POTUS Did NOT Defend The Iraq War

[Motown_Johnny]

and anyone who claims that he did is either deliberately being misleading or is just plain clueless.


He was clearly using the example of the Iraq war as the US at it's worst. His point (in response to Putin's comment) was that even when we are at our worst, we don't do things as bad as the takeover of Crimea.


Context is everything. He was responding to a claim that both were the same thing. He was arguing that they aren't. He wasn't claiming that it was OK.



President Obama said. "But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory, nor did we grab its resources for our own gain. Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people, and a fully sovereign Iraqi state could make decisions about its own future."



That is not a defense of the Iraq war. It is pointing out that even at our worst we are better than that.



But even in Iraq.....


Yes


even in Iraq (when we fucked up so badly) America sought to......





Context.

[berni_mccoy]

1. Notice that he didn't even say we are better. He said there was a difference

That w.r.t. Iraq, the U.S. attempted to work with other countries and that we did not annex Iraq.

It's not a defense, it's not saying we're better, he simply said, directing at Putin, that you cannot compare the two.

[DirkGently]

26. So it's okay to mealy mouth a meaningless distinction?

There's no moral superiority in what we did in Iraq. And all the "differences" pointed out were largely bullshit. Our allies included everyone we could bribe or strongarm, and it was absolutely our intention to grab those oil fields.

So bringing it up and trying to draw distinctions is a dishonest exercise from the start. You could say Russia criticized the U.S. for unjustified aggression, and is now doing the same itself. Saying our aggressive debacle of unbridled greed, savagery, and arrogance was just "different" is a meaningless exercise that cannot be undertaken in good faith.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

28. Why don't you ask the Iraqis

Who are presently neither occupied, nor annexed, whether they consider such a distinction bullshit?

Before you get on your high moral horse.

Oh, and include the Kurds as well, since they actually were in favor of the mistake we made in Iraq.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[JackRiddler]

53. Why not ask what Iraqis thought about the U.S.

war of aggression in general, starting in 2003? (We could start earlier, but that should be good enough.)

While you're at it, you could ask the Crimeans what they think of the Russian intervention, and see which of the two is more popular among those directly affected?

(Interesting you should mention the Kurds! They'd like to detach themselves from the countries to which they are assigned, too.)

[frylock]

69. why don't you take a stroll through a Baghdad marketplace and fucking do that yourself?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

80. So, because there are terrorists blowing up car-bombs in Baghdad...

...largely because they're mad that Iraq is no longer a dictatorship where they could murder with impunity. This is the fault of the United States. Naturally.

Pure, quintessential, anti-Americanism.

Is there anything you don't consider the fault of the United States or Obama?

Oh, and by the way, if you want to see some real street scenes of Baghdad, not sensationalistic "if it bleeds, it leads" crap, try looking at this:

.

Iraqis are not a perfect people, and Iraq is not a perfect country. There still is substantial violence. But your attempt to make it into some post-apocalyptic wasteland due to the United States is laughable.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[frylock]

82. was that shit happening prior to 2003?

Proud member of the REAL reality based community.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

95. Far worse shit, actually

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq

You see, frylock, the Democratic position against the Iraq war was never "The Ba'athists are wonderful, innocent, people, and Iraq is a nation of peace until those evil and terrible Americans, the worst scourge on all humanity, decided to invade". It's always been about difficult choices between allowing hundreds of thousands of people to be persecuted and murdered, vs the vast death and disruption associated with open warfare - all in the light of what is the best in terms of international precedents and U.S. interests.

If you want a party which spews pure unadulterated anti-American hatred contrary to all objective facts, the Democratic Party ain't it.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[frylock]

98. good thing we liberated the everloving shit out of them

[Capt. Obvious]

93. Did you get your flowers and candies from the Iraqis yet?

[7962]

57. regardless of whether one supported the Iraqi war, the differences between that and Crimea are many.

Not that anyone here on DU DID support that war. But Putin is just trying the "But Jimmy did it" defense. It didnt work with my mom and it shouldnt work with the rest of the normal world either.

[JackRiddler]

73. Yeah, like Putin didn't kill a million people in Crimea...

Or make millions more homeless. Or destroy the infrastructure, poison the water supply, and make the natives pay for the expenses of repairing it. Also, he held a referendum and surprise, the Russians voted for Russia. Many differences indeed.

Plenty of people on DU DID support the war in 2003.

[Recursion]

83. No, that's Chechnya you're thinking of (nt)

[JackRiddler]

86. Indeed.

Putin is a villain to me.

I remember 9/99 - their own 9/11, in more ways than one.

A lot of accumulated structures of repression to overthrow.

[ljm2002]

76. How many bombs were dropped in Crimea?

How many people died in the Russian occupation?

Yes, the differences between what happened in Iraq and Crimea are vast.

[treestar]

112. Putin didn't have to drop bombs

He would have if need be.

It could well come to that.

He still isn't justified in doing what he did. Iraq or no Iraq.

[ljm2002]

117. How close is Iraq to the US...

...as compared to how close Crimea is to Russia? How close are the cultural and political ties between the countries, as compared to those between Iraq and the US, historically? How many Iraqis voted to have the US invade, vs. how many Crimeans voted to join Russia?

How much did Russia meddle in internal Iraqi politics, say from the first Gulf War through the time that GWB's administration invaded?

Yes, the differences between the two situations are vast indeed. Which is what I was commenting on.

[treestar]

120. Well you are allowed to compare that too

The POTUS is allowed to make other comparisons and contrasts.

It's not all black and white.

If a majority in the state of Sonora wanted to join the US and we sent some troops there and Mexico opposed it, I'm not thinking that would be OK though.

[DirkGently]

119. Yes, we killed thousands in Iraq & committed war crimes.

The comparison doesn't favor us in the slightest. We engaged in a murderous 10-year war and threw the Geneva Convention out the window in the process.

We have a hypocrisy problem with Iraq going forward. Pretending is was okay "when Jimmy did it" doesn't win the argument. "Two wrongs don't make a right" might fly, or we could scrupulously avoid the topic. We can't rationalize a way in which it was okay.

[Gothmog]

78. This is how lawyers distinguish one set of facts from another

President Obama did not defend the Iraq war but distinguished from the actions of Russia in Crimea. There is a difference between the two concepts

[JackRiddler]

87. And distinguished poorly.

Lawyers are wrong at least half the time, by definition in an adversarial system.

[Gothmog]

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

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

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

[treestar]

113. It's not a matter of right and wrong

A lawyer isn't "wrong" because the judge decided otherwise. The job was to distinguish. Otherwise, you are positing that judges are always correct, and I doubt you are willing to do that. That would mean Citizens United was correct and the lawyers who argued the other side were wrong.

The reason there are any lawyers is that questions remained unsettled.

[DirkGently]

109. Lawyers talk about "distinction without a difference" as well.

Not that legal argument has a thing to do with the basic problem of hypocrisy here.

[Gothmog]

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

The purpose of this speech was to refute Putin's justifications for the annexation of Crimea and to build support among our allies to further sanctions if Putin attempts to annex the eastern portion of Ukraine. The purpose of this speech was not to make haters of the Iraq war happy (I am in this group in that I disagreed strongly with the invasion of Iraq and still have very strong feelings towards bush, cheney, rice and rumsfeld).

President Obama did a good job of distinguishing the Iraq war from the annexation of Crimea and in refuting Putin's justifications for the annexation. Our allies are supporting President Obama in promising further sanctions against Russia if Putin tried to annex the eastern section of Ukraine.

I note that one day after this speech, Putin called Obama to ask for negotiations and that Sec. of State Kerry changed the route of his plane to go to Paris to meet with his Russian counterpart. I think that President Obama's speech had its desired result

[DirkGently]

111. He did no good disingenuously trying to justify Iraq.

If Putin is contemplating further adventures in the Ukraine, the threat of sectoral sanctions are what will keep him in line. Putin apparently has dreams of getting the old Soviet Bloc back together.

Trying to make the unjustifiable slaughter and torture of thousands in Iraq seem like a lesser crime is hypocrisy, is perceived by everyone as such, and to the extent it does anything just makes Putin's crimes look less severe by comparison.

[treestar]

114. Gothmog is right - he did obtain some good results

He upset a couple of DU posters. I doubt that's worth more than inflaming an international situation.

And they didn't even have to be upset. He wasn't defending the Iraq war. They can be reassured about that if that is the true issue.

I'd hate to have personal relationships with some of these people. In fact it's hard to interact on DU with people who take everything in the worst way they can. Be more forgiving of others' choice of words. They may make bad word choices at times too.

[DirkGently]

116. The "upset" appears to be about the criticism.

I don't see anyone's heads exploding over the fact Obama unjustifiably tried to re-frame Iraq as anything other than the greedy expansionist exercise that it was. They're pointing out something they think was a bad idea.

Then I see people starting multiple OPs about the horrors of "Obama bashing" and how DUers with thousands of posts are somehow participating in a rightwing strategy to lose the mid-terms.

Which I think is stupid every time I see it.

If Obama's speech "worked," it wasn't by tap-dancing around Iraq. Everyone sees through that.

Pragmatically OR ethically speaking, whitewashing Iraq is a fail.

[treestar]

118. The horrors are not of Obama bashing, but for taking something he said

way in which it was not meant.

Nobody is upset at the criticism. They are just pushing back that it was a whitewashing of Iraq or not and wondering if this extent of holding POTUS feet to the fire really helps elect more Democrats. Or even more progressive Democrats.

We get plenty of Obama bashing from the right. I am used to hearing far worse.

[DirkGently]

121. Dems should be united in condemning Iraq, period.

We can recognize Obama is in a tough spot because neocons pulled off a horrific crime, but we'd be fools to participate in a whitewashing.

What happens if Dems successfully create a rationale under which Iraq really wasn't soooo bad? If we agree we were liberating people from a tyrant or protecting the world from WMDs?

If we want to lead on the basis our policies are better, we can't do that by pretending America didn't screw up when the other guys were in charge.

Maybe Obama had to say *something* about Iraq. A lot of Dems think this wasn't it. This is what democratic discussion looks like.

[Gothmog]

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

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

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

[RobertEarl]

2. What a shame

Shame that people have to explain what the president says.

Looks like way too many people think Obama was making excuses.

You would think the message would be VERY clear by now.

[elleng]

4. Yes, the message and PrezO's approach to matters.

[elleng]

3. THANKS.

Didn't follow that DU thread, and appreciate your clarity.

[ellie]

5. Thank you

[Cali_Democrat]

6. The goal is deliberate misrepresentation and misinformation...

to diminish Democratic support for the President and ultimately turnout in the 2014 mid term election.

[RobertEarl]

7. Bulls

Obama should have said the US was criminal and that Russia seems to be saying that since the US was criminal Russia could be criminal too.

Instead the message was very unclear and seemingly makes excuse for bush.

It isn't about any election, it IS about seeing history.

Your words are doing more damage to democratic party unity.

[JaneyVee]

10. Yeah, right after Obama condemns FDRs internment camps.

What you're forgetting is that Obama already spoke about his opposition to the Iraq War. Why does he need to remind everyone all the time?

[Cali_Democrat]

11. I have no doubt in my mind about the motives of certain individuals

when they twist Obama's words for certain purposes.

Feel free to disagree with me if you like.

I'm entitled to my opinion.

[RobertEarl]

14. No you are not

When your opinion seeks to drive others from expressing theirs by using divisive terms, you are being anti-democratic. You probably have caused many to give up and walk away due to your divisive tactics. It is your motive which is in question.

[Cali_Democrat]

15. I'm not entitled to my own opinion?

Well I think I am...so too bad for you.

BTW, I like how skinner wasn't fooled by your post on 'Obamabots'

Didn't fool me either.

[RobertEarl]

17. It is because of your motive

You are not being democratic, or liberal or even compassionate. You are just attacking people for having a different opinion than you.

You are divisive and contrary. Your efforts here do more to divide than unite. That is my opinion.

[Historic NY]

50. Your getting caught up in your own words....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024402414

[treestar]

41. Seeing history!

How grand you are! That is of course more important than the midterm elections. So what if the Rs get the House AND the Senate. Once statement Obama made one day in March is part of HISTORY!

[uhnope]

19. exactly, the whole "disappointed" hype. They get a pony they want a BETTER pony

[JoePhilly]

31. Correct.

[beerandjesus]

34. Slandering Democrats. That's pretty.

Amazing how some people still think they can demoralize the Democratic base and then blame them for not showing up.


Seriously, is politics really just like sports to you? Your team winning = good, opposing team winning = bad?

Cuz that's damn fucking sure how it looks to a lot of us.


