A Sorry Complaint About Obama

Does being American mean never having to say you're sorry?

(Page 2 of 2)

We've all known people who can never admit error or make amends to those they have wronged. We do not regard such people as strong and wise. We regard them as weak and immature. A vice in an individual is not a virtue in a president.

Romney ends his book by quoting from "America the Beautiful": "America! America! God shed his grace on thee." Never mind another of the lyricist's hopes for her country: "God mend thine every flaw."


Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    If might makes right, our nuclear arsenal means that we've never been wrong.

  • JohnD||

    Chapman... what an asshole. Did he already forget all of the America bad mouthing Obama did his first year?

    Go to hell Chapman, you freaking loon.

  • PhilB||

    You're like a drunk frat boy - loud and obnoxious, but when the sh*t hits the fan, you'd cry like a little boy.

    Anyone who thinks America has done nothing wrong, has not made any foreign policy mistakes and hasn't broken any international treaties is too narrow-minded to know better.

    Only simpletons think they are always right.

  • Thorbie||

    1) He didn't say America has never done anything wrong or made foreign policy mistakes. America has made mistakes, but his comment was in relation to Chapman's obliviousness to prior apologies for America Obama has made, which probably prompted him to take a more hardline approach as we can see from the column.

    2) You didn't address his valid comment on Obama apologizing for America during his first year. Remember the Summit of the Americas? Obama simply accepted unwarranted criticism from Latin American dictators and then gave the caveat that he wasn't president at the time, so they need not hold him accountable. Way to stick up for America.

  • Penis Moai Statue||

    lol u mad?

  • SIV ||

    Republicans who take credit for toppling Saddam Hussein often forget that the U.S. provided help to him during the Iran-Iraq war.

    What? You expected us to back the Iranians? Should we have helped the Nazis defeat the Soviets? Enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that.

    "Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!"

    Stephen Decatur

    *Standard libertarian foreign policy disclaimer*

  • JSinAZ||

    I seem to remember Brazil and France provided more material support to Saddam than did the US during the Iran-Iraq war.

    I just don't get a "we're really sorry" vibe from Brazil.

  • PhilB||

    How many Portuguese news programs do you follow? How could you possibly know what the Brazilians think?


    I'm not saying they have apologized - I'm not saying they haven't - but you sure as hell don't know.

  • JSinAZ||

    How the fuck do you know what I watch and read?

  • St. V||

    He's mother fuckin' PhilB! That's how, dammit.

  • PhilB||

    Why is Iran an enemy? Oh yeah, we toppled their democratic government.


  • SIV ||

    Well there was that hostage-taking thing where they violated our sovereignty...

    26 YEARS after we toppled their government.

  • JoshInHB||

    And initiated the "Arab" oil embargo in 73.

    And have funded terrorist organizations around the world.

    And claim jurisdiction to sentence to death anyone that offends them anywhere in the world, including the Us.

    But other that those things they're really great free market libertatians.

    oh except that they support slavery and murder women for disrespecting "their" men.

    But what the hell they hate America so their great guys to liberal douche bags like you and Chappy.

  • highnumber||

    “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”

    Carl Schurz

  • VikingMoose||

  • ||

    I've tried that argument about helping Stalin when he was fighting a common enemy.

    The argument doesn't work with liberals. They miss the point, because they think that the Commies were good guys who deserved to be supported on their own merit.

  • Ralph||

    There is a lot to take issue with the Obama administration. The trouble with the conservative/Repubican contingent is that they are so anxious to criticize that they often jump the shark, undermining any serious criticisms they could make. Or the other bad habit is to pettily fixate on some insignificant little issue - like Obama bowing to other world leaders. Fox News spent days, maybe weeks decrying the awfulness of the bow, insisting it made American look weak, never considering it was a way of showing respect (in doing so, some might say it actually makes a person seem stronger - as a strong person is not afraid to show deference to others).

  • JSinAZ||

    It might serve to ingratiate the strong with the weak when performed in the correct social situation, and performed to the correct degree.

