So, Obama Should Say: "We invaded Iraq, so we cannot say anything about Russia." Really?!?!

[Yavin4]

If so, he could also say, America once had legal slavery, so we cannot tell other nations that slavery is bad.

How utterly absurd some of you have become. The DU Obama hatred is rapidly approaching Tea Party delusional thinking stage. Congrats.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. I'm all for kicking out of DEMOCRATIC Underground anyone who's not for DEMOCRATIC Party

candidates.

[Igel]

16. What's President Obama running for?

He's not a candidate.

If we're to be bound to agree with everybody with a (D) after his or her name, it's going to be really, really hard whenever there's a disagreement between two elected officials. We have to be for both of them. Time to severe that ol' corpus callosum and let the two hemispheres declare intellectual independence, I guess.

And what about when there are primaries, when we must simultaneously wholeheartedly agree with and claim as 100% correct two (D) who are running against each other. Or even more, in hotly contested primaries? We're for them ... But if you try to vote for all of them, that'll land you in legal hot water.

What do we do with speech errors? One of Obama's when he was a candidate was he visited 57 states and still had a few more to go to. Woo-hoo! A Democratic candidate says there are at least 59 states in the US, take that, you stupid (R). It'll make it that much easier since we have delegates from 9 states they don't even know about. Or is it okay to criticize a candidate for an obvious speech error? Or, perhaps, deny that they ever happened. Sort of a purge of the record?

[Thinkingabout]

53. She said Democratic Party, we will be having elections in 2014 and 2016, we

Do not need the RW spin, it does not elect Democrats.

[Scuba]

75. How about left-wing spin? You know, condemning an illegal war, stuff like that?

[Thinkingabout]

76. I would prefer to use energy on the 2014 elections to elect Democrats rather

Than continuing to fight a war in which has been determined was not a good choice, what are you going to change? I am concerned with the war on women, to get a Democrat majority, have a Democrat president in order to have Demoratic leaning judges to curtail the radical RW.

[Scuba]

78. So you think it hurts Democrats to stand up for ideals like not entering into illegal wars?

'Cause I think it helps, but that's just me.

[Thinkingabout]

79. What ilegal war are you talking about?

[Scuba]

81. Any illegal war.

[Thinkingabout]

83. Tell me how this is going to entice votes for Democrats?

[Scuba]

84. Most Democratic voters have strong feelings about illegal wars. Opposing them is good politics.

[Go Vols]

96. +1

[Thinkingabout]

99. Let's say you are coaching a football game, there is a call you do not agree with, your team loses

by a close score. the game ends, the crowds leave and you decide you want to continue the game and take a football, run out on the field, run for a touchdown. Does your touchdown change the score of the game or does it remain? You still have strong feelings about the game but you can't change the score for this particular game. Next year you recruit new members for your team, train and practice and hope for better results and perhaps beat the team which you just suffered a loss. Or you could continue your strong feelings, feel defeated, relive this game over and over because you thought there was an illegal call. Which one would you choose?

[Scuba]

100. Worst analogy ever. Let's try to fix that ....

Let's say you are coaching a football game, there is a call you do not agree with, your team loses, but you learn the refs have been bribed. They rigged the game so you had no chance to win.

Worse, because you lost, all the starters on your team have to die, and all your subs have to be horribly maimed. In addition, a million fans whatching in the stands and at home on TV also have to die. Also, your community has to go bankrupt to pay the bribes to the refs.

You really want to play again next season?

[Thinkingabout]

101. If your world remains in the past, then this is where you will remain, I choose

To wake up everyday thinking this will be the best day of my life. I refuse to carry the past but look to a better future. Bye

[Scuba]

102. He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it.

[fascisthunter]

82. Hahahaha

[Nanjing to Seoul]

19. Country before party. When the president is right, I support him. When the president is wrong

I lambast him. Same with Republicans. If those people did anything right, I would support it. Country before party.

As for this issue. . .it seems to be much ado over nothing. Will Pitt says something. All us old timers here know Will Pitt is a bomb thrower. I agree with him about 60% of the time. I don't this time.

But when he was writing the Crisis Papers back in the early days of DU, it was normal for him to throw bombs. So did Plaid Adder.

[leftynyc]

45. I don't think anyone would disagree

with what you posted about heat coming when the President has done something wrong. But saying he was defending the Iraq war was an outright lie - I expect better from Democrats. Calling him a used car salesman was so far over the top it is ridiculous. Bomb throwers are likely insecure people who need attention - I respond by ignoring them.

[RandoLoodie]

58. I think Stalin said something like that once

[stevenleser]

62. I think Stalin died 48 years before DU existed & 16 years before the first Arpanet linked computers

Arpanet being the predecessor to the internet.

[RandoLoodie]

68. ok

thanks for the random factoid that had nothing to do with my observation.

[stevenleser]

69. I can totally understand you wanting to back away from your silly comparison.

The person to whom you responded said "I'm all for kicking out of DEMOCRATIC Underground anyone who's not for DEMOCRATIC Party"

to which you responded "I think Stalin said something like that once"

So, yeah, my response pretty much had everything to do with your silly comment.

[RandoLoodie]

70. i read the initial comment

and the word "cleansing" started poking about in my head.

Ideological purity, true believerism, whatnot.

Have a blessed day.

[tkmorris]

90. I don't think it did Steven

Your comment boiled down to "Yeah, but that was a long time ago", which is true, but isn't really relevant. The same reasons it was alarming when Stalin said it hold true today. Of course, you have to also believe that the comments are closely similar, and I think if the post you responded to had a weakness that was probably it, not the timing.

[stevenleser]

97. Of course it did and the problems with the statement are much greater. I was being nice.

We can start with the logical fallacy anytime one attempts to compare something to historical bad dictators like Stalin and Hitler. This ridiculous type of guilt by association fallacy is bad enough before we address the anachronism of associating and contrasting suggested DU policy to Stalin.

[LanternWaste]

80. Stalin also said, "good morning..." once.

Stalin also said, "good morning..." once. Have you ever said 'good morning'?

(Insert distinction without a difference here 'ere self-validation is lost...)

[NoOneMan]

71. DemocraticAboveGroundDoNotCritisizeLoyaltyPledgeRequired.com

It's available! Buy it buy it buy it!

[giftedgirl77]

2. Welcome to the party

It's insanity...

[BrainMann1]

3. Let me say this

Christians and DU'ers are harder on themselves that anyone.

[polichick]

4. We have no leg to stand on with regard to Iraq - better not to mention it.

[Squinch]

13. Not his style. He's more of a "here's the elephant in the room, let's acknowledge it" guy.

I actually think that's the better strategy. He did what he could to make a distinction, and I don't think he was justifying the Iraq war at all. I thought he was very clear that he didn't think it was acceptable.

I also think that the visual of him talking about Iraq underscores to the rest of the world that we are not the same country that invaded Iraq any more.

He, and we as a country, are in a corner about this. He did what he could to answer Putin saying, "well they did it first."

[MirrorAshes]

35. 100% agreed

It puts us in an uncomfortable position, but one we still have to take to have any credibility against Russia in this debate. Iraq will always be a terrible page in our history and Obama did not run away from that-- but he cannot allow Putin to twist our mistake into justification for his own actions.

Uncomfortable, yes. Also... Presidential.

[Squinch]

43. .

I disagree with him on many things. (I work in schools and his school policy is truly a disaster.) But I like the guy, I think he's following his ethics as much as he can in an office which doesn't allow much following of one's own ethics.

We have seen the alternative and we know what that looks like. So I am grateful every day it's Obama making that speech and not Romney.

[polichick]

48. If you're going to talk about the elephant, then don't bullshit...

Say it like it is: two wrongs don't make a right.

[Squinch]

50. That's essentially what he did say. But he also said that the two wrongs were different. Which they

are.

Also, I don't think "two wrongs don't make a right" would have been an appropriate way to word it in that venue.

[polichick]

61. Yeah, here's the difference: the U.S. did one, Russia did the other.

[Squinch]

63. OK, but he's pretty much saying what you want him to say, though in more

diplomatic-situation-appropriate language.

