AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

scott — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:38:27 GMT

eat that, republicans! is obama the only brave candidate to talk candidly about what's going on overseas?

sure he'll stumble on the issues every once in a while, but at least he has the guts to talk about it. that's more than everyother presidential candidate.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Deferrment Dick, D. C. — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:38:37 GMT

We all know that we're killing civilians, but we're not supposed to talk about it. That way we can pretend to be the good guys.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Marty in KC — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:45:00 GMT

Well I see the RNC Chairman has lost his head too. Maybe a colonoscopy would find it for him.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:49:44 GMT

Typical Repugnant response to anyone who critizes the way this despicable administration is failing miserably on both fronts. Wrap themselves around the flag, bible and if that does not work let use the troops. As the recent election showed.....It does not work with the people anymore. The majority around 65% sees right through that sham.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Mark Arthur — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:51:17 GMT

"Yet the AP has this fact-check: "A check of the facts shows that Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents [in Afghanistan]..."

Lets get a little more accurate with our facts eh?

It's US special Forces with air power who're killing civilians NOT "Western forces" which would include the "on the ground footpatrol" British Troops.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

H P Boston — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:51:23 GMT

Do not apologize Obama, tell the RNC and all to eat
dirt. You said what you said end of story. I know this does not have legs.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Hubert Humphry Jr., Allentown,Pa. — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:51:46 GMT

I like Karl Rove, he would make a great President.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:56:30 GMT

A British commander recently (days ago) told the news media he requested U.S. forces not operate in his area for the same reason. Our special forces units deploy in small teams, calling in fire support on suspected targets, resulting in civilian casualties. The Brit says it is making it harder for him to gain cooperation from the people there.

Karzai also has criticized the tactic in this situation.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Steve A. Jonesboro IN — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:57:04 GMT

If anyone owes our armed forces an apology it is this miserable excuse for an administration that got us into this quagmire in the first place.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Democrat — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:57:39 GMT

It's been said often since Senator Obama joined the race - he's not experienced enough.

It's also been said that the experienced ones have gotten us into more messes in our lifetime - LBJ, Nixon, Cheney, Rumsfeld.

Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, Clinton, Obama, Edwards -

Is it experience we're looking for? Is it judgment? Is it honesty? Is it religion?

Who was our best President - Abraham Lincoln?

Why?

Because he could admit mistakes. Because he could reach across the aisle. Because he knew what was best for our country. Because he was able to take criticism for his unpopular decisions.

He was a man with many faults. But a man who believed in the Constitution and a man who believed in what our Founding Fathers were grasping for, for all of us.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:04:45 GMT

The RNC thinks Obama should apologize for being honest, what a surprise; it must be hard for them to understand how Obama would say something honest about our military operations, when so many Republicans have put so much effort into lying about them.

What's scary is the RNC actually thinks that the way to national security and changing hearts and minds around the world is ignoring any civilians we're responsible for killing. Someone should remind them that the people who don't take responsible for killing civilians are called terrorists, and that unlike them, our army makes coordinated efforts to minimize collateral damage, efforts which are undercut when RNC officials try to deceive the public about the number of civilians dying; that kind of misleading talk makes it look like there's some sort of cover up about the figure, which sends a message around the world that our servicemen are untrustworthy, when they have in fact only done their very best to serve this country. Why does the RNC hate our troops?

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

csh, chicago — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:05:36 GMT

The latest foriegn policy blunder by a bright man who is simply NOT ready to be president.

But Hillary IS ready ...now.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Darrius, Arkansas — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:05:56 GMT

Do not apologize because you are right. But you must....

1. Counterattack them as the true deceivers of the American people. But keep your poise while counterattacking.

2. Demand that they apologize to the American people for telling these "lies of context."

If you don't then all of the people who here their lies of context will assume that they are right and you are wrong.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

bb — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:06:01 GMT

Typical repub response, WRONG!!

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Bruce, NV — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:09:57 GMT

All the USA does is airraids and kill civilians? really? I think you wingnuts need to get over your bush derangement syndrome, stop hating america and look at some facts.

