He doesn't take an explicit position in either speech, of course, but his first comment sounded quite positive towards the whole thing - sure, he hedged it by mentioning the sensitivity of the issue, but then he always hedges - whereas the second still doesn't take an explicit position on whether he finds them insensitive or not, but implies that he does. And from someone with his rhetoric talents, we can safely assume those messages weren't incidental, particularly considering the political sensitivity of the issue.