It's absolutely amazing to me . . .

[Le Taz Hot]

I sat on this board in 2001, 2002 and 2003 and watched the debate about whether or not to invade Iraq. To a person, TO A PERSON, EVERYONE on DU agreed that this was a terrible idea and it was all about oil and that we were being lied to about the reasons for ILLEGALLY invading another country having nothing to do with 9/11. TO. A. PERSON.

It's more than amazing, it is, as others have said, VOMIT-INDUCING that now, since President Obama is defending it, NOW it's justified. If there is any better definition of hypocrisy by those who defend PO whether he's right or wrong to now try and justify this invasion just because the president says so then I don't know what it is.

THIS is what blind loyalty does. You throw out your own common sense, your own integrity of thought and belief, your own logical conclusions just to throw blind allegiance to a person/ideology. It's nothing less than despicable and that's being kind.

[G_j]

1. +1000

[spanone]

2. link to Obama defending iraq war?

[Old Codger]

6. here is what I find

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024731723

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/obama-iraq_n_5036771.html

[Baitball Blogger]

7. +1

If Obama made such a statement, I'm wondering what he got back in return for it.

[TroglodyteScholar]

106. What did he get in return?

As far as I can tell, nothing but well-deserved ridicule.

We "tried" to work with the UN (a questionable premise to begin with), and then stormed on through when it didn't go our way. And this is what he defended with a straight face. I had to check my calendar for April 1.

I have a hunch, though, as to why he couldn't just say "The Iraq invasion was illegal." It's because he already committed (on record) to letting the war criminals skate. Also--good, bad, or indifferent--President Obama is now the face of the government that committed the crimes. So coming out and saying what we're all thinking could potentially put him in at risk legally.

Still, a highschool freshman could have put together a more compelling response to Putin's Iraq criticisms, even under the constraints I mentioned above. That President Obama didn't look at this speech and say out loud "This part is absurd on its face" truly makes me question his judgment.

[zeemike]

115. Or what he did not get.

The carrot works for some, but the stick is just as good.

[JoePhilly]

9. He didn't defend the Iraq war.

In making a comparison to what Putin is doing in the Crimea, Obama said that he was against the Iraq war. But even then, when Bush went into Iraq, the US went to the International community to get approval, and the US did not attempt to annex Iraq.

Stating those facts has caused DU's perpetually disgruntled community to conclude that his statements on this are the worst thing that the President has ever said, since whatever it was he said last week.

Next week, they'll be totally incensed about something else.

[spanone]

11. i watched his speech. it didn't appear he was defending the war. he was comparing it to crimea.

[JoePhilly]

17. Same here ... if you watched it, you get it.

I think some of the hair on fire threads posted here work from the assumption that no one will go watch the actual remarks.

Easier to create a high rec angry thread that way.

[treestar]

25. Exactly, talk about spin

So obvious it's clear as glass. Unbelievable.

[sabrina 1]

108. He was responding to criticism of the US from all over the globe for what the world is calling

'hypocrisy'.

And please explain the comparison of Iraq, number of those tortured, number slaughtered by the Bush/Cheney liars and war criminals, numbers forced out of the country because of the horrendous, brutal violence, how the Iraqis VOTED for that illegal invasion, to Crimea, where a majority of the people ARE RUSSIAN, a majority VOTED to annex to Russia. Please explain the similarities? The world wants to hear them.

THAT is why the president was trying to deflect the world wide criticism of the US lecturing ANYONE on 'invasions' of any kind because of what the US did to Iraq and to Afghanistan.

And we on the Left WARNED that the US would lose its moral authority, which it has and which is why the President found himself in this predicament IF the US did not hold the War Criminals accountable.

Surely you are not here on DU now trying to make even the tiniest of excuse for that massive, horrific crime? I am astounded at what is going on here.

The ONLY way this country can restore its moral authority is to start the prosecutions. Until then no US President can point fingers ANYWHERE without having thousands pointed right back at them.

[JaneyVee]

13. It's sad that this place doesn't do nuance and context

Only sound bites and snippets. I thought that was a right wing trait. Thanks for a sane post.

[JoePhilly]

18. I always knew the right wing lived in a black and white world.

DU has taught me, in recent years, that there is a part of the left who live in a "white and black world".

Same narrow perspective, just flipped over.

The right is screaming "Obama is weak!!!"

The disgruntled here on DU: "Obama's a warmonger!!!"

[GeorgeGist]

30. And when the UN said NO 'we' invaded anyway.

[jeff47]

35. Actually, the UN said yes.

The first UN resolution was worded in such a way as to authorize war.

A second UN resolution that explicitly authorized the invasion would have been voted down. So we did not seek one. We invaded under the first resolution.

[redqueen]

57. Thank you. nt

[questionseverything]

105. no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force.

Security Council vote[edit]

On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15–0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab states such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.
While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:
“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[3] ”
The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:
“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[4] ”
The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:
“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[5]

[jeff47]

107. It didn't need "hidden triggers".

The UN resolution authorized any action. It did not exclude military force. Thus, it authorized invasion.

[questionseverything]

135. not according to the people that co sponsored it

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:
“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12.

///////////////////////////////////

[jeff47]

142. Again, it did not explicitly forbid it.

From the perspective of the neocons, that was kind of the point - it gave them a fig leaf to hide behind if they couldn't get the 2nd resolution.

