Video: Obama apologizes for “sweetie” remark

Yesterday Obama was spending a bit of time in Michigan and called a female reporter “sweetie” after she posed a question to him. Apparently some people are getting all up in arms about the issue raising sexism and such.

Here’s the report from MSNBC with the comment and his apology:

Not a big deal, he apologized, let it go.

  • I absolutely hate when I’m made to defend someone I don’t like, but here goes. This “sweetie” comment was blown out of proportion from feminists coast to coast. I see nothing wrong with his remark, just that he didn’t answer the question at hand, but that’s not new behavior from Obama. What is the big deal with a male calling a woman sweetie? If a male addresses me in a non-condescending way like Obama did here, I would take it as a compliment and think of it as commandeering gesture.

    Really Ladies is this the best attack you can come up concerning Obama? I have a few in my vault that I can lend you.

  • Cameroon

    What I am learning everyday is that people are looking for every opening to hit at Obama.I do not think its an insult calling someone sweetie.
    And FOR me she asked the question at the wrong place and so I do not think he could hve answered the question.Atleast we should do the right things at the right times.But atmleast he could have given a hintch to the question.

  • Michelle

    When you often interact with others, you may develop terms of endearment for those whose name you do not know. Obama stated it was a bad habit, and yes, it is, but it really doesn’t go any further than that. He did apoligize for it, and the buck stops there.

    See Obama gaining in the polls again over at RCP 🙂

  • Dreadsen

    “What I am learning everyday is that people are looking for every opening to hit at Obama.I do not think its an insult calling someone sweetie.”

    What if he called McCain sweetie?!

  • Babs

    Yeah, Dreadsen, that’s what I thought! *LOL* When he said he calls all “kinds of people” sweetie, I could picture him calling McCain sweetie or even worse Hillary!

    I doubt he meant it to come out the way it did, sweetie is a common label in the south along with sugar, hon, or Bubba and Sport if you do want to be condescending. I tell people my husband calls me “baby” because he can’t remember my name. 🙂

  • Whobody

    I know names like that can become condescending (even though that is due more to someone’s tone and not the actual word), but …

    I’ve never heard of an issue being raised when a woman calls a man “sweetie” or “honey,” and that’s fairly common too.

  • Babs

    You’re right, Whobody, it is about tone, and I didn’t have any probem with Obama’s tone. He just seemed in a hurry to me and it came out. No harm, no foul.

  • Josh

    Why is it that rabid feminism is considered O.K.? If shauvenism is considered bad, then why isn’t feminism? Personally, I consider both bad, but what I can’t stand is the way that feminists get sooooo offended and soooo up in arms about any little thing that they may consider shauvenism, all the while laughing it up at things that degrade men instead of women. I don’t see men getting up in arms over crap like this, not that I see many women getting worked up over it either.

  • Stalin

    This is just flat out ridiculous. There are much more important things happening in the world. While we are worrying about this, people around the world are planning the next 9/11….and laughing at us.

  • Josh

    Stalin, That’s why I get my news from Reuters and BBC. At least the Europeans still have some modicum of journalistic integrity.

  • Stalin


    A little info on Reuters:

    “Reuters global news editor Stephen Jukes wrote, “We all know that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist.”

  • Whobody

    If you are commenting on journalistic integrity at its core, the most ethical and justifiable stance you can have as a journalist is completely unbiased and neutral.

    So by suggesting that info on Reuters, are you saying you prefer your journalism with at least some tilt to your way of thinking?

  • Babs

    What I’d like to know is what word do they substitute for “terrorist”? I’m trying to imagine what they’re headlines might have been on 9/11.

  • mswede

    this is news… give me a break.

  • Michel

    Maybe they just call it “attack”. Fine by me. Neutrality works both ways, and a lot of people calls the war in Middle East an action of “state terrorism”.

    I wouldn’t want Reuters naming it that way.
    The media is actually very good in our country, for finding dirty stuff about politicians and attack them. When they can’t fin proper material, we have the sweetie comments…

    That’s what happend in a country that goes around with legal sues. People are acostumed to taking offense at everything. Just look at Stalin, he’s offended because terrorists overseas are laughing at him 😉

  • Stalin


    You had to get that jab in didn’t you. That’s OK, I can take a hit.

    On a serious note, the second we turn our backs and become afraid to even define terrorism or utter it’s name we are in big trouble. Political correctness can kill.

  • IndiMinded

    I’m afraid the real issue is that no one’s actually been able to come up with an agreeable definition for terms like “terrorism” and “freedom fighting” – and that as unbiased press, reuters fails to see more than a vague distinction between a terrorist and a freedom fighter – aside from which side of the battle you are defining it from.

    I think they have a good point. During the American revolution if Britain had wished to wage a campaign of propaganda, they easily could have condemned the revolutionaries as terrorists, especially considering the unconventional gorilla tactics we used. And if we had lost that war, those revolutionaries might well be remembered that way. Fortunately history is written by the winners, and our founding fathers were freedom fighters 🙂

    Don’t mistake me, I’m not saying that the terrorists that come to mind when we most often use the term are in any way comparable to George Washington. But we are living in a nation where our leader has declared a War on Terror: terror being an abstract concept, rather than a country, thus making the war completely and totally unwinnable. This makes me kind of suspicious. I don’t see anything wrong with the press trying to stay unbiased, and particularly being cautious where “terror” labels are involved.

    Until a terrorist calls himself a terrorist, then it’s just a label thrown upon him by his enemies. Osama Bin Laden has been called a terrorist, and he is a vile man. George Washington could have been labeled a terrorist, and he is a man I have the utmost respect for. Perhaps “terrorists” should be condemned on a case by case basis? Labels are for the lazy anyway.

  • Michel

    Stalin, you say political correctness can kill.

    What if they said that we are promoting “state terrorism”?

    Ok, let’s stop being politically correct for a moment. Bush is a murderer. He went to Iraq looking for something that wasn’t there, and I don’t think he really believed in it. And if he did, someone so intelligent like Dick Cheney wouldn’t have believe that Bin Laden was in Iraq or that there were any WMDs. And hey, speaking of Dick Cheney, did you know that the number 1. oil company right now in Iraq is Halliburton? Yeah, I know that Cheney is only FORMER vice-president of Halliburton, but you don’t expect me to believe he doesn’t run some things there anymore, right?