    Did you read the Japanese reactions to Obama's head-to-floor bow? They were not complimentary. The folks in the state department cannot be bothered to perform the necessary research to be sensitive to degrees and flavors of repectful inclination of the body as required in culturally-specific ways.

    Instead (and in particular since it was for domestic US consumption) Obama exaggerates his gestures at every turn in an effort to be extra unctuous in order to appeal to the culturally ignorant leftist intellectuals.

  • Ralph||

    Well, at least his intention was to be respectful, rather than boorish or chauvanistic. In any case, way too much time was spent on this compared to the amount of time that could have been spent on things like America's continued hypocritical use of the WTO. We demand free trade policies from others and yet we've maintained protectionist policies, no matter the president, for decades on steel, textiles, agriculture and other commodities. How much time does Fox News spend on that?

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    "Ralph|3.8.10 @ 11:08AM|#
    Well, at least his intention was to be respectful"

    What part of "extra unctuous" didn't you understand?

  • JoshInHB||

    Yeah, its great that he's respectful to the great libertarians, Chavez, Castro, King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud and Hu Jintao.

    Not so respectful to actual elected leaders.

    But what the hell, if we kiss enough dictator ass they'll love us.

  • ||

    So did you read the Japanese reactions? JS no nihongo joozu daroo na? Shimbun de zasshi de yonda ka na?

  • JSinAZ||

    Are you contending that reactions from Japanese can only be written in Japanese? How very authentic of you.

  • ||

    Yes. If you're going to spout off about the "Japanese reactions" to Obama's bow, I expect you to have actually read the Japanese press. Otherwise you're just regurgitating second hand information.

  • GenericBrand||

    yeah, except for the fact that Asahi Shimbun has an English translation, as does the Japan Times. And the fact that Japanese students study English in the classroom from 5th grade through graduating, it probably means their ability to write in English is far better than your poor romanization of Japanese.
    Vanyachan nihongo wo benkyoushita kana?

  • James Allen||

    A poor argument Steve, weakly framed through the statements of conservatives, who are going to pretty much criticize the president no matter what. Shocking, I know, and it proves nothing.

    No president is 100% one way or the other, and admitting fault is certain circumstances is admirable, but the general tone of some of Obama's speeches leaves a lot to be desired.

    You want to cherry pick? I'll cherry pick:

    "So we must be honest with ourselves. In recent years we've allowed our Alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there's something more that has crept into our relationship. In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."
    -Strasbourg, France, April 3, 2009

    Now I know what he's trying to do here, but is that really the way a leader is supposed to talk? Is this really going to get the European countries behind us? Is this really what we think they want to hear (i.e. thinly veiled slams at the previous administration)?

    I don't know, maybe I'm off base here, but I think President Obama's approach to these speeches has been quite poor and potentially counterproductive.

  • Peter Chapman||

    "Now I know what he's trying to do here, but is that really the way a leader is supposed to talk?"

    Yes James,

    You know what he's trying to do, but the rest of us are far too stupid to figure it out. Give me a break.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    James Allen


  • ||

    Can I be dismissive and derisive of the Europeans? Cool.

    "They suck."

    The French are a bunch of cowards and wimps, and nobody in Europe has contributed much to the world's progress over the last two hundred years. Thomas Edison along has done more to advance the human race than all of Europe from 1776 to today.

    Here's a HistoryHalf column on that subject: http://historyhalf.com/america.....-progress/

    Sorry, was that dismissive and derisive? Didn't mean to...

  • GenericBrand||

    One could argue that the German automobile is superior to the American.

    But otherwise I agree. European women don't shave their armpits either, and that's just gross

  • ||

    That's 'cuz American cars are made by the government. German cars are made by capitalists in the private sector.

    Government work is always pretty sloppy.

    German cars were government made, back in the National Socialist days of the 1940's. But today Volkswagen doesn't show Hitler as one of its founders on the company website.

  • ||

    Apologizing for the actions of others is useless, a waste of time and breath. But I guess if he is running around apologizing, he isn't doing something really destructive.