Sorry, but your boy Barry stands no chance with stuff like that. There're an awful lot of veterans who vote.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:13:24 GMT

csh - Clinton is not ready. She doesn't understand U.S. nuclear policy. She doesn't understand U.S. policy toward China and Taiwan. In instances where she and Obama have made similar statements, she can't remember her own words before criticizing Obama's.

Obama, on the other hand, has taken on issues most candidates won't talk about. And thus far, despite some early negative press, which only parroted the candidate criticisms, he seems to be walking that minefield without stepping on any.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Asad — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:15:05 GMT

I'm waiting for H.Clinton to chime in with a line similar to that of the RNC.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Jennie Denver,CO — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:17:27 GMT

csh- how is telling the truth a foriegn policy blunder?! Just because Hillary doesn't say anything spontaniously doesn't make her ready to be president- it makes her Bush-Cheney Lite.

Obama keeps telling us that he's an honest man who will be an honest president- he's just proving that.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

vanreuter, NY NY — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:25:42 GMT

Obama is right and the Bush administration is wrong. He deserves credit for speaking out, as any democrat who stands up to this bunch does.

Van

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

JIrby, Colorado — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:25:49 GMT

Duncan, shut your stupid yap about "our brave men and women in uniform". As a Republican pig, anyone with a brain knows you are saying what you think sounds good and you could care less about the troops. Peddle your demagoguery on Fox News and keep your filthy Republican nose out of stuff that you know nothing about.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

DStormVet, IL — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:29:26 GMT

csh, chicago, I'm not sure your old enough to be posting on here because there is no possible way, with a response like that, that you have any idea what your talking about! It's responses like that from Obama that proves he has a lot more gut's than Hillary and the RNC when it comes to speaking the truth. Go ahead and stick with the rest of the Bush Lite's and then you will be the first to complain when they balk on every promise they make to ensure the best interest of big business! Idiot's!

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:37:43 GMT

RNC chairman Mike Duncan-- Sir, there are many apologies owed the troops and the American people but none are due from Senator Obama. They are due from President Bush and the top levels of his Administration and from members of Congress in both houses and from both parties who failed our troops by allowing this gross misuse of American power and by failing to use American power where it was required. These apologies will never be made as the act of accepting responsibility for mistakes requires a sense of honor and humility that is foreign this Administration, this Congress and apparently to you, sir.
For you to demand an apology, today from a Presidential candidate who has little to no responsibility for our current debacle would be laughable if it weren't such a sad indictment of the failure our President, his Administration, his party and unfortunately the opposition party, which appears spineless and ineffective, to correct this mistake and prevent anymore unnecessary US Casualties.
We sail on...rudderless and with a broken moral compass while men like you huff and puff and feign outrage and talk loudly as if to convince us of the correctness of your position.
September 15 - Washington DC

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

TEC-Spring-Tx. — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:38:09 GMT

Democrat, I would disagree with your statement regarding Abraham Lincoln. If he had success reaching across the aisle, then there would not have been a Civil War. Actually he may have been more stubborn and entrenched in his beliefs than Bush. Thankfully it was for the right reasons.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

jay — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:40:14 GMT

Apologize for what?
RNC should tell Bush and all those who authorized and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster to apologize to the arm and the general public.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:45:44 GMT

I am always amazed when the US and its allies are so shocked when civilians get killed or are mistreated by our forces. I guess Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and Abu Ghraib are just considered "collateral damage".

