"Russia is invading another country on completely trumped up pretext"

[dixiegrrrrl]

says John Kerry, on Meet the Press.

That's how you tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys;
good guys don't invade on *trumped up pretexts*

[KG]

1. heh.

[LuvNewcastle]

2. And the circle is complete.

[Raven]

3. Did he say it with a straight face? n/t

[JayhawkSD]

52. Straight is the only face John Kerry has. n/t

[1000words]

126. He said it with a long face

[spanone]

4. k&r...

[malaise]

5. Kerry should be careful given his vote on the invasion of Iraq

on 'trumped up pretexts'.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/

[dixiegrrrrl]

7. Exactly!

I always get the feeling, watching Kerry,listenting to him, that he knows he does not really believe what he is saying.

[malaise]

9. +1,000

All BS all the time

[reformist2]

43. Exactly. I think his inner-radical is still alive, somehwere in there. But he sold out years ago.

[MoonRiver]

48. Somewhere, along his attempted way to the White House

he lost his moral compass. It's very sad as he was an anti-war hero back in the day.

[Orrex]

12. In his defense

He was for it before he was against it.

Or something.

[malaise]

15. Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

[karynnj]

105. Amazing - DU mimicing Rush Limbaugh etc

[sabrina 1]

120. I know, have you seen the attacks on Democrats here we were so accustomed to from

faux, 'blame America first' eg? Never thought that we would be accused here of being 'unpatriotic' for not cheering for war, but I was wrong.

[NutmegYankee]

117. Never thought I'd see that right-wing saying here...

Some of us put a lot of work into the 2004 campaign.

[Orrex]

124. I don't doubt that you put more serious work into it than he did

And the only bright side is that we haven't had to deal with Vice President Edwards.


Still, if you can't tell the difference between snark and serious commentary, then I can't help you.

[Niceguy1]

128. good one

[ProSense]

136. In his defense

"He was for it before he was against it. "

...he was always against Bush's invasion.

We Still Have a Choice on Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/opinion/we-still-have-a-choice-on-iraq.html

Kerry Says US Needs Its Own 'Regime Change'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm

KERRY, A SENATOR from Massachusetts, first said Thursday that Rumsfeld should step down, saying he proceeded in Iraq “in an arrogant, inappropriate way that has frankly put America at jeopardy.”

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3087318

And the truth is that George Bush has made America weaker by overextending the armed forces of the United States, overstraining, overstraining our reserves, driving away our allies and running the most arrogant, reckless, inept and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of our country.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/03/se.13.html

<...>

As our government conducts one war and prepares for another, I come here today to make clear that we can do a better job of making our country safer and stronger. We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration. I offer this new course at a critical moment for the country that we love, and the world in which we live and lead. Thanks to the work and sacrifice of generations who opposed aggression and defended freedom, for others as well as ourselves, America now stands as the world's foremost power. We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans have one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commit us to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human rights. So while we can be proud, we must be purposeful and mindful of our principles: And we must be patient - aware that there is no such thing as the end of history. With great power, comes grave responsibility.
<...>

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html

He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort.

Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. "Last resort." You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, "I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter."

I don't believe the United States did that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html

[ProSense]

135. By that logic

Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern had no credibility to speak out against war.

Both voted for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution (1964)

This joint resolution of Congress (H.J. RES 1145) dated August 7, 1964, gave President Lyndon Johnson authority to increase U.S. involvement in the war between North and South Vietnam.
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc_large_image.php?flash=true&doc=98
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=98

There is no hypocrisy in speaking out against war. That should a charge left to those who want war.

People, so-called progressives, are actually laughing at someone for calling for diplomacy.

[IDemo]

6. IOKIYAA n/t

[xchrom]

8. du rec.

[jsr]

10. Awesome.

[Fumesucker]

11. All the self-awareness of a rutabaga n/t

[dixiegrrrrl]

18. See, therein lies the big question:

Do they believe their own shit or do they lie consciously?

and..which is worse?

[MrMickeysMom]

93. A proud moment of reckoning...

The percentages may be debatable, but basically, this is what becomes "conventional wisdom"….

Idiocracy …

[DeSwiss]

13. K&R

[bemildred]

14. Butt covering. nt

[jwirr]

16. Trumped up pretext = lies. Sounds familiar.

[brooklynite]

17. Your SARC is inappropriate...

unless it's your claim agh Senator Kerry supported going into Iraq under false pretenses, or that the Obama Administration inherits responsibility for the policies of the Bush Administration.

[hobbit709]

19. Did he vote For or Against the IWR? The record speaks for itself.

[stevenleser]

46. Yes it does. The conditions specified in IWR were not met.

You understand that there are conditions under which you can defend yourself with deadly force, right? That law exists and is on the books.

Those who wrote that law do not share your culpability for murder if you try to use self defense as justification for what in reality is first degree murder.

[cali]

106. perhaps he should have listened to his superiors who spelled it out for him

people like Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Paul Wellstone, Jim Jeffords and the list goes on.

JK along with HC voted for the IWR because they both put personal ambition above anything else.

I fucking knew to a certainty that it was bullshit. JK sure as hell should have.

[stevenleser]

140. You didnt know anything. You guessed. No one knew because no one had been there.

The Syrians didnt know, the Russians didnt know, the Chinese didnt know, the Mauritanians didn't know, the Guyanians didn't know, the Brits didnt know, the French didn't know.

You know how I know those countries didnt know? Because they voted for UN Security Council Resolution 1441 on November 8 2002 several weeks AFTER the IWR was passed. So even after IWR, the folks in these countries didnt know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441#Security_Council_vote

It doesnt matter how heavily invested you are on the version of events you would like to sell, they are not supported by the facts.

[stillcool]

130. thank you..

I had forgotten all the vitriol here directed towards Kerry. It's nice to see someone without a pitchfork.

[rhett o rick]

144. Are you trying to justify his vote? Because Bush didnt hold up his end of the bargain? Really? nm

[brooklynite]

47. Did he know the evidence was cooked when he did?

[stevenleser]

49. There wasnt any evidence to be cooked. IWR and UN SecRes 1441 were passed to try to get evidence via

getting the UN Weapons inspectors into Iraq.

If we blame Democrats for IWR passage, we have to blame all of the countries and leaders that signed UN Sec Res 1441 as well. That includes China, France, Russia, UK, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Guyana, Ireland, Mexico, Mauritania, Norway, Singapore and Syria who all thought it was necessary to give a credible threat of force to get the weapons inspectors into Iraq.

[DallasNE]

68. This Is The Point That Is Always Missed With Iraq Invasion

The Senate passed a war resolution in case Saddam did not comply with the conditions set forth in UN Resolution 1441. Any reasonable person would say that Saddam was in compliance so the war Bush started is not the war Congress authorized meaning the was was illegal. In order not to be viewed as a war criminal Bush has stated that Saddam "would not let the inspectors in" so he left me (Bush) no other option. This is, of course, a huge lie. Hans Blix was hugely critical of Bush for kicking his inspection team out of Iraq in order to invade. The UN inspectors even had Saddam destroy a number of missiles that were deemed too long range for self defense -- missiles that could have been used later against invading forces.

But in the current case of the Ukraine Russia doesn't even have a fig leaf for protection. Russian intervention could not be more naked, raw and illegal.

[stevenleser]

69. Exactly and perfectly right. I break this all down in this article I wrote back in 2009...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Iraq-War--Six-Year-Annive-by-Steven-Leser-090304-145.html

[Scootaloo]

132. I was a little baffled to see a defense of the IWR on DU...

Everyone who passed that thing deserves blame for it. It was not a fucking "fact-finding" resolution's, it's titled Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - not exactly ambiguous, nor are its contents.

Do you want to argue that Kerry just happened to not READ what he was voting for, or are you going to keep trying to blow smoke up our asses, Steve?

[stevenleser]

138. Facts matter. The actual text of IWR matters. The fact that the UN Sec Council's 15 countries

also passed something around the same time to pressure Iraq to have weapons inspectors get back into Iraq matters.

I realize that you and various others are heavily invested in the version of events you are selling but they are not accurate, they are revisionist history.

I lay it all out here. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Iraq-War--Six-Year-Annive-by-Steven-Leser-090304-145.html

[Bluenorthwest]

62. Such 'cooking of evidence' would be a huge crime, that crime was never prosecuted or

even called a crime so it is fairly easy to conclude that those 'duped' by it were party to the cooking of it. We are party to treaties that require prosecution of such a grave and horrific crime, to casually suggest this crime is common knowledge to officials and to voters begs the question 'where are the handcuffs?'

[stevenleser]

66. And that is something I talk about semi-regularly. But again, in the context of this discussion...

... how does that justify Russia's unprovoked war of aggression in Ukraine?

