President Obama defending the mistakes of the previous administration

[Harmony Blue]

is a huge blow to the Democratic party and will cause splintering.

Why do it? This is just scary.... how do these DC bubble Democrats expect us to rally progressive to GOTV when they cut us at the knees every single time? I feel like a punching bag.

[BeyondGeography]

1. He didn't do that at all but don't let it get in the way of your FUD

[LordGlenconner]

79. ...

[uponit7771]

96. amen

[JaneyVee]

102. that.

[ProSense]

2. .

[Harmony Blue]

5. I don't find this funny at all.

[ProSense]

6. It's friggin hilarious. n/t

[Harmony Blue]

9. That is your opinion

my opinion is that this is a huge misstep.

[ProSense]

11. It's nonsensical spin searching for faux outrage. n/t

[Harmony Blue]

12. There is no spin

when the President of the United States outright did so. At this point we are not arguing if President Obama did so but what the impact will be. So we are in agreement on one part of this thus far and I believe it will effect the GOTV effort as it has given ammo to the very desperate Republican party.

[ProSense]

13. Silliness

"There is no spin when the President of the United States outright did so. At this point we are not arguing if President Obama did so but what the impact will be. So we are in agreement on one part of this thus far and I believe it will effect the GOTV effort as it has given ammo to the very desperate Republican party. "

Anyone who wants to take that statement and make a case for depressing voter turnout for 2014 Congressional elections isn't serious.

[Harmony Blue]

15. You want a serious discussions?

How do you expect progressive and other Democats to GOTV based on what the President of the United States said. Please explain?

[ProSense]

16. LOL!

"How do you expect progressive and other Democats to GOTV based on what the President of the United States said. Please explain? "

[Union Scribe]

19. How to tell when Obama messed up

Certain posters are reduced to wordless, inane smileys to bombard others with.

[ProSense]

20. Some things

"How to tell when Obama messed up Certain posters are reduced to wordless, inane smileys to bombard others with."

...like the above, are simply hilarious. If you want words about how utterly silly this faux outrage is, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024734119#post10

[earthside]

50. Mockery will get you ... defeat.

It is simply true.

Pres. Obama has not prosecuted one single Bush era war criminal.

Pres. Obama has not persecuted one single perpetrator of the housing bubble/derivatives crash.

Pres. Obama supports trade agreements that kill middle class American jobs.

Pres. Obama's budget is onboard with cuts to the U.S. Postal Service.

Pres. Obama abandoned the public plan option for health insurance reform.

Pres. Obama supports fracking and has dithered and dallied on the Keystone XL pipeline.

Pres. Obama supports extra-judicial drone strike killing.

Pres. Obama has put the Bush 'No Child Left Behind' corporatization of public education policy on steroids.

Pres. Obama has been a severely conservative president.

The liberal/progressive/Democratic base is not now motivated to turn-out for the 2014 elections -- either Pres. Obama needs to finally embrace progressivism or we all need to move into the post-Obama era and do whatever we can to preserve the Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate and save as many U.S. Representatives as we can.

And all the little laughing gifs in the world won't change that fact.

[NYC Liberal]

82. Obama is the most progressive, liberal president in a very long time.

Pres. Obama has fought for affordable health insurance for millions of Americans.

Pres. Obama has fought to reverse bigoted (racist, sexist, homophobic) laws and policies of the past.

Pres. Obama ended Bush's illbegotten war in Iraq and is ending it in Afghanistan.

Pres. Obama has cut taxes for the middle-class.

Pres. Obama has supported tougher regulation of Wall St after decades of deregulation begun by Raygun.

Pres. Obama has supported diplomacy over warmongering.

Pres. Obama has fought to raise the minimum wage and already raised it for everyone he legally can with an EO for federal contract workers.

Pres. Obama has expanded environmental protections.

I am glad we have a LIBERAL Democrat in office.

[Harmony Blue]

84. I can list very more

but you have just about covered it. Thank you.