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Mark in Burlington — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:47:17 GMT

It is refreshing to have a candidate who speaks the truth, even if it is painful. If our forces had the numbers and arms they needed in Afghanistan from the start, they could have done the job right. They might even have been able to draw down by now, rather than need more forces to face a stronger Taliban and resnascent al Qaida. That is the fault of Bush and the Republicans who keep him in power.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

nuanced — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:55:00 GMT

Karzai, the president of Afghanistan said something very similar a few weeks ago. He said the level of civilian deaths at the hands of the Americans was intolerable. I guess he also owes an apology. While they are at it the RNC and Mike Duncan donuts should also demand that the civilian victims in Afghanistan apologize for getting in the way of our bullets and maybe get them to re-imburse the US for the cost of those bullets.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Steve, Boston Mass — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:06:13 GMT

The issue is not that civilians are being killed, that is an unfortunate element of any conflict be it gang violence or war. Rather it is Obama's implication that our forces are conducting indiscriminate air raids and do not care if civilians are killed--nothing could be farther from the truth...the young Senator and Presidential hopeful should know better than to say our forces are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians"

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Ashe, SF CA — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:25:14 GMT

How do you like them apples?????

Once again Obama justifies his remarks with facts...whereas the RNC and the Repub. candidates use unfounded arguments to justify their patriotism.

As for the rest of the Democratic field....where is the leadership? All this talk about experience is for naught because they want to play it safe. They talk about being different than the Republicans, but their rhetoric does not match their inaction. They want to stick with the status quo. Aside from Sen. Obama...the rest of the Dem. field is a dissapointment.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Kirk in NY — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:43:06 GMT

I'm sure Obama's disgraceful and disgusting comment plays well with his loon-bat base. Beyond that, he just lost any chance of even getting picked as a running mate by Hillary.

The guy is a complete idiot.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Greg R., Spokane, WA — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:44:54 GMT

231 civilians in attacks in 2007, Western forces killed 286. Another 20 were killed in crossfire that can't be attributed to one party."

Nuh-Uh.... I attribute all the deaths to the Republican Party

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Joanest, Sacramento -CA — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:52:15 GMT

This is an issue that is purely commonsensical. If there were fewer US boots on the ground per sq mile, then for the commander to achieve its goal would be to rely on air-support. With air-support comes collateral damage. Senator Obama is calling to increase US boots on the ground in order to minimize the level of collateral damages caused by air-attacks on their targets.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Schleppe, AZ — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:57:28 GMT

To Bruce, NV: Typical GOP response to label any criticism of military policy as an attack on individual US soldiers. Where were you when Bush/Cheney were sending troops to war without body armor, with paper-thin vehicles, and by-passing weapons depots, leaving them unguarded on their rush to Baghdad under Rummy's direction so they could declare "mission accomplished"???

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

PBS — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:24:59 GMT

What's astonishing to me is that a poll after the SC debate showed most people agreed with Obama on talking to foreign dictators. And he was criticized. Most Americans agree that we should go after Osama bin Laden if we have actionable intelligence, yet he was criticized. Does anyone seriously think we need to use a nuclear weapon to go after Al Qaeda in Pakistan? Yet he was criticized. We're killing more Afghan civilians than the Taliban. And he's criticized. Every one of these statements was deemed to be a flub by his opponents or serious pundits, yet on each of these points, he's either taking the majority position with the American people or he's objectively right.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Lee Holmes — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:33:34 GMT

Obamas strategy remains indefensible. No amount of ''AP fact checking'' [with the AP having serial problems of its own in that Dept],can erase the fact
that the absence of the air war,as Obama himself acknowlages,necceitates greater ground operations creating more dead American soldiers. The Taliban uses civilians deliberately as shields. So does Palestinian HAMAS, AL AQSAS and HEZBOLLAH. Such tactics invite collateral damage which in NO way is as deliberate as the Obama camp is painting it. [Reid Charlin,Obama manager quotes that this is a ''sole''strategy of the Bush administration which is patent BS].
Then too,ignored by anti-Bush partisans is the ''Just War''principle. Leaving Iraq behind for the moment,no-one[sans tinfoil at least] can argue that Afghanistan was not the seedbed for 9/11. Thus those who condemn our presence in Iraq may allow for our military action in that country. The same principle applied to the Kosovo War which was initiated in order to stop the suspected genocide of Muslim Kosovars at the hands of the Serbs. NATO commanders[Gen.Wesley Clark as chief architect],decided to go to the air in order to reduce or eliminate Allied casualites. Yet by the use of cluster bombs,more Serbian civilians were killed in just one month of the air war and more villages destroyed than in nearly five years of NATO participation in Afghanistan and without an enemy who used civilians as human shields.
Obama comes across as a foreign policy and military neophyte,who will be unable to reckon both greater US military AND civilian casualties should this nation,in an unprecedented move since the beginning of the air age and its use in all of Americas wars [everyone elses as well],decides to go to ground in order to settle the conflict with the Taliban. This mans decisions are uneven and confusing.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Louis, Lompoc California — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:36:14 GMT