  • rctl||

    Steve Chapman, Hot off the the libertarian presses are the Steve Chapman Wanted Dead or Alive posters. I'll let you hide in my attic;-)

  • Steve in the attic||

    Dear Diary
    Despite everything, I believe that people are really good at heart...except libertarians.

  • Peter Griffin||

    *munches loudly on potato chips*

  • ||

    Yeah, sure he wants to ram a horrible unpopular health care plan down the country's throat. And yeah, sure he has quadrupled the deficit. And yeah, sure he has continued every program that Libertarians claimed made Bush an authoritarian nightmare.

    But, his apologizing for the country wasn't so bad. Yeah, Steve that makes me feel a lot better. At what point do we finally call Chapman's defenses of Obama full fledged parody?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    John, at what point do we call your Obamaphobia full-fledged parody?
    Is Obama putrid? Certainly. Worse than Bush II? Jury's still out.

  • ||

    Name one thing he is better than Bush? I can name several places where he is much worse. If you think he is great, good for you. But most people disagree.

  • mood||

    1. Feds not going after medical marijuana anymore 2. Rejecting use of torture. 3. Not starting any *new* wars. 4. Better passing and three point shot game. 5....oh, sorry, you only said one, so I guess I'll stop.
    Doesn't mean I think he's great though. Just a marginal improvement, which isn't saying much.

  • ||

    1. Feds not going after medical marijuana anymore

    In Bizzaro world maybe.


    2. Rejecting use of torture.

    Again, maybe in some parallel Star Trek universe but not in this one.

    "On January 22, 2009 President Obama signed an executive order requiring the CIA to use only the 19 interrogation methods outlined in the United States Army Field Manual on interrogations "unless the Attorney General with appropriate consultation provides further guidance."[101]"


    He has never actually banned the practice. He has always left a loophole.

    3. Not starting any *new* wars.

    Unless you count escalating the hell out of Afghanistan and increasing the strikes against Pakistan.

    Do you even read the news?

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||


    Dont confuse these guys that hate Bush with facts. It leaves them flummoxed.

  • ||


  • ||

    John, all these points are correct. There's a lot to dislike about Obama. But none of that addresses Chapman's (correct) point - the idea that Obama runs around "apologizing" is a ridiculous partisan myth. Attack Obama on the facts, making up shit is counterproductive.

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    1. Feds ARE still going after MM, despite the One's promises

    2. Paying lip service to "torture reform" while farming it out to unaccountable agencies

    3. Just upping the voltage on our existing military actions

    4. Passing and 3 point game totally nullified by the fact that he bowls and throws like a girl...LOL

    Disclaimer: TOTALLY not a GWB fan or a Republican, just fixing your post for you.

  • I need a dull blade||

    Biatch, you obviously haven't heard it was International Women's Day. We are fining you your left nut.

  • PhilB||

    When are people going to realize that neither one of these presidents - Bush or Obama - is/was very good.

    Bush jacked up the deficit on military spending and Obama is jacking up the deficit with domestic spending. Don't forget Georgie added 4.36 Trillion to the debt - nearly doubling it during his terms.

    When are people going to realize that - economically speaking - Clinton's presidency was the best one of the past 40 years. Under his administration, GDP grew by 23% while spending as a percentage of GDP dropped from 64.1% to 57.3%.

    Every other President since and including Reagan has increased gov't spending as a percentage of GDP by at least 10%:

    Reagan : 1981/33.4% --- 1989/51.9% --- 18.5% increase
    Bush I : 1989/51.9% --- 1991/64.1% --- 12.2% increase
    Bush II: 2001/57.3% --- 2009/69.2% --- 11.9% increase
    Obama : 2009/69.2% --- 2010/?????

    There is not a politician today - Republican or Democrat(save one) - who has any clue how to spend within the country's means.

  • ||

    Those figures are counting state and local governments. The President isn't responsible for the rise of state and local governments. Go back and get some figures that are relevant.

  • ben||

    You can look at the figures for regulatory spending. Bush 2 far outspent everyone else. Obama might top him though.

  • J_L_B||

    Please explain your credibile economic theory detailing how a president, using the powers available to them, can initiate, create, or cause GDP growth and low unemployment.

  • KPres||

    Reasons why Clinton didn't add to the debt...

    1. HW Bush passed a PayGo law that was in effect throughout his entire presidency.

    2. Republican congress blocked most of his domestic spending agenda (hooray deadlock!)

  • Citizen Nothing||

    "If you think he is great..."
    Is Obama putrid? Certainly.
    Is basic reading comprehension too much to ask for?

  • Almanian||

    Can't agree with you on this one, Mr. Chapman. It's a bit of a matter of degree, and my lyin' ears and eyes tell me Pres. Obama has taken the apologies too far.

    Not the biggest deal in the world - I just think you're off base on this one. Nice try, though!

  • LibertyBill||

    I didnt like him way before he got elected so him going on the apology tour was pretty much in the "I dont give a shit" column for me.

  • ||

    I'm not an Obama fan and he "apologizes" a bit much for my taste. But I do agree with the article in general: please don't criticize just for the sake of criticizing, it lessens the effect of real criticism.

  • Dakotian||

    That's the problem with Rush, Hannity and the other Far Right pundits. They work too hard to find fault in minor events that when they have a legitimate criticism it is lost in the noise.

  • ||

    Yup. Its just too bad there are actually people that take that crap seriously. Kind of ruins it for the rest of us.

  • JoshInHB||

    That's the problem with Rush, Hannity and the other Far Right pundits. They work too hard to find fault in minor events that when they have a legitimate criticism it is lost in the noise.

    Which minor event are you refering to?

    I don't like Hannity and Limbaugh because they are both too dogmatic to be effective. But the issues they raise are generally legitimate if poorly developed by them(especially Hannity).

    For example, Reverend Wright during the pres campaign.

    The relevent thing about that issue is the way that O flat out lied about never hearing anything inflammatory from Wright. It's just not credible, and it was totally unnecessary. Obama could easily have said something like. "I don't agree with a lot of what Wright says, but I've seen the way he has helped poor people in the community," blah, blah blah. It would have worked at the time.

  • K-Y||

    Are you saying you know everything that Obama hears? How very omniscient of you.

  • JoshInHB||

    His denial is absurd on the face of it.
    He went to the church for a decade.
    He never heard any of those sermons? Never heard any one else talking about them?

    Either he's a liar or the dumbest MFer to ever run for pres.

  • GenericBrand||

    Either he's a liar or the dumbest MFer to ever run for pres.

    I think you meant deafest. He's obviously a very talented speaker. He wouldn't have made it this far if he didn't have help from at least a telepr... oh

  • JoshInHB||

    I think you meant deafest.

    He's an excellent public reader.
    Kind of like an actor, except that actors have to memorize their lines.

    So, he's really not as "smart" as actors.

    Do you think they(actors) are intellectuals?

    Why then does anyone think Obama is?

  • ||

    when china apologizes for Tibet, when the russians apologize the for horrors of stalinism, when muslims apologize for Darfur and for all the centuries of jihad, america should apologize and not before that.

    Obama is hostile to the US and wants to encourage our enemies. His viewpoint is not that of any leader of any nation, but that of the enemy. He says bad things about us and everyone else continues happily with their slavery, genocide, mass rape, or whatever they are up to.

    If he was really concerned about arrogance (which we have very little of) or human rights, he would not have made the Dalai Lama exit through the garbage bad strewn alley of the white house, after first refusing to meet him for almost a year (so as not to totally enrage the Chinese). The US has less to apologize for than any other nation.

  • ||

    garbage bag

  • PhilB||

    Right...............now Obama is responsible for making sure the garbage is properly disposed of at the White House? We're stretching a bit here.

  • monolith||

    "The US has less to apologize for than any other nation."

    Faroe Islands?
    San Marino?
    St Kitts etc etc

  • monolith||

    "The US has less to apologize for than any other nation."

    Faroe Islands?
    San Marino?
    St Kitts etc etc

  • GenericBrand||

    Have you ever been to San Marino?? They don't even have an international airport! That's just inconsiderate

  • gillicuty||

    "If he was really concerned about arrogance (which we have very little of) or human rights,"

    This statement in itself is extremely arrogant. The US has a foreign policy that is based on arrogance. We push anyone and everyone around for what our leaders believes is our best interest at that moment. If others are oppressed by and die because of it who gives a shit right. America! Fuck Yea!!