    So, Bush went there to exchange oil for blood. He went on to instill blind patriotism in our hearts and we went there to kill hundreds of thousands of iraqis. Thousands of american soldiers died as well. He didn’t care. He just needed oil. He went there and took it by force, and established an american government to keep our rule on Iraq to maintain the oil extraction, while giving our large military industry a profitable and constant business (how long it’s been since we had a president that didn’t engange our country in some war?). So Bush is just a mass murdererer. And we bombed all those monuments and famous building in Baghdag on the first days to make a “shock and awe” first entrance, so they would be so scared that our victory could be possible.

    And listen well to I say here…. “shock and awe”. We striked as hard as we could to provoke panic among iraqis and to achieve our goals. And, at the same time, to make a demonstration of power throughtout the world, so everyone could remember we are the no.1 military potency. We, then, applied the very concept of terrorism. We instilled fear through violence because we wanted to achieve something. And that choice came from our very own government, even inf Congress didn’t fully agree on a war with so little intelligence at hand.

    We, the United States of America, told the world we were fighting terrorism because we needed and excuse to actually put it in practice.
    George W. Bush is genocidal president who practices state terrorism.
    Anyone who supports him is supporting a genocidal terrorist president.
    Every american that voted for him voted for a mass-murdering terrorist president.
    Every american that didn’t vote against him (like me, when I chose not to vote during the 2000 election) paved his way for him to become a the great state terrorist he eventually became.


    Actually, I prefer the comfort of politically correct statements. I prefer a press that’s not reminding us all the time how we have killed so much innocent people looking for oil, places to deploy the military technology we produce, and a way to instill fear in all the world so they could respect us and not get in our way.

    Neutrality has a purpose, Stalin. I felt that I had to be extensive to talk about that point.

  • Josh

    Reuters isn’t saying that your cannot define them as terrorists, they are simply allowing you to make that conclusion for yourself, not assuming that you’re too retarded to figure that out on your own. That is what good journalists do, they allow you to draw your own conclusions. If I wanted the news to tell me how to think, I’d watch CNN, since leans to the left almost all of the time. If I was a Republican, likewise, I would watch FOX. However, I personally relish the ability to make my own conclusions about issues without being told how to think by American news media.

  • Stalin

    I’m calling you guys the “Gang of 3” I’ll respond to all of this, but not this weekend. I’m teaching my daughter the “Trickle down theory”. Enjoy your weekend.

  • IndiMinded

    What, you mean you can’t argue with all our long-winded objections at once?

  • Stalin


    Websters defines terrorism as:

    “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion”

    and the they define terror as:

    “1: a state of intense fear
    2 a: one that inspires fear : scourge b: a frightening aspect c: a cause of anxiety : worry d: an appalling person or thing; especially : brat
    3: reign of terror
    4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands ”

    I don’t think that George Washington could in anyway be defined under these terms no matter who wrote the history.

    I think that anyone who flys a plane into a buiding, blows up a school bus, or walks into a crowded market to blow themselves up is a terrorist.

    Regarding Bush, he declared a war on terror in response to 9/11, not on a whim.

    Terrorism is not an abstract concept, it is taught and executed predominately by Muslim extremists. I’m not afraid to call a spade a spade.


    Reuters in not as unbiased as you might think. There has been many accusations that Reuters has an anti-Israel bias. I found this link to be interesting:

    Also, I normally don’t get offended, but I would appreciate you not using the word “retarded”. I have a cousin who is mentally handicapped.


    I find no use in debating with you. You are so off the mark that I really don’t want to waste my time.

  • Michel, get a new talking point, your theories that you make up in your head are pure B.S. Why don’t you try and come up with an original argument instead of the same recycled bull crap that every anti-war mouth piece spews from their liberal lips? Wait, that’s right, you don’t have an original argument on the Iraq War because none of you anti-war ignoramuses bother to do your own research, you just sheepishly repeat what you hear and read.

    “Bush is a murderer. speaking of Dick Cheney, did you know that the number 1. oil company right now in Iraq is Halliburton? Yeah, I know that Cheney is only FORMER vice-president of Halliburton, but you don’t expect me to believe he doesn’t run some things there anymore, right?”

    Same recycled garbage, over and over and over. Here’s a thought, if we were really in Iraq for oil, why is it that our oil supply is not higher than it is? Why shouldn’t we take their oil for our own profit, we have spent so much money in that country that oil is the reasonable kickback. Where is this magical Iraqi oil you speak of? I’m sure not seeing it reflected when I fill up with gas. Perhaps, as you allege, we’re there for oil but we just forgot to take it. You don’t even stop to ask yourself where the oil has gone that you claim we’re there for. You just make statements that have nothing behind them. Remember, just because you say it and repeat it a million times doesn’t make it true, it just makes it another foolishly ignorant liberal argument. Here’s another hint, arguments should have fact and substance behind them so work on it next time.

    To your comment of “Bush is a murderer”, do you think our soldiers are also murders? Do they have blood on there hands? Will they burn in hell for killing “innocent souls”? You should thank these men and women every day for laying their lives down so you can spew your crap of how wrong this war is. Neither your opinion nor my opinion matter since our soldiers believe in and support their own mission. Now, more then ever, they need our support, so stop bashing their mission and start supporting your fellow Americans who are fighting for your right say what ever it is you want.

    Get a clue and stop copying/pasting from anti-war websites, come up with your own thoughts for once.

  • Michel

    *** NUKED BY ADMIN ***

    Note from Admin: One thing I won’t tolerate is derogatory comments against US soldiers. If you want to comment on this site, don’t tell me soldiers have blood on their hands as Michel did in this post. Anything of that nature will be removed as I will not have this site become a cesspool for soldier-bashing. Bash politicians and debate policy, I don’t care, but do not bash our fighting men and women, that will not be tolerated. This is an open forum for honest debate.