[brooklynite]

98. Let's review your indictment...

It is simply true.

Pres. Obama has not prosecuted one single Bush era war criminal.

Pres. Obama has not persecuted one single perpetrator of the housing bubble/derivatives crash.

Pres. Obama supports trade agreements that kill middle class American jobs.

Pres. Obama's budget is onboard with cuts to the U.S. Postal Service.

Pres. Obama abandoned the public plan option for health insurance reform.

Pres. Obama supports fracking and has dithered and dallied on the Keystone XL pipeline.

Pres. Obama supports extra-judicial drone strike killing.

Pres. Obama has put the Bush 'No Child Left Behind' corporatization of public education policy on steroids.

Pres. Obama has been a severely conservative president.

All those conditions were in place in 2012. Remind me who won with robust turnout?

[earthside]

99. I voted for Obama.

In our two party system, really, what choice did a rationale person have?

But I knew by 2012 that Barack Obama was moderate-to-conservative.

Nevertheless, I continue to maintain that mid-term elections are base elections.
The Repuglicans have certainly figured this out -- Democrats need to do the same.
Democrats shouldn't run away from the ACA, but they shouldn't fall into the trap of basing 2014 around that single issue. Minimum wage is good; my favorite idea is a tax cut for middle and working Americans paid for with a financial transaction tax; also increasing Social Security benefits.

If Pres. Obama cannot get behind some progressive proposals to fire-up the base, well, then let's encourage party leads who will -- Reich; Warren; Sanders (though he is an 'independent'); Sherrod Brown; etc.

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. Yup.

[sabrina 1]

116. Then take it up with the increasing number of people who are finding it reprehensible.

Everyone is wrong, but a few people on DU who can laugh at one of the most egregious crimes committed by some of the worst criminals in most people's living memory.

It's revealing how you see humor in that massive crime.

And no, the term used salesman is not racist, but most of our foreign wars definitely are, which might account for why the people we kill are so easily dismissed, 'beating a dead horse' I was told, to care of the victims of our racist foreign policies.

[JackRiddler]

65. You really didn't have to reply to that one.

In most cases, the ROFL smiley is an admission that one doesn't want to agree with a proposition, has nothing credible to say in reply, and, generally, doesn't even want a credible reply. The idea is to label the offensive proposition as out of bounds and subject it to ridicule preremptorily. To engage on the facts is to lose, so brainlessness or use of reptile brain is preferable. It's a bullying attempt. It's mobbing, team cheerleading, tapping into hive psychology.

If it comes as the first move, however, change "most" to 100 percent. You may have pissed off some self-appointed local commissar or hall monitor.

[The Magistrate]

3. The 'You Did It Too' Line Taken Against Criticism Of Putin In Crimea, Ma'am

Pretty much required some such statement from the President. I agree what he said is a stretch and a half, but it does not bother me much. I can understand why it was done.

[JackRiddler]

63. That is no excuse, and it won't work...

As someone wise once said, lying on behalf of supposedly worthy causes is bad, because: "When things are not called by their right names, what is said cannot make sense. When what is said does not make sense, what is planned cannot succeed. When plans do not succeed, people become uneasy. When people are uneasy, punishments do not fit crimes. When punishments do not fit crimes, people cannot know where to put hand or foot."

[The Magistrate]

69. If Explanation And Excuse Were Identical, Sir, We Would Not Have The Different Words

In this instance, 'excuse' is not necessary, but 'explanation' apparently is, at least for some.

Regarding Iraq, the man is being held responsible for a policy he opposed.

It is largely because he 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....

[JackRiddler]

72. What about that part when he tried to extend this wrong war...

past even the end date negotiated by Bush?

People change I guess.

(Of course, not that the war is over. The original perps have left the horror to the poor Iraqis for another 20 years.)