Actually, ground troops are responsible for far more collateral damage...do you really think all those unguided rounds hit their target. The difference is that the bullets, missiles, and rounds used by ground forces do not have video to prove, or figure out for that matter, where they hit

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Bruce, NV — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:48:36 GMT

Schleppe et al, are any of you fluent in English? Obama didn't say "the US is killing too many civilians" or "more civilians are being killed by the US than the Taliban".

He said that we are "just air-raiding(sic) villages and killing civilians". The sentence doesn't even require parsing. He fell into the usual lefty rhetoric trap, the "winter soldier" syndrome. It's the rhetoric that has dogged the Dems since the 60s; they (and many on this blog) seem to be genetically unable to separate their disdain for military action from slandering US troops. It cost them in 2004. It may cost them in 2008, especially if Obama is the nominee and continues to speak extemporaneously about foreign affairs.

BTW, Schleppe, I find the way that this administration has conducted this war to be reprehensible. Unlike you, I can criticize both sides, and also listen to criticism of both sides. Knee-jerk reactions, like yours, and most of the commentors on this site, have poisoned the body politic, so that it is neither.

Cheers.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Mark Morris, Cupertino CA — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:00:57 GMT

I'm so glad Obama continues to boldly describe his perspective. I'm sooo sick of politicians that win by being the least offensive. We all know practically nothing about what Clinton would do for her foreign policy, and she wants it that way so we'll have nothing to misconstrue and belittle. Obama is smart enough to look upon our foreign policy with fresh eyes, and produce fresh ideas. He knows how to weigh the important underlying factors and does so in a transparent, honest way. Hillary is smart, very smart, but Barack is brilliant.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

diane — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:22:49 GMT

Seems the press has alot of mistakes regarding obama lately. They always seem to get it wrong and end up having to back track. But, that is the point. In order to promote their beloved Hillary they will twist whatever Obama says and later say, oops. But, the damage is already done.
Just like that speech. They set out to destroy this man's credibility and today, most people think Obama is a fool and wants to invade pakistan.
Our so called fair and unbiased press.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

DStormVet, IL — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 01:58:30 GMT

Hey Kirk in N.Y., isn't it funny how you Bush Lite supporters alway's slam the compitition for telling the truth to the american people. I bet you voted for Bush on both election's didn't you? I bet you are actually sad to see Karl Rove retire. It amazes me how blind some people are and how they are content with the status quo. Obama has gut's and he calls a spade a spade. If you had some common sense maybe you could understand what this country really need's and that is not just a change in the type of politics in Washington, but a change in the typical personality that is voted into office! Hillary don't know squat about being a leader and bringing people together and if she win's the primary then I can almost guarantee you that the Repub's will win the Presidential election. The media takes everything that Obama says and they put their little twist on it to make him look bad, because if there is one thing that those narrow-minded people will let happen, it's to let an african-american get elected president. It really is a shame that the best leader this country could have won't get elected because he is black! Narrow-minded fool's!

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Mr. T — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:17:53 GMT

Amazing. The defense of Obama when he showing his true liberal colors and his desire to undermine the gallant efforts of our troops.
The revolution is coming. Choose your wall soon.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Marty Rustin, Rockford, IL — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 03:18:28 GMT

Obama should stick to talking about things he knows about, such as "hope" and what pot-holes should be filled in on Illinois highways. Murray should stick to writing celebrity obituaries.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Sister Liz — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 03:25:27 GMT

JIrby goes on the warpath: \\Duncan, shut your stupid yap about "our brave men and women in uniform". As a Republican pig, anyone with a brain knows you are saying what you think sounds good and you could care less about the troops. Peddle your demagoguery on Fox News and keep your filthy Republican nose out of stuff that you know nothing about.//

Someones got their pullups in a bunch, aaaaagggain.