Doesn't matter what people "meant to do". It matters what they did do. It doesn't matter if some people meant for there to be a second resolution, they wrote the first one so that they did not need a second resolution.

There's plenty of reasons to send W and company to the Hague. We don't need to make up more.

[G_j]

10. when he said, "America sought to work within the international system,"

he left out a most important fact, that they were lying to the UN.

[Iggo]

20. Oh gawd, the taco trucks of mass destruction.

Obvious lies were obvious then. Obvious lies are obvious now.

[JoePhilly]

21. And does that mean he supported the war, no.

And he said he did not support the Iraq war.

Anyone with half a brain knows he's trying to draw a distinction regarding what's going on in Crimea. Not litigate the Iraq war.

What I'm seeing here is that some on DU can't focus beyond their own nose. The President is trying to deal with a very complex situation in Crimea.

And what do some here want him to do, chase Bush around ... because apparently, that would in some way help the situation in Crimea.

Bottom line: same disgruntled folks running around with their hair on fire over a statement that no one will be talking about a week from now.

[G_j]

34. no he didn't, that's not the point. He misrepresented the facts.

Whether some think he "defended" the war, or not, I am just saying he greatly misrepresented it. I am not a big fan of rewriting history.

[JoePhilly]

49. The US did go to the international community ... right?

You claim the President "misrepresented a fact". And while I tend to agree that Powell's information was wrong, I'm not so sure he lied. I understand others might dispute that but just because you think he lied, that does not make it a "fact".

If you go back over the history of Powell's remarks, both at the UN, and his remarks prior ... he appears to have been trying to weed through as much of the BS as he could.

His problem is that he tried to be the good soldier. Which is why they used him in the first place. He had lots of credibility going in, he tried to weed out the nonsense, but he still ended up taking plenty of bogus material. To this day he contends that he vetted the content that he took to a degree he felt confident with. So again, you claiming he lied, doesn't make it a fact that the President needs to address in a statement about what Putin is doing in the Crimea.

So now let's think about yesterday's press conference. There is a reasonable debate to be had as to whether Powell lied (or if others intentionally gave him bad intel, which is probably true) when he went to the UN.

Is that the correct forum in which the President should bring up a debate about what Colin Powell said to the UN? I mean, would that serve some purpose in that setting? I don't think so.

And so, while some here are in full freak out mode, I'll bet this outrage disappears just about as fast as it appeared. Because that statement, in that context, is a relative, non-event.

[G_j]

53. then Powell was lied to

but somebody lied, big time.

[Iggo]

63. To believe that, one has to believe that Powell is an idiot.

And I don't think he's stupid.

[WatermelonRat]

89. Here's what I think happened:

People were so caught up in thinking of Saddam as a modern day Hitler or Stalin that insufficient rigor was pursued in vetting the intelligence. Very flimsy evidence and testimony was embraced because it fit with the assumptions already held. "He's Saddam Hussein! Of course he's making WMDs! He gassed thousands of Kurds and is being uncooperative with inspections! Sure we can't quite nail him on it, but we just know what he's up to!" They deceived themselves as much as they did the public.

I know I'm one of the few who think this way, but I suspect that even George Bush believed that Saddam had WMDs. Not because Dubya is some paragon of virtue and honesty or anything, but simply because one would think that if he knew they didn't have any he would have either fabricated and planted some or put emphasis on something else when stating the war's rationale.

[treestar]

27. Compared to Russia and the Crimea

was the point.

Russia didn't even make a pretense.

[pscot]

140. 600,000 dead Iraqi civilians is the moral equivalent

of 1 dead Ukrainian soldier. Got it.

[hfojvt]

76. that's the problem

Obama said something which "could be taken to mean" he was defending the invasion of Iraq, at least a little bit.

One of the problems with partisanship is this. And I cannot remember the exact quote.

"If somebody is your friend, they can dump a plate of spaghetti in your lap, and you will laugh about it. If somebody is your enemy, the way they hold their fork will infuriate you." (and yes, I am using quotation marks for a paraphrase.)

Once you feel like you have been betrayed by Obama, it becomes easier and easier to find fault in EVERYthing he does. Whatever he says can be interpreted to mean something really bad. It will be clear to you, that is what it means.

But on the other hand, if you feel like somebody has done well by you, then you will be quick to defend him/her.

DU has had this division since day one of the campaign - first between Hillary supporters and Obama supporters (although Edwards used to be king of DU, along with Kucinich). Then there was Rick Warren, and a DLC cabinet, and TARP, and a stimulus full of tax cuts, and so on and so on.

Some people felt betrayed quite quickly. Others seemed to be stirring up dissent, as I pointed out. For a while there it seemed like we were flooded with "long term members with under 300 posts" who started OPs made up of "the top 20 reasons I am furious with Obama" and such threads consistently made the greatest page in 2009 and 2010.

I have been on both sides. First defending Obama, or trying to, and then feeling betrayed by Obama.

On either side I feel that it would be nice if both sides stopped throwing rocks at each other.

Ultimately, we need to be fighting on the same side if we want to progress.

[JoePhilly]

3. You do know he ended the Iraq war, right?

Apparently, what he should have said is:

"Mr Putin, given Bush's invasion of Iraq, you should feel free to not only annex Crimea, but any other part of the former Soviet Union that you want."

The thing that amazes me about this place is how quickly a meeting of the Combustible Hair Club can be convened.

[treestar]

29. Exactly, we are supposed to

approve every Putin aggression because of Iraq?

That was the point President Obama was trying to get around.

Using it against him this way is just Republican ODS stuff.

[JoePhilly]

50. Maybe its a search for ...

... a new outrage to replace the "OMG, Obama is collecting all our meta data" outrage.

[treestar]

81. Yes,when one fails

a new outrage must be ginned up.

The same people have done it over and over until their credibility is gone.

[truebluegreen]

68. Technically, he stuck to the SOFA negotiated by Bush

before Bush left office. He tried to renegotiate it, couldn't, and then left--as per its terms.

A bit more nuanced than "he ended the Iraq war." Laudable, but not heroic imo.

[JoePhilly]

74. In another thread today ... I pointed out some here still tell that nonsense version.

So thanks for telling it again.

In Dec 2007, Obama proposed the timeline that Bush ultimately adopted, and he called for it from then right up to the election.

Bush however, fought against that timeline, from Dec 2007, all the way up until July 2008, when he "suddenly" adopted Obama's timeline. The SOFA agreement was not agreed to until when? Dec 2008. In Bush's last days. So what was actually happening?

In July 2008, Bush was trying to take the Iraq war off the table for the election between McCain and Obama. And if McCain won, the Iraq war was going to continue.

How do we know this? Because the SOFA was only completed after Obama won the election. During Bush's last days. If McCain had won, Bush would have scrapped that agreement. We'd still be there today.

And of course, its Obama who actually carried out the end of the war ... on the same timeline he proposed long before Bush ever adopted it.

But hey, Putin gets credit for preventing war in Syria, Bush did a great job ending the Iraq war. Same as it ever was.

[treestar]

82. Oh facts,

what the heck? Facts?

LOL, soon we'll hear Pooty Poot ended the Iraq war. What a man!

[JoePhilly]

84. And that Obama started it. nt

[truebluegreen]

87. "He called for it" so he gets the credit?

Bush obeyed Obama's direction on this? And the Iraqis had no say in the matter? That is the ground you want to defend?

Your final assertion is equally nonsensical.

[el_bryanto]

4. Was it to a person?

At the time I was very nervous about the war but ended up supporting it on the grounds that maybe Saddam was close to having nuclear weapons; in retrospect I was completely wrong, though. And if Obama is saying that the Iraq was was justified now he is wrong.

Bryant

[Rex]

5. I'm curious, did you believe the lie about Yellow Cake?

What made you believe Saddam had or almost had a workable nuke?

[el_bryanto]

8. I think it was mostly the testimony of Colin Powell.

There was also a sense of inevitability about it; I remember my big concern being that if we invaded we needed to make sure we left the country better than we found it. That didn't happen, and round about the looting of the Baghdad museums I became completely disillusioned.

Bryant

[Rex]

12. I think Powell fooled a lot of people, he was the only semi-legit person

in that administration. Sad that he was willing to lie in front of the UN. Destroyed any chance he had in politics imo.

[noamnety]

48. He was never even semi-legit.

He built his career on military coverups (My Lai Massacre).

[Rex]

73. I mean among the BFEE crowd.

nt.

[Enthusiast]

120. But in that crowd of slime balls he seemed to be a paragon of credibility.

Most people were unaware of the My Lai Massacre.

[JoePhilly]

14. Lots of regular Americans trusted what they heard on TV.

The media was terrified of questioning anything the Bush administration said. So they gave any suggestion of WMDs great weight.
So lots of Americans believed it just for that reason.

Then add to that the way the Bush administration implied that Iraq was involved in 9/11. They media didn't question that, and so many folks who would be unable to find Iraq or Afghanistan on a map, assumed they were the same place. I know a guy that, to this day, doesn't know the difference. He thinks the Afganistan war and the Iraq war were the same place. As a result, he disputes the fact that the Iraq war is over. I've explained the difference over and over. He doesn't get it, never will.

[Rex]

33. Oh I remember sadly, a few people thought Saddam was the mastermind behind 9/11.

And of course Dems voted for the IWR. Scared that Saddam would fly drones over to America filled with nerve agent to be released into our drinking water. The LIES told were unbelievable...the only way the BFEE could get away with it was to have an ally in the M$M - which they did.

[JoePhilly]

45. I think the Dems in congress took a couple different paths ...

First, no one in Congress should have voted to give any President the final say on going to war with an actual invasion. That role was given to Congress in the Constitution for a reason, and they acted like political cowards in voting for it.

I think most of the Democrats who voted YES did so out of political expediency. After 9/11, the American people wanted blood. And so by voting yes, many Dems got to have it both ways. They voted to let the President decide, but they never voted to actually go to war. Doing so allowed them to play either side of the fence later. If it went well "I supported it", if it went badly "not my fault, I only voted to give the President authority in an urgent situation".

The media did the same thing. Taking action to prevent another 9/11, whatever it was, was better than daring to question, and then being wrong. So they didn't question.

I think that if there had been an actual vote to go to war with Iraq, it would have failed. That kind of vote would have had no wiggle room. So everyone would have had to vote on the merits.

I recall a discussion with the same friend I mentioned earlier. The discussion was in June of 2003, after "mission accomplished", he was still sure Iraq had WMDS, and I told him, I don't think they do, but I hope I'm the one who is wrong. Because, if there aren't any, its very bad for America going forward.