[polichick]

64. "diplomatic-situation-appropriate language" = bullshit

[Squinch]

66. Why don't you send him a note with the verbiage you'd prefer him to use to say the same thing that

he DID say. I'm sure that will help.

[polichick]

67. Where did he say "The U.S. was wrong to invade Iraq?" That's what this...

country has to admit. It's fine that he, prior to being president, was against the invasion - but he speaks for the country now. We, as a country, have not admitted our huge mistake and faced justice. He needs to send a few other American leaders to The Hague.

[treestar]

5. Plus we can be pretty sure that saying nothing

would have resulted in "Why hasn't Obama said anything about Russia invading the Ukraine? Why isn't he defending the Ukraine?"

[truebrit71]

6. No. He should have said, just like Iraq, the action is Crimea was wrong.

See how easy that was?

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Can you link to a post that says this?

Thanks.

[jeff47]

23. There's a dozen or so in Will's latest screed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024734511

Such as this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4735883

[Cha]

8. No, that's stupid thinking.. especially since State Senator Obama was totally against it.

[NOVA_Dem]

9. How about "our mistakes don't justify your mistakes."

Instead Obama posited that the Iraq invasion had more legitimacy than the annexation of Crimea. Which is total bullshit. The US lied/cooked intelligence to steal oil, killed thousands of innocent people, and used weapons that caused horrifying birth defects on par with Hiroshima.

[rhett o rick]

11. Are you whining about DU? What is it, like five threads a day? You guys

are not helping the effort to win in 2014.

[CatWoman]

12. that's my way of thinking

[Progressive dog]

14. I agree

[GeorgeGist]

15. You call this an invasion?

?20140325

[quinnox]

17. No, but maybe have the guts to say the invasion of Iraq was wrong, instead of

saying weasel words about it. It is true it would have been an act of political courage. Ah well, maybe the next president will have the cajones to say it.

[840high]

20. I hope so, too.

[hack89]

94. Do women have cajones? nt

[bobduca]

18. false equivalence is fun

[Skittles]

25. I'd give 'em points for not giving up

except they're getting more and more ridiculous

[bobduca]

29. "Some People" clearly have no issues with Smear Merchants

[morningfog]

21. DU Obama hatred. LOL bullshit. He didn't need to try and justify the invasion.

Of course, that is what happens when you cover for the predecessor.

[Skittles]

24. absolutely correct

[leftynyc]

46. More bullshit

He didn't try and justify anything. Just pointed out the differences. It's hard to have a normal conversation around here these days due to people completely misrepresenting what the President said.

[morningfog]

49. He didn't have to say what he said.

He said Iraq was different and that our invasion was mitigated and not as bad as Russia in Crimea. That is just bullshit. We killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Our invasion was illegal. That we "tried" to invade with international support, in the end we did not have it. That we didn't annex the place does not make our war better or justified.

Obama embraced the hypocrisy charge and doubled down. He could have said dozens of things that could have answered the hypocrisy charge without justifying or mitigating the Iraq war. Better yet, we could just quit trying to act like we have any moral superiority, because we don't.

[leftynyc]

55. Just stop

He didn't mitigate anything. Just pointed out the differences. I'm through trying to converse with someone who can't tell the truth about what the President ACTUALLY said and not how they interpret it.

[morningfog]

56. You are interpreting too. Kindly don't tell me when to stop.

He most certainly did mitigate it, suggesting that our illegal invasion was not as bad. Stupid and unnecessary thing to say.

[GiveMeMorePIE]

22. If the people upset with that speech had one of their picks in power,

Russia would run roughshod over the entirety of Europe.

So whatever President Obama has to say, and it was actually an incredible speech, to deal with this Russian-caused crisis, he should say it and tell the armchair quarterbacks to take a leap.

[bobduca]

26. Pizza Pie?

[Cha]

30. Welcome to DU.. GiveMeMorePIE.. never mind the

Last edited Fri Mar 28, 2014, 12:15 AM - Edit history (1)

the insult from the one who didn't like what you had to say.

