Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: POTUS Did NOT Defend The Iraq War [View all]xchrom
(108,903 posts)21. Obama Suddenly Defends U.S. Invasion of Iraq—Mainstream Media Shrug{& DUers}
http://www.thenation.com/blog/179045/obama-suddenly-defends-us-invasion-iraq-mainstream-media-shrug
***SNIP
Obama's tortured reasoning and twisting of (or making up) facts yesterday were reviewed in a good accounting by Huff Post's Ryan Grim here and critics on the Left here and here. Grim:
Obama struggled, however, in his attempt to defend the legality of the invasion. The war was unsanctioned by the United Nations, and many experts assert it violated any standard reading of international law. But, argued Obama, at least the U.S. tried to make it legal. "America sought to work within the international system," Obama said, referencing an attempt to gain U.N. approval for the invasion -- an effort that later proved to be founded on flawed, misleading and cherry-picked intelligence. The man who delivered the presentation to the U.N., then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, has repeatedly called it a "blot" on his record.
Obama, in his speech, noted his own opposition to the war, but went on to defend its mission.
"We did not claim or annex Iraq's territory. We did not grab its resources for our own gain," Obama argued. In fact, the U.S. forced Iraq to privatize its oil industry, which had previously been under the control of the state, and further required that it accept foreign ownership of the industry. The effort to transfer the resources to the control of multinational, largely U.S.-based oil companies has been hampered in part by the decade of violence unleashed by the invasion.
In a New York Times op-ed this week, our recent ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, wrote, As ambassador, I found it difficult to defend our commitment to sovereignty and international law when asked by Russians, What about Iraq? Apparently Obama felt the need to respond, even if with untruths.
***SNIP
Obama's tortured reasoning and twisting of (or making up) facts yesterday were reviewed in a good accounting by Huff Post's Ryan Grim here and critics on the Left here and here. Grim:
Obama struggled, however, in his attempt to defend the legality of the invasion. The war was unsanctioned by the United Nations, and many experts assert it violated any standard reading of international law. But, argued Obama, at least the U.S. tried to make it legal. "America sought to work within the international system," Obama said, referencing an attempt to gain U.N. approval for the invasion -- an effort that later proved to be founded on flawed, misleading and cherry-picked intelligence. The man who delivered the presentation to the U.N., then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, has repeatedly called it a "blot" on his record.
Obama, in his speech, noted his own opposition to the war, but went on to defend its mission.
"We did not claim or annex Iraq's territory. We did not grab its resources for our own gain," Obama argued. In fact, the U.S. forced Iraq to privatize its oil industry, which had previously been under the control of the state, and further required that it accept foreign ownership of the industry. The effort to transfer the resources to the control of multinational, largely U.S.-based oil companies has been hampered in part by the decade of violence unleashed by the invasion.
In a New York Times op-ed this week, our recent ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, wrote, As ambassador, I found it difficult to defend our commitment to sovereignty and international law when asked by Russians, What about Iraq? Apparently Obama felt the need to respond, even if with untruths.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
122 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Notice that he didn't even say we are better. He said there was a difference
berni_mccoy
Mar 2014
#1
why don't you take a stroll through a Baghdad marketplace and fucking do that yourself?
frylock
Mar 2014
#69
So, because there are terrorists blowing up car-bombs in Baghdad...
ConservativeDemocrat
Mar 2014
#80
regardless of whether one supported the Iraqi war, the differences between that and Crimea are many.
7962
Mar 2014
#57
The UN had various sanctions, resolutions, attempted disarmament and inspections scheduled,
okaawhatever
Mar 2014
#8
Thank you. I dont understand people getting bent out of shape about Obama's statement.
7962
Mar 2014
#64
K&R.... I don't feel the same about DU as I used to.... too much negativity!
secondwind
Mar 2014
#18
I understand the political reasons for Obama candy-coating the war in a speech like that one.
Vattel
Mar 2014
#72
Bush destroyed any good will and respect the United States built up over decades.
Enthusiast
Mar 2014
#48
Has he ever admitted it was a mistake? That we broke the law? Has Kerry? Has Clinton?
joeybee12
Mar 2014
#49
"anyone who claims that he did is either deliberately being misleading or is just plain clueless."
NCTraveler
Mar 2014
#89
Yeah, it is a defense and a white wash. It is pitiful to pretend otherwise.
TheKentuckian
Mar 2014
#99
I listened President Obama's comments live on my car radio when he made the speech
Gothmog
Mar 2014
#105