shortly after he became president. It had been bubbling in the conservative blogs before Karl Rove, the former political adviser to George W. Bush, published an article titled "The President's Apology Tour" in the Wall Street Journal on April 23, 2009, just three months after Obama took the oath of office.
By June, the conservative Heritage Foundation began running a list: "Barack Obama's Top 10 Apologies: How the President Has Humiliated a Superpower."
Public-opinion polling suggests the idea has resonance among the American public. A December Gallup poll found that only 58 percent of those surveyed agreed that Obama believed the United States has a unique character that makes it the greatest country in the world; 37 percent said he did not. By contrast, 74 percent thought George W. Bush did, 77 percent though Bill Clinton did, and 86 percent thought Ronald Reagan did. Among Republicans, 61 percent thought Obama did not believe in the greatness of America.
Let's look at the evidence.
The Facts
Most of the criticism stems from a series of speeches that Obama made shortly after taking office, when he was trying to introduce himself to the world and also signify a break with the Bush administration with new policies, such as pledging to close the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay.
This is typical of many new presidents. George W. Bush, for instance, quickly broke with Clinton administration policy on dealings with North Korea, the Kyoto climate change treaty and the international criminal court, to name a few.
Rove built his case around four quotes made by Obama:
Mr. Obama told the French (the French!) that America "has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward Europe. In Prague, he said America has "a moral responsibility to act" on arms control because only the U.S. had "used a nuclear weapon." In London, he said that decisions about the world financial system were no longer made by "just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy" -- as if that were a bad thing. And in Latin America, he said the U.S. had not "pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors" because we "failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas."
--Former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Feb. 20, 2011
"I will not and I will never apologize for America. I don't apologize for America, because I believe in America."
--Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (author of "No Apology: The Case for American Greatness"), Feb. 11, 2011
"Mr. President, stop apologizing for our country."
--Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, Feb. 11, 2011
The Fact Checker senses a campaign theme emerging: Obama the apologizer.
As the above quotes illustrate, it is an article of faith among top Republicans that President Obama has repeatedly apologized for the United States and its behavior. Even more, the argument goes, he does not believe in American strength and greatness. The assertion feeds into a subterranean narrative that Obama, with his exotic, mixed-race background, is not really American in the first place.
The claim that Obama is an apologist for America actually began to take shape shortly after he became president. It had been bubbling in the conservative blogs before Karl Rove, the former political adviser to George W. Bush, published an article titled "The President's Apology Tour" in the Wall Street Journal on April 23, 2009, just three months after Obama took the oath of office.
By June, the conservative Heritage Foundation began running a list: "Barack Obama's Top 10 Apologies: How the President Has Humiliated a Superpower."
Public-opinion polling suggests the idea has resonance among the American public. A December Gallup poll found that only 58 percent of those surveyed agreed that Obama believed the United States has a unique character that makes it the greatest country in the world; 37 percent said he did not. By contrast, 74 percent thought George W. Bush did, 77 percent though Bill Clinton did, and 86 percent thought Ronald Reagan did. Among Republicans, 61 percent thought Obama did not believe in the greatness of America.
Let's look at the evidence.
The Facts
Most of the criticism stems from a series of speeches that Obama made shortly after taking office, when he was trying to introduce himself to the world and also signify a break with the Bush administration with new policies, such as pledging to close the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay.
This is typical of many new presidents. George W. Bush, for instance, quickly broke with Clinton administration policy on dealings with North Korea, the Kyoto climate change treaty and the international criminal court, to name a few.
Rove built his case around four quotes made by Obama:
Mr. Obama told the French (the French!) that America "has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward Europe. In Prague, he said America has "a moral responsibility to act" on arms control because only the U.S. had "used a nuclear weapon." In London, he said that decisions about the world financial system were no longer made by "just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy" -- as if that were a bad thing. And in Latin America, he said the U.S. had not "pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors" because we "failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas."
Ok OH keep up the sarcastic comments.