[GiveMeMorePIE]

36. Thank you.

I've been on the Internet a long time, but I've never seen pizza pie used as an insult.

That's pretty cool.

[Cha]

37. LOL..

Sorry.. it stuck me funny.

You see the story of the pizza "pie" is this.. in the ol days of DU when a member got banned he/she was tombstoned or served a pizza.

crazy I know..Rofl

[morningfog]

27. He should have said, the Iraq invasion was illegal.

But that doesn't make Crimea right. Obama chose to mitigate, distinguish and argue that Iraq wasn't as bad.

But ask yourself, how many did the US kill in out illegal action and how many has Russia killed? Obama screwed the pooch on this one an it is because he refused to take any action against the bush administration.

[snooper2]

28. some people aren't real bright

but we still have to deal with them online

[Skittles]

31. yes, like people who cannot distinguish between trolls and legitimate criticism

they truly lack critical thinking skills

[mindwalker_i]

32. No, he should say...

man, that was fucked up. We invaded a country based on lies. We went to the UN, they said we were full of shit, then did it anyway. We tortured people, we killed 100s of thousands, we used chemical weapons, we used depleted uranium and poisoned the place.

Those were war crimes and people need to be prosecuted.

That's what he should say.

then, after we've taken care of our own abuses, we can talk about other countries and their war crimes. Until then, it's like the Nazi's complaining that someone is an asshole.

[Cha]

33. Yeah, the head hater has an ugly con site jerking off..

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

[fleabiscuit]

34. The dick over there didn't even link back.

Why did you?

[stevenleser]

65. We here at DU usually demand proof in the form of links. If Cha hadn't added it she would have been

asked for it.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

38. He could have been saying, "My administration prosecuted war criminals in the US"

But of course, he wanted to look forward. That comes at a price.

[JVS]

39. +1

[JoeyT]

40. No, he should prosecute torture and war crimes.

His unwillingness to hold Republicans responsible for their crimes is not my fault. He painted himself into that corner. I didn't run around with hordes of people demanding people not be prosecuted, then reverse positions the second it became obvious he wasn't going to do it.

That he has to minimize what a mess the war in Iraq was to claim the moral authority to criticize Putin just shows what a mistake not holding criminals accountable was.

[Tarheel_Dem]

41. +1. Teabaggers or Firebaggers. Who the hell can tell the difference these days?

Make no mistake, their goal is the same, and actually runs counter to the mission of this board.

[Hissyspit]

42. No.

But congratulations for falsely dichotomous thinking.

[bemildred]

44. Yeah, who needs credibility anyway? nt

[The Magistrate]

47. More To The Point, Perhaps, My Friend

Who has any?

The man is being held responsible for a policy he opposed, as people press a 'you did it too' line against criticism of Putin's actions in Crimea.

It is largely because Mr. Obama spoke out early against the Iraq war that he is President today.

I expect it rankles him a bit that, when he says Putin is wrong for seizing Crimea and threatening invasion of Ukraine, people say 'you guys went into Iraq, what's the difference?' Had he had his druthers, we would not have invaded Iraq. President Obama does, in fact, have all necessary moral authority therefore for denouncing Putin's imperialist actions.

But since he embodies the institution of government for the United States, he is subject to accusation based on that government's previous actions, and he must to some degree respond to such criticism, and do so without calling into overmuch discredit the government he currently embodies, in order to press the policy he thinks proper at present in the face of the current situation in central Europe.

Not really much else he could do....

[bemildred]

51. I can see that side of it.

And i do sympathize. I'm not calling Obama any names.

And if he were to do as I wish, there would be the prospect of war crimes trials and all that would entail, so I do see that he cannot do much else without "feeding the fire" so to speak. And politically, I don't know what would happen then, but I do know it would be ugly.

However, in international affairs, if one wants to lead, one must have credibility, one must keep ones actions and speech somewhat in line. That is the problem here, and it's not an Obama problem, but it is a problem that Obama has.