JIrby, it must take you a lot of time to keep trying to clean up Barack's messes. Don't run out of paper towels even before the first primary.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Chima Ordu, York, PA — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 03:41:59 GMT

The sad fact is that Americans don't want to know the truth, so they will jumo on Obama for stating the facts. Americans want to hear that we are perfect, do no wrong, are right about everything and should not be criticized.
The Afghan President himself has been complaining about the mounting civilian deaths, so why is Obama suddenly the bad guy here? He stated the FACTS, and no, he did NOT attack the troops...hell...he said we need MORE troops on the ground to reduce the number of civilian deaths that are resulting from our current tactics of using air raids.
It's common sense...but Americans do not like common sense, they want to be lied to.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Felice — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 05:43:03 GMT

That's the nature of relying on dropping bombs. Lots of civilians get killed. This is nothing new. Are the Republicans going to pretend we didn't kill civilians as indiscriminately in WWII bombings as the AXIS did? That we didn't bomb any civilians in Korea and Vietnam? Do these Republicans really think war is like an old Hollywood John Wayne movie? Neat wounds, nothing graphic, all the soldiers are played by mature men at least in their thirties and only the enemy ever harms a civilian? What a bunch of ignorant bozos.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Georgette, New Mexico — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 07:04:41 GMT

Uumm, it's called war! Hello! Of course people will die,including innocent people, (911). How many terroist attacks have hit the US since? And because this is a free country you have our permission to set up residence in Kwait, Iraq, where ever your bleeding heart liberal thinking takes you. You too Billery and Mr. O

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

WDRussell, East Liverpool, Ohio — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:41:11 GMT

To the surprise of nobody, and to the glee of the Genocides Our Priority party

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

David, New Braunfels, Texas — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:57:51 GMT

The terrorist fly airplanes loaded with people, into skyscrapers loaded with people, and kill indiscriminantly, but in war, we are supposed to only kill discriminantly. How stupid! If Afghanis are being killed, perhaps they should have thought twice about allowing the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to set up shop in their country. If you play with fire, your going to get burned.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

jt, okc — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:25:29 GMT

Who the heck is AP to fact check a candidates statement. If the democrats believe in the fairness doctrine, maybe they should force AP to fact check every single candidate's controversial statement.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Timothy, Rochester, NY — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:36:00 GMT

To the Obama fans, you can still compliment another democrat eventhough you support another democrat. I think Obama was spot on with that comment about Afghanistan. Do you see how I did that. I'm not sure which democrat I'm voting for but I don't feel the need to attack other democrats. If a candidate is right on the issue, it's okay to say it. Unlike many of you Obama fans who critisize everything Hillary says even know deep down you know she's right.

Any Democrat in 08'!!!

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Mark C, Morehead City NC — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:00:28 GMT

*** Are the Republicans going to pretend we didn't kill civilians as indiscriminately in WWII bombings as the AXIS did? ***

Actually we bombed civilians on a scale the Axis powers never dreamed of. There was absolutely no parallel to the firebombings (and nuclear bombings) of Japan, nor to those of German cities like Dresden. The German attacks on London were a joke by comparison.

Our strategy during the war was to bomb them back to the stone age. That's a strategy that WE invented and ONLY WE carried out.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

drew in massachusetts — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:14:17 GMT

The entire AP fact check misses the point. It sounds like a DNC talking point memo rather than news analysis. Nobody has ever denied that civilians are getting killed in air raids in Afg. The point is, we have boots on the ground there, and air raids are used where folks on the ground direct them, i.e, at suspected terrorist hideouts. The terrorists happen to use civilians as cover. But for Obama to prattle on about using JUST air raids and using them indiscriminantly indicates that the guy has some of that Blame America First syndrome.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Ollie frenchburg ky — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:19:40 GMT

Any apology owed to our troops should come from the misguided 30% of the people that still support this foolish president.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:04:33 GMT

Timothy, I suppose I'm one of those Obama fans who you see criticizing Clinton.