    This goes for everyone, without question.


  • Josh

    Stalin, I didn’t mean to offend you, I certainly wasn’t calling you retarded, I was just saying that American news media, to me, seems to assume that we’re all stupid, gullible, and completely uninformed. Reuters may have some small biases, but I think that they’re more leanings of European culture in general. They certainly don’t twist the news like the American “news” media do. Also, just because they don’t automatically advocate every move Israel makes doesn’t make it anti-Israel. Israel has commited as many if not more acts of terrorism than the Palestinians have. These acts are terrorism whether or not they are commited under the guise of “genuine” military efforts. Of course, Reuters wouldn’t call it terrorism though…lol.

  • IndiMinded

    Very good Stalin. I challenged you to provide a definition of terrorism and you have done so. “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion” Now let us both recall America’s own Shock and Awe campaign, when our own soldiers clearly engaged in something that falls under this definition of terrorism.

    Personally, I refuse to call our soldiers terrorists, but perhaps we disagree on this point? 😉 I’ll stand by my stance that things aren’t as cut and dry as you try and make them seem. Fear is a downright common weapon of war, it always has been and always will be.

    As to your assertation that the war on terror is not a war on an abstract concept, well I still disagree. But I may concede the point to you if you can describe to me what the win condition of this war is. How do we win this war on terror, once and for all? Give me a picture of what the world will look like when terrorism is defeated and this war is won, because I can’t even begin to picture it.

    In point of fact, because terrorism is a strategy of war, I don’t see how it can ever be beaten. It seems as likely to succeed as a war on kissing.

  • IndiMinded

    Lest I sound too 1-sided, I would like to add that I do see a clear difference between “them” and “us”. Namely the willingness to indiscriminately slaughter noncombatants (though Isreal has done this occasionally too). I just don’t think that terrorism the proper label for this difference, or that it can ever really be defeated.

  • Stalin


    You may not be calling our troops terrorist directly, but you are coming pretty damn close.

    “Now let us both recall America’s own Shock and Awe campaign, when our own soldiers clearly engaged in something that falls under this definition of terrorism.”

    How can you say that Shock and Awe is terrorism. If that is your definition of terrorism than every war waged since the beginning of time has been a terrorist attack. Shock an Awe was the name of a military campaign with a specific purpose and does not fall within any of the definitions of terrorism. I’m not one for this word play political correctness garbage. I prefer to tell it how it is.

    Technically the war on terror will never end, because their will always be at least one azzhole out there that wants to light the world on fire. That doesn’t mean we should stop hunting them down and killing them.

  • Michel

    Nate, my point was to explain that the soldiers were pawns on a war that was almost completely geo-political and had amlost nothing of ideology. My point was to signal how our current government has broken the confidence of our people and specially the confidence of our soldiers. It was not to speak ill of them. It was to show them as victims, who do the dirty work for the interests of few, while trying to save their country from a peril that was proven to be unexistent. It was to remember that our soldiers must be removed from Iraq before they keep their roles of tools of an administration that’s all about forwarding neo-con agenda and nothing about protecting the iraqis.

    I understand your disapproval of my words and I’m very sorry for being so harsh when speaking of our army. But I don’t think you should ban the comment. If people put it in context or not, that’s up to them. That was an honest remark. I stand behind it. If readers want to pay attention to what I say or not, it’s up to them. I understand you have the right, the authority and the duty of preserving order and morality here… but if you delete my comment then you should try to find complete neutrality as well. If someone like Conservative Gal starts rambling insults aganst “liberal”, “conspiracy theorists” or “anti-war bull crap”…. isn’t that derogatory to other patriotic fellow americans too? Why don’t you find fault for those comments?

    I do think our soldiers have been manipulated into something they wouldn’t want to do. I do think they should be taken out of Iraq before this gets too far. I’m willing to get a backlash from other readers for my comments. It’s my firm belief that you should allow an “honest” comment. My comment had a context. People should have the right to read it and agree or disagree. If you don’t like it, fine by me. I don’t like people calling our government a bunch of “state terrorists” but I have to keep my mouth shut about it.

    I’ll repost my comment again, bu I’ll delete the parts that you didn’t want to be seen here.

  • Michel


    “I find no use in debating with you. You are so off the mark that I really don’t want to waste my time.”-Stalin

    That line is so convenient I don’t know if I should cry or feel sorry for you. Either way, you contradict yourself…

    ““1: a state of intense fear
    2 a: one that inspires fear : scourge b: a frightening aspect c: a cause of anxiety : worry d: an appalling person or thing; especially : brat
    3: reign of terror
    4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands ” -Stalin

    I don’t think that George Washington could in anyway be defined under these terms no matter who wrote the history.” -Stalin

    No? Do you think so? How about insurrections, guerrilla-tactics, assaults on cargo transportation, kidnapping, etc.? Washington did all that.

    “Regarding Bush, he declared a war on terror in response to 9/11, not on a whim.” -Stalin

    Do you think terrorists at on a whim? Do you think they sacrifice their lives on nothing? Do you think they bomb buildings and such because they…. “feel like it”?
    Who’s off the mark here?

    “I’m not one for this word play political correctness garbage. I prefer to tell it how it is.” -Stalin

    See? That’s Indy’s point. You don’t know how it is. And if you don’t, then you should just use the words.

    Conservative Gal:

    You want to insult? Fine. I’ll enter your little game? First… recycled ideas? Give me a break. If arguments are true and unheard, what do you want me to do? Look for new arguments? Don’t be retarded.

    Second, you don’t actually have any idea of the effects of war, really? The Iraq war was meant to be swift and victorious. It was neither of those. The government needs to provide it with more and more money because the region is still unstable and has a very large resistance against the U.S. troops. Many oil pits have been burned, and the war needs more and more money to be sustained (that is wasted in transportation, equipment, weapons).

    Due to this instability, the oil price keeps rising in the global market. We now have more money but we weren’t a able to secure all the fields and bring it home because of the resistance and the continued war. And although none of the Iraqi oil was in the global market, now its security is uncertain and the price of oil is going up everywhere. If you then add the U.S. tensions with other big oil providers like Iran or Venezuela (6th oil provider in the planet) then we have more variables and the oil price needs to go up because of this.

    Now, if you want to keep you biased mouth shut (“liberal lips”? “anti-war ignoramuses”? Are you nuts or something?) and actually do YOUR OWN research about global market and rises of the oil price, I’d be glad to have a civilized discussion with you. Why do you feel heated up because you read this stuff? Take it or leave it, don’t call it recycled? It’s like me calling “recycled” that stupid Bush propaganda telling the U.S. we were having war out there in Iraq because Osama was there (B.S.) because Saddam was a tyrant and we were exporting democracy (B.S., what about Saudi Arabia?)and because it was strategic for our security (B.S., Iraq was not threat to us since the Gulf War).

    So, why don’t you question those ideas? Those NEOCON ideas? Do you actually believe we went to Iraq for something more than oil? If we today haven’t any actual way to sustain our oil demand, do you think it was because we didn’t touch any of the oil in Iraq? Are you Stupid? I don’t think you are, so don’t make me treat you like one.

    And yes, you can call me unpatriotic, radical, whatever… **************************************************************************… Our soldiers, and almost all the average public, was fooled and tricked into thinking they were doing a great deed to the world going to kill hundred of thousand of Iraqis. All of them were terrorists? No. Lots of them were innocent. Lots of them didn’t want a war. Didn’t deserve a war. Didn’t deserve the bombs on their heads and on their children’s heads.

    Bush said once: “Either you’re with us, or you’re against us”. I hope you can remember the “Freedom Fries”. It was because that was the only way to make our soldiers real killers. Bush used the same methods the Islamic extremists use when training their terrorists soldiers. When he said “you’re against us” he was trying to make zealots out of us. Many of us fell into that trap. And a lot went to iraq to kill terrorists…. and innocent civilians. And some of those are still on Guantanamo, being tortured into false confessions and expecting trial they don’t always get.

    That’s the real recycled and absurd ideas. You want a civilized discussion? Calm yourself and question your own ideas. I gave you some counter-arguments. And no more insults. I don’t want this thread closed like you closed the one about McCain’s pastors.

    Do yourself a favor and see ” The Road To Guantanamo “.

    (Nate… the phrase you didn’t like isn’t there anymore. You’re free to delete my comment again if you want. It’s alright now. I just can’t stand aside meanwhile others push their political propaganda and their hate against entire peoples and a full political faction. I won’t stand by it, and I will argue, even if you find necessary to delete posts that you find offensive.)

  • IndiMinded

    Aw, now don’t get pissy on me Stalin, I’m pointing out that under the definition YOU provided, our soldiers have engaged in terrorism. And I stand by that statement. Allow me to go over it again though

    Terrorism by your words, is “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion”. I should think it self evident that the Shock and Awe campaign was clearly intended to use fear as a means of coercion. Do you disagree with this?

    But if you recall my first post, my entire point is that Terrorism is a meaningless word. It’s a label, name calling. I’m sure even if you disagree with my example we can find plenty of other examples where fear has been used as a weapon of war by very good people. Personally I don’t see why “terrorists” by your definition are such bad people, because frightening people is better than slaughtering them.

    If you want to dismiss this as word play, then that’s fine. But that’s what this whole conversation has been about: whether we can objectively define the word “terrorism”. I’m of the opinion that no agreeable definition exists.

  • Michel,

    I rarely delete comments, hardly ever if you examine the history of this site, maybe a handful of times out of numerous thousands of comments. People argue and they’re big enough to defend themselves over name calling or whatever, I don’t care.

    What I do care about are commenters leveling unfounded charges against our soldiers, which I will remove anytime I see. Your comment fit into that category. You just need to keep in mind that soldiers don’t make policy, they just get in the trenches and carry it out. So, if you disagree with a war, then chastise the congress and president, not the soldiers, they have performed brilliantly and should be given every possible honor and benefit of the doubt considering the circumstances they have dealt with. They have performed admirably and should be highly regarded, not painted negatively as your post did.

    You sit here, as we all do, speaking your mind as a result of those soldiers and the soldiers who fought before them. I welcome the debate of policy, not the denigration of our armed forces, the vast majority of which have done nothing more than sacrifice for their country in ways we civilians couldn’t even fathom.

    So please, do not argue with me about this as I will not budge from this stance. If you or anyone write things in the future which denigrates our soldiers, I will remove it. If you continue doing it repeatedly, I will no longer welcome your comments.

    I don’t think I can be any more clear. This is not the site to denigrate soldiers, if you must do so, find another. I would much rather lose a reader/commenter than lose respect toward our armed forces. This is not a partisan issue.

  • Michel


    I didn’t mean to denigrate our troops. And I don’t think I did. If I wasn’t clear enough, that’s another subject. Let me rephrase it then: Our current administration placed blood in the hands of our soldiers. Our soldiers who are inmolating themselves in Iraq for our own benefit.

    And also, the radical leaders of islamic terrorist groups placed blood on the hand of their fighters. Those leaders impel the muslim citizens to feed their hate and attack our civilians and our soldiers. Their citizens are being fooled by their leaders to repel and fight enemies who want to take their power awya from their lands. Namely, us and Israel.

    So, we must not offend those who inmolate themselves for their beliefs. They are in a similar position to our soldiers, sacrificing themselves for the ideology of power-hungry leaders who want to make zealots out of them.
    We must not offend those muslims who die, nor call them terrorists, because it would be an insult to our very own soldiers.

    I hope you don’t see this as a lack of respect towards our troops. It is not. But we can’t disgrace the position of our enemy. Our enemy is the government, not the soldiers. Not those who risk and sacrifice their lives. I hope you can take that passion of yours and know how to defend, when the time comes, the lives and the name of those who fight against us because their situation tells them to.

    I have a great respect for your desire of respect and I will honor your wishes in the future. I’m sorry for making you think I was insulting our troops.

  • Michel,

    You’re still trying to take the position of equating our soldiers with those of the enemy, which disgusts me equally if not more than what you originally tried to post.