[freebrew]

54. You let the media off too easily...

in retrospect, it's fairly easy to connect the rooting for war media with the vote.
All the RW idiots were coming out and being 'listened to'. These assholes would have been laughed off the chair 20 years ago. Now, they're driving?
The media was complicit in *'s election and in all the crazy RW stuff that's happened, at least, since.

[JoePhilly]

67. And certainly, some parts of the media were complicit in pushing lies.

Judy Miller comes to mind.

I was more referring to the what at the time was the "respectable" media, which sat on its hands, and allowed anyone to make any claim, and allow it to go unchallenged.

[freebrew]

77. Agreed...nt

[Enthusiast]

122. I agree. The media not only was complicit, they are complicit.

As their propping up of the fucking RW lies continue today.

How many times has the media had lying Cheney on recently, as if evil personified deserves a platform?

[Rex]

72. Great post.

I agree I think a lot of it was political expediency.

[Enthusiast]

121. That is why it is such a crime that the Bush Administration didn't have to answer for their treason.

Their lies are captured forever in film too. And they look even less credible when viewed today.

[redqueen]

58. Thank you. I remember disagreement here as well.

I was dead set against it, but I remember there were some who were not.

[Enthusiast]

119. I tend not to believe an administration that conspired to steal a presidential election.

They also lied about intelligence leading up to 911. They claimed there was NO WARNING. But there were direct warnings of just such a pending attack. Then, Bush had to be questioned with Cheney, but not under oath. Why wouldn't they have been under oath under such extreme circumstances?

But you believed Iraq was close to having a nuclear weapon.

[el_bryanto]

125. Yeah that's right I'm a moron. Jesus I'm stupid.

It's a wonder I can even work this computer box. Frankly I think you should contact Skinner and have him ban someone so obviously mentally defective as myself.

Jesus, didn't I say it was a mistake?

Bryant

[Enthusiast]

134. I'm only saying most of us were highly suspicious of any Bush claims.

I don't mean to imply that you are mentally defective.

Millions of Americans were duped. That was the point of the manipulated intelligence and well crafted propaganda—to deceive us.

[JNelson6563]

15. Oh dear.

I am an Obama supporter but my view of Iraq has not changed. It was a horrible idea. I caught some of what the President said about Iraq and it seemed more to me like he was being terribly diplomatic and taking part of the tradition of not being very critical of a predecessor. Also probably doesn't want to call out his country or offend the military, especially those who left limbs and such behind.

Still, with that said, I still really hate the Iraq war. It nearly made me physically ill to have to support Kerry in 04 because he supported that war.

Oh, one last thought, I believe if the President were to really go to town on how illegal that war was and call out the assholes who drove it hard~~it would open up the whole can of worms on the war criminal issue which would be all consuming and probably not provide satisfactory results (or deter future fascist bullshit).

I think he took the path he had to take as President and CIC. Doesn't change my view of the debacle one bit.

Julie

[Le Taz Hot]

19. I actually think that if he were HONEST

and called it for what it was, it would lock 2014 and 2016 for the Democrats. I truly do. People are tired of being lied to and they're tired of being spoken to as if they were stupid. As someone once said, "The American people aren't stupid, they're just tired." I think it's why the fastest-growing voter registration category is "not affiliated with any political party."

I understand diplomacy, I understand tradition but at some point, there has to be honesty if you're going to hold any kind of credibility and at the moment, the U.S. has none. I'm not blaming that on Obama, of course, but this speech was dishonest and it was an insult to all thinking people.

I think he took the path he CHOSE to take and, once again, I believe he made the wrong choice.

Peace, my friend.

LTH

[woo me with science]

22. "People are tired of being lied to and they're tired of being spoken to as if they were stupid."

Hear, hear.

[JNelson6563]

32. I'm with you LTH. I understand it (the path he took) but

I don't like it.



Julie

[Rex]

36. All the POTUS had to do was say that BOTH were mistakes.

IE Iraq and Russia's invasion. BOTH are wrong and two wrongs never make a right.

[ctsnowman]

128. X 1000

[jeff47]

37. Really? You're gonna talk about honesty?

Obama: The US went to the UN before invading Iraq.
Reality: The US went to the UN before invading Iraq.
You: OBAMA SAYS THE IRAQ WAR WAS GREAT!!!!!!!!

That's not honesty.

[morningfog]

127. Going to the UN did not make the war legal.

[jeff47]

143. Actually, it did.

Getting a resolution meant that actually going to war was legal.

Lying their assess off to get that resolution is not. And there's a host of other illegal events surrounding the war.

[KittyWampus]

47. No, you don't understand diplomacy. Ideologues don't do diplomacy. And your OP isn't honest

At least you misrepresent what Obama actually said.

Intentional? I doubt it.

Some people are forever stuck in a dark box of their own prejudices.

Too bad so many also insist on posting crap publicly and find such a willing and gullible audience.

[LuvNewcastle]

55. If he wasn't going to condemn the war as he should have, he shouldn't

have brought it up. He basically said that the Iraq War wasn't as bad as the Russian invasion of Crimea because we sought UN approval of it (after we told them a bunch of lies). How many died in Iraq and how many died in Crimea? How many are still dying and getting sick in Iraq because of the leftover toxic munitions? There's no fucking excuse for either, and the people of Iraq have it a hell of a lot worse than the people in Crimea.