I would like to point out that I usually if not always post my criticism of her foreign policy/national security statements in response to a Clinton supporter's message about Obama's lack of experience and readiness.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that Clinton started this fight.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

David, New Braunfels,Texas — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:46:26 GMT

What scares me more than a democrat in the oval office is Hillary or Obama as commander in chief. Bush haters can keep on hating all they want, but you cannot deny the truth, there has been no new terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

CJ — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:11:54 GMT

Terrorists use civilians, but it is a misconception(neoconservative propaganda) that they exclusively use it as a tactic. The simple fact is air raids equal MORE COLLATERAL DAMAGE. It is commonplace for civilians intermingle with militia forces and factions like Hezbollah, it is a fact of life. They are often not a threat to the civilain population and sometimes they provide aid. That was true when Lebanon was bombed...where do you expect civilians to go..warn them to run to the hills before an air-raid?? The only conclusion to a criticism to Obama's response is that it is based on political opportunism, straw man arguments, and bias.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

HOT DAM — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:34:25 GMT

And a good fight with Obama lite.
Bring it on!

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Jeff Morgan, Austin, TX — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:40:43 GMT

Timothy: "Unlike many of you Obama fans who critisize everything Hillary says even know deep down you know she's right."

Is that one of those circus funny mirrors? It seems you feel deep down Hillary is right, and assume others must also. I can't think of another reason why one would assume that.

For a lot of people, elections are more about the candidate than the party. Obama supporters aren't just a subgroup of the usual Democrat demographic, it's a lot of independents and mild Republicans (if I can call them that).

She doesn't get credibility-in-advance for being a Democrat or well-known.

David, New Braunfels, TX: "The terrorist fly airplanes loaded with people, into skyscrapers loaded with people, and kill indiscriminantly, but in war, we are supposed to only kill discriminantly. How stupid! If Afghanis are being killed, perhaps they should have thought twice about allowing the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to set up shop in their country. If you play with fire, your going to get burned."

I hope this is sarcasm.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

eSPO — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:43:30 GMT

Once again the kneejerk reaction from the uptigty righties and the good ol boy network are hilarious.
Meeting with leaders of "Rogue Nations", reacting to
kill Bin Laden if we had actionable intelligence and now stating the facts about a more effective way to deal with the problem in Iraq lets us know that Obama is intelligent enough and thoughtful enough to come up with real honesty and solutions. The RNC sounds like a bunch of cackling hens "the sky is falling the sky is falling" at every utterance of Barack Obama. He`s playing them like a Stradivarius.
There is change coming ! Get used to bitching !

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Jeff Morgan, Austin, TX — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:22:23 GMT

David: "but you cannot deny the truth, there has been no new terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11."

That makes as much sense as saying "I have been driving drunk for 6 years and haven't crashed yet."

People here also seem to forget that terrorists are civilians, and live and work with other civilians. I wonder what it would be like trying to target and kill people who have an iphone. Seems like a similar challenge to me. But hey I'm no expert.

By the way here is a nice highlight of the issue of civilian casualties in Afghanistan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8748tcGlznk

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Lee Holmes — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:39:17 GMT

CJ: You are in error. The use of civilians as shields is in fact,a deliberate strategy utilized by the jihadis.

''We will use the bodies and souls of the Palestinian people to protect our jihad fighters''Remarks,HAMAS,Palestinian TV,Nov.19,2006.

Los Angeles Times Nov.03,2006:''Women Acting As Human Shields Aid Escape Of Militants''

Sydney Morning Herald July 30,2006:''Photos That Damn HEZBOLLAH''[here,in both Beirut and the city of Tyre,Australian cameramen chronicle the forced placure of civilians into and around HEZBOLLAH anti-air and artillery positions. Human Rights Watch was brought under criticism and scrutiny for its failures to look into these incidents relying instead on photography that was later determined to be doctored. Standing civilians were washed from the photographs,later inserted to appear as dead,littered among the miraculously alive HEZBOLLAH jihadists].