    Newsflash, there is a right and wrong in this battle of terrorism. We are the good guys, our soldiers are the good guys. al-Qaeda and those who fight against our soldiers are the bad guys. It’s just the simple.

    Sorry but I will constantly be offending the terrorist scum fighting against the civilized world. I don’t care if they are “inmolating” themselves or not, they’re on the wrong side of this fight, and you won’t convince me otherwise so don’t bother trying. They are by no means anywhere near in the same situation of our soldiers, who are fighting for democracy and freedom.

    In fact, if there’s one that thing that is worse than denigrating our soldiers directly, it’s trying to equate them with the al-Qaeda terrorists they’re fighting against.

    I’m done with this discussion as it will not go further. I’m convinced you are completely out in left field on this topic and there is no reasoning with you. I will agree to disagree, knowing that I will not and have not given in an inch to your premise.

    You either believe there is a good side and a bad side in this fight or you don’t. I prefer to be on the good side fighting the battle against fascism and terrorism. Furthermore, I will never accept any notion comparing our soldiers and mission with that of the enemy. Our soldiers are fighting for freedom, al-Qaeda is fighting for oppression, you do the math.

  • Michel

    “Newsflash, there is a right and wrong in this battle of terrorism. We are the good guys, our soldiers are the good guys. al-Qaeda and those who fight against our soldiers are the bad guys. It’s just the simple.”

    I won’t comment on this no more. I don’t agree with you and I find your comments childish. I don’t respect that opinion of yours but it doesn’t really matters what I think of it.

    Let me tell you something: When Napoleon invaded Iraq, he was spreading propaganda abour how the spanish people suffered under their terrible kings and their church with its Holy (and bloody) Inquisition. He said that the spanish people would welcome their french invaders with open arms because they were spreading the ideals of the French Revolution (Freedom, Equality and Justice). Of course, Napoleon was an imperialist, and just used those ideals to take over large regions of Europe. He was a mass-murderer. And, of course, when the spanish people began a firm resistance against their french “liberators”… those who had marched upon them… well, Napoleon was proven wrong. And he started saying taht those against who were against liberty deserved no liberty.

    The french were supposedly spreading a great ideology. But their ways had nothing to do with ideology, and a lot with domination.

    Take a break, it’s been a long night. I’ll try to undesrtand your frustration on this, and find the cause of your words on how late it is and how angry you must be. Your comments are not intelligent. There’s no good or bad side here. And you can’t tell the difference between freedom and opression, when both come with the death of innocents.

  • Michel

    Correction__ Above should read: “When Napoleon invaded Spain.” I’m sorry for that silly mistake. It’s late for me too.

  • Babs

    Nate, I agree with you 100%. I’d also like to add that our military is a volunteer military, no one has been forced to join. And I’ve never met a soldier or seen an interview by a soldier, even a badly wounded one, that didn’t believe in the cause they went there for. Michel’s viewpoints remind me of the Americans (and I use the term loosely) who spat on our Vietnam soldiers on their return home, and it makes me sick. It should make every American sick. Of course, Michel believes you have blood on your hands if you voted for Bush, at least that’s what he accused me of. He’s a drama queen.

  • Michel

    Why should it remind you of VietNam? The Nam service was not voluntary.
    I won’t speak ill of the of the military here. But I do have to speak for all those innocent iraqis that have died in the war. Have you see Fahrenheit 911? Those were real interviews.
    And what about the sniper that got pulled two days ago from Iraq for doing target practice with a Quran? Of course, he doesn’t represent the majority of our troops. But this kind of behaviour can spread, and many today cannot identify a resistance fighter from an Al-qaida terrorists. Children have died in Iraq. Children that were innocent. Children that were not american. Who mourns them? Who calls this war unjust and acknowledges how many people died there when we went there… for FALSE reasons?

    Yesterday, Associated Press was was reporting this:

    “In Iraq, relatives mourned the deaths of at least five children killed when mortar shells slammed into a neighborhood while they were playing outside in a predominantly Shiite area on the eastern outskirts of Baghdad on Saturday.

    Bandaged girls and boys with bloodstained clothes cried as they were packed two to a bed at the hospital to which they were taken in the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City.

    Mortar rounds struck a house, an open area and a street where boys were playing soccer in the Maamil neighborhood on Baghdad’s northeastern outskirts, witnesses said.

    Nadim Jabir, 33, said he lost his 4-year-old son Abbas, and that his wife and 10-year-old daughter were wounded when their mud-brick house was hit.

    “My wife was panicked and ran out with my three children,” he said, adding he ran after them but was thrown to the ground by the force of another blast.

    “When the dust settled, I saw my only boy Abbas lying on the ground with many other kids. All were groaning and some kids were missing limbs. Abbas was hit in his head,” he said.

    Residents said four other children were killed. Police and hospital officials also reported a man was killed and at least 30 people were wounded.

    The mortar strikes occurred as sporadic fighting continues between Shiite militiamen and U.S.-Iraqi forces despite a peace deal reached with followers of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr last week.

    An American soldier also was killed Sunday by a roadside bomb that hit his vehicle north of Baghdad, raising to at least 4,080 the number of U.S. service members who have died since the Iraq war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.”

    So, you don’t get to call me a drama queen. Neither you nor anyone on hre who calls me “anti-war ignoramuse”. Get a grip and deal with reality. And if you can’t, fine, don’t try to make it MY problem.

  • Babs

    “But I do have to speak for all those innocent iraqis that have died in the war.”

    Fine, you can speak for them. I speak for the thousands of innocent Americans who died on 9/11, and for the millions more that terrorists dream about killing. And for the soldiers that volunteer every day to walk the walk so you can sit at your computer and spit on them. The terrorists want to kill you too, sport. YOU need to crawl out of Michael Moore’s butt, get a grip, and deal with reality. As “Jane” said in another post……….UNIFY THAT.

  • Stalin


    As far as I’m concerned, you are a terrorist sympathizer. You are not worthy of the freedoms granted to you by the soldiers and the country that you have taken a dump on. There are other sites that would welcome your anti-American hate speech. I believe Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban have their own websites. Good luck and don’t forget to wipe with your left hand.