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. This was definitely a misstep

Don't know that it will necessarily destroy our GOTV efforts in November but he really didn't need to go there IMHO. Of course, we already know that Bush, Cheney, et al will not suffer any legal consequences over Iraq but PBO doesn't need to be the one justifying/apologising for it IMHO

[ProSense]

10. Are you serious?

This was definitely a misstep

Don't know that it will necessarily destroy our GOTV efforts in November but he really didn't need to go there IMHO. Of course, we already know that Bush, Cheney, et al will not suffer any legal consequences over Iraq but PBO doesn't need to be the one justifying/apologising for it IMHO

When it times for outrage: opposing is defending. You actually believe the following is going to "destroy our GOTV efforts in November"?

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 and a fully sovereign Iraqi state that could make decisions about its own future.

Of course, neither the United States nor Europe are perfect in adherence to our ideals, nor do we claim to be the sole arbiter of what is right or wrong in the world. We are human, after all, and we face difficult choices about how to exercise our power. But part of what makes us different is that we welcome criticism, just as we welcome the responsibilities that come with global leadership.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/26/remarks-president-address-european-youth

There was in fact a process to work with the international community...right up until Bush violated all agreements. On that score, Bush's and Putin's invasions are illegal.

Obama did defend his own actions in Iraq: ending the war and leaving it a sovereign state.
HuffPo and those interested in giving Bush a pass love the headline: Obama Defends Iraq Invasion.

I mean, why the fuck else would anyone spin opposition to the invasion as defending it?

There is likely one other reason, but would anyone admit it: Thanks, Obama.

For once, the nonsense isn't winning the day except among some dead-enders.

Calm, Cool, and Collected, President Obama Schools ABC Reporter During Press Conference at The Hague
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024732240

That one went viral on Facebook.

Enjoy.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

97. Calm down

I don't really think that this will destroy our GOTV efforts

[treestar]

7. You'd let that get in the way?

I would not be so easily discouraged.

And he did not defend Bush's mistakes. I am more discouraged by people using this obvious spin against their own party.

[Le Taz Hot]

8. It's wierd.

If they were to have PLANNED to ensure people stay home in 2014 it couldn't have worked out better. And the thing is . . . 2014 could have an excellent turnout for the Democrats if they would just be honest. But they won't. They bend and shill for the corporations and the 1% and those who went before them. There's a REASON people stay home and that is because they feel that they don't have a stake in the game. And they're right, they don't.

[2banon]

28. Oh but We have a stake in the game, we just haven't figured out how to claim it. n/t

[Maedhros]

107. LTH, I have the same impression you do.

American voters are disenchanted, as evidenced by the extremely low approval numbers for Congress. They know when they are being lied to, and they're just not going to get excited by another round of false campaign rhetoric. They are hungry for real leadership.

(From The American President)

Lewis Rothschild: You have a deeper love of this country than any man I've ever known. And I want to know what it says to you that in the past seven weeks, 59% of Americans have begun to question your patriotism.

President Andrew Shepherd: Look, if the people want to listen to-...

Lewis Rothschild: They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.

"Shut up and enjoy your sand" is not a strong motivator.

[leftynyc]

14. More threads based on lies

He did not defend the Iraq war - he just pointed out that unlike russia, we did not annex the country and take their resources. Do you have a problem with that truth?

[Harmony Blue]

17. Defending the Iraq War by arguing it is not as bad as Crimea

is an utter disgrace of a justification.

[leftynyc]

31. He never said it wasn't as bad

He was pointing out the differences (whereas putin said they were the same). This place has become as bad as any conservative site when it comes to out of context/outright deception when it comes to Pres Obama. THAT is a disgrace.

[phleshdef]

36. Whats disgraceful is you folks lying about what he was saying in order to trash him.

[Oilwellian]

24. Your post proves...

Democrats are equally capable of manipulating history. Fortunately, not all of us are brain dead.

[leftynyc]

33. Is it not bad enough

we have to battle the braindead teatards who use out of context quotes. He DID NOT defend the Iraq war. He was pointing out the very real differences between Iraq and Crimea. The hair on fire routine on this site is getting very tiresome.

[Harmony Blue]

110. True

Why some are choosing to shut off their minds I don't comprehend.

[2banon]

25. We didn't take their resources?? Are you kidding me??? !!!!! Wow! n/t

[KittyWampus]

30. Actually, CHINA took their resources. If you are referring to the oil. But they didn't actually take

it. They simply benefitted the most by access to it after we went and opened up the oil fields for them.

Yup, it's almost as if the BFEE was doing the Chinese a favor by invading Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/world/middleeast/china-reaps-biggest-benefits-of-iraq-oil-boom.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[leftynyc]

35. No - not kidding you

and I'm simply telling the truth. We didn't get the oil.

[Harmony Blue]

81. I guess those contracts for big oil

is a figment of our imaginations.

[leftynyc]

85. What contracts?

The ones China benefited from? No - what's in your imagination is that the Pres defended the Iraq war when he did no such thing. This place is getting as bad as any blog on the right with outright lying about what the President ACTUALLY said.

[Harmony Blue]

112. If you believe only China benefited

you are sorely mistaken. The Chinese unlike their western counterparts are fair trade partners with Iraqis and have fair contracts.

[leftynyc]

115. I never said the contracts were unfair

Only that we're not benefiting from them. But if you think the Chinese - with their currency manipulation - is an example of fair trade, it's you that is sorely mistaken. I'm sure the Chinese making peanuts and working 16 hour days really appreciate you - a person on the supposed left - thinking China engages in fair fiscal policies.

[2banon]

26. We didn't annex it, we just destroyed it. I guess that was better n/t

[leftynyc]

34. Did either I or the President

claim it was better? You're perfectly representing what my objection to this entire thread is. It's based on something that was never said but if you want to run around with your hair on fire, knock yourself out.

[JackRiddler]

90. Putin didn't destroy it, he just annexed it.

Which was better then?

[2banon]

101. Exactly my point.

I should have used sarcasm coda...

I'm just too astonished with the incredible depth of denial and/or hypocrisy ... I have no patience for it. The denial of what the purpose was in illegal invasion of Iraq, the destruction to the infrasture such as it was, the immediate looting and confiscation of antiquities and resources, NOT TO MENTION the millions of lives brutally destroyed with our cluster bombs, torture, and don't even get me started on Fallujah. And that's just scratching the surface... I can't for the life of me understand how it is that our people are so willing to forget in just a few short years. The aftermath continues. The revisionism is beyond the pale.

[Progressive dog]

18. Which mistakes do you mean?

If you mean the Iraq war, he did not defend it. He refused to actually tear the country apart by criminalizing it.

[Harmony Blue]

21. You don't have to say it is a criminal action

but it gives you an opportunity to distance yourself from that raging dumpster fire the previous administration left behind and will forever be infamous for.

Obama did distance himself from the Iraq War albatross while running for President of the United States , so arguing he can't do it now is simply ignoring history and reality.

[Progressive dog]

40. So not distancing himself (maybe Obama could pretend to

not be an American, the birthers would go for that) is the same as defending. I'll have to find the thesaurus you use?

[Harmony Blue]

48. We as Americans must accept what is done is done

but trying to justify the Iraq War is a losing hand. Obama may be a greater orator but he is a poor poker player.

[Progressive dog]

58. He did not try to justify the war,

he pointed out the obviously false equivalence between the Iraq war and Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Anyway, I didn't vote for someone to play poker.

[sendero]

22. I have to defend Obama here...

... first of all, I do not spend a great deal of time here defending Obama. But in this case, what choice does he really have? He cannot say "well since we invaded Iraq on nothing more than an easily debunked pack of lies, we have no authority to denounce the Crimean invasion".

He has no choice but to make his best defense of the actions taken. I DO NOT THINK HE BELIEVES A WORD OF WHAT HE IS SAYING but in his position he doesn't have a lot of latitude to criticize the past actions of the COUNTRY.

[JackRiddler]

43. Why doesn't he have this choice?

Since when is telling the truth not a choice?

[sendero]

45. Because to do so..

... would be an admission that we have no moral authority to criticize the actions of Putin re Crimea.

Of course we don't, but how can the president admit that? There are many many many reasons he cannot.

[JackRiddler]

46. Actually, it would have been the first step...

toward acquiring moral authority to criticize the actions of others, and it should have been taken in January 2009.

[sendero]

52. People...

... here accuse me of being a "purist" for falling out with Obama over so many issues. But if anyone ever had unrealistic expectations of what a President could do, it's anyone that thinks a President can take office and declare his predecessor a criminal and then actually finish serving his term. It's not going to happen. Not now, not ever, not in this country or any other developed country.

[2banon]

103. BINGO! ^^^^^10000++++

Exactly! "First Step toward acquiring MORAL AUTHORITY"

[Catherina]

104. +1 n/t

[KoKo]

70. He didn't have to bring it up in the first place... But Looking Tough

to the NeoCons seems to rule in DC. No matter how their "Foreign Policy" has failed and costs Trillions and Millions in Death and Suffering...he must bow down to them.

That is HIS WEAKNESS.... He shouldn't have gone there.

[jeff47]

27. Why are you lying?

Obama: The US went to the UN and got permission before invading Iraq. And the US did not annex Iraq after the invasion.
Reality: The US went to the UN and got permission before invading Iraq. And the US did not annex Iraq after the invasion.

Boy, that clearly was a terrible thing to say.

So why are you claiming that statement is "defending the mistakes of the previous administration"? It isn't defending lying to justify the Iraq invasion. It isn't defending Afghanistan. It isn't defending the whole metric shitload of mistakes from the previous administration.

It is saying that countries should go to the UN before invading, and should not annex afterwards.

What is the benefit of lying about this?

[JackRiddler]

42. You are wrong.

The U.S. and UK initiated the unprovoked war of aggression on the non-threatening nation of Iraq without benefit of a UN resolution. The majority even of U.S. allies within the NATO alliance opposed a war universally understood to be unilateral and in violation of international law.

This was a stated point of pride among some of the neocons, such as Perle who was happy that it would put an end to international law.

Please show your bigness by correcting yourself. You should apologize for this serious error, go learn some shit about "reality," and cede the field for a while to people who have a clue. Thank you.

[jeff47]

94. No, I'm not.

The UN security council passed a resolution authorizing member states to take any action against Iraq. That resolution did not exclude invasion from that authorization.

A second resolution explicitly authorizing the invasion probably would have failed, because other countries wanted to give the inspectors more time. Not because those other countries rejected invasion.

But the second resolution was not necessary - the broad wording of the first resolution authorized the invasion.

Please show your bigness by correcting yourself.

Should I hold up a mirror for you?

You demonstrate the danger in lies like the OP. Things that are not true becomes what "everyone knows". Like Al Gore inventing the Internet - never said it, never said anything that was even close to that claim. But "everyone knows" he said it.

[JackRiddler]

106. No one in the United Nations thinks anything of the sort.

The resolution did not authorize force. Furthermore, Iraq met the resolution conditions by allowing UN inspectors in! They left before completing the mission because the U.S. was about to bomb the place, and they condemned the U.S. action.

[jeff47]

114. So your argument is they couldn't read?

Or that they didn't read?

The resolution did not authorize force.

It authorized any action. It did not exclude force. Force is an action.

And having a resolution authorizing any action short of military force is not uncommon.

Furthermore, Iraq met the resolution conditions by allowing UN inspectors in!

Our fig leaf was there were a few sites Iraq would not let the inspectors go. Yes, they were places like Saddam's bedroom where there isn't going to be a heavy water reactor, but they could not go there.

Then the inspectors left, because the bombing was imminent.

Then Iraq said "OK, you can go anywhere".

Then our fig leaf became the inspectors weren't in the country.

Don't get me wrong, these events are an abomination that should be sending people to the Hague. Mostly for lying to get the resolution. But the resolution still passed.

