Why Did Obama Just Defend the Iraq War? - Salon

[WillyT]

Why Did Obama Just Defend the Iraq War?
By Joshua Keating - Salon
MARCH 26 2014 5:39 PM

<snip>

Barack Obama’s speech in Brussels was always going to be read as something of a rejoinder to Vladimir Putin’s defense of Russia’s actions in Crimea, so it’s not surprising that the president chose to refute the notion of “double standards” that has become a central talking point in Russian rhetoric during this crisis.

On the so-called Kosovo precedent, which Putin has repeatedly invoked, Obama had this to say:

In defending its actions, Russian leaders have further claimed Kosovo as a precedent, an example, they say, of the West interfering in the affairs of a smaller country, just as they’re doing now. But NATO only intervened after the people of Kosovo were systematically brutalized and killed for years. And Kosovo only left Serbia after a referendum was organized not outside the boundaries of international law, but in careful cooperation with the United Nations and with Kosovo’s neighbors. None of that even came close to happening in Crimea.

This is reasonable. As Obama noted elsewhere in the speech, whatever the legitimate grievances of Russian-speaking Ukrainians, there’s little evidence to suggest “systemic violence against ethnic Russians inside of Ukraine.”

But Obama’s next point was a bit odder:

Moreover, Russia has pointed to America’s decision to go into Iraq as an example of Western hypocrisy. Now, it is true that the Iraq war was a subject of vigorous debate, not just around the world but in the United States, as well. I participated in that debate, and I opposed our military intervention there.

But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory. We did not grab its resources for our own gain. Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people in a fully sovereign Iraqi state that can make decisions about its own future.

This is all theoretically true (though we can debate the degree to which the Bush administration genuinely “sought to work within the international system”), but it seems a little strange that Obama would choose this speech as a venue to defend a war he vigorously opposed—opposition to which in fact largely defined his rise to national prominence...

<snip>

More: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/03/26/why_did_obama_just_defend_the_iraq_war.html?wpisrc=burger_bar

[Richardo]

1. Because the author cannot comprehend English or understand context.

[reddread]

11. thats exactly what a RW racist would say

although it galls me to point out such an obvious thing.

[Richardo]

12. !!

[TheSarcastinator]

50. reddread shoots and scores

Exactly the tactics used to smear critics of this obscene war. Well done.

[grahamhgreen]

95. ROFL!!!

[Aerows]

118. "We're all RW racists, now!" n/t

[truedelphi]

28. I think it has far more to do with political comprehension than with

Understanding English.

Obama had a chance to take the moral high ground, simply by seeing to it that the War Criminals of the past Administration were called into the Halls of Justice.

Instead, like in almost all the other arenas of His Presidency, he chose to ally himself with The Big Industry, in this case "Big Military." So he swept the War Criminals under the carpet, using his "Look Forward" motto as the cover story.

[Richardo]

85. yeah, those prosecutions were never going to happen.

... and i'd bet a dollar that not even lefty stalwarts like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren would have pursued them either.

Kucinich might have.

Political comprehension is needed, I agree, but it only reinforces my point.

[WillyT]

91. Yeah... The "Political Comprehension" Dictates That In "A Nation Of Laws..."

They curiously apply to some, but not to others.

Which in turn, indictes the entire system.

[WilliamPitt]

2. Why indeed.

[1000words]

5. How ever will they fit everyone under that bus?

[KittyWampus]

7. Says an supposed journalist who can't even check to see if his wife's meds are covered by the new

insurance company and the plan he signs up with.

Just because some wannabe journalists say they are leftists doesn't mean their reading/listening comprehension is up to snuff.

[1000words]

8. Cheap shot

To be expected ...

[KittyWampus]

9. It's the truth. And I would never have posted that until the latest OP from Pitt.

[11 Bravo]

14. I interpreted the President's speech differently than Will, but that's some cheap shit ...

right there. You ought to be ashamed.

[frylock]

43. this one has no shame whatsoever

[WillyT]

66. And I Get Accused Of Being Devisive... WOW !!!

[RandiFan1290]

99. Nice that Skinner came out to encourage them, too

They smell the blood in the water and think they can get him a PPR if they stomp their feet loud enough.

[stillwaiting]

17. That is vile. Absolute garbage. Trash. nt

[fascisthunter]

20. wow... that's sad

[malthaussen]

29. That's a pretty cheap shot.

Not to mention irrelevant.

-- Mal

[bvar22]

41. Callous, insensitive.......

AND incredibly cheap.

Out of all the "over the top" and "personal attack" posts I have read at DU today,
YOUR deserves to be NOT just hidden,
but deleted from our pages,
and all traces of it wiped away.

[red dog 1]

47. + 1000

That post was WAY "over the top"

I wonder why it hasn't been hidden?

[frylock]

44. perhaps you could map it out for him?