  • Babs

    And one more thing, Michel. THIS IS NATE’S HOUSE. And you don’t come into a man’s house and call him unintelligent and his wife nuts. That’s the height of disrespect, and if I told you what I really think of you Nate would have to nuke it. So I’ll just say Stalin’s right, and Delta’s ready when you are.

  • IndiMinded

    You have to believe me when I say this is the last debate I want to step into: particularly at the risk of sounding like I could be defending some of the things which Michel has said… which range from the marginally sensible to plainly ridiculous. For instance, putting forth the idea that supporting the troops means that we should support our enemy’s troops.

    Obviously it is the job of our soldiers to protect our country, to kill or lay down their lives on a daily basis, whatever they are asked to do, for the sake of our country. Our soldiers deserve nothing but our most humble thanks and respect. Our enemies obviously are not entitled to that equal attitude – they don’t need thanks, occasionally they need killing.

    That having been said, I am sick to death of hearing the argument that in order to support the soldier, I must also support the orders he has been given. It should be obvious that if we adopted this line of reasoning, it would mean that no matter what a soldier is ordered to do – no matter how immoral the action our military takes – we would have to approve of it, simply to show our appreciation for the role they play as protectors in our society.

    The soldiers have no control over the start of the Iraq war, they have no control over their extended tours of duty, and they have no say over when they will be allowed to come home to their families. The soldiers do what we need them to do: their jobs.

    Personally I think it is deeply shameful to use a soldier to promote his war. The job of a soldier is apolitical by nature, can’t we leave it that way?

  • Michel

    I have a uestion for you Babs…. the chldren that died there, on the streets of Baghdag? Did they pose a threat to us? Did they?
    Do I have to be thankful for the taking of the lives of the iraqi mothers and the iraqi fathers that were killed defending their homes? Do I feel more secure because they are dead?

    Stop equating Al-qaida with them. Stop thinking that we were out to kill Al-qaida supporters and that’s all we did.
    When I say our enemies… it isn’t just Al-qaida. Unfortunately, it is also the people defending their homes. And with every american bullet, a lot of them feel that Al-qaida is their friend.

    Ignore that reality if you want, Babs. I’ve given up a long time ago on your understanding of our situation.

    Nate, I’m very sorry for this. I promise you I won’t talk about the subject on your blog anymore.

  • IndiMinded,
    “The soldiers have no control over the start of the Iraq war, they have no control over their extended tours of duty, and they have no say over when they will be allowed to come home to their families.”

    What our soldiers do have control over is their choice to enlist or reenlist in the Military. Enlistments have met or exceeded quarterly goals in the last few years. These men and women know the consequences of enlisting and yet their hearts and souls are all in. This is what makes a Soldier a Bad Ass Solider. There families know the risks they face and yet they unselfishly understand that their loved ones will not be home for a year or more. These are the strongest breed of Americans amongst us and we all could learn a thing or two from them.

    Here’s a great quote from an American hero: “When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she’s dating a pussy.” General Tommy Franks.

  • IndiMinded

    CG, there are plenty of soldiers past and currently serving who are against the war too. Let’s not play this game. The soldiers should not be politicized to promote the war.

    I know you really want to, because Nate has already declared the soldiers are above criticism, so if you can establish that the soldiers share your political views, then the war is pretty much ENTIRELY above question on these boards, isn’t it? Very cunning. And you found a nice roundabout way to call me a pussy too! By god, I’m outmatched by a middle schooler.

    You may have a point though, that many of the soldiers serving now have joined up since the war has begun – they knew what they were getting into and they still chose to serve our country in time of war. I think it’s fair to make the assumption that civilians that choose to become soldiers in time of war probably support that war. Fair enough.

    I’ll grant you that most of the soldiers you’re talking about almost certainly endorsed the war pre-enlistment, with as much insight into the war as you or I have right now. But what you’re assuming is that once they donned that uniform and actually became a part of the war first hand, it had absolutely no impact on their views. You’re basically assuming that you yourself know what it’s like to be a part of this war first hand, and saying that it wouldn’t alter your views one bit, and asserting that it has not altered theirs.

    I think that’s a bold assumption for you to make. It’s certainly true that some soldiers leave Iraq still believing in their cause, and it is certainly true that others leave no longer supportive of the war. I have seen and heard from veterans with both views.

    So can we please stop politicizing our fine troops out there? I’d much prefer you stick to calling me a pussy.

  • Sorry, I couldn’t leave this one alone and once I stopped laughing to the point of exhaustion, I had to respond.

    Quoting Michel:

    “Take a break, it’s been a long night. I’ll try to undesrtand your frustration on this, and find the cause of your words on how late it is and how angry you must be. Your comments are not intelligent. There’s no good or bad side here. And you can’t tell the difference between freedom and opression, when both come with the death of innocents.”

    Wow.. I cannot even succumb to comprehending the infinitesimally low level of your overall understanding of the world. I have rarely, if ever, heard someone argue that there is “no good or bad side here,” that takes the cake. I appreciate your continued comments on this site but I will understand from this point forward that there is little common sense behind them, only a person who’s so open-minded, his brain has fallen out.

    P.S. Soldiers who perform honorably and dutifully are above criticism in my book.

  • IndiMinded,
    First of all, I wasn’t calling you a “pussy,” I was just quoting Franks because it was funny. However, if you have some underlying guilt or feelings which forced you to take it in that respect, then I understand completely.

    There’s nothing sexier in my eyes than a man who’s willing to stand up for his country.

    As for politicizing the troops, you are the one who initially started saying things about our soldiers, not me. Someone just had to defend them from your attacks since they’re off fighting for your freedom, not sitting in a cozy chair in front of a computer.

    It’s hard not to politicize the troops especially when I am privy to direct correspondence with several of them on a monthly basis. I belong to a group which sends care packages monthly to soldiers. It’s a non-partisan group which is simply pro-military. Over the hundreds of emails a month from soldiers, not 1 in five years has echoed negative sentiments toward their mission or the war in general. We would send care packages regardless, but you can’t help noticing considering the amount of letters we receive.