[tea and oranges]

62. Couldn't Agree More

This is an extension of the lie that Americans are exceptional.

This is not only total BS, but damn, it's lame. Not quite the level of humiliation GWB subjected us to each time he opened his mouth in public, but cringe-worthy. It will only have cred w/ the hacks of both parties.

If the Iraq War was addressed honestly rather than the "look forward, let Rumsfeld, Cheney, & others continue to have their bloody say" approach, wouldn't we be better for it?

[Enthusiast]

123. Thank you!

"People are tired of being lied to and they're tired of being spoken to as if they were stupid."

They can hire an army of sockpuppets, control the print media from coast to coast, control the radio and the TV, but people can still see through their lies.

Who was it that said, "Honesty is the best policy."

[woo me with science]

16. DU is thick with propaganda.

The influx of corporate/MIC line-dispensing personas has been constant and unnatural. The tactics of disinformation, disruption, and smear are consistent. It is no accident that the propaganda brigade posts new OP's well out of proportion to their presence in the community, and they demand the last word in nearly every exchange.

Everybody knows who they are. They have no credibility anymore.

[Le Taz Hot]

24. I just don't bother engaging them anymore

because you can't engage in debate with blind loyalists. There's no logic there and there's certainly no honesty and I've not time for people like that. They waste my and everybody else's time. That's not to say everyone who disagrees with me is a blind loyalist. Far from it. There are many here on DU with whom I disagree but greatly respect and admire. But as you so correctly point out, "It is no accident that the propaganda brigade posts new OP's well out of proportion to their presence in the community, and they demand the last word in nearly every exchange."

[JoePhilly]

26. YUP ... this is at least the 3rd angry OP on this same non-event.

Just how many of these distractions OPs do we need.

Or does some one think that THIS statement by the President will be driving voters in the 2014 mid-terms.

[Zorra]

91. +1 nt

[Enthusiast]

124. +1 a whole bunch!

[shanti]

136. divide and conquer

trite as it is....it's been happening here for quite some time now.

[jeff47]

23. It's absolutely amazing to me that people can't handle nuance.

Saying the US went to the UN before invading Iraq is not defending the Iraq war. It's a statement of fact. The US did go to the UN, and did get approval. That doesn't make the Iraq war good.

Yet there's a large contingent of people who will insist that any statement that does not declare the Iraq war awful is defending the Iraq war. "We invaded in 2003" is not defending the war. Neither is "we got permission from the UN".

Nuance. Democrats are supposed to be the party that understands it.

[JoePhilly]

28. This is the worst thing Obama has ever said, since that thing he said last week.

Next week, we'll get to enjoy a new "worst thing" he's ever said.

[Maedhros]

78. The President's statement was incredibly disingenuous.

It was technically correct that we sought U.N. approval, but it's also abundantly clear that we fabricated evidence to support our claim. Approval obtained through subterfuge does not validate our actions.

The statement is rife with equivocation. I can understand how it would anger a person who invested a lot of energy into opposing the Iraq War.

As a nation, we are addicted to war and violence. Realizing we have this addiction is the first step to recovering from it. Statements such as this one serve to keep us in denial.

[Harmony Blue]

31. I am just in shock

and the mental gymnastics to defend the Iraq War deeply saddens me. The divide in the party has become even larger than most want to admit.

[Kablooie]

38. It was not an honest mistake and Obama knows it.

But he does not represent himself now, he represents our government and he apparently calculated that pushing this propaganda will further our goals better than the bare truth. People have to realize that Obama can not be completely himself in his position. He has to play games with a huge number of factions all over the world in order to survive and accomplish anything. Sometimes those games require something other than plain honesty.

You're right that blind loyalty is dangerous, it's what drives the right and I hope we are beyond that.

[L0oniX]

44. They honestly fixed the facts.

[ballyhoo]

39. +10,000...When cutting SS

becomes a simply marvelous idea, that will be when the old lady sings.

[Thespian2]

40. Obama's words

"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."

He justifies by lying. Another corporate owned politician. Cheney and the other murderers will not be held accountable for their actions by this administration.

[spanone]

43. if you're going to 'quote' the President you should quote him accurately.

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 in a fully sovereign Iraqi state that can 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 decisions about how to exercise our power.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/transcript-president-obama-gives-speech-addressing-europe-russia-on-march-26/2014/03/26/07ae80ae-b503-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html

[JoePhilly]

52. The full quote doesn't pour gasoline on their outrage bonfire, which is why they don't ...

... quote him in full.

[hueymahl]

41. I can't rec this enough

I love almost everything Obama has done. This is not one of them.

The folks defending Obama on this. . . Let's just say blind loyalty and hypocrisy are the words I would START with. I'm in too good a mood to type the other ones!

[Whisp]

42. Unbelievable twisted spin.

vomit inducing.

[rudolph the red]

59. Yes

[redqueen]

60. +1

[KittyWampus]

46. What is really vomit inducing is some DU'ers inability to comprehend what Obama ACTUALLY said.

But I don't think it's your blind hatred.

Ideologues are simply incapable of seeing anything outside their closed box.

[JoePhilly]

64. The far right sees "black and white", the far left sees "white and black".

Which is how we get ...

RW: "Obama is WEAK!!!"