[1000words]

49. Heh ...

[demmiblue]

52. Vile, absolutely vile. n/t

[giftedgirl77]

54. Here was the result of the first used car salesman/POS posting.

Leftwing editor turns angrily against Obamacare, calls Obama “you piece of sh*t used-car salesman”

Posted on 21 March, 2014 by sophia


Another O-Bot that didn’t listen

Harry Reid is going to have a hard time portraying Will Pitt as a Koch brothers shill…

William Rivers Pitt, a leftwing editor at TruthOut, whose foibles have been chronicled in NewsBusters and is probably best known for his journalism “scoop” of predicting the indictment of Karl Rove on May 12, 2006, is back in the spotlight again. While waiting 24 business hours to elapse for the Rove indictment to finally take place, Pitt shocked many at the Democratic Underground by posting an extremely angry attack, What I’ve learned about the Affordable Care Act, upon Obamacare due to a bad personal experience with it. In order to fully appreciate how far Pitt has turned against Obamacare, we need to go to his DU post back in December when he was proclaiming his love for Obama’s signature plan…before he even experienced it:

Well, I just had my first experience with the Healthcare.gov website…

Creating a user name and account: easy.

Plowing through all the questions: easy.

Alas, I logged out to track down some personal info, and when I tried to log back in, it said the system was currently down.

…but then, Ermahgerd! A phone number: 800-318-2596

And it’s toll-free, too!

So I’ll be calling in the morning to finish the process.

No. Big. Deal.

Thanks, Obama.

Yes, Pitt was thanking Obama before he had personally experienced Obamacare. And now, after having his Obamacare Moment, Pitt has moved from praising to cursing the President. A warning for those with tender sensibilities: although I have cleaned up Pitt’s harsh language, many will still find it offensive:

What I’ve learned after a three-month war with these fiends: the ACA says the insurance companies cannot deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, which is true as far as it goes. But they can deny coverage for the life-saving medications necessary to treat those conditions. The insurance company I signed up with through the ACA exchange just denied coverage of my wife’s multiple sclerosis medication. We’re “covered,” to the tune of $700 a month…just not for what she really needs.

A cozy loophole, that.

F— you, insurance industry.

F— you, Mr. President, you piece of sh*t used-car salesman.

From my heart and soul, f— you.

http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/03/21/leftwing-editor-turns-angrily-obamacare-calls-obama-piece-sht-used-car-salesman/

Gotta love when DU gives the RW ammo.

[1000words]

63. LOL

I think you grossly over estimate Will Pitt's and DU's influence and importance.

And who in the world is "sophia" at "gopthedailydose?" (Whatever that is ...)

[giftedgirl77]

72. I came across that bullshit bc I googled

"Obama's used car salesman" when the shitstorm started & what do you know that was the first link that popped up. What you fail to realize is WP is also an author & editor not just some anonymous poster so his shit does carry more weight.

[1000words]

78. I am very familiar with Will's work

Alas, ask a thousand folks on the street.

[giftedgirl77]

81. Well then you should understand why the wingnuts

would jump on this as such a find & why it should be considered an issue for people wanting to better ACA & other democratic positions.

[go west young man]

60. Personal attacks such as that....

make you out to be the insensitive one. Especially in regards to such a personal matter. Evolve.

[Vashta Nerada]

70. Ugly and cheap shot.

[gulliver]

84. He still hasn't apologized when the whole damned thing was his fault.

Now he is letting a bunch of his enabler "fans" go off on you rather than face the truth. You're not the one who owes an apology.

[WilliamPitt]

90. So, yeah, hey dipshit

First question we asked before signing up was about the meds. They said we only needed to have my wife's doc approve them. He did. We signed up.

Then they denied coverage.

Conclusion: They lied.

Your story line is flawed.

I'm trying to contain my shock.

[RetroLounge]

124. Cheap, low, and pathetic post

You should be ashamed.

RL

[rumdude]

68. TL

[polichick]

3. "Obama probably still believes Iraq was a "dumb war,"...

but judging by recent statements and the fact that—without any real need to—he chose this speech as a venue to defend it, it certainly seems like his views have evolved in the 12 years since he warned against going into Iraq "without a clear rationale and without strong international support.""


It is interesting that the prez chose to talk about this.

[creeksneakers2]

67. Obama didn't defend the war

He just pointed out what was wrong with Russia trying to equate Iraq with Crimea.

[polichick]

82. Didn't really work though - Iraq was despicable in every way.

[truedelphi]

110. I saw most of what he said as being lies -

Our troops went in and suddenly Exxon has the rights to their oil, Motorola has the rights to rebuild their communications industry, and on and on.

Even the provision that only Gm seed be sold to Iraqi farmers was put together by American Indsutry captains. And then that provision was inserted in their new "Constitution."


If this is not the occupation of a nation by use of force, and a capture of the Iraqi people's monies and their resources, I don't know what would be.

Obama of course, can't be blamed for any lies told in his speech, as he is a mere speechifying puppet, always willing to say what the PTb inform him needs to be said.