    America doesn't look bad when Obama runs around the world bowing and apologizing. It just exposes him for the dolt he truly is.

  • ||

    No, being David Harsanyi means never having to say you're sorry

  • ||

    Nanda syas: "The US has less to apologize for than any other nation."

    That's just about the wildest sentence I've ever read. Seriously? 100+ years of invading foreign countries and this your view?

    Sorry Nanda, mght does NOT make right.

  • ||

    "That's just about the wildest sentence I've ever read. Seriously? 100+ years of invading foreign countries and this your view?"

    What country have we invaded since Mexico in 1845? The Spanish American war was a colonial war. Their hands are just as dirty as ours and actually worse when you consider their treatment of colonies versus the US. World War I and II we did to prevent other countries from invading. Same with Korea and Vietnam. And all of those war except Vietnam resulted in millions of people living in free prosperous countries. What are you left with? A few interventions in Central America? Seriously

    And if you want to bitch and moan about our invasions, why don't you counter balance that with a free Europe, a free Pacific and a free South Korea. All and all, the world is a lot better place for our interventions.

  • Miyage||

    The Vietnamese were threatening to invade us? That's news to me?

  • ||

    No, like South Korea they were being invaded by an aggressive communist neighbor. Germany wasn't going to invade us either, just France and Britain.

  • Miyage||

    What neighbor are you referring to that was invading Vietnam? If you're talking about China, you've got your facts wrong. China had invaded Vietnam centuries before and then later their were border skirmishes *after* the U.S. pulled out. So, it couldn't have been a reason why the U.S. invaded

  • Miyage||

    The Vietnamese were threatening to invade us? That's news to me

  • Dakotian||

    John I don't disagree with your statement but to be factual we invaded Japan sovereign territory on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Sicily and Italy were also invaded by US forces. Normandy could be called an invasion of France and I am probably missing some others. All of these were legitimate military campaigns during a war.

  • Dakotian||

    John I don't disagree with your statement but to be factual we invaded Japan sovereign territory on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Sicily and Italy were also invaded by US forces. Normandy could be called an invasion of France and I am probably missing some others. All of these were legitimate military campaigns during a war.

  • ||

    Is your handle really your name, or is it an homage to the NHL's disciplinarian? If it is the latter, on behalf of all hockey fans, go fuck yourself. If it is the former, carry on.

  • ||

    Might makes right everywhere except in the minds of westerners.

    apologies are a sign of weakness. If a nation wants to be hated, apologize, make excuses, say how you want to help people, and help them. I guarantee in a poll taken next year in Haiti will discover that they hate the US and that they like the Taliban or something like that better.

    No nation should apologize if it wants respect. It is not what you do, it is how you talk about what you do. There is nothing like unapologetic brutality to really generate respect. How is that for a wild and true statement? Have you ever heard of anyone hating China or Russia?

  • KPres||


    Best comment in thread!

  • Juxo||

    You don't get to decide that. The coin decides.

  • gillicuty||

    Like the Polish, Latvians, Georgians, Nepalese, Tibetans, and so forth?

  • ||

    "Have you ever heard of anyone hating China or Russia?"

    Your kidding, right? Two nations that have mass murdered over 20 million have no haters? Calling fear of being murdered and brutalized respect is totally inaccurate. As soon as you turn your back, they will stab it. I'm pretty sure thats not respect.

  • K-Y||

    What is with the neocon obsession with "respect" these days? It sounds like a locker room dispute.

    Unapologetic brutality might generate fear, but the only thing that generates respect is being honest and fair. And the US is neither of those.