Ottawa Citizen Oct.26,2006: ''HEZBOLLAH Was Using UN Post As Shield''.

The Times of London July 07,2007:''Brainwashed Children Plead To Die In Red Mosque Siege''

REUTERS Feb.14,2007:''Taliban Flee Battle Using Children As Shields''.

American Forces Press Service July 01,2007:''Taliban Continue Human Shield Tactics''.

We will observe here that along with the use of human shields,jihadists also utilize the militarization of holy places in order to conduct offensive operations,or flee into these to continue fighting,as what occurred when HAMAS gunmen took over the Church of the Nativity during the Second Intifada and trashed one of Christianties most holy shrines.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Ronald Gunderson — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:29:07 GMT

Obama's NOT right. He said we're "just" airraiding villages and killing civilians. No one ever disputed that our forces kill civilians. It's a sad but inevitable results of war. Obama stated that ALL we were doing was killing civilians. This story in no way vindicates him. He just spat in the faces of our troops.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

mark, Fort Worth, TX — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:09:26 GMT

To all the Libs/Dems ranting on this page:

The only think keeping you safe are those troops who are "just killing civilians". Keep hating the military, boys and girls. It's like hating the police for giving you a speeding ticket then screaming "where are they" when your house is broken into or you are getting mugged at gun point.

So I hope you have a good calculator for counting all the dead when a crazy jihadist detonates a small nuke in NYC or Washington DC cause your ideal candidates and your policies will get us there real fast.

I will check back later to chuckle at all the hate speech.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

eSPO — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:54:46 GMT

No hate here Mark, just chuckling at your inability to see that if we experience a detonation anywhere it will be because we created more of them
by aiming at the wrong target. We are viewed as unjust by much of the world. This is the problem we now face.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

CJ — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:33:57 GMT

I said do, but not EXCLUSIVELY ... you are implying that they do when in fact "terrorists" i.e. hostile groups can be intermingled with civilian populations within which they may have support. I'm not stating something false..it is a fact of life.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

DStormVet., IL — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 02:42:07 GMT

Ronald Gunderson, you might want to actually READ what he said and then determine the actual meaning. The reason we are air-raiding the villages and killing civilian's is because there aren't enough troop's on the ground! Which is why he said we need to put more ground troop's in there so we aren't killing civilian's. This is not in any way disrespecting the troop's that are there, it is telling the american people that the administration in Washington don't have a clue how to run an operation.
I know most of the people who are Hillary supporter's will only read what Obama said in a certain way just to try and use it to support their accusation's toward Obama, why not the media is doing the same thing. Hillary is not ready to be President simply because she doesn't know anything about the real people in this country. Why do you think big business like her so much! She may win the nomination, she may not, but there is a reason that so many people dislike her and if you don't believe that you might want to do some more reading before you say anything else.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Chima Ordu, York, PA — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 03:08:32 GMT

Mark...Obama did not say we are just killing civilians. Why don't you read the entire quote to get the correct context? He said we need more troops on the ground to change our current strategy, which is made pu of using air-raids, which is resulting in huge civilian deaths. The Afghan President himself has been complaining about this, so why don't you at least be fair? Obama did not attack the troops, he attacked the STRATEGY.
There is a difference..I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

Drea,Los Angeles,Ca — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 03:52:08 GMT

Hey Mark..

Why don't you and the AP remove you rlips from Obama's behind?

AP: Obama's right on civilian casualties

eSPO — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:34:32 GMT

Very mature "Drea", you sound like Anne Coulter.
No substance just sophomoric rhetoric.
Why can`t you admit that Obama is displaying critical understanding of very importatnt situations ? He has excercised strong judgement in the answers to virtually every question that he has been asked. In every instance where the conservative press has tried to fault him , they end up faulted by comoon sense.