He has never demonstrated any curiosity in matters he speechifies about, so he has little information. he even once (Apr 2009) gave a speech about how he can't be blamed for the direction that the economy was about to go off in, as he had never paid attention to economic matters while he spent two years running for the nation's highest office. Instead, he admitted his focus was on our two wars.

[KittyWampus]

4. He didn't and that's obvious to anyone with reading comprehension.

[Kolesar]

22. No kidding

This is a garbage thread.

[redqueen]

24. +1

[Voice for Peace]

39. ++++ but as the Incredible String band once sang:

"if you're looking for trouble,
it's trouble you'll find"

[JackRiddler]

6. PBO did not defend the Iraq war!

He merely put in context the military action that he attempted himself to peacefully extend for more peace, more peace!

Also, I've learned today that the United Nations was totally for the 2003 invasion.

The Party Line Faction has spoken. =

[JoePhilly]

10. Obama, the "weak appeasing" ... "warmonger".

One caricature for the right, a totally opposite caricature for the left.

[jakeXT]

13. And I wonder if the Kosovo referendum remark will be used against him

“And Kosovo only left Serbia after a referendum was organized not outside the boundaries of international law, but in careful cooperation with the United Nations with Kosovo’s neighbors,” Obama added. “None of that even came close to happening in Crimea,” MSNBC reported.

Office for Kosovo and Metohija recalled in tonight’s statement that a referendum on the subject of independence was not conducted on the territory of Kosovo and Metohija, as well as that Albanians, Serbs or any other ethnic group that lives in Kosovo and Metohija did not participate in it, TANJUG reported.

The office points out in its statement that the unilateral independence of Kosovo and Metohija was proclaimed on February 17 2008 at the meeting of the so-called Kosovo Assembly, “which was not preceeded by any referendum of the citizens of Kosovo and Metohija, whether on a part or on the whole territory of Kosovo and Metohija”.

...

There was one independence referendum in Kosovo in 1991. Its results were recognized by just one UN member, Albania.

http://inserbia.info/today/2014/03/serbias-office-for-kim-obama-there-was-no-referendum-on-kosovo/

[nationalize the fed]

15. Kosovo

But NATO only intervened after the people of Kosovo were systematically brutalized and killed for years. And Kosovo only left Serbia after a referendum was organized not outside the boundaries of international law, but in careful cooperation with the United Nations and with Kosovo’s neighbors. None of that even came close to happening in Crimea.

Complete and total bullshite

Bill Clinton's 78 day bombing and invasion of Kosovo/Serbia in 1999 (Without UN approval) was the first PNAC war. The wayback machine hasn't been wiped yet.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020205133621/http://www.newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm

People were told that Serbians were mass killing Albanians and so the US/NATO had to bomb them to make them stop. People were told by Clinton's Republican "Defense" secretary William Cohen that there were "up to 100,000" mass graves but:

Known mass graves:
In 2001, 800 still *unidentified* bodies were found in pits on a police training ground just outside of Belgrade and in eastern Serbia.
At least 700 bodies were uncovered in a mass grave located within a special anti-terrorist police unit's compound in the Belgrade suburb of Batajnica.
77 bodies were found in the eastern Serbian town of Petrovo Selo.
50 bodies were uncovered near the western Serbian town of Peručac.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_war#Casualties

That's not Genocide, that's a weekend in Detroit.

There were many civilian casualties (many many more than what's above):

5 April 1999: Bombing of Aleksinac
12 April 1999: Grdelica train bombing
14 April 1999: Bombing of a refugee column
23 April 1999: Serb Radio and Television headquarters bombing
27 April 1999: First Bombing of Surdulica
7 May 1999: Cluster bombing of Niš
7 May 1999: Chinese embassy bombing
14 May 1999: Bombing of Koriša
19 May 1999: Belgrade hospital strike
30 May 1999: Bombing of Varvarin
30 May 1999: Second Bombing of Surdulica
31 May 1999: Bombing of Novi Pazar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_during_Operation_Allied_Force

Wesley Clark commanded this war and almost started WW3 with the Russians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark#Kosovo_War

The US built a huge Military Base after the war on its conquered territory that was used for torture (the Gitmo of the Balkans): Camp Bondsteel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bondsteel

The United States Army has been criticised for using the base as a detention facility, and for the conditions faced by the detainees there. In November 2005, Alvaro Gil-Robles, the human rights envoy of the Council of Europe, described the camp as a "smaller version of Guantanamo" following a visit.

The failure of the Serbians to sign the Rambouillet accords was the technical reason given for the start of the war. Even Henry Kissinger criticized the Rambouillet accords

"The Rambouillet text, which called on Serbia to admit NATO troops throughout Yugoslavia, was a provocation, an excuse to start bombing. Rambouillet is not a document that an angelic Serb could have accepted. It was a terrible diplomatic document that should never have been presented in that form."
—Henry Kissinger, Daily Telegraph, 28 June 1999
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambouillet_Accords

Milosovic may have been killed before he could testify

Milošević was found dead in his cell on 11 March 2006, in the UN war crimes tribunal's detention center, located in the Scheveningen section of The Hague, Netherlands. Autopsies soon established that Milošević had died of a heart attack. He had been suffering from heart problems and high blood pressure. Many suspicions were voiced to the effect that the heart attack had been caused or made possible deliberately – by the ICTY, according to sympathizers, or by himself, according to critics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milošević#Death

The bombing of Serbia was based on lies and it was pure evil and it was just the start. How many more? Time will tell.