LW:"Obama thought the Iraq war was a great idea!"

[Puzzledtraveller]

51. It's the cult of personality

[Atman]

56. It's amazing to me that you post this bullshit.

Obama never "defended" the illegal war. He compared it to the annexation of Crimea.

I'm not "defending" Obama, either. I'm just point out bullshit where I see it.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

61. ...

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/3/27/headlines#3271

[LWolf]

65. Yes.

The hypocrisy is overwhelming. I'll add to what you've said with this:

I spent most of my life as a Democratic-leaning independent. I never belonged to a party, but generally voted for Democrats because I always opposed Republicans. I grew up in CA while Reagan was governor.

In 2000, I voted for Gore. I know that I was supposed to be further left than Gore, and that I was supposed to (and did) despise Lieberman. I still voted for Gore. Partly because I liked him, and partly because I didn't want another Bush in the WH. When the selection happened, I was pissed, and I registered for the first time, at the age of 40, with a political party. I became a Democrat. Shortly after that I found DU.

It was a breath of fresh air AND a revelation: I was quite moderate and mild, politically, compared to many I met here. When '03 rolled around, I participated happily in my very first primary, got my butt kicked, voted for Kerry, and went to bed confident that he'd won, only to wake to the news that he'd lost at 4:00 the next morning.

It's been a rocky road. I've met some really great people here, and learned a great deal. Unfortunately, not everything I've learned complements the Democratic Party that I've belonged to for 14 years now. Here are some of those lessons:

1. Issues always take 2nd place to party loyalty.

2. Politics are a lot like middle school. There's a great deal of juvenile posturing, chest-beating, clique-forming, and bullying involved. It's not about issues. It's about "beating" the opponent. No-holds barred. It's like "professional wrestling:" DU "RAW."

3. Political parties are like sporting franchises. There are players, there are cheerleaders, there are pep rallies, and there are battles; like an international soccer game or an American little league game, sportsmanship and fair play are for suckers, and the only thing that matters is winning, or making excuses and blaming others for losses.

4. Hypocrisy abounds. It's okay to attack the opposition with over-the-top epithets, attach demeaning nick names, etc., but never, ever, to your own "side." It's terrible when a Republican does it, and the right thing to do when a Democrat does. How an issue or event or personality is "spun" is the primary concern; making sure that it makes Democrats look good. Integrity is irrelevant.

5. Many DUers, while loudly and constantly bemoaning the terrible MSM for being biased, are addicts of said MSM, and cheer any show or personality showing Democratic bias on.

6. Many DUers, while laughing at Republicans for believing everything they are told, for not looking outside of their own conditioning, for engaging in group think and repeating the same tired "talking points" over and over, do exactly the same thing. They just listen to different "leaders" and groups.

Now, in 2014, and really, since '08, I am the "fringe left" of DU. My positions haven't changed any. The make-up of DU has. I've gone from being mild and moderate to the fringe without changing any of my positions. I'm told all the time that I don't "belong" here. Usually by those who didn't get here until AFTER a Democrat was elected to the WH.

[reddread]

99. sad truths n/t

[LittleBlue]

66. What Obama really said

'Our illegal invasion was way less illegal than yours, Putin'

He's an embarrassment.

[Maedhros]

79. "But a lot bloodier (so far)" [n/t]

[truebrit71]

69. The collective memory-loss that has now transformed into knee-jerk defense...

...any time the uncomfortable truth is aired is appalling...

I could understand from a few true believers, but this mass-piling on when someone dares to challenge the collective with (gasp) the truth...all bets are off and the old 'it's okay if my guy does it' memes get trotted out...

What is ESPECIALLY galling is the dismissive nature of the swarm's comments that anyone that challenges the official party line is automatically a 'far left ideologue' and therefore needs to be shunned and treated in the same manner as a freeper...

Fuck them all..

[Octafish]

70. TO. A. PERSON. Not the first time, though.

From DU2 in 2009:

Obama repeated Bush line that Taliban refused to turn over bin Laden.

Didn't the Taliban offer to turn over bin Laden to the United States?
All they wanted was evidence of his guilt in the attacks of September 11.



Unfortunately, this phrase from President Obama, first spoken more than eight years ago by George Bush,
creates the false impression that there was no alternative to invasion and war.

And that is wrong.

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over

Taliban demand evidence of Bin Laden's guilt

Staff and agencies
guardian.co.uk,
Sunday 14 October 2001 22.19 BST

President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty". In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".

SNIP...

Taliban 'ready to discuss' Bin Laden handover if bombing halts

The Taliban would be ready to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted the bombing of Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official said today.

Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

"If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added.

CONTINUED...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

Bush and Cheney wanted war in Afghanistan only to speed invading Iraq.

Next thing you know, Obama'll be honoring Ronald Reagan or something.

[RainDog]

71. Politicians lie as part of their jobs

If anyone thinks a national politician will tell the truth about foreign policy, past American actions, etc. etc. - well, I'm here to say that's not going to happen.

Because of the reality of political life, tho - this is the reason I'm a spectator, not a participant - because I can't go along with what's necessary in order to obtain political office.

I value the truth too much to be a politician.

But I'm glad others with many like-minded goals have the inclination to wade into the swamp - someone has to. A major industrial nation, however, will lie to itself and others as a matter of course. I just accept that and move on from there.