I don't like the "Obamabot" epithet one bit, but claiming that those criticizing the President have "the goal" of depressing turnout is not only ridiculous, it's slanderous.

[treestar]

44. They are to blame for not showing up

especially if the reason they are so demoralized is that we don't jump on a bandwagon of misinterpreting one of the POTUS' many statements.

People like that are few and far between and not worth courting.

[bornskeptic]

75. The Democratic base always shows up for elections.

That's why we are called the base - because we are reliable.

[grasswire]

59. sure, that's it

Will Pitt wants Republicans to win in 2014.

That's it!!

~~sarcasm~~

[Cali_Democrat]

61. No. Will Pitt is a....

"profession writer"....



He just wants $$$$$

[grasswire]

62. anyone who just wants $$$$ is not likely to become a writer.

It's not exactly the path to riches, except for a few people.

[okaawhatever]

8. The UN had various sanctions, resolutions, attempted disarmament and inspections scheduled,

attempted and/or completed for 13 years before the US ever entered that country. Saddam Hussein had already used chemical weapons twice. He killed more of his own people than all the coalition forces did. The man was an evil despotic tyrant who had been causing harm to the world and his own people for years. The situation in Iraq and the situation in Crimea pre-invasion aren't even close to the same thing. Not to mention, with Russia's veto power and vow to use it, it wouldn't have been "legal" to go into Iraq if Stalin, Hitler and Mao were there killing puppies and babies.

The difference Obama pointed out is that in Iraq there was 13 yrs of attempts to use legal channels to bring Hussein to justice for his crimes. Russia took over Crimea with zero official complaints from Russian residents, UN resolutions, people murdered, etc. Those two things aren't even close to being the same thing and any comparison is pathetic.

[Kelvin Mace]

13. No, Crimea and Iraq

are not the same.

That said, we still had ZERO legal justification to invade Iraq. So, our government lied, then invaded based on the lie. That is a war crime.

[DirkGently]

32. Both were illegal pretext wars for selfish reasons.

They don't have to have been "the same." That's not the standard for comparison. No two evil, illegal wars of aggression are "the same."

We didn't follow "international norms" in Iraq. We made the inspectors leave because they weren't finding anything and Bush & Co. didn't like that result.

We didn't go into to liberate anyone from a tyrant, either. Reagan and pre-Kuwait Bush I loved the guy. Armed him. Protected him. Hussein was "our guy" until we decided we wanted his stuff.

We DID go in for selfish reasons. We DID meet with oil companies and draft plans to seize the oil fields immediately.

We DID kidnap, torture, and murder people -- per our own investigations -- without cause, and in violation of every notion of civilized treatment. We STILL have illegal prisoners in custody, and don't even have a solid plan to prosecute or release them.

There was no good, noble purpose for Iraq. Not even a passable rationale. That's the comparison being discussed, and there's no amount of sidestepping that protects the U.S. from charges of hypocrisy regarding the illegal invasion of a sovreign country in peacetime, on a pretext, for selfish reasons.

[7962]

64. Thank you. I dont understand people getting bent out of shape about Obama's statement.

[polichick]

9. He defended the U.S.

[Progressive dog]

12. No he didn't, but the political strategy

of the President's opponents is to demonize him and his supporters.

[Corruption Inc]

16. I guess he never read all the rules Bremer put into place in Iraq

or, as everyone knows who doesn't have their head up their ass, Obama just repeated pure propaganda, a propaganda paradigm built up around the illegal invasion of Iraq, going back to the PNAC days.

Why anyone would defend that means only one thing, that they believe in historical revisionism.

[secondwind]

18. K&R.... I don't feel the same about DU as I used to.... too much negativity!

[mimi85]

29. I totally agree.

It's getting very discouraging here.

[savalez]

103. The very last

sentence in the TOS is "don't make it suck". They should move that up a bit.

[DirkGently]

20. Yeah. No. What he said was wrong.

- We DID go in to grab their resources. Check Cheney's pre-war divvying up the oil fields for energy companies

- We left the country an ungovernable shambles, still on fire and wracked by destruction

- We absolutely did NOT abide by international standards of anything. We kidnapped, tortured, and murdered people without charge or proof of wrongdoing -- and that's according to US.

Obama did not cause the Iraq war. Obama did not vote for the Iraq war. But he tried to defend the indefensible, and in so doing muddled the facts and rationalized and dissembled.

Did he have any choice? Maybe not. Every time, forever, that the U.S. tries to tell another country it is selfishly and inexcusably using force on another country under a transparently fake rationale, there will be Iraq. Not our first crime of that sort, but it's the one we will never be permitted to forget.

This is another reason we should have prosecuted the war criminals. If we'd ever planned on being taken seriously as any kind of moral arbiter of responsible international citizenship, that is what we had to do. We didn't. HE didn't.

Of course, if he apologized unreservedly, Republicans would pillory him for being "weak."

But "context" doesn't help anyone here. Iraq is a flaming pile of bad that America created, and its shame cannot be swept aside or excused or explained or talked around. We are a non-entity in the world of self-righteous international conduct, and there is nothing Obama can do about it, but that doesn't mean his attempts to do so succeeded, either.

It is what it is. An inexcusable, inexhaustible reason to call America a hypocrite any time it tries to judge another country for horrific aggression in the name of freedom.

Not his fault. But not within his power to repair, either.

[xchrom]

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.

[smokey nj]

38. Thanks for this, xchrom.

[RufusTFirefly]

54. +1. The statement is rife with hypocrisy and half-truths

For example, it gives the impression that we wanted to withdraw all U.S. troops. We didn't. We wanted to keep several thousand troops in the country, but when Iraq refused to guarantee their immunity, we felt compelled to withdraw them. We didn't withdraw those troops because we wanted to. We withdrew them because we had to.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

22. thank you.

statesmanship is nuanced. What PBO said was in no way condoning the Iraq war.

[Iliyah]

23. Yep, but alas the haters gonna hate

same thing that the RWers do and honestly there is not difference and I'm getting tired of coming here with all this gawd damn negativity when we should be trying to get out the vote. Seems like these haters want America to fail = Libertarian/GOP party.

[Vattel]

24. Obama doesn't seem to think that we were at our worst in Iraq.

In his speech at Fort Bragg to announce the end of the war he trumpeted the war as a huge success:

"It's harder to end a war than begin one. Indeed, everything that American troops have done in Iraq - all the fighting and all the dying, the bleeding and the building, and the training and the partnering - all of it has led to this moment of success.

Now, Iraq is not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people. . . .

This is an extraordinary achievement, nearly nine years in the making. . . .

We remember the early days: the American units that streaked across the sands and skies of Iraq, the battles from Karbala to Baghdad, American troops breaking the back of a brutal dictator in less than a month.

We remember the grind of the insurgency: the roadside bombs, the sniper fire, the suicide attacks.

From the 'triangle of death' to the fight for Ramadi, from Mosul in the north to Basra in the south, your will proved stronger than the terror of those who tried to break it.

We remember the spectre of sectarian violence. Al-Qaeda's attacks on mosques and pilgrims, militias that carried out campaigns of intimidation and campaigns of assassination.

And in the face of ancient divisions you stood firm to help those Iraqis who put their faith in the future. . . .

Just last month some of you - members of the Falcon Brigade - turned over the Anbar Operations Center to the Iraqis in the type of ceremony that has become commonplace over these last several months.

In an area that was once the heart of the insurgency, a combination of fighting and training, politics and partnership brought the promise of peace.

And here's what the local Iraqi deputy governor said: 'This is all because of the US. forces' hard work and sacrifice.'

That's in the words of an Iraqi. Hard work and sacrifice.

Those words only begin to describe the costs of this war and the courage of the men and women who fought it."

[Arkana]

45. Yes, because the President of the United States

is going to tell a bunch of veterans who just put their fucking LIVES on the line in Bush's war "Yeah, it was all for nothing and you guys didn't do shit. We're going home now."

When are you guys gonna get that the President isn't and can never be a bomb-throwing asshole? It's the same reason that guys like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul will never be President.

[Vattel]

52. So you are saying that he lied to the soldiers he was speaking to?

[stevenleser]

66. We could just as well ask you where you get all the straw. nt

[7962]

68. No, he didn't lie. The statements he made were true ones, for the most part.

The military DID those things he pointed out. Should he have stood there and said "I voted against this war and all of you wasted your time"?
Please.

[Vattel]

72. I understand the political reasons for Obama candy-coating the war in a speech like that one.

But coating it that sugary sweet does make one gag a little.