[2banon]

25. To this day, I remain rather ignorant (not willfully) in understanding the entire set of events.

I very much appreciate this information. Thanks very much.



I have over the years repeatedly attempted to try and wrap my head around so many aspects of the conflicts and subsequent military actions in Croatia/Serbia/Kosovo/Albania.. sorting out information/disinformation, through the fog of war and depending on whose pov.. This part of recent history has been profoundly confusing to me from the start and even more so with the continuous revisionism.

Maybe I should try again, starting from who benefited, who ended up with the spoils. And then go back to the beginning..

You know, until your post, I didn't even know that Milosevic died much less in his cell before he could testify, I lost track and assumed he was tried and convicted. In fact I could have sworn he gave hours and hours of testimony... who am I thinking of? (sheesh!)

[go west young man]

65. Informative post.

Thanks for that and welcome to DU.

[Kolesar]

98. Putin has advocates and Slobo has advocates

ON the Democratic Underground

You blew it at "PNAC"

[JaneyVee]

16. What part was untrue?

[underpants]

27. Bush Inc. never got UN approval to invade

That part is eeeeh not true but he is actually right that the US didn't annex Iraq.... but that clearly was the plan. Obamas landslide victory changed that.


This is another example of Obama having to clean up a Bush/Cheney(Rumsfeld) mess and still offer cover due to gentlemanly Presidential tradition. Basically it's W getting yet another "Gentleman's C".

[jeff47]

97. Actually, we did.

1441 was broad enough to act as a fig leaf - it demanded stuff from Iraq, and did not forbid military action to get it.

[underpants]

100. No 1441 never gave authorization

Specific to the text it said that this matter would be "revisited"- that is Diplo speak for "no resolution".

The US actually violated 1441 because we didn't turn over all the information that we had to the UN inspection teams. Rummy et al parsed it out to stall so that the fact that there were no WMD would not be known before the war started.

The US never got authorization. Bush pulled that motion because he/they knew it wouldn't pass. Their MSM convinced everyone that the Congressional vote would stand in for UN authorization which is simply nonsense.

[jeff47]

106. 1441 did not explicitly forbid it.

It's not uncommon for UN resolutions to explicitly forbid military action. 1441 did not forbid it. That means it authorized it.

There's plenty of war crimes surrounding Iraq. We don't need to invent more.

[Hissyspit]

33. Two things:

"But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system."

America deliberately lied to distort and corrupt the international system. And then ignored it.

"We did not grab its resources for our own gain."

This is patently false.

[red dog 1]

55. + 1

I am not a DINO.

I support President Obama.

.In fact, I often spend HOURS on social networking sites DEFENDING President Obama when ultra-conservative GOP tea baggers lie about him.

Putin was obviously trying to "bait" Obama by even bringing up the Iraq War;
and, IMO, President Obama "took the bait".

I'll bet Vlad is very happy about all this.

[G_j]

58. +10000

[treestar]

18. Still spinning that

Read.

[Progressive dog]

19. The President responded to the Putin defense of his

invasion. Putin brought up Iraq, Obama responded. It would be "a little strange if Obama hadn't.
The author even admits that Obama told the truth. (actually that he can't prove it untrue) .

[red dog 1]

57. "It would be a little strange if Obama hadn't" responded to Putin?

So what if that war-monger Putin "brought up Iraq'" in defense of his invasion of Crimea?

President Obama did not have to respond to Putin's reference to the Iraq War.

He could have just left it alone;
or, he could have just said that he voted against the Iraq War and left it there, couldn't he?

[Progressive dog]

64. No he couldn't, President Obama was not in a position to

vote for or against the Iraq war. That is funny.

[red dog 1]

71. "No he couldn't, President Obama was not in a position to

Last edited Thu Mar 27, 2014, 09:27 PM - Edit history (2)

vote for or against the Iraq war"?

WTF are you talking about?

He was in the position of a United States Senator, and, in 2008, he did, indeed, vote against more funding for Bush's war.

[Progressive dog]

75. Damn right it's funny, have you really paid so little attention

to President Obama's career or are you ignorant of when the Iraq war was voted on? You could always look it up before you make funny claims.

[red dog 1]

86. "On June 22, 2008, Senator Barack Obama voted against a bill to fund the Iraq War."