    Some of the wives, on the other hand, are feeling taxed a bit at home having to raise children without their fathers present. But, you don’t become an Army wife not knowing what you’re getting into. These are some of the strongest ladies that I’ve ever known, and my hat is off to them. Thankfully email and the internet have made communication easier and more frequent between soldiers and their families.

  • Michel

    Nate, I won’t argue with you on this subjct anymore. I agree with some of your opinions and disagree with some others. I respect all of your opinions because I expect them to bear great intentions and displays of patriotism.

    However, it is your demonstrations of hate against people you lightly label “terrorists” or “enemies” that I don’t respect. You don’t have to paint the world black and white to defend our soldiers, because those are the ways of a zealot. The ways of fanatism that are so evident in the textbooks of terrorists leaders and democratic-elected presidents like G.W. Bush. You may see that in your book, but I wish you could defend our soldiers from more terrible threats, in a more honorable way.

    I have already apologized for my harsh comments about our troops. I spoke out of frustration and not from a well reasoned mind. I repeat my apologies.

    I do agree with you and Babs that this is YOUR site. And I won’t go against your will on your site. But your book isn’t my book. And as long as you are willing to use force to make your ideas be heard instead of mine, then you are not strengthening your arguments… you’re weakening them.

    I believe you can make a strong case of your argument, and we both can see where we fail to see each other’s point and ultimately find a common message. If you are unwilling to do this, it is your choice, not mine.

    “a person who’s so open-minded, his brain has fallen out”

    Hmmm. Just don’t appeal to personal insults to sustain your ideas. It doesn’t help them. Because, remember, there’s no one to nuke your comments. I think of you as a person who can see the gray zones (maybe even more than I can). Don’t break that gift of yours by becoming a zealot, or an irrational debater. You’re better than that.

  • Michel

    CG said:

    “There’s nothing sexier in my eyes than a man who’s willing to stand up for his country.”

    Perhaps that would be the most patriotic (and weird) statement I have seen on the Internet… if it didn’t come from You.

    People stand for their country in a lot of different ways. Many “anti-war ignoramuses” (as you like to call them) are very pro-military. They’re just anti war.

    To be against the war doesn’t mean to be against the soldier that fights it. And while you send your packages to soldiers there in Iraq, I think the best thing you could do is campaigning for their withdrawal at the same time. The war isn’t good for our economy, our security overseas and speacially for our soldiers. I won’t say it is an act of treason to them to support the war. It’s just my belief, you don’t have to share it.

    But many of those liberal-wing anti-war fools you hate (and I see you LIKE to hate them) are as concerned for our soldiers or maybe even more. So, in my eyes, your views are just hypocritical and injurious to the american soldiers fighting in Middle East. Yes, those same soldiers Nate is defending from my “attacks”.

    You’re a funny girl, CG. I wonder if you have a husband, or a son, or nephews. I wonder if you have any of them in Iraq. And if you have, I wonder how much you think you are giving to their welfare and the welfare of our country.

  • Michel

    The war zone out there isn’t black and white. It is not. There are no examples that can be used to extrapolate to all our troops and promote a politial idea or even a personal opinion.

    There is a wide variety in our forces. I’m posting three links from youtube to videos. Two of them may have some sensible material that maybe not everyone wants to see. I just put it here to try to make a point… american soldiers have many stories. Many are honorable. Many others not so much. And there are even some (like the guy in the first video and a lot others guys throughout youtube) that could be the target of Conservative Gals insults… if “liberal anti-war ignoramuse” can be an insult.

    See differing sides of the truth. Believe what you want. But take your OWN conclusions, and try to do it in a balanced and rational way.

    I repeat… no one should just extrapolate from only one of this examples. Do your own research. Look for many other videos out there. They don’t agree on all things, and many of them are biased and unreliable. But have an open mind.

    Because that is the only way to find the truth. And the truth is needed to stand for what is right and protect our people, our soldiers, and our future.

  • Josh

    The troops cannot themselves ever be responsible for the conduct of the forces commanding them. The troops should, then, be considered a weapon for the purposes of debating foreign policy decisions, as much as bombs, tanks, jets, or any other weapon in the conventional sense of the word. Simply put, you cannot blame a gun, or even it’s manufacturer, for the actions committed by someone who is wielding that gun. We all must keep that in mind.

    Without jumping too far into the fray, I’d say that the response to michel’s comments has generally run the gammut, so I’m not going to comment too much on them. I will say, however, that one thing the anti-war movement should have learned from the 60’s is that blaming the troops (ala Phil Ochs) for the actions of our government is fallacy, even to the point that it detracts from our cause. I’ll stop short of saying that this is what you meant, Michel, but you must be aware that things of this nature is what provides the catalyst for the war-mongers to make their case to the people.

    What I really want to comment on, though, is the particular responses from Nate and CG. I’m not trying to insult you, but the both of you are at least as insensitive as any of the liberal members of this board. You may not see it from your narrow point of view, but it’s true. Yet you feel that you must use the bully pulpit to stem the views of others here. Nate, it is understandable that you would nuke certain posts, but it is awful trite of you to nuke a post containing a valid viewpoint, no matter how radical or offensive, especially considering your own views on many subjects.

    Interestingly enough, it is Conservatives who are most guilty of politicizing the troops. From the start, Conservatives have used the argument that someone who is against the war is against the troops themselves. Your stupid talkshow hosts have said it, the brain-dead war mongering fools you elected to the executive branch have said it, and you have all said it, at least once. By this logic, the troops are responsible for everything they are ordered to do! This is not my logic, but this is certainly the logic Conservatives imply with this tired argument.

  • Babs

    *ROFL* You really can’t read, can you Michel? Of course CG has a husband……NATE.

    CG, love the Franks quote. I emailed it to my brother, a 3 tour VN vet. He cracked up, and passed it around the base. Seriously though, have you considered doing some commentaries with some of the content from your soldier email? I think that would be inspired. 🙂

  • IndiMinded

    No, I’m sure the point of your quote was not to imply that I was a pussy, CG. I’m sure your ‘all anti-war protesters are pussies’ comment just happened to be very pertinent to our conversation, in some way that I just can’t quite wrap my mind around.

    I’d respond to all you’ve said, but before I do I’d really like some clarification. You’ve accused me of attacking our troops – and since my whole point in this is that I fully support our troops, but I do not support the war – well I am quite certain that I have not attacked any of the men and women whose job it is to defend me. So I would like to know what I said that you consider an attack upon them. Or are you just making this stuff up?

    I’ll give it to you, it sounds like you’ve been very involved in the lives of our soldiers, and helped to make their service more pleasant – I’ll commend you, for that’s more than I’ve done. But it doesn’t give you the right to fling about lies and baseless accusations of attack at others.

    I suspect I will not be able to have any sort of civil discussion with you if you can’t post without name calling or fiery accusations (at the very least you need to justify those accusations). Which is to say, I can’t have a civil discussion with you if you won’t remain civil.

    Good day

  • Michel

    “Of course CG has a husband……NATE.” – Babs

    LOL… hahahahahahahahahahaha…. I didn’t know that!

    So many things are falling in place now.

    I understand much better some behaviours around here, thank you very much Babs.

  • Stalin


    You have worn our your welcome here. Please let the adults talk now. GO AWAY!

  • “Of course CG has a husband……NATE.” – Babs

    “LOL… hahahahahahahahahahaha…. I didn’t know that!”

    “So many things are falling in place now.”

    “I understand much better some behaviours around here, thank you very much Babs.”

    You seriously didn’t think I would be married to a Liberal!

    It must scare you to think Michel that there are conservatives in America like Nate and myself allowed to roam free. Here’s an even scarier thought, when we have children we surely will indoctrinate them with our conservative views, so your socialist battle will never end! Hahahahahahahahahaha

  • In what may be a vain attempt to bring civility to this on-going conversation, please let me remind everyone that the purpose for this website is to share political ideas about this country and the world. If there are any more personal attacks on a person, Nate and I have decided that these comments will be removed.

    Hence, any posts that attack an individual poster’s intelligence, uses derogatory language, or any ad hominem regarding a person using this site will be removed.

  • — now, as a regular poster, I will have to step in and say I agree with Michel on some of his points.

    Nate, you said “P.S. Soldiers who perform honorably and dutifully are above criticism in my book.” The murky word in that post script is “honorably.” Certainly the Nazis felt they were responding dutifully and honorably– and I can attest from records that the Japanese soldiers who sacrificed their lives in kamikazes during World War II felt they were as well. Soldiers should be held accountable for their actions– no one is “above” their own actions, or in this respect, above criticism. To give a person of war a blank check is extremely dangerous.

    This rationale is what psychologists like Milgrim tried to dissect and understand– namely, how could people commit atrocities like during the Holocaust. He found that people take orders, and feel freed of any accountability so long as the ones dictating orders are saying they “take responsibility.” This is how terrible acts happen– people engaged in violence thinking they are not accountable. So, no, soldiers should be criticized, like the one who shot at a Qu’ran– a completely insensitive and unwise political move, considering that the soldier’s main purpose was to help and assist Iraqis.

    Now, I have talked to soldiers as well and just spoke at great lengths with a Special Ops now working for the U.S State Department. The ones I speak to are NOT happy with the U.S efforts in Iraq right now. Many agree that they should be elsewhere, fighting in Afghanistan or even moving into Pakistan.

    Lastly, what I think is deplorable is that we have spent over $500,000,000,000 (that’s billions) on the U.S War in Iraq, and still have not adequately taken care of the very fallen and injured people from the 9/11 incident. Talk about irony– and no, there were 3,000 people who died in that attack, 3,000 people from dozens of countries (it was the WORLD trade center), and we have lost now over 4,000 people in Iraq– not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

    To quote from one of the most famous of French philosopher’s who sparked our own Constitution, Voltaire: “To criticize is to dignify.”

    We should criticize, but always in a respectful manner.


  • Michel


    This post, while containing cogent and important issues, also contained personal attacks on an individual poster. Because of this, it was removed.
    Please, no more personal attacks on posters; instead, stick to the issues.



  • Michel

    Oh, I have to apologize, I have just read Michael’s post and I want to retract from my last post. It was a vain attempt to engage with Conservative Gal and Stalin in their own distraction game and now, reading Michael’s post, I see I was entering and inmature game. I apologize for this and request from the administrators to remove that last post, if that is their wish.

    Like Michael said, let’s bring civility to this blog and not enter in an absurd personal attack mode.

  • Thank you Michel, and I apologize for having to remove your post.

  • Michel

    No problem.

  • Stalin

    Michael and Michel….get a room

  • Note to all:

    Just to quell any nonsense coming out of this post, I want to dispel some things.

    First of all, this site has never, nor will it ever be a mouthpiece for my personal views or anyone else’s. It’s an open forum for discussion from all sides with all views, within reason. Just look at the more than 5,000+ other comments on this site on other posts. I have edited/deleted maybe a handful, 5 to 10 at most. Pretty much everything stands. In fact, I’m sure I personally disagree with more than half of all the posts on this site, yet they stand because I enjoy open, respectful debate on the issues.

    That being said, the freedom of speech on this forum comes with some responsibility. First and foremost, words like “retarded” are not acceptable, though it has been uttered in this thread a few times, it’s offensive on many levels. Personal attacks beyond name calling are also not acceptable.

    Finally, attacking US soldiers with baseless attacks are not acceptable. That is, insinuating they are murderers, etc… This does not mean you can’t disagree with the war or bash politicians, I welcome that. This does not mean you can’t debate the merits of the war in general, please do. It just means that I demand a little respect for our fighting men and women. Remember, they have families that may read sites like this and I’m sure they don’t appreciate their loved one being denigrated in such a fashion. Keep in mind they do not make policy, politicians do.

    I want this to be an open discussion, just be respectful, it’s that simple. If that happens, I won’t have to come in here and get all dictatorial on deleting posts.

  • Stalin


    Well said. I’m loving that American Flag next to my name!