[840high]

75. k/r x100

[ReRe]

80. The sheeple behavior truly is amazing...

K&R

[uponit7771]

83. **************BULLSHIT ASS'D OP!! OBAMA IS NOT DEFENDING IRAQ WAR!!*****************

[TheSarcastinator]

85. and if you call him out on it, you are a "racist"!

Truly despicable.

[Progressive dog]

86. It is amazing to me that Obama, who opposed

the invasion of Iraq, who withdrew from Iraq, is accused of defending the Iraq war. He did not defend or justify the Iraq war.
As far as oil, regardless of the Bush administrations intent, the major beneficiaries of the Iraq oil production are now Chinese companies.
The current President, at a minimum, did not continue the war in order to place oil control in the hands of American corporations.
The bottom line, however is this--two wrongs don't make a right. At some point, the invasion and theft of Ukrainian territory by Putin's Russia must be addressed. Using Iraq as a distraction should be the goal of Putin supporters, not Americans.

[rug]

88. Some didn't join until November 5, 2005.

That's all I can figure.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

93. You're more correct than you think.

To me, there are the Bush era DUers (largely activists) and the Kerry/O era DUers (party loyalists and/or personality driven) -- two wildly different groups with wildly different agendas. I have seen that divide played out daily here, with the Bush era activist DUers doing what they have always done, which irritates the CRAP out of the Kerry/O era DUers.

Stewart/Colbert have been doing the same thing they always have.
Firedoglake has been doing the same thing it always has.
KOS has been doing the same thing he always has.
Glenn Greenwald has been doing the same thing he always has.
Will Pitt has been doing the same thing he always has.
Bush era DUers have been doing the same thing they always have.

Now all but enemies of the True Believers.

Something changed, alright, but it wasn't the folks who have been doing the same as they always have.

[rug]

94. That's a very insightful analysis.

[enigmatic]

96. Pre-2005 this used to be full of activists

Then the trickle of Party loyalists/operatives started coming in, and by January 2008 the floodgates opened.

DU used to be about activists and activism. It's now about politics and politicians. Back then it was about the issues. Now it's about party loyalty. That's why most of the activsts left or were banned. The ones who hold on here get my respect and my friendship but they are swimming against the tide here; those who think that politics and politicians trump issues and activism, especially when they cross, have apparently taken over this board.

I'll always have the backs those who fight for issues and ideals over those who filter everything through party/politician loyalty.

Always.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

98. Yes, that is exactly how I see it.

Watching the shift from issue oriented DU to Party oriented DU was a very harsh reality check for me, and one that made me realize I will always be first and foremost a Liberal activist. That's the only label I believe in.

[morningfog]

129. Shills, trolls and dolts.

[shanti]

137. and many of the first wave

are no longer here...

[xchrom]

90. du rec.

[Corruption Inc]

92. It makes the supporters of war crimes look as hideous as they are

People wonder what Germany looked like in the 1930s and how it came to be, they don't need to look any further than the U.S. circa 2014.

[reddread]

100. fashionable conservative war abettors have made the peace sign the new swastika n/t

[bobduca]

110. "the mother tongue is propaganda"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4699014

[1000words]

95. "Ayyyyyeeeee .."

[Cleita]

97. I'm with you on what you said about those days.

I'm in despair that he went there and am wondering, who got to him?

[shanti]

138. i think "they" get to all of them

however, if that POS romney was in charge now, our troops would probably be in the crimea now, and the screws would be clamped down HARD on us. certainly the ACA would not exist, and hell no, he wouldn't be even be thinking about legalizing it. "help" would only come from churches.

after finally getting a dem president, it now seems that we will forever be between a rock and a hard place. what a world...

[Cleita]

139. I dunno. If it weren't for the illegal Bush administration who changed just enough

of our system to make it impossible for any liberal in the style of FDR to ever occupy the Oval Office again, I can't celebrate the fact that Republican Lite is the best we can ever hope for again.

Hurrah Hillary next!

[Demo_Chris]

101. They also defend chained CPI, drone murder, the NSA, free trade, you name it they defend it. nt

[kath]

102. + a brazillion. thanks for the great post.

Wish I could rec it way, way more than once.

[WillyT]

103. K & R !!!

[Gothmog]

104. President Obama is a lawyer and he used a legal explanation of his position

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.

[Jesus Malverde]

109. It's navigating without a moral compass. Thanks LTH..nt

[morningfog]

111. The defenders of this are either: shills, trolls or fanboys.

At any rate, none are critical thinkers.

[Rex]

112. Ya common sense, not so much right now. All this rage.

Some pissed off people, I hope they go and vote with such passion. Blind loyalty is the same thing as faith. Never had much faith, I like facts and the truth.

People should never discuss the Iraqi Invasion as having a shred of legitimacy. That is like having faith that Saddam had WMD. Or that he had drones heading our way. Or the yellow cake bullshit, the CIA outing, that there was NO torture going on.

Most of us remember, it is sadly the Republicans that have faith in idiots like Mitt or McCain. They like to forget about all sorts of things. Liberals not so much.

[JoeyT]

113. It's not particularly amazing.

Don't you remember the runup to the ACA, when we were all united against the insurance companies and hundreds of posts a day were dedicated to pointing out what a bunch of worthless shitheels they were? Then all the sudden the call from above came that insurance companies are our friends and from that point on anyone that talked about how shitty they were was branded a heretic.

It was amazing then. Now it's just routine.

[frazzled]

114. He did NOT defend the freaking Iraq War

So stop saying that.

And let's not forget that Barack Obama was one of the few voices in the wilderness who opposed that war, and spoke out vociferously against it. And it wasn't because he was running for office. It would be a full two years before he'd run for the Senate from Illinois. And he didn't vote for the Iraq War Resolution that gave Bush full authority to invade. Here's some of what he said on October 2, 2002—more than a week before 77% of the US Senate, including some 29 of our Democratic senators, voted for that authorization to use force against Iraq. He went to an anti-war rally in Chicago and spoke out to try to get the Senate NOT to vote for it:

I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war.

...

The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without (Saddam Hussein).

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaida, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99591469

[Fearless]

116. Bingo.

[DeSwiss]

117. K&R!!!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

118. The board has splinters now.

[we can do it]

126. He. Did. Not.

read

[peace13]

130. I for one felt the Iraq invasion was an act of terror against Iraq...

...and as such the war criminals who perpetrated it should have been prosecuted.

I am also not foolish enough to believe that President Obama could prosecute these folks on his own. I am also smart enough to understand that the president was shown some idea of what would happen to him or his family should he continue down that path of investigation.

This president has had his hands tied from the get go.

Regarding his statements on Iraq. I do not agree with him that Iraq's resources were not stolen. It may be true that the US did not get them but I remember the oil being divided among international corporations.

He is not perfect, he is sometimes guilty of appearing to drag a leg in order to work with both sides but in the end.....usually he comes out on the correct side of things.

All of this being said, I feel that the disputers here who continually name call and post in hysterics about President Obama negatively impact the quality of the discussions here.

I for one do not post here as often because of the pack mentality and pile ons that happen with every OP. This Lord of the Flies mentality is not something that I prefer to witness or defend myself against. I do not see things improving at DU in the near future.

[Le Taz Hot]

131. If President Obama is compromised,

as you claim, if his family is in that much danger, then he needs to step down as his efficacy is nill.

You see people posting negative things about the president as "Lord of the Flies mentality" and I see the posters who refuse to criticize him over anything (chained CPI, the catfood commission, his refusal to replace U.S. attorneys, his support of TPP and the XL pipeline and many other things) as that "Lord of the Flies mentality" as they swarm down, en masse to cut down any dissenters. They've actually become a joke as they can't possibly be taken seriously.

Believe it or not, *I* start very few threads (my Journal will bear this out) and it's usually threads that are non-controversial. I don't even post that much. I've been here since 2001 and my post count is under 17,000 -- WAY smaller than others who seem to literally sit on this board just waiting to jump on anyone who dares to say something negative about the president and counter with 5,000 blue-links-to-nowhere.

My consternation is not only the disappointment between Barack Obama the candidate and Barack Obama the President as being two entirely different people but it's the hypocrisy that so many show here on issues that were bad when the Republican president did it but justifiable when a Democratic president does it.

[peace13]

132. Yes...it is a river of tears for the loss of perfect.

When the XL pipeline is approved I will eat my words. Until then it is a process. He works within the confines of the the parameters he finds himself.

If you think that Dick Cheney, the man who refused to stand at BO's inauguration is willing to let the black man prosecute him for war crimes.....well what can I say.

No president is without the threats from the shadow government. Only the dead ones' can speak to this.

President Obama is not perfect. His method is too slow for most. But time after time people have been up in arms about him and in the end the people have gotten some form of what they asked for. Not the perfect, I agree.

The system is broken and any one person we put at the top will have these problems.

Eating our own should be the last thing we do. And ...when we serve up the meal we need to make sure that we cooked it and not some couch sitting obstructer bent on disrupting.

Too many times the discussions here sound exactly like what I hear coming out of my own right wing family members mouths. They are not capable of critical thinking, looking at a big picture or putting their own interests on the back burner for even a moment.

Generalizing about what I said does not improve the discussion. There is a difference between showing utter lack of respect for a Democratic president and commenting on what one does not agree with him on. See my point. Disagree with the guy all you want but call outs like 'used car salesman' and the like do not improve anything.

If we learn nothing from the man, let's learn to be respectful and listen. That is all. I don't care if people like the guy. I do think people should have an accurate memory of what actually transpires ....in the end.

[Le Taz Hot]

133. I see.

My mistake in trying to engage you.

Have a nice day.

[bobthedrummer]

141. K&R#155 a LIHOP kick n/t

[pnwmom]

144. I haven't seen a single post here defending the Iraq war. n/t

[questionseverything]

145. this member is busy defending it as "legal"

questionseverything (1,240 posts)

135. not according to the people that co sponsored it





The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:
“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12.

///////////////////////////////////




Add to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Response to questionseverything (Reply #135)

Fri Mar 28, 2014, 04:11 PM

Star Member jeff47 (11,207 posts)

142. Again, it did not explicitly forbid it.





From the perspective of the neocons, that was kind of the point - it gave them a fig leaf to hide behind if they couldn't get the 2nd resolution.

Doesn't matter what people "meant to do". It matters what they did do. It doesn't matter if some people meant for there to be a second resolution, they wrote the first one so that they did not need a second resolution.

There's plenty of reasons to send W and company to the Hague. We don't need to make up more.