SB 2766....Vote # 181
http://www.howstuffworks.com/historical-figures/barack-obama4.html/
("How Stuff Works " is a commercial entertainment website)

The above "How Stuff Works" link provides links to the Washington Post voting record of Senator Barack Obama
("Voting record of Barack Obama; National Security and the Economy&quot

I was unable to find a working link directly to WaPo's "Barack Obama voting record"

Since you're so smart, and like to call people who disagree with you "ignorant", perhaps you can find a working link directly to WaPo's Barack Obama voting record?

By the way, I never said, nor did I mean to imply that Barack Obama was even in the Senate when the original Iraq War bill came up for a vote.
What I did say about Obama's vote against the Iraq War may well have been taken the wrong way, so I edited that post

Barack Obama didn't became a United States Senator until January, 2005.

[Progressive dog]

87. That is not voting against the war in Iraq,

you only get one chance to do that. Voting to cut funding while running for President is not even close.

[red dog 1]

89. Whatever you say.

I'm not the one who resorted to name-calling, you are.

I will admit that my mention of Obama's opposition to the Iraq War was a little ambiguous, so I edited that post to make it more precise.

[Progressive dog]

92. It wasn't ambiguous, it was wrong

and you used it to defend another dishonest attack on President Obama.

[red dog 1]

93. I don't consider the OP to be "another dishonest attack on President Obama"

What about Hissyspit's response (# 33)?

"Two Things" (from Obama's speech)

1) "But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system."

Call me ignorant again, but didn't the U.N. want to keep the weapons inspectors in Iraq?
Weren't the U.S. and the U.K. the only countries with an army who wanted to invade Iraq?
Is that seeking "to work within the international system"?


2) "We did not grab it's resources for our own gain"?

Wasn't it part of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld plan to use the Iraqi oil to fund the Iraq War?
Wasn't the Iraqi Oil Ministry the only building guarded by "Coalition Forces"?



Do you consider ANY criticism of the President to be "another dishonest attack on President Obama"?

[Progressive dog]

94. I didn't think you did,

but I do. The post title is untrue, the President did not defend the Iraq war. That makes it dishonest, at least as the word dishonest is generally understood.
The US did seek to work within the international system and the Bush administration did argue that previous Security Council resolutions allowed the war in Iraq. The President, to his credit, did not make that claim.
We did not grab Iraq's resources for our own gain. In fact we elected a President who ended the war in Iraq and did not use it's oil to fund the war. That same President is the one being dishonestly attacked here for daring to mention the Iraq war.

[TheKentuckian]

119. Actually, it is probably an even tougher vote

The accusations of putting the troops in danger are extreme in such votes.

It is easier to say no than to say stop and I mean stop and I pulling the fucking plug in our politics.

[fascisthunter]

21. I Read an Article on Esquire about a Similar Sentiment

Obama really should have something else.

Geezus...I need to take a break. I can't even remember where I read what from. Anyways, it was Esquire.

[BeyondGeography]

23. Recycling, that's hot

[NYC Liberal]

26. He didn't defend it. The author is either an idiot or a liar.

[Rex]

31. All he had to do was say we were w-w-w-w-w-r-r-o-n-g.

And that two wrongs never make a right. Our invasion of Iraq was wrong and Russia using it as a lame excuse to invade is wrong too. EOM.

There was no reason to make excuses for the BFEE. They fucked it all up and Obama got us out.

[red dog 1]

61. + 1

[Kahuna]

32. He didn't do that.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

34. Um. Okay, I give up. Where did he defend the Iraq War? Here?: "Now, it is true that the...

"Now, it is true that the Iraq war was a subject of vigorous debate, not just around the world but in the United States, as well. I participated in that debate, and I opposed our military intervention there."

Is that where he defended the Iraq War? I'm just a TAD confused, as you can see.

[glowing]

35. Yikes, people really do lack education...

The President was doing a compare/ contrast over the actions the US took in Iraq. In ways it was similar, but in ways that it was also different and has differing end results. We used to have to do these compare/ contrast models and papers starting out in the 6th grade.

Or, once again, we have insane politics that say they want reality and a real mess to them, yet we have reporters and pundits still trying to bumper sticker and box in politicians who are speaking in length to an issue. I guess everyone has an agenda; that in the end results in everyone seeming to lose!

[Skittles]

113. perhaps you could educate yourself how to use a semicolon

you know, as long as you are tossing insults around

[glowing]

115. guess that's what I get after posting and being up for 24 hrs working...

Barely coherent takes over at some point...

It's awful hard to enforce other's listen to the international community, when you yourself has just come off of a decade long invasion into a country everyone told you to stay out of.

On the other hand, he was doing a compare/ contrast type of model.

[Skittles]

116. I do the 24 hour thing quite frequently too

I know how it goes (for example, yesterday I sent an email with sheer comma abuse - I cringed, reading it today)

[gcomeau]

36. He didn't.

He specifically pointed out he was opposed to the entire thing.


There is a massive fucking difference between pointing out that what Russia is doing and what the US did is VERY DIFFERENT and "defending the Iraq War".

[berni_mccoy]

37. So, Salon: "What Obama Said Was True".

[Spitfire of ATJ]

38. Funny,....I thought he was telling Putin he should have faked it before the UN like we did.

[fleabiscuit]

48. HaHa. Or at least be rejected by the UN first. n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

51. Or, as Tweedy said in 'Gangs of New York',...

"The appearance of the law must be upheld,...ESPECIALLY while it's being broken."

[pam4water]

40. Hay you know what he could have done. Prosecute the war criminals who got us in to

that mess. Then he'd have a moral leg to stand on. But, no, we had to, "Look a head."

[brett_jv]

53. Riiiiight ... first-ever Black President charges into the WH like a Bull in a China Shop ...

And immediately tells his (also Black) AG to start ringing up charges for War Crimes against the previous outgoing Presidential Administration, with our troops still on this ground in this other country ... something that's NEVER EVER even REMOTELY been done in the history of these United States ... and you think that would've WORKED?

I mean, SHOULD it work? Yes, of course. But WOULD IT, as a practical matter? You and I and all of us KNOW it would've been an absolute freaking disaster for his Presidency. Not the least factor/reason being ... the charges would've been very difficult to make stick. You think Bushco utterly failed to CYA? C'mon, these are professional criminals.

It's also important to note that Democrats also just happened to fully control both Houses of Congress for the first time at that exact same moment, since what, 1992? If anyone SHOULD have actually taken these sorts of steps towards holding BushCo responsible, it should've been the longstanding Leaders of the Democrats in Congress, not BHO.

What's that you say? ALmost all of THEM actually SUPPORTED and voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq?

Therein, as they say, lies the rub.

Any 'fair' assessment of the situation in 2008 irrefutably points to the idea that 'prosecuting' these war criminals in Bushco was NOT an option under the circumstances.

What we all wanted to 'see happen' back then ... was simply something that is NOT DONE in this Country. Ever.

[pam4water]

59. Pfft

[FiveGoodMen]

108. If there's some inescapable reason why a black president couldn't get done what we needed done

then we shouldn't have elected one.

[TheKentuckian]

120. I find it kind of racist to imply that a black President can only be caretaker/enabler.

Us black folks when we break in best just shuck, jive, and dance along to the tune being played, I reckon.

Only a white person can change the beat. We are just here for the token glass breaking and can't be expected to do what is good, right, and above all else fucking necessary.

[FiveGoodMen]

122. Agreed.

But I'd stand by my point that IF the realpolitik of the moment would prevent anyone -- for ANY reason -- from carrying out the job, then you get someone who CAN do it.

(I don't really think that Obama's race has anything to do with the lack of progress in this country. I just think his goals are somewhat different than many wish to believe)

[TheKentuckian]

125. Gotcha, I would agree pretty fully with that statement.

I have no doubt the racists would be at a fevered pitch, they are any way. Fuck em. If Obama went after BushCo. hammer and tongs no one would cry foul save the Bush league fucks who as we see intended to put on the full court press from jump.

[Orangepeel]

42. It isn't a defense of the war.

It says Russia is calling the US hypocritical, but
1. A lot of us were against it
2. We weren't as bad as you anyhow
3. At least we're out now

It's certainly a person's right to wish he'd called out bush &co as war criminals (although that obviously wasn't going to happen).

But he clearly ISN'T saying that the war was right, or necessary, or smart, or justified or a good idea.

[bvar22]

45. Salon ?????

THAT ignorant, racist, Right Wing rag???!!!!

The GAUL they have!
Repeating exactly what President Obama said!!!


BTW: Does anyone here know that the Obama Administration requested to STAY in Iraq after the Bush SOFA Iraq expired?

I give President Obama HIGH marks for actually leaving Iraq when the Iraqi Parliament told the USA,
"No. You guys really, REALLY need to GTFO of here NOW!".

[WillyT]

46. LOL !!! - Yep... We Get "Credit" For Leaving, After We Were TOLD To Go...

[creeksneakers2]

77. Obama only wanted

to leave behind a small number of troops. It wasn't like he planned to extend the war. They would have been there just for training Iraqis.

[magical thyme]

117. thank you for the reminder. I'd forgotten that.

But I do distinctly remember that President Obama did try to stay in Iraq and it was Iraq who said no.

[Gothmog]

56. President Obama distinguished the Iraq war from the situation in Crimea

Remember that President Obama is a lawyer and a law professor. What President Obama did in his speech was to distinguish the Iraq war from the situation in Crimea. Here is a simplified explanation of this concept. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/distinguish

Distinguish
To set apart as being separate or different; to point out an essential disparity.

To distinguish one case from another case means to show the dissimilarities between the two. It means to prove a case that is cited as applicable to the case currently in dispute is really inapplicable because the two cases are different.

The Iraq war is a very different situation compared to the conduct of Russia in annexing Crimea. In his speech, President Obama did not defend the Iraq war but merely explained why the Iraq war was not relevant to the conduct of Russia in annexing Crimea.