[The Magistrate]

52. Just One More Illustration, Sir, That Sometimes There Is Just No Good Choice To Hand

Someone who cannot take a strong stand for taupe against charcoal grey has no business commenting on much of anything beyond football scores.

[riqster]

77. Ahem. Charcoal Grey is far superior to taupe.

How could anyone endorse taupe? J'accuse!

En garde!








(Yes, I am kidding.)

[MineralMan]

87. I reject both hues, in favor of puce.

A man who will not wear puce cannot be a good man.

[riqster]

88. Harrumph. For puce-ists, we move from épée to broadswords!

I stand firmly for truth, justice, and the charcoal way!

[MineralMan]

89. I shun the wearers of charcoal and eschew those who

resort to other common hues, such as taupe or the so-called "Navy" blue. It is puce for me or nakedness, and I assure you that nobody will enjoy uncovering my nakedness. I will yield my puce garments to no man.

[riqster]

91. Eet eez var, now. Zee puce-inistas are inzidiouz adezareez.

Vee zhall give no qvarter to our nefariouz adverzareez whoze motherz smell of elderberrieeeeez!

[MineralMan]

92. I scoff at your threat and say:

[riqster]

93. Cow coming over the ramparts in 3...2....1....

Ha-ha, you Puce-ish Pig-dog! Go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

[MineralMan]

95. You have my thanks. My cow died early this morning,

and I am quite peckish for a glass of milk. Now, if the cow you send me dies on impact, I shall feast on a joint from it. In either case, I am in your debt.

To repay that debt, I am launching a lovely puce singlet in return for your bovine gift.

Good day, sirrah.

[Squinch]

59. Perfectly stated.

[CJCRANE]

54. I can understand all sides of the argument.

I can understand why Putin saw an opportunity and thought annexing Crimea was the right thing to do after the Ukrainian president was run out of town.

I can also understand why America and Europe don't like what Putin did and want to make sure he doesn't do it again.

I can also understand why Obama glossed over the Iraq War when trying to bring together a coalition in Europe to act against Putin.

I can also understand why people are angry that he glossed over the Iraq War.

There are a number of valid viewpoints.

On the geopolitical front I would prefer if America, Europe and Russia de-escalate the situation and work together on other issues that need to be dealt with.

[WinkyDink]

57. No; he should have said, "Putin should have asked for UN permission!"

[Doctor_J]

60. Or, "The Iraq invasion was probably illegal, certainly a financial and humanitarian disaster,

and will stain the standing of the US for decades. We're trying to put it behind us."

He didn't have to lie.

[Demo_Chris]

72. Yes, that's how credibility works...

And minimizing our own transgressions does not help.

[Orsino]

73. There needs to be an acknowledgment of our failure.

However, no US president for the next twenty years (if ever) is going to come right out and say that we did all that killing and dying just to enrich the robber barons. Too many rich old men will have to expire before there is officially a perspective anywhere near the truth. That means we have to grit our teeth or do our grousing on our own.

We have a right to demand the reckoning, but we have no right to expect it will happen. None.

[MrScorpio]

74. The Obama rules are always in effect around here

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. Perhaps he should consider getting another speech writer.

Does that qualify as "constructive criticism"?

[Gothmog]

86. 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.

[TheKentuckian]

98. No, it is absurd to think objections about Russia's actions cannot be articulated without polishing

that Turd.

The only reason is a lame defense of brazen hypocrisy as our war criminals are banging the drums on the TV perhaps as we speak with just the mention of accountability brings scoffing and derision from even their supposed enemies that scream and scream about how awful these folks are until it is time for justice or even meaningful change of heading and then the tune changes and the wagons start rolling in a circular direction and the all they ever did not just tolerable but wise and just with decorative legal touches that leave the stinking meat intact.

Iraq is not history, the perps are hanging around and not without considerable influence and wealth. Erosion of credibility is real, I'm sure we didn't have much influence lecturing on slavery in 1867 either, you build that up over time with different actions.

Hell, we are in other countries right now and it is a damn flimsy pretext to pretend nobility because instead of planting the stars and stripes we just capture and hold for corporate logos instead.