Did Obama say, "I'm sorry", no but a criticism of the US can be taken as an apology.
If somsone says that they put together a bike wrong, that is admittign fault and saying, my bad. Which while not the words, "I'm sorry", still is an apology.
Did Obama say, "I'm sorry", no but a criticism of the US can be taken as an apology.
If somsone says that they put together a bike wrong, that is admittign fault and saying, my bad. Which while not the words, "I'm sorry", still is an apology.
Here, we're checking Romney's statement that Obama "has apologized for what he deems to be American arrogance, dismissiveness, and derision" and a host of other reasons. If you think American presidents should never admit to any sort of error at any time, you might find yourself in philosophical agreement with Romney's criticisms. We set out to discover whether Obama really had apologized in his speeches, and what he was apologizing for. But in our review of his words, we came up short. Yes, there is criticism in some of his speeches, but it's typically leavened by praise for the United States and its ideals, and often he mentions other countries and how they have erred as well. There's not a full-throated, sincere apology in the bunch. And so we rate Romney's statement False.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/15/mitt-romney/obama-remarks-never-true-apology/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/15/mitt-romney/obama-remarks-never-true-apology/
Facts? Perception is more on target. Everyone is entitled to their own perception.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink, you can show a person the facts but you can't make them think.
Difference of interpertation, not only by us on the forum but many other people.
TAMPA, Fla. — Mitt Romney revived a favorite attack from early in his campaign, accusing President Obama of beginning his presidency on an “apology tour” in foreign countries. Although it has been a consistent applause line, the claim doesn’t hold up when matched with Obama’s actual words.
Here’s how Romney put it in his speech accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention:
Romney, Aug. 30: I will begin my presidency with a jobs tour. President Obama began with an apology tour. America, he said, had dictated to other nations. No Mr. President, America has freed other nations from dictators.
This is not the first time Romney has used this attack line. In fact, the title of his book “No Apology” is a riff on the theme. So let’s start there.
Romney in “No Apology”: Never before in American history has its president gone before so many foreign audiences to apologize for so many American misdeeds, both real and imagined. It is his way of signaling to foreign countries and foreign leaders that their dislike for America is something he understands and that is, at least in part, understandable. There are anti-American fires burning all across the globe; President Obama’s words are like kindling to them.
Here’s how Romney makes the case in the book:
Romney in “No Apology”: In his first nine months in office, President Obama has issued apologies and criticisms of America in speeches in France, England, Turkey, and Cairo; at the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, the National Archives in Washington, D.C., and the United Nations in New York City. He has apologized for what he deems to be American arrogance, dismissiveness, and derision; for dictating solutions, for acting unilaterally, and for acting without regard for others; for treating other countries as mere proxies, for unjustly interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, and for feeding anti-Muslim sentiments; for committing torture, for dragging our feet on global warming and for selectively promoting democracy.
Our fact-checking colleagues at PolitiFact and the Washington Post Fact Checker both pored over those speeches, and others, and wrote detailed analyses of the content of Obama’s words. Their conclusion: Obama never apologized.
We’ve read through the speeches as well. We’ve come to the same conclusion: Nowhere did we see that the president “apologized” for America. In some speeches, Obama was drawing a distinction between his policies and those of his predecessor, George W. Bush. In other instances, Obama appeared to be employing a bit of diplomacy, criticizing past actions of both the U.S. and the host nation, and calling for the two sides to move forward.
One illustrative example is from a speech Obama gave in Strasbourg, France, in April 2009. It is one of the “apology” examples cited by Romney in his book.
Obama, April 3, 2009: 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.
In this case, Obama admits to American failings, and then couples that with a critique of misperceptions fostered about the U.S. in Europe. That’s well short of a formal apology.
Similarly, in a speech in Cairo, Egypt, on June 4, 2009, Obama spoke about tensions between the U.S. and the Muslim world, and placed blame on both sides. And then he called for a “new beginning.”
Obama, June 4, 2009: The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.
So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.