[hobbit709]

71. Anyone with half a brain could figure that out and millions did.

[stevenleser]

74. So, you are saying that Russia, China, Syria, and the other 15 countries that didnt know and voted

for UN Sec Res 1441 didn't have half a brain?

No matter how you slice it, this attempt to paint Democrats who voted for IWR in a bad light does not stand up. Again, I understand that a faction of Democrats/Liberals are heavily invested in this belief, but it does not stand up to scrutiny.

[hobbit709]

79. I'm not a mindless cheerleader like some people.

And some of those countries had vested interests in a war. Others had pressure put on them by the US.

And I will paint ANY Democrat that votes for an unnecessary war/invasion in a bad light.

[stevenleser]

86. That is not an answer. If you think those countries had vested interests that motivated their vote

prove it. What did Mauritania, Guyana and the rest have to gain that caused them to vote Yes.

The fact is, your position in general on this rests on superficial and unsupportable claims. Unsupportable claims that you want to believe because you have an agenda.

You are letting your agenda drive your position rather than the facts.

Admit it.

[hobbit709]

89. I'm not a denizen of the morass.

As far as I'm concerned a vote for war should only apply to those in favor of it-let them go and fight. I served my time over 40 years ago and my opinion hasn't changed since then.

[stevenleser]

91. Yes "Denizen of the morass" explains away Putin's war crime of an unprovoked war of aggression.

Do you even listen to yourself?

[noiretextatique]

125. sounds a lot like bush's I rag folly

Perhaps you should listen to yourself?

[stevenleser]

139. Nope, you should listen to yourself. You are justifying an unprovoked war of aggression in Ukraine

yet trying to claim an unprovoked war of aggression in Iraq was bad.

Again, listen to yourself.

[dixiegrrrrl]

104. US has a track record that goes wayyy before bush

and yes, Kerry, as a Senator, made speeches supporting, and voted for invasion of Iraq.

[stevenleser]

143. Assuming we accept all of that, how does that justify a Russian war crime? nt

[sendero]

149. I don't know many people..

... who are happy with what Russia is doing. Thankfully, at least here on DU, I don't see many people stupid enough to think there is a way for the US military to resolve the problem.

[MrMickeysMom]

20. Uh-Oh!!! Title wave coming...of LIES ...

Honest to Pete (or George… or Dick…), have we reached that point now?

Are you counting on the American people's short memories again? Jeebus, should I set back and see?

[Adrahil]

21. Oh, another hair shirt argument that because Bush was an asshole...

... We, as a nation, can't ever act in opposition to a tyrant.

[PosterChild]

37. +10 (nt)

[MrMickeysMom]

92. "We, as a nation, can't ever act in opposition to a tyrant"…

… or BE one…. right?

[Adrahil]

96. I never implied we were perfect.

No nation is. WE make mistakes. But as I tell my daughter. Just because you make mistakes doesn't mean you should simply withdraw from interactions with others. Whether you like it or, we have a role to play in the world. There ARE bad guys who will take advantage if no one is willing to stop them. And yeah, sometimes WE can be the bad guy. But unless someone waves a magic wand, the real world isn't going away. And just because WE make mistakes doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop in justice when we see it.

BTW, I'm not advocating war. Unless Russia simply decides to militarily restore Yanukovich, I think we need to focus of diplomatic and economic efforts.

[MrMickeysMom]

102. I refer to my post #101...

It's one thing to admit that we, as a nation, make mistakes. But when those mistakes are called out by someone who then serves as a US senator, voting for another trumpeted up pretext in 2002, has to have more to say, based on THAT lesson learned.

"Where is the leadership?", Kerry asked, as he gave testimony in front of the cameras to the committee in 1971…

Let's get real about the "real world", is what I am saying….

Peace,

MMM

[TheKentuckian]

129. You seriously think war is a reasonable reaction to Russia reinstalling Yanukovich or anyone else?

I think that is crazy talk.

[marions ghost]

150. "Bush was an asshole"--puhleeze

"Asshole" ---Bushcheney was a criminal.

We have no credibility in this. Kerry's statement comes off as arrogant bloviation.

[Democracyinkind]

22. He's such an idiot. He doesn't even realize how ironic that is coming out of his mouth?

[L0oniX]

51. He needs Jon Steward as a speech consultant to point out and avoid the irony.

[zeemike]

23. Invading a country on trumped up pretexts is our job

How dare they!!!

[malthaussen]

24. Eh, most invasions are for trumped-up pretexts.

All that matters in the end is what you can get away with.

-- Mal

[Autumn]

26. He should know about invading another country on completely trumped up pretext.

He was there when our country did it. Strangely silent.

[stevenleser]

27. So Russia's unprovoked war of aggression is OK because some of you think Kerry voted to give Bush

the power to do the same?

Interesting.

[Fumesucker]

30. It's not "OK" it's just that we don't have a moral leg to stand on to criticize it

Especially someone who directly voted for doing exactly the same damn thing.

[PosterChild]

41. Sure we do. We have a moral reason to criticize it. As you said, it's not OK. (nt)

[Rex]

111. And of course nobody said Russia is justified in invading.

NOTICE how he keeps pretending somebody did! All the while playing CYA for Iraq and all the idiots that voted for the IWR. Nothing worse then someone that can't be on the level with everyone else. They can never be honest or forthcoming.

[dixiegrrrrl]

119. Is indeed amazing that people read into a post

what is not there.

Post:
"it is raining"

responses:
"what do you have against cats and dogs"
"you must be an animal hater"
" Not everthing is climate change"
"how come you don't mention last Sat. when it didn't rain?"

[Rex]

121. Yeah that was a LOT of words steven tried to put in peoples mouths!

BECAUSE we bring up the obvious lies of Dubya and the Iraqi war...we MUST be communists! Yeah...that's the ticket! BECAUSE we don't want to rush in and get millions killed, we have to be Putin sympathizers! YEAH...must be it!

It is so sad to see on a progressive site.

[A Simple Game]

60. First, we don't think Kerry voted to give Bush the power to wage an unprovoked and unjustified war,

we know he did.

Second, many of us remember when most people had enough pride in themselves to not make what are obviously hypocritical statements.

Third, from most reports, many in the Ukraine welcome a Russian presence.

Fourth, why is what Russia doing a "war of aggression?" From what I have read, they haven't even fired a shot but seem to be restoring order.

Fifth, why do you think it is any of our business? Should Russia have intervened in our friendly incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq?

Nothing worse than a war monger, no matter which side they are on, interesting that you think it makes a difference?

[stevenleser]

64. No, he didn't. I know some of you are heavily invested in that belief, but it isn't true.

I break it all down here:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Iraq-War--Six-Year-Annive-by-Steven-Leser-090304-145.html

And yes, I note with continuing amusement people like you who are outraged by the war crime of an unprovoked war of aggression in Iraq, but are spinning like whirling dervishes to justify Russias/Putins war crime of an unprovoked war of aggression in Ukraine.

As Obama would say, please continue!

[A Simple Game]

70. Kerry voted yes, please deny it again.

I'm glad you are amused about our outrage over the invasion of Iraq, tells us a lot about you. You really believe Bush and not the United States invaded Iraq, don't you?

Where do you get the impression we are justifying any aggression in the Ukraine? What we are outraged over are people that want to escalate the conflict by inserting the United States into it. We are all for diplomacy but people are saber rattling and that's why we and you should be afraid.

You can spin what happened in Iraq any way you want but it was not Bush that invaded Iraq, it was the United States, many of us here own up to that fact, are disgraced by it and have no intension of reliving it anywhere else because the least we should do is learn a lesson from our past mistakes. We didn't learn from Vietnam, maybe we can learn from Afghanistan and Iraq, but our collective memory seems to be getting shorter not longer.

Nobody wins a war, Nobody! Not that the United States is very good at "winning" wars anyway. If you don't already know that you need to do some studying.

[stevenleser]

73. I expect that kind of superficial analysis from the Freepers, not from DUers. The analysis is here

Again, I get that you are heavily invested in that incorrect and superficial viewpoint. It's still not right.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Iraq-War--Six-Year-Annive-by-Steven-Leser-090304-145.html

[A Simple Game]

108. I didn't think you would deny how he voted, you can't.

Save your time with the links, I won't follow the prolific posters self-serving links nor will I follow yours.

There was no justification for voting for the Iraqis war because Iraq had not attacked us nor were they a threat to us, with or without weapons of mass destruction, any thinking person that didn't want a war knew it. Afghanistan was stupid enough, attacking an entire country when 10 or 20 attack helicopters could have taken out the real enemy in one raid. And anyone with half a brain knew that too.

Who in this world possesses the most weapons of mass destruction? Perhaps we should attack them if possession is a crime? Wouldn't have to travel too far for that one would we? I'll give you a hint, it's not Russia.

[stevenleser]

141. I know you are so invested in an incorrect version of events you dont want to know the truth.

That's fine. But some of us know better.

[A Simple Game]

148. Of course it's fine. I think Kerry made a mistake by voting yes.

You on the other hand think Kerry believed Bush would not invade Iraq if no weapons of mass destruction were found. You think he is a fool!

[pscot]

75. The Russians think they've been provoked

There's plenty of history behind what's going on in Ukraine. Russia expended a lot of blood and treasure over 200 years to get a footprint on the Black Sea. One would have to be delusional to imagine they'd give it up without a fight. We're as likely to let Texas secede and attach itself to Mexico. As a practical matter, are we ready for an Asian land war? Do we really want to reignite the Cold War? Ukrane is ripe for partition. There's ample precedent for that kind of ethnic sorting out. Europeans have been doing it for the last 100 years.

[L0oniX]

63. Fail! No one is saying it is ok because of Kerry.

[Rex]

110. The old guard dogs seem to be losing their eyesight.

Funny how instantly defensive he got over Iraq and Dubya (even when NOBODY went there)...guess he LOVES him some war and death!

[Rex]

109. Nice projection there steven.

Never once thought that, you certainly do have a way of trying to put words in other peoples mouths! PEOPLE are just wondering the obvious - funny how the hypocrisy of the situation doesn't bother you at all.

Just loved you some Dubya did ya? See I can put words into YOUR mouth...doesn't feel to good now does it?

Interesting indeed.

[stevenleser]

142. I'm the one consistent here. You are the one trying to assert a war crime is ok in one instance and

not another.

[KG]

28. it bring to mind bush decrying russian incursion into georgia.

totally un ironic.

[Oilwellian]

29. That is so very rich, Mr. "I voted for the Iraq war" John Kerry

As if we have any credibility left in the world.

[jsr]

32. Precisely.

[stevenleser]

31. Except that logic doesnt really work.

Kerry gave the OK to go to war if several conditions were met including that UN Resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction were not being followed by Iraq. Weapons inspectors went in and they didnt find any banned weapons. Bush went to war anyway.

No matter how much you and others try to make it so, you cannot logically blame Democrats who voted for IWR for the Iraq war because Bush violated the conditions of the IWR.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Iraq-War--Six-Year-Annive-by-Steven-Leser-090304-145.html

[BeyondGeography]

57. You need to get with the program

Having voted for their understanding of what IWR was 11-plus years ago, D's such as Kerry are obviously permanently ineligible to make responsible statements for the rest of time and/or credibly support the pursuit of moral policies. They were damned for all eternity when a third party over whom they had no ultimate control abused his authority.

[stevenleser]

61. LMAO, exactly. Because of that a war crime by Russia/Putin now is OK, of course.

What was I thinking? I do need to get with the program. War crimes, here we come, Woo hoo!



Well played!

[L0oniX]

65. Maybe we can find a prison cell for Putin ...and Bush.

[RC]

33. But it's OK when we do it.

Plenty of politicians that think they think for for us, think so.

[qazplm]

38. well

if it's not ok when we do it, then it's not ok when others do it, and since we are one of the few with any ability to stop it, if you play the "hypocrisy means you can never intervene card" then nothing will ever stop.

[PosterChild]

45. Well stated. +10 (nt)

[RC]

56. It is never OK when anyone does it.

We won't intervene for the same reason Russia did not when we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. At least their leaders are smart enough to not want war with us. Hopefully our leaders are at least that smart. But don't count on it. The MIC wants their cut.

[Jack Rabbit]

67. Of course it's OK when we do it. That's American exceptionalism.

Invading another country on a trumped up pretext is imperialism, except when the US does it.

[NuclearDem]

34. How long after Iraq do we get to start using diplomacy to stop wars of aggression?

[stevenleser]

39. Not to mention that the guy we have as President was not in favor of that war. Why should he

not be able to protest an unprovoked war of aggression?

[TheKentuckian]

134. Oh he can and indeed must protest, that isn't the gist of the dialog here though.

Folks are talking action and some military action which I put I to the batshit crazy territory.

[1monster]

35. The fact that the pot is calling the kettle black doesn't mean that the kettle isn't black.

Of course the pot is black too.

This whole Ukraine invasion thing makes me believe that Putin is nostalgic for the past. (One must never forget that he was once the head of the KGB)


1968 Prague Spring

On edit: got a url that works

[stevenleser]

42. Excellent way of putting it, even if one temporarily accepts the premise of the OP. nt

[Rex]

116. I'm confused...do people think Putin is a saint or some representative of democracy?

If so...please point them out to me, I'd like to have a conversation with them.

[1monster]

123. How do I call Putin a saint?!

Pointing out that he was once the head of the KGB does not in any way suggest the man is to be trusted, a good guy, or a saint.

[Rex]

127. No not you, I thought you meant there are people here calling Putin a saint.

Sorry for the confusion.

[lostincalifornia]

36. The irony is that progressives realize the hypocrisy of such statements, the republicans and right

wingers have no idea about that contradiction

[L0oniX]

53. Blood thirst is blinding.

[stevenleser]

54. I think many progressives are missing the greater irony. I think it is much more important to be

consistent ourselves about opposing the war crime of an unprovoked war of aggression rather than pointing out inconsistencies in others. Opposing the unprovoked war of aggression in Iraq but trying to put a positive spin on the unprovoked war of aggression in Ukraine is a pretty serious instance of hypocrisy.

[ScreamingMeemie]

40. Did you get that from the Onion?

[Ichingcarpenter]

55. I thought Blazing Saddles

when I saw it and our phoney baloney wars... I mean jobs sketch in the movie.

[ScreamingMeemie]

95. I'm gad you got the joke.

[dixiegrrrrl]

83. As I said, it was from Kerry, on Meet the Press.

[ScreamingMeemie]

94. I thought you would realize I was joking...

...

....

[dixiegrrrrl]

98. sorry..my radar is off today.

[ScreamingMeemie]

99. It's okay.

Always good to see you, dixiegrrrrl.

[greytdemocrat]

44. It's the BFEE's fault!!!! nt

[L0oniX]

50. Meet the Press = Meet the Moran

[NutmegYankee]

58. Ah. So we should just STFU and never speak out on world events again...

because Chimpy McFlightsuit, a man I do not believe was elected the first time, took us into a war I vehemently opposed? I refuse to accept a diminished status as a nation because of Bush.

[dixiegrrrrl]

112. because I addressed Kerry's remarks does not mean I limit hpocrisy to just Bush.

US has a history of sending troops into other countries since 1880's at least:

Nicaragua (1856-1857; 1894; 1896;1898; 1899; 1907; 1910; 1912-1933; 1981-1990
Argentina (1890),
Chile (1891; 1973),
Haiti (1891; 1914-1934; 1994; 2004-2005),
Hawaii (1893-),
China (1895-1895; 1898-1900; 1911-1941; 1922-1927; 1927-1934; 1948-1949; 1951-1953; 1958),
Korea (1894-1896; 1904-1905; 1951-1953),
Panama (1895; 1901-1914; 1908; 1912; 1918-1920; 1925; 1958; 1964; 1989-),
Philippines (1898-1910; 1948-1954; 1989; 2002-),
Cuba (1898-1902; 1906-1909; 1912; 1917-1933; 1961; 1962),
Puerto Rico (1898-; 1950; );
Guam (1898-),
Samoa (1899-),
Honduras (1903; 1907; 1911; 1912; 1919; 1924-1925; 1983-1989),
Dominican Republic (1903-1904; 1914; 1916-1924; 1965-1966),
Yugoslavia (1919; 1946; 1992-1994; 1999),
Guatemala (1920; 1954; 1966-1967),
Turkey (1922),
El Salvador (1932; 1981-1992),
Libya (1981; 1986; 1989; 2011),
Egypt (1956; 1967; 1973; 2013),
Iran (1946; 1953; 1980; 1984; 1987-1988; ),
Uruguay (1947),
Greece (1947-1949),
Vietnam (1954; 1960-1975),
Lebanon (1958; 1982-1984),
Iraq (1958; 1963; 1990-1991; 1990-2003; 1998; 2003-2011),
Laos (1962-),
Indonesia (1965),
Cambodia (1969-1975; 1975),
Oman (1970),
Laos (1971-1973),
Angola (1976-1992),
Grenada (1983-1984),
Bolivia (1986; ),
Virgin Islands (1989),
Liberia (1990; 1997; 2003),
Saudi Arabia (1990-1991),
Kuwait (1991),
Somalia (1992-1994; 2006),
Bosnia (1993-),
Zaire (Congo) (1996-1997),
Albania (1997),
Sudan (1998),
Afghanistan (1998; 2001-),
Yemen (2000; 2002-),
Macedonia (2001),
Colombia (2002-),
Pakistan (2005-),
Syria (2008; 2011-),
Uganda (2011),
Mali (2013),
Niger (2013).

sources:
http://www.countercurrents.org/polya050713.htm
and
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

[NutmegYankee]

115. Yes, I know.

I've read Chomsky's books, including "What Uncle Sam Really Wants". I still think we have a right to speak out. There are very few countries in the world today who have a clean history. I can probably pull dirt up on any of them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

122. But..but...we got involved for their own good...wellll...kinda...maybe...never mind.

[dixiegrrrrl]

131. "And it didn't cost us a penny

we paid for the invasion from their natural resources....."
(and the American taxpayer.)