[KittyWampus]

29. He didn't actually do that, but I understand why you think he did.

Ideologues see everything in black and white, thus all political speech is reduced to an inaccurate representation of reality.

Either that or you have been influenced by the Ideologues posting crap.

[Harmony Blue]

54. I see things in grays more than anyone on this board

that is why I have no friends haha. But with that said I disagree and here is why.

He could have distanced himself from the stench of the Iraq War just like he did when he was running for office so it makes no sense arguing he can't do it now.

Accept it...President Obama said it and now he owns it. Can't spin it away as his words matches his lack of action against the previous administration.

[FSogol]

32. Unrec. n/t

[DanTex]

37. If only he had said "Go ahead Putin, we got Iraq, you get Crimea" then we'd win both chambers!

It's so obvious! The electorate loves Putin, and absolutely hates it when the President criticizes Russia! Duh!

[JackRiddler]

38. He did not defend "mistakes."

He defended a planned and intended war of aggression and all the associated war crimes and crimes against humanity. Not such a surprise, since some of his earliest actions in office involved allowing the key architects of these crimes to escape any chance of justice.

[woo me with science]

41. [phone]. Thank you.

[nilesobek]

87. In respect sir.

What if the President was faced with a coup or a rebellion from the ultra-powerful forces who created the Iraq mess? What if, upon election, he found out the brutal truth that the deep state runs everything, including him? If the President prosecuted the war criminals he might face a civil war or insurrection in the military.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[JackRiddler]

89. What if?

Then we've got a big problem, and denial doesn't help except to make it worse. We should stop pretending there's a democracy at work, and have a chance to actually create one -- which can only come from knowledge.

[nilesobek]

95. I'm past the denial phase and have entered the acceptance phase.

The "what if," scenarios I proposed are sketchy to say the least. But you are right. I don't want to believe the alternative.

[Catherina]

105. Thank you. +1000 n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Well, we have to "look forward" just like when he didn't prosecute the CIA torturers.

And, won't prosecute the drone operators.

[Thinkingabout]

44. I fail to follow the reasoning of those who thinks GOTV will or maybe fail in the

Fall because of what Obama does or does not do. Unless you prefer to have the likes of Bush, Cheney, McCain or Romney running the future shows we have to GOTV and defeat the crazy RW crap dumped on us. You do not defeat the ones you don't like by not voting, we can't elect if we do not vote. I can think of dozens of reasons why I can not support the GOP platform but can not think of a good reason not to elect Democrats.

[JackRiddler]

47. Right, who cares what Obama does.

Just GOTV and follow along blindly even if crazy RW crap is dumped on us (such as an apology for the RW war of aggression in Iraq), because otherwise crazy RW crap will be dumped on us!

[Thinkingabout]

59. Are you campaigning for the RW?

[JackRiddler]

60. Are you murdering kittens?

If so, why?! How could you?

[Thinkingabout]

64. What has indication of campaigning got to do with murdering kittens, explain yourself.

[JackRiddler]

66. I don't answer obnoxious do you beat your wife questions.

But perhaps you'd like to tell us if the things people reportedly say are true, that you murder kittens?

[Thinkingabout]

74. Is it hard to explain yourself?

[JackRiddler]

77. Why won't you tell us if it's true that you murder kittens?

My god, is it?!

[Thinkingabout]

91. Gotcha, you go and be safe and hope you dont come back as a kitten. No excuses.

[JoePhilly]

53. If they think the President's statement (which the OP misrepresents) impacts turnout in 2014 ...

... they aren't very bright.

[Harmony Blue]

56. Why are you so certain?

And given that the GOP is looking for anything to use why give it to them on a silver platter?

Dem strategists are probably right now doing an epic synchronized face palm as we speak.

[JoePhilly]

67. So the GOP is going to go after the President's statement on Iraq?

Is that what you are suggesting?

How exactly is the GOP going to use his statement about the Iraq war as fodder for 2014?