[rusty fender]

79. Obama should have apologized to those soldiers

for Bush's illegal war. He should have said that he was sorry that Bush's lies made them kill innocent Iraqis. An honest, remorseful man would have told them the truth. Instead, the troops got more lies and more bullshit from another Commander-in-Chief.

[Arkana]

92. Yes, call American soldiers murderers. You certainly know

how to win hearts and minds.

[rusty fender]

96. You are the one calling them murders

My post made it clear that Bush is to blame, but you knew that.

[Arkana]

97. Yep. The media will clearly make that distinction. Obviously.

Last edited Fri Mar 28, 2014, 11:42 AM - Edit history (1)

You're asking the President to pick a fight that will serve no purpose other than glorifying your ego and those of folks who think like you. How is that not the epitome of selfish?

[rusty fender]

106. Really? Wanting the POTUS to tell the truth

is about glorifying my ego? Wow, the cheerleading has gotten very twisted.

[GiveMeMorePIE]

25. Of course he didn't.

And it was definitely one of the best speeches of his career.

He has definitely set the bar for what we should expect from all Democrats on foreign policy in the future.

[rtracey]

27. totally agree

I totally agree with your thread...and this passage tells everything...."But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory, nor did we grab its resources for our own gain. Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people, and a fully sovereign Iraqi state could make decisions about its own future."

[FSogol]

30. K&R. n/t

[Enthusiast]

33. Hundreds of thousands were killed for nothing!

Trillions were spent. Thousands of vets are suffering now. All so one little man could strut around acting like a bad ass (and oil).

[arcane1]

36. Indeed, how many boombs and missiles were dropped on Crimea on the first day?

Just because we made some half-ass request for international permission to drop all those bombs, doesn't make it OK to drop them.

[Enthusiast]

48. Bush destroyed any good will and respect the United States built up over decades.

Nothing positive should ever be said about the Iraq or Afghanistan wars. They are a shameful blight on this nation.

[TBF]

35. That only works if you think Crimea

was a hostile takeover.

The south and east of Ukraine are friendlier to Russia than the EU.

[Cha]

90. I do.

[TBF]

94. People are allowed to have differing

opinions - and I will say even with the differing opinions as to how this event has gone down I am very glad it has proceeded without "shock and awe". That is a big change from previous administrations.

[Enrique]

37. in order to support Obama

some people feel the need to deny things that he says and does.

[Arkana]

43. Good thing that's not what happened here.

[Cha]

84. No. Obama supporters are into the reality of what he says and does. It's the

freaking attentionwhores who have to twist his words and actions.

[treestar]

39. K&R

That has been obvious from the start, yet they keep saying it. It's one of those memes they say over and over to get others parroting it to "make" it true.

Putin doesn't even have the veneer of false excuses. More importantly Russia has not changed leaders since then. Bush is not still there, but he could apparently be in a system like Russia's.

Poor Russians. It looked like they were getting somewhere.

[livingonearth]

40. Thank You!

Thank You! Thank You! This is exactly what I have been saying.

[Arkana]

42. No, he didn't, but that hasn't stopped the Manufactured Outrage Brigade

from sending out their ravens to every corner of the realm.

[progressoid]

46. Our shit doesn't stink as much as yours.

[Billy Budd]

47. POTUS OBama is correct

Last edited Thu Mar 27, 2014, 05:20 PM - Edit history (1)

“Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America’s favored method. In the main, it has preferred what it has described as ‘low intensity conflict.’ Low intensity conflict means that thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a bomb on them in one fell swoop.

“It means that you infect the heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subdued – or beaten to death – the same thing – and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit comfortably in power, you go before the camera and say that democracy has prevailed.”...British Playwright Harold Pinter acceptance Nobel Prize 2005

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/02/06/a-rare-indictment-of-us-atrocities/

[joeybee12]

49. Has he ever admitted it was a mistake? That we broke the law? Has Kerry? Has Clinton?

Until they do, none of them get a pass in my book.

[JackRiddler]

55. It was not a mistake. It was a crime.

The crime was committed intentionally, by people who knew it was a crime, and did it anyway. Obama also knows this. (I have more respect for his intelligence and understanding of the law than many of his supporters, apparently, whose excuses for his words would make him out to be a complete fool.) Obama did not move to prosecute the criminals. He even attempted to overturn the criminals' own deal to end the war, and to extend the U.S. presence past the SOFA deadline.

[joeybee12]

60. You're right, and the rest of them bend over backwards to try and

justify their approval of the invasion...quite frankly, there was enough evidence and enough doub even at the beginning, but they were all too cowardly to say or do anything.

[arcane1]

65. Kerry ran for president supporting the Iraq war.

He distinguished his position from Bush's by basically saying "I would've invaded Iraq too, but I would've tried harder to get help from our allies".

[joeybee12]

67. Both he and DiFi were very vocal against it before the actual vote,

then they went and voted and authorized Bush to invade, and no verbal gymnastics on either's part is goona change the fact tat they were complicit in this.

[orpupilofnature57]

51. Usurping is Usurping, Exploiting by mistake is no excuse .

[peace13]

56. Someone got Iraq's oil.

If that is not a resource I don't know what is. Just saying.

He is my President but on Iraq and letting our war criminals run free, he and I do not agree.

[orpupilofnature57]

70. The 1% or as you said " Our War criminals "

I voted for him twice, and after fortifying the ' Patriot Act ' in 2010, it was harder to feel hopeful, a lesser of two evils at best . He's not the man who was going to hold the lecherous misanthropes feet to the fire .

[peace13]

77. I think not prosecuting the war criminals...

...has left us in a lawless state. Most people disregard right and wrong and simply act confused if their feet are held to the fire. The president may have had the best intentions to move the country forward. If so he underestimated the affect lack of prosecution would have on the world. We will pay for this , possibly for eternity as I see no turning back.

[orpupilofnature57]

108. Kkkarl Rove, Poppy and that kitten eating Chenney,

the misanthropes that got us used to being lied and cheated .

[peace13]

122. So true.

Several years ago Kkkarl came to my town. The local young Rethuglicans were paying him to speak. We did our civic duty and met him on the corner with signs and gave witness to him that people will never forget his crimes. What can I say? He needs this reminder at every turn!

[Cryptoad]

58. Many Obama Haters here,,,,,,,

gives them a break from shining Snowden's pedestal

[JackRiddler]

63. The 2003 formulation was "Saddam lovers"

[orpupilofnature57]

71. Just disappointed, if that's OK .

[Gothmog]

74. 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.

[rhett o rick]

81. You are wrong.

"President Obama said. "But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory, nor did we grab its resources for our own gain. Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people, and a fully sovereign Iraqi state could make decisions about its own future."

We didnt seek to work withing the international system. We gave the United Nations the finger. We did "grab their resources" and gave them to private corporations.

We did cause the deaths of maybe a million innocent iraqi's. We cause the death of thousands of American soldiers that had put their faith in their leaders. We took $2 trillion dollars from the lower classes and gave it to the wealthy.

Pres Obama tried to downplay our war crimes, our violations of international law, in order to be able to preach to Putin.

[JohnRogan]

100. sounds like Obama is saying our shit does not smell as bad as Putins shit!

If Obama wanted to take the high ground he should have started on day one.

Its too late now.

[Cha]

85. Thank you Motown.. it really does help not to have a freaking kneejerk.

[lame54]

88. I think everybody is forgetting SHOCK & AWE

[NCTraveler]

89. "anyone who claims that he did is either deliberately being misleading or is just plain clueless."

Agree when it comes to the comments about what Obama said. The mental gymnastics over that comment are impressive. Take your pick, clueless or misleading.

[99Forever]

91. I am neither..

"deliberately being misleading or is just plain clueless."

I am also not blind to reality. IMO, the POTUS did indeed defend the Iraq war and I won't be browbeat into not seeing things for exactly what they are. Spin is for chumps.

[TheKentuckian]

99. Yeah, it is a defense and a white wash. It is pitiful to pretend otherwise.

And we have been excusing and white washing the whole way and that is clearly demonstrated by some of our nation's worst criminals not only running around free, wealthy, and untouched but actually allowed platforms when they should have the Manson treatment, at best.

[840high]

102. Amen.

[redgreenandblue]

101. Yes, by claiming it was not as bad as Crimea he is defending it.

Your denial does not make it less true.

[Gothmog]

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

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

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

[treestar]

115. Logic doesn't work that way

In some ways it was worse than Crimea, in some ways it is not as bad as Crimea.

It is OK to talk about each different issue.