As a lawyer, there is a huge difference here.

[bvar22]

76. If you are trying to say that "Lawyers" heard him differently....

... well Good for YOU and your little club!!!.

This is NOT a "Lawyer Issue".
This is not even a DU issue.

President Obama spoke to The WORLD,
and The WORLD heard him pretty much the same way
the majority of DUers did,
and all the fury of the ...But we ARE exceptional denial postings at DU aren't going top be able to change THAT.

[Gothmog]

80. Lawyers are not the only ones who heard President Obama differently

I am not alone in my observation.

Again, as a lawyer it is clear that President Obama was not defending the Iraq war but distinguishing it from Russia's actions in Crimea. Both legally and in the real world, there is a great deal of difference

[Gothmog]

101. I listened President Obama's comments live on my car radio when he made the speech

I admit that I am a lawyer but I did not hear a defense of the Iraq war but the normal response of a lawyer (remember President Obama is a lawyer and a law professor) who distinguished the Iraq war from the actions of Russia in Crimea. President Obama's comments were not a defense of the Iraq war and I am really confused by the comments who believe that President Obama was defending the Iraq war.

Words have meanings and the words used by President Obama did not constitute a defense of the war in Iraq.

[bvar22]

102. Well, as you were driving in your car listening to the radio,

did you hear any statements by President Obama that were embarrassingly FALSE?

Statements like:
"America sought to work within the international system."
Yeah, and then invaded anyway when told "NO" by the UN.

OR

"We did not grab its resources for our own gain."
What did you think when he said THAT?
EVERYBODY in The World KNOWS that grabbing their OIL was a primary Marketing Bullet Point FOR the Invasion.
"The Oil will pay for the War"!!!
The American Public never saw a penny of that,
but the American Based Oil Corporations sure got richer.


Personally, I was deeply embarrassed by this pedestrian attempt to WhiteWash our involvement in Iraq.
And remember, he was talking to an International Audience...
people who are much better informed that the average lawyer driving along in his car listening to the radio.

[Gothmog]

104. Yes, I heard the entire speech

Your analysis is simply wrong. President Obama presented facts that are true even if you disagree with these facts. I personally think that bush, cheney, rice and rumsfeld lied to the American people about the reasons for the war in Iraq but these lies do not change the fact that the Iraq invasion is very different under international law compared to the annexation of Crimea by Russia. The US did work with the UN on this invasion compared to the complete lack of concern by Putin concerning international law. That is a difference.

As to the real reason for the war, you need to look at the facts. The US did not steal the mineral wealth of Iraq. Such mineral wealth remains the property of Iraq. The Iraqi people and government are getting the benefit of the oil sales. Do you know who is really benefiting from the redevelopment of the Iraqi oil fields? It is not the US. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/world/middleeast/china-reaps-biggest-benefits-of-iraq-oil-boom.html?pagewanted=all

Before the invasion, Iraq’s oil industry was sputtering, largely walled off from world markets by international sanctions against the government of Saddam Hussein, so his overthrow always carried the promise of renewed access to the country’s immense reserves. Chinese state-owned companies seized the opportunity, pouring more than $2 billion a year and hundreds of workers into Iraq, and just as important, showing a willingness to play by the new Iraqi government’s rules and to accept lower profits to win contracts.....

Chinese companies do not have to answer to shareholders, pay dividends or even generate profits. They are tools of Beijing’s foreign policy of securing a supply of energy for its increasingly prosperous and energy hungry population. “We don’t have any problems with them,” said Abdul Mahdi al-Meedi, an Iraqi Oil Ministry official who handles contracts with foreign oil companies. “They are very cooperative. There’s a big difference, the Chinese companies are state companies, while Exxon or BP or Shell are different.”

Chinese oil companies are accepting lower or no profits for developing Iraqi oil and the US companies are not able to compete. US oil companies are not profiting from the Iraqi invasion. There was no annexation of these resources as compared to Crimea annexation by Russia.

This is not all bad because oil is fungible and more oil on the international market is good for the world.

Look, the actual words of President Obama's address in Belgium are true and the Iraqi invasion is very different under international law compared to the complete annexation of Crimea by Russia. In the legal world, facts and words actually matter. Here the facts are clear and your claims are not correct

[phleshdef]

105. The world is also full of morons who don't do nuance... which is why the right wins anything at all.

And I don't believe you speak for the majority of DUers.

Anyone claiming he was defending or excusing the Iraq war either misunderstood or are being purposefully dishonest in an attempt to grasp onto yet another strawman argument in their never ending quest to delegitimize Barack Obama as a progressive minded person.

[bvar22]

107. Oh...and YOU speak for the majority of DUers?

Now THAT is funny!

Anyone who doesn't think that Obama was trying to White Washing our involvement in Iraq
[font size=3]"either misunderstood or are being purposefully dishonest in an attempt to grasp onto yet another strawman argument in their never ending quest to make President Obama look like something even HE denies."[/font]
See how THAT works?
and thanks for saving me the trouble.