  • ||

    honest and fair compared to who, what, when?

    people who think america is bad are ignorant of the world and history.

    racism, brutality, caste systems, wife beating, daughter selling, slavery are all normal human behavior. Only because of the US and the other western nations have these things been ameliorated at all. That is why people risk their lives to go to those places. No one is risking their life to get into Cuba. If you applied your standards to the rest of the world, you would have to conclude that they are barely human.
    and here is the thing, all that fairness and niceness depends on brutality. Brutality creates it and maintains it. The minute the brutality ceases, the slavery comes back, the human rights disappear, disfavored groups are seen no longer.

  • K-Y||

    This is not a comparative analysis. You either are honest, or you are dishonest. Fair or unfair.

    People risk their lives to come to the US for economic opportunity. They usually want to retain their traditions of patriarchalism.

    "The minute the brutality ceases, the slavery comes back, the human rights disappear, disfavored groups are seen no longer."

    You have an example in mind or did that just gurgle out by itself?

  • ||

    economic opportunity exists because of freedom.

    as Orwell said, we sleep peacefully at night because there are men with guns guarding us.

    Ghadafi called a jihad against switzerland. Some Us official said that was dumb. Now that official has apologized to Ghadafi. It's okay, according to our state department as led by obama, to call for a jihad against a western nation.

    Ghadafi will never apologize for anything.

  • ||

    Brutality creates and maintains both. But funny how the most brutal nations are the ones that have most of the racism, brutality, caste systems, wife beating, daughter selling, slavery. And the least brutal nations have the least of it.

  • jacob||

    Have you ever heard of anyone hating China or Russia?

    What an idiotic statement.

    Apparently you weren't alive from 1982 to 1989. There was PLENTY of anti-Russian sentiment going around.

  • ||

    Its not the apologies per se, its what they reveal and how they are likely to be taken.

    Out in the big bad world, all the kowtowing and blubbering about how sorry we are is likely to be taken as a sign of weakness, encouraging bad actors to laugh off our demands (yeah, I'm looking at you, Iran).

    Closer to home, they seem to confirm that Obama really doesn't seem to like America very much, and no organization should be headed by someone who dislikes it.

  • Mahmoud Ahmadinejad||

    Thats right, go to war with my country and we'll watch you infidels go bankrupt in the process. HA HA HA. Lord Putin will be pleased

  • Tony||

    What evidence do you have to present that Obama "doesn't seem to like America very much" other than the dishonest screeching of partisans?

    IMO it's far more damaging to this country for its leaders to be so brainwashed by American exceptionalism that they think it can do no wrong. Which is itself an incoherent position, considering these same folks are the ones braying about how the American government can't do anything right.

  • J_L_B||


    American Exceptionalism is often inaccurately portrayed by its detractors (usually leftists) as America is much better than you or your stinking country. The real definition is a belief that this country was formed in contrast to the cultural, historical, and political traits of other nations before it. Ours is a greater emphasis on the individual being the source of a nations prosperity and fortitude. Naturally, criticism results from those who implore us to act as the rest of the western world and adopt their whole slate of nanny state programs among their many features. We purposely formed a country with a different value system, and regard those arguments as amounting to all the cool countries are doing it. American exceptionalism means we dare to defy international peer pressure and forge our own unique society. We are not perfect, and we don't expect to be, but we expect a right to determine our own society without being pestered about being an (or more likely THE) exception.

  • ||

    True J_L_B, but I do think our current foreign policy is arrogant and a form of "American Exceptionalism." Going around and starting a bunch of wars to promote our standards has little to do with our "right to determine our own society without being pestered about being an exception," regardless of how noble the standards may seem. I feel we should show other countries the same respect if we don't like being pestered. No, this does not include an apologetic world tour, just a change in how we deal with them through actions, not words. Not that I am at all left wing. Just an avid non-interventionalist.

  • J_L_B||

    In this modern day, intervention is a damned if you do/don't scenario where both sides rarely emerge pleased. Few times have we begun wars simply because we disliked the current political situation and sought to impose a complete different one. Often we are the target of aggressive behavior by the opposing side. We have engaged in attempting to subvert some countries, but usually using covert assistance, and often attempting to topple a communist, yet democratically-elected government. Democracy may convey a legitimacy on the government in the eyes of the world, but it provides no assurance of a government free of tyranny.