[Warren Stupidity]

146. Yeah, there is that.

[trusty elf]

59. Did someone mention my name?

[IMG][/IMG]

[gordianot]

72. Help me I am confused, I thought American RW liked Putin.

But that was two weeks ago an age in terms of Republican tantrums that a black man occupies the White House. So right wing thugs are patrolling the streets of the Ukraine while Russia has invaded in an almost bloodless invasion to restore a local oligarch of almost Koch brother dimensions. The tragedy of all of this is it has stirred up the war obsessions of the Senile Senior Senator from Arizona in manner mirroring the movie Nebraska. In the meanwhile Ukrainian citizens in the street are getting killed setting fires and rioting have been promised new elections that could rival those from the State of Florida and Ohio. Now an aging politician who got into politics protesting the trumped up war in Vietnam admonishes Russia who is following a geopolitical policy that mirrors the United States in the Monroe doctrine. That aging politician says that war is being trumped up by Russia, should join the Senior Senator from Arizona in comparing trumpets.

Really the old cliche about true events and fiction comes to mind. All of this is so unbelievable it boggles the mind. Russia has orchestrated and jumped in with both feet into a Civil war. They have obviously ignored the lessons of their war in Afghanistan and entire cold war mess to a similar degree we have forgotten the lessons of Vietnam, the various Gulf wars and our war in Afghanistan. When it comes to war it does not really matter where you fall on the political spectrum you are full of shit (myself included). My Uncle was a well decorated World War II veteran who saw a lot of war his one line was "War is just an excuse by old men to get young men killed" that too was not original but am more and more convinced is true. I make it a practice not to get into other peoples family quarrels.

[stevenleser]

78. The ironies and hypocrisies seem to abound here. I think you start from the biggest crime and work

backwards.

You cannot justify a country engaging in the war crime of an unprovoked war of aggression. I protested it and wrote critical articles about it when Bush did it in Iraq, I am against it now that Putin is doing it in Ukraine. Countries always say they have reasons but international law is clear about that and it is dangerous for people of good conscience to gloss over it when it happens.

If Russia is concerned about the current leadership in Ukraine, they can go to the UN Security Council and try to get a resolution justifying the use of force. If they do not have that, and they dont, and Ukraine isn't posing a danger to them (Excuse me as I suppress a chuckle) then they are committing the war crime of an unprovoked war of aggression.

[Nye Bevan]

88. THANK YOU for doing the heavy lifting in this thread

to counter the cheap, snide, lazy sarcasm.

[stevenleser]

100. It's twilight zone time on DU with huge support for an unprovoked war of aggression...

by people happy to try to tell us they are more progressive than we are.

[City Lights]

76. That's rich.

Oh my!

[LisaL]

77. No, you don't say.

[JI7]

80. so he should just let Netanyahu do

What he wants in Iran ?

[cantbeserious]

81. Bush II Did The Same - Right, America Has Forgotten Already

eom

[Drale]

82. I think pretty much everyone here will agree that what Bush did was a war crime but

the Current administration has not invaded anyone. We were against the invasion of Iraq and many against the war in Afghanistan as well but we are not allowed to complain about Russia invading another country because Bush did something illegal? That's what I get from your "trumped up pretexts" sarcasm tag.

[LisaL]

85. Crimea was a part of Russia for quite some time before Khrushchev (who was Ukrainian) gave it

to Ukraine.
Iraq was never a part of US.

[dixiegrrrrl]

87. remember the "red line in the sand" with Syria?

Obama was making threats of troops into Syria, but backed down when the UN and voters & Congres raised a cry about it, and later there were serious questions about the truth of assam using gas weapons.

We have fighting troops in Yemen.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/22/foreign-wars-america-fighting-yemen

and in Paksitan ( since 2003 or so)
http://middleeast.about.com/od/pakistan/f/us-troops-pakistan.htm

[Rex]

114. But you hurt our American feelings by pointing out the rank hypocrisy

I know! I'll make up some incredibly weak bullshit that has nothing to do with it...like you SUPPORT PUTIN's POWER GRAB!

[stevenleser]

90. Reading Orwell's Notes on Nationalism will explain this all to you

http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat

By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’(1). But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests.
.
.
.
It is also worth emphasising once again that nationalist feeling can be purely negative. There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist — that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating — but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations.
.
.
.
(Examples of) Negative Nationalism

(i) Anglophobia. Within the intelligentsia, a derisive and mildly hostile attitude towards Britain is more or less compulsory, but it is an unfaked emotion in many cases. During the war it was manifested in the defeatism of the intelligentsia, which persisted long after it had become clear that the Axis powers could not win. Many people were undisguisedly pleased when Singapore fell ore when the British were driven out of Greece, and there was a remarkable unwillingness to believe in good news, e.g. el Alamein, or the number of German planes shot down in the Battle of Britain. English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong. As a result, ‘enlightened’ opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy. Anglophobia is always liable to reversal, hence that fairly common spectacle, the pacifist of one war who is a bellicist in the next.

[Rex]

113. Of course you did.

Strange how people are instantly defensive over our own bullshit war in Iraq...not strange, typical really.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

84. Our moral standing on this was drowned in the Gulf of Tonkin. K&R

[yurbud]

97. they've lost all shame and think they're invincible.

[MrMickeysMom]

101. I gotta give it to you, John...

After earning the Purple Heart and Silver Star in Vietnam, when you returned home to and refused to take part in the "Winter Soldier Investigation (Detroit) Jan 1971, where highly decorated Marines re-lived their experiences in Vietnam… but once the television cameras lined the wall in front of the the witness table, you, John Kerry, delivered one of the most famous speeches of your life… the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Thus, setting off your political career… You spoke so eloquently about what it was to become Winter Soldiers, a play on words of Thomas Paine’s in 1776, when he spoke of the "sunshine patriots," and "summertime soldiers" who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.. You said our country was creating monsters, who were "given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history." You said these winter soldiers, which included you, were used…

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

How eloquent. You stood up for so many who died, and those best men who returned to rally for the EXACT SAME REASONS AS TODAY…. Now, compare and contrast for us about the current criminal hypocrisy after taking every possible alternative to stay out of another "mystical war".

Who becomes the "good guy" when On October 9, 2002, Massachusetts Senator Kerry stood on the Senate floor and spoke in favor of the invasion of Iraq. The next day he voted to authorize President Bush to go to war.

What now, John Kerry? The largest unemployment figure were veterans of the Vietnam war (one out of 10), which turned into 1 out of 4 after their return from Iraq.

So, now, Mr. SOS John Kerry, what have have we learned about TRUMPED UP PRETEXTS? Please share it with us…

[KoKo]

147. Recommend...

It's hard to remember that John Kerry.

[blackspade]

103. He's right, despite the irony.

[Rex]

118. Yes he is right.

The last thing we need is for Putin to have control over the Ukraine.

[Rex]

107. Did anyone ask him about Iraq and Dubya and why no charges yet?

Shouldn't we hold ourselves to that very same standard Mr. Kerry?

[jimlup]

137. Good call

Hum, not to want to say this but I wonder if any of the neo-cons realize that they should be sorry about essentially making "International Law" irrelevant by ignoring it in 2003

[Donald Ian Rankin]

145. Just because you write sarcasm under it, does not mean it isn't true.

The US's grounds for invading Afghanistan and Iraq, while misguided, were not "trumped up" - removing a dictator and installing a democracy is a legitimate ground for war. Gaining more territory is not.

[dixiegrrrrl]

152. Bush invaded Iraq on grounds that Iraq had WMDs...remember?

the plans for invasion were written before 9-11, but he went thru the charade of sending folks off to find the WMDs,
sent Powell to the United Nations with claims of WMD ( thus ruining Powell's career)
and, when no weapons were found, invaded anyhow.
THAT meets my definition of "trumped up".

[penultimate]

151. I'm not a supporter of Russia's action here, but Kerry saying that makes me cringe

I get that it was a different administration and all that, but that hardly matters when viewing the big picture.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

153. It's amazing

That over a decade later, we are still debating the precise meaning of the IWR vote and what it meant. To me, it was about giving Bush the authority to do what he felt was necessary regarding Iraq. I never took it as a vote for war per se and Kerry made a speech outlining why he voted for it and what he expected Bush to do with it. I think a lot of Dems voted for it in a similar manner and/or out of political concerns. Doubt many actually wanted war.