Again, DU's Combustible Hair Club will be on to some new outrage within in days.

Why am I so certain? Because it happens regularly. The President says something rather mundane, and half of DU freaks out.

Then, nothing. They move on to the next "worst thing he's ever said".

[Harmony Blue]

78. This will embolden the war hawks

and they will argue that Obama the President is diametrically different than Obama the candidate.

[JoePhilly]

80. Ah ... so will that be at the same time that they are also calling him a "weak appeaser"?

Your suggested GOP 2014 tactic here is rather silly, but for fun, let's run with it.

You think ... the GOP is going to claim that people should vote for Republican Congress members, because President Obama is more of a war hawk than he was when he was a candidate, and clearly much more of a war hawk than he was even a weak ago, when he let Putin invade Crimea in the first place, or back when he was being too weak during and after Behngazi, and Syria.

That's what you think they'll do huh?

Ok.

[Harmony Blue]

83. No they will say that Obama says one thing but does another

like the deadline with ACA. The perception will trump reality and that is often enough to sway low information voters. If you can't comprehend how the average voter can be manipulated by the GOP having this then we will agree to disagree.

[JoePhilly]

51. You think a statement that you misrepresent (and do not link to) will impact GOTV efforts in 2014.

[Harmony Blue]

57. It is all over the internet and media

and will be part of the infamy of the Iraq War. Why do you require a link?

[JoePhilly]

62. Because if you read or watch what he actually said, your characterization is nonsense.

And 5 "very concerned" OPs on DU is not "all of the internet" and the media.

By next Monday morning, DU's Combustible Hair Club will be on to a new outrage.

[Harmony Blue]

68. That is what was said when Snowden

revealed the NSA spy program but it eventually caught on. This isn't going away, especially with high information voters and low information voters will tune out.

[JoePhilly]

71. LOL.

Yes, Obama saying that the US engaged the international community, and didn't annex Iraq, is going to EXPLODE!!!!

How exactly?

[Harmony Blue]

73. "Coalition of the willing" is engaging the international community?

Yeah right.

[JoePhilly]

76. Come on, how will the "controversy" over this statement "go on".

Humm?

You claim that there is some big issue here, one that will hurt the 2014 elections.

I call BS.

So put up. How will this statement, that you mischaracterize, continue to be an issue going into the elections?

You planning to make it part of your GOTV efforts?

[polichick]

55. Looks like the ptb have decided to toss it to the RepubliCon side of...

the corporate party.

But GET TO WORK, all you loyal little people!

[Harmony Blue]

61. Yeah the timing is simply stunning

I can't believe it. I feel so sad thinking about all those lost lives and money, and what it means for our country in the future...I feel blindsided.

[NYC Liberal]

75. He didn't "defend the mistakes of the previous administration". So...bullshit.

[Harmony Blue]

86. Here is your opporunity to explain?

Because saying the Iraq War is more justifiable because of "international support" (pretty much not true) compared to what Russia did to Crimea (annexation) stuns me....

[NYC Liberal]

88. Well since Obama never said invading Iraq was "more justifiable",

I'd like to know what you're talking about.

[Rex]

92. All the POTUS had to do was say that BOTH were bad ideas.

We all know he did not support the Iraqi invasion by the BFEE, all he had to do was say two wrongs don't make a right.

[Harmony Blue]

111. You win the prize

but somehow some can't see there is always another choice.

[rumdude]

93. Like a good lawyer, he's drawing distinctions

in international law between the Iraq war and Russia's invasion of Crimea. He said nothing that was not true.

[Harmony Blue]

113. What distintictions?

The U.S. had the "coalition of the willing" not the support of the entire international community..

[Corruption Inc]

100. Why do it? It's historical revisionism to justify letting them go

Sad but true, we're a lawless country with a two-tiered justice system, the very definition of corruption.

[1000words]

108. Crimes, not "mistakes."

Let's be accurate.

[Gothmog]

109. To use a legal term, what President Obama did was to distinguish the Iraq war from 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.