    For example, North Korea didn't seek nuclear weapons to threaten Botswana. They, like many other countries, seek to exist without US or UN condemnation or attention because a lack of attention will allow an expansion of their ever oppressive governments. We can treat rogue nations with indifference as a principle of foreign policy if we choose, but we must accept that our indifference is sought only because it allows them to further their repression.

  • ||

    I would consider CIA covert operations a type of intervention. And I do definitely agree that democracy does not assure a government free tyranny; it is not a super magical potion for all of the worlds ills. But from what I understand, it was the covert operations and attempts at secretly trying influence other governments in our favor- Middle East and South America for example- that fomented a lot of the aggression towards us. I say just let them work it out on their own, trade with them, stop the subsidies, and make sure they know they will get blasted if they attack us. Its a clear cut, simple foreign policy that can be understood throughout all the land's.

  • Jersey Patriot||

    Out in the big bad world, all the kowtowing and blubbering about how sorry we are is likely to be taken as a sign of weakness, encouraging bad actors to laugh off our demands (yeah, I'm looking at you, Iran).

    Out in the big bad world, the US ought to leave other nations alone, including Iran.

    Closer to home, they seem to confirm that Obama really doesn't seem to like America very much, and no organization should be headed by someone who dislikes it.

    I wasn't aware Obama was the head of America. POTUS, maybe, but that's a bit different.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    "Closer to home, they seem to confirm that Obama really doesn't seem to like America very much, and no organization should be headed by someone who dislikes it."

    Obama's wife dislikes America even more. Everything, and I mean 'everything', is about a person's race to her.

  • ||

    How long have you known Michelle?

  • ||

    First of all, yeah, a US President has no business talking any shit about his country in a complete shit-hole of a country like Egypt. Oh yeah, they've been a total light for liberty over there.

    Secondly, Chapman entirely misses the real issue here. The issue is the collectivist language that Obama uses when he talks about "America's" past sins. I don't dispute the US has done some real, deplorable things in the world. But it wasn't "America" or "Americans," it was the federal government of the United States of America. Obama admitting the errors of "Americans" is kind of like if Putin admitted the errors of Russians under Soviet rule. We, the average American subject of the federal government, don't have a say in the imperialist policies of the United States emperor.

    If Obama wants to get on the world stage and apologize for all the horrors the federal government has caused, domestically and abroad, have at it. I will cheer him on. But don't include the rest of us in the blame game. Nor should he ever allow the federal government of the US to take credit where it isn't due. As long as he is clear that he is an agent speaking for an organization holding 300+ million people hostage, and not speaking for the hostages, he can say whatever he wants. Whenever he decides to include "us" in his language, as if any of us has a choice or say in the matter, I'm going to complain.

  • creech||

    C'mon, TQ. Unless you voted Libertarian for the last thirty years, then you are a voter who has tolerated, supported, justified, and promoted the bi-partisan ruination of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. For the most part, whatever was "imposed" on us was first "chosed" by us.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    Yeah, that big bad guvment. They are the guilty ones!

    Me, I am innocent of anything bad the guvment has done!

  • ||

    I agree TQ. Even if you didn't vote Libertarian, its not like the other parties are much of a choice. Nothing wrong with separating government actions from citizens. I would think if more people would get in then habit of looking at government more as "them" instead of "we," we would probably have fewer problems and more accountability on the part of government.

  • K-Y||

    I was unaware that American slaves were federal property.

  • ||

    That's kind of how I see it: Don't apologize for me--if it were up to me, there wouldn't be 95% as much to apologize for. It's you arrogant fuckers in the government that did all the bad stuff.

  • Tony||

    The Republicans inventing a self-serving, dishonest, and hypocritical narrative about Obama that they repeat like good little robots doing the party's smear work? Surely you jest.

  • ||

    Obama can apologize all he wants. Unfortunately, the US doesn't have a penis and the countries he's apologizing to don't have vaginas so it's not clear to me what he's trying to achieve.

  • JSinAZ||

    It's all about the romance, even if there can't be consumation.

  • ||

    Real weak Steve. One passage out of three or four years of listening to Obama's verbal navel gazing?