We won’t get into all of the other speeches cited by Romney in his book, but suffice to say, we didn’t see that any of them rise to the level of an actual apology.
factcheck.com
Here’s how Romney put it in his speech accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention:
Romney, Aug. 30: I will begin my presidency with a jobs tour. President Obama began with an apology tour. America, he said, had dictated to other nations. No Mr. President, America has freed other nations from dictators.
This is not the first time Romney has used this attack line. In fact, the title of his book “No Apology” is a riff on the theme. So let’s start there.
Romney in “No Apology”: Never before in American history has its president gone before so many foreign audiences to apologize for so many American misdeeds, both real and imagined. It is his way of signaling to foreign countries and foreign leaders that their dislike for America is something he understands and that is, at least in part, understandable. There are anti-American fires burning all across the globe; President Obama’s words are like kindling to them.
Here’s how Romney makes the case in the book:
Romney in “No Apology”: In his first nine months in office, President Obama has issued apologies and criticisms of America in speeches in France, England, Turkey, and Cairo; at the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, the National Archives in Washington, D.C., and the United Nations in New York City. He has apologized for what he deems to be American arrogance, dismissiveness, and derision; for dictating solutions, for acting unilaterally, and for acting without regard for others; for treating other countries as mere proxies, for unjustly interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, and for feeding anti-Muslim sentiments; for committing torture, for dragging our feet on global warming and for selectively promoting democracy.
Our fact-checking colleagues at PolitiFact and the Washington Post Fact Checker both pored over those speeches, and others, and wrote detailed analyses of the content of Obama’s words. Their conclusion: Obama never apologized.
We’ve read through the speeches as well. We’ve come to the same conclusion: Nowhere did we see that the president “apologized” for America. In some speeches, Obama was drawing a distinction between his policies and those of his predecessor, George W. Bush. In other instances, Obama appeared to be employing a bit of diplomacy, criticizing past actions of both the U.S. and the host nation, and calling for the two sides to move forward.
One illustrative example is from a speech Obama gave in Strasbourg, France, in April 2009. It is one of the “apology” examples cited by Romney in his book.
Obama, April 3, 2009: 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.
In this case, Obama admits to American failings, and then couples that with a critique of misperceptions fostered about the U.S. in Europe. That’s well short of a formal apology.
Similarly, in a speech in Cairo, Egypt, on June 4, 2009, Obama spoke about tensions between the U.S. and the Muslim world, and placed blame on both sides. And then he called for a “new beginning.”
Obama, June 4, 2009: The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.
So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.
We won’t get into all of the other speeches cited by Romney in his book, but suffice to say, we didn’t see that any of them rise to the level of an actual apology.
factcheck.com
OH I am attcking a bias hack who deserves it.
I am not ignoring anything, but I'll never get the truth from Soledad, washington post or from think progress.
But it's also an interpertation. Just like you interperted "you didn't build that" as Obama talking about something he was not.
I am not ignoring anything, but I'll never get the truth from Soledad, washington post or from think progress.
But it's also an interpertation. Just like you interperted "you didn't build that" as Obama talking about something he was not.
Like I said, I see it both ways. If this wasn't an apology, why go over? Could it have been to "patch things up" a little? It's an apology without the words, and it is an attempt at diplomacy.
And you know what? Either way, is it really that bad? In true political fashion, these guys run around and tell us what we want to hear, then do the opposite anyways.... either way, yeah I guess it is that bad.
And you know what? Either way, is it really that bad? In true political fashion, these guys run around and tell us what we want to hear, then do the opposite anyways.... either way, yeah I guess it is that bad.
More blatant lies from a politician~ this time it's Peter King, and more of Vance attacking the messenger while ignoring the truth of the message.
As the Washington Post put it, “the apology tour never happened.”
As the Washington Post put it, “the apology tour never happened.”
Soledad is a hack, she was the one caught reading directly from a liberal site trying to play gotcha weeks ago.
I see it a couple of ways including a "nuanced approach to diplomacy" and an "apology tour". In fact, to me, they're one in the same.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