[Gothmog]

109. Russia has 50,000 to 100,000 troops on the eastern border of Ukraine

The purpose of this speech was not to make people who hate the Iraq war happy but to refute Putin's arguments concerning the annexation of Crimea and to hopefully build support among our European allies to deter Putin from invading and taking the eastern portion of Ukraine.

President Obama refuted Putin's arguments and our European allies seem to be united. Hopefully, Putin will not use his 50,000 to 100,000 troops to take the eastern portion of Ukraine.

[TheKentuckian]

123. Distinction: Orders of magnitude worse and more stupid.

It would have been better to annex Iraq than to take it, destabilize it, put in a client government, and give the resources to the international corporate vultures to spoil.

Why at least then we'd actually serve our own interests instead of spending blood and treasure for jackapple shit while leaving the Iraqi people in a world of shit.

I also don't doubt we actually helped foment the instability in Crimea in significant ways to benefit the aims of the same crowd or looked the other way while they did so themselves, if nothing else.

[blkmusclmachine]

62. ,

,

[Octafish]

69. Why? Money trumps peace.

Gotta do what ya gotta do.

http://www.gregpalast.com/how-george-bush-won-the-war-in-iraq-really/

[go west young man]

73. Whether it was about resources or not...

one thing remains a proven fact. The Vice President of the United States enriched himself fully through his Halliburton no bid contracts and stock. In the end it looks like it was about making themselves rich off the misfortune and deaths of the innocent Iraqi people. The fact Obama didn't want to go after these criminals has hurt his presidency. The United States still has not had a reckoning for it's nefarious actions. That is the core of the problem. And where the heart of the hypocrisy debate lies.

Russia going into a region that considers itself Russian is not even close to what we did. The level of killing and suffering is astronomically against us in this simple debate. Until we have a thorough house cleaning and a global apology and admit to the world that our leaders knowingly lied, no one of conscience will take our "struggle for democracy and fight for freedom" seriously again...unless of course they are paid off.

These points are the undercurrent of what is at issue with Obama's speech. He does have to defend it, sadly..because he is the president of the United States and our hands aren't clean.

[rumdude]

74. Because he's smart

He's distinguishing the war in Iraq from Russia's invasion of Crimea.

[Skittles]

83. no

because he already said we had to LOOK FORWARD and give a pass to those lying, warmongering criminals - now he perceives himself as having to make excuses for it

Obama is extremely intelligent but he is boxed in a corner with this garbage

[darkangel218]

79. I watched the speech Live. All i got out of it is that US sought UN aproval and

We didn't annex Iraq / Afghanistan to our map.

I may be wrong, but I don't think he was trying to make excuses.
Like I said, I might be wrong. Just stating my impression.

[Vattel]

88. Obama has defended the Iraq war in other speeches, but not this one.

He was suggesting that the Russian invasion was worse in certain respects pertaining to international law.

[jeff47]

96. Why did Al Gore claim he invented the Internet?

Oh wait...he didn't?

Almost like Obama didn't defend the Iraq war. But everyone knows he did.

[Ichingcarpenter]

103. Many Smart people saw that he fucked up no matter

what the spin after the fact.

[Gothmog]

111. Russia has 50,000 to 100,000 troops on the eastern border of Ukraine

The purpose of this speech was not to make people who hate the Iraq war happy but to refute Putin's arguments concerning the annexation of Crimea and to hopefully build support among our European allies to deter Putin from invading and taking the eastern portion of Ukraine.

President Obama refuted Putin's arguments and our European allies seem to be united. Hopefully, Putin will not use his 50,000 to 100,000 troops to take the eastern portion of Ukraine.

[Ichingcarpenter]

112. the story is about Iraq

Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic.

This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.


See disinformation number 17

http://www.globalresearch.ca/twenty-five-rules-of-disinformation/24889

[Gothmog]

114. No the purpose of President Obama's speech was not Iraq but Putin and Crimea

Russia has already annexed Crimea. Russia has 50,000 to 100,000 troops on the eastern border of Ukraine. The purpose and the subject of President Obama's speech in Brussels was not Iraq but to refute the justifications being used by Putin to justify the annexation of Crimea. Putin was using the Iraq war as a justification for his actions in Crimea and perhaps for his invasion of the eastern portion of Ukraine.

President Obama's speech was for the purpose of dealing with Putin's weak arguments and to rally support of our European allies so as to deter Putin from invading the eastern portion of Ukraine. President Obama's speech was not designed to make Iraq war haters happy but to stop further actions by Russia.

[mvd]

121. As said why not frame it as two wrongs don't make a right

What President Obama said was really just technicalities - we invaded a country who was no threat and we used ground troops - we pretty much did mold Iraq our way. And we did take their oil to the international market when we really had no right to it. It made the rich richer and did not lower prices like some thought. While the majorities of Iraqis did not want Hussein, the majority wanted to handle their own situation. It just made our invasion sound better when it really was not.