  • ||

    If you don't like apologies, move to a country where the government is never wrong, like Russia or China.

  • Jersey Patriot||

    The real problem with the apologies is this: they're meaningless. If you say "sorry" but don't stop the action, what good was the apology in the first place? Instead of apologizing, the US needs to repent.

  • Wifebeater||

    I eventually say I'm sorry. Every time.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||


  • ||

    [Reagan] made one of the most extravagant apologies ever by signing a law providing compensation to Japanese-Americans who were locked in internment camps during World War II.

    WTF does Reagan apologizing for a wrong done to citizens of our country by our country’s government have to with anything else in the article? Or, is mentioning Reagan, like mentioning Bush, just a way to give all of you hidden away in your mom’s basement a knowing giggle?

    Imagine that—admitting we were wrong merely because it was true.

    Again, a double WTF!

    What was Reagan supposed to say? In my mind, this was one of the most uncontroversial things ever done during Reagan years.
    Gawd, Chapman, go home to your mom’s basement.

  • JSinAZ||

    I wonder if Canada ever apologized to the Ukrainians it interred during WWI?

  • ||

    I have to say that very often the citizens of the United States must shoulder at least some of the blame for what the government does abroad.

    In a dictatorship it would be easier to exhonerate all citizens of the misdeeds of their government, especially when they are often the victims. In America, the politicians can whip up the fear and people will start cheerleading any "misdeed" politicians (or corporations, for they are often accomplices) have conjured up.

    Otherwise, in as much as anyone falls for the Republican rhetoric of "Obama's apology tour," go ahead and critize this article all you want. In as much as Republic rhetoric is simply hyporbole, this article makes a valid point.

  • JoshInHB||

    Only a liberal Douche Bag like Chappy would think O wasn't on an apology tour.

    It's always America's fualty
    Right Chapman.

    You're such a Douche Bag.

  • ||

    Don't be simple - Obama's not an apology tour. It's that simple. In other facts, George Bush is not stupid nor did he arrange 9/11. Bill Clinton did not kill Vince Foster. Sarah Palin did not fake her pregnancy. Just because you're an incompetent leader, doesn't mean every derogatory thing your opponents say about you is true. If you have trouble accepting the fact that Obama is not actually a socialist plant seeking to underming the USA, that's your issue.

  • JoshInHB||

    If you have trouble accepting the fact that Obama is not actually a socialist plant seeking to underming the USA, that's your issue.

    What do you think a socialist plant seeking to underming the USA would do differently than what O has done and proposed?

  • ||

    Reagan wasn't blaming Jimmy Carter for internment of the Japanese. Obama's comments echo a constant theme of his-attack George Bush and affirm the moral superiority of the left.

  • Jamie Kelly||

    Boy, you dorks are Reason are really desperate to find something decent to say in your defense of the Sociopath in Chief.
    Hey, I don't blame ya.

  • rook||

    Well, their aim is to get a lot of dicks to respond to them so it seems to be working.

  • george barkley||

    I don't want a president who spends all of his time thinking and planning.

    I just want to have an ice cold Budweiser with him.

  • ||

    truth,,,,obama people have no idea of the extent to which they have to be gulled in order to be led."
    "The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one."
    "All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it. Therefore, the intellectual level of the propaganda must be lower the larger the number of people who are to be influenced by it."
    "Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."pelosi don't see much future for the Americans ... it's a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social inequalities ...obama feelings against Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance ... everything about the behaviour of American society reveals that it's half Judaised, and the other half negrified. How can one expect a State like that to hold TOGTHER.They include the angry left wing bloggers who spread vicious lies and half-truths about their political adversaries... Those lies are then repeated by the duplicitous left wing media outlets who “discuss” the nonsense on air as if it has merit… The media's justification is apparently “because it's out there”, truth be damned. STOP THIS COMMUNIST OBAMA ,GOD HELP US ALL .THE COMMANDER ((GOD OPEN YOUR EYES)) stop the communist obama & pelosi.((open you eyes)) ,the commander

  • abercrombie milano||

    I just need this, Well done! Many thanks.


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.