"Obama is defending the Iraq war"

[DanTex]

Looks like the anti-Obama crusaders have a new talking point. So...

First off, he didn't defend the Iraq war, as in "the Iraq war was a good idea." He drew a contrast between the Iraq war and the Russian annexation of Crimea. It is, of course, a tricky contrast, since both were illegal. But what he said was technically true. We did technically try to get UN Authorization. We did not annex Iraq. Did he leave out some important facts, like phony intelligence about WMDs and links to 9-11? Yes! Is he selectively presenting the facts, and hiding behind lawyerlike technicalities? Yes! Shocker, I know, but in international relations, it's not always a good idea to be completely candid.

So let's think, why would he do this? Why would someone who got elected in part for opposing the Iraq War, and who ended the Iraq War, and who has consistently called the war a mistake, now be saying things like this? Apparently some people think that he is now having second thoughts, that with the benefit of hindsight, hey maybe it wasn't so bad after all. Yes, there really is this much stupidity in the blogosphere.

But wait, let's look around, see what else is happening. Oh yeah. Putin just annexed Crimea and is using the Iraq war as precedent and justification for his ambitions to grab old SSRs and re-start the cold war. You see, Obama is not random some idiot with a blog, he's the president of the US. Things he says have consequences. I guess some would prefer if he said:

Yup, Cheney and Rumsfeld lied us into an illegal war, so really, the US has no business criticizing Russia. Judge not, lest ye be judged! Annex away, Putin!

Maybe that would satisfy the anti-Obama crowd (actually, no it wouldnt), but it would be an incredibly stupid move.

So instead he says this:

So far, Russia has resisted diplomatic overtures, annexing Crimea and massing large forces along Ukraine’s border. Russia has justified these actions as an effort to prevent problems on its own borders and to protect ethnic Russians inside Ukraine. Of course, there is no evidence, and never has been, of systemic violence against ethnic Russians inside of Ukraine. Moreover, many countries around the world face similar questions about their borders and ethnic minorities abroad, about sovereignty and self-determination. These are tensions that have led in other places to debate and democratic referendums, conflicts and uneasy co-existence. These are difficult issues, and it is precisely because these questions are hard that they must be addressed through constitutional means and international laws so that majorities cannot simply suppress minorities, and big countries cannot simply bully the small.

In defending its actions, Russian leaders have further claimed Kosovo as a precedent -- an example they say of the West interfering in the affairs of a smaller country, just as they’re doing now. But NATO only intervened after the people of Kosovo were systematically brutalized and killed for years. And Kosovo only left Serbia after a referendum was organized not outside the boundaries of international law, but in careful cooperation with the United Nations and with Kosovo’s neighbors. None of that even came close to happening in Crimea.

Moreover, Russia has pointed to America’s decision to go into Iraq as an example of Western hypocrisy. Now, it is true that the Iraq War was a subject of vigorous debate not just around the world, but in the United States as well. I participated in that debate and I opposed our military intervention there. But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory. We did not grab its resources for our own gain. Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people and a fully sovereign Iraqi state that could make decisions about its own future.

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

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

[KittyWampus]

1. My eyes rolled listening to Obama yesterday but I knew he was walking a fine line.

I agree with you and know that any REASONABLE person would agree we wasn't defending the Iraq War.

But Ideologues aren't reasonable.

For some DU'ers it's all about keeping up the zealous facade. The eternal outrage.

Months ago, when I started trying to find an appropriate political term for the DU'ers who seem to hate Obama, Ideologue is the one that is most accurate. It explains what is going on here most fully.

So called Progressive who refuse to deal with facts on the ground aren't doing much for progress.

[Union Scribe]

2. He tried to rehab the war

Do you really not see that? He glossed over the epic waste of life and money, and ended on some happy little note that we gave them a vibrant democracy. Do you really think that's an accurate portrayal of the Iraq War?

[DanTex]

5. 1) Why do you think he did that? 2) What would you prefer him to have said?

The Iraq war is over. Putin's imperial ambitions are not.

[Union Scribe]

7. He said it because he knows the US is in a

hypocritical position of denouncing Russia and punishing them when the US never was. What would I have preferred? Oh, I dunno, a cessation of the lies about our mission of democracy for one thing. There was no reason to say that. None.

[DanTex]

11. You're right about 1, wrong about 2.

Failing to respond and draw a contrast would help Putin. That is bad. This isn't a battle between bloggers and pundits. It's geopolitics.

[840high]

30. ...^ that

[Atman]

6. He did no such thing! THINK, man!

He is the president of the United States. What he says matters, what you say doesn't, really. He didn't "gloss over" anything. Yes, I wish he'd come right out and say that Bush and Cheney are war criminals, but that cannot happen. Period. He tip-toed along the fine line of diplomacy and reality.

[Union Scribe]

8. "that cannot happen" Why?

Why can't a nation's leader admit something was an enormous mistake without the bullshit about spreading democracy, which wound up being Bush's line. You might be okay with Obama continuing that line, I'm not.

[Atman]

12. I'm not "okay" with it.

But there are political realities. I really, truly believe that Bush and Cheney should be hauled off to jail. But as a nation it puts the U.S. in a very tenuous place. What is "right" and what is "just" is often not what is "best," and that is a very sad reality. Did you ever play the game of "Risk" as a kid? Actions and words have consequences. If Obama were to call out the crimes of Bush and Cheney he'd then have to act upon it. Then he'd be open to the questions about continuing the Middle Eastern wars and our relationships with Saudi Arabia, blah blah blah. It's just not as simple as you want it to be. It doesn't mean I'm "okay" with it.

[librechik]

36. agree, Obama's presidency should have been all about getting rid of our own war criminals

and standing up for the people. Obama seemed to have the courage to do it when we elected him, but that went away real quick. I'll let history figure out why; but I have my own opinion...

[Capt. Obvious]

3. I haven't seen any actual Obamabots here.

[frylock]

27. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Thu Mar 27, 2014, 10:41 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

I haven't seen any actual Obamabots here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4734426

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Poster hops around the board with the personal insults, like this one. Contributes nothing of substance or civility.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 27, 2014, 10:46 AM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Original comment was silly, but by itself not worth a hide.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Come on now...Alerting on this? Really?

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Capt. Obvious]

29. LOL

Thanks for the results.

[Rex]

51. Wow, somebody sure is sensitive I wonder who it could be.

Hmmmmmm...

[Marr]

44. +1

Reminds me of the time I drove my little nephew up a mountain to see the view. We got to the top and he, very obviously disappointed and peering into the distance, asked where the mountain was.

[Cha]

72. That's right bring out the "Obamabots".. Just because someone has a different point of view..

[Atman]

4. Count me as one who didn't like what he said, but understand why he had to.

"You see, Obama is not random some idiot with a blog, he's the president of the US. Things he says have consequences."

Bingo.

[G_j]

9. and rewriting history is a good thing?

seems we get upset when Republicans do it.

[jeff47]

14. What, exactly, was incorrect in the history?

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

Where's the rewrite?

[cthulu2016]

16. Did you intend to claim the UN authorized the Iraq War?

It did not.

[jeff47]

18. Yes, it did.

The UN passed a resolution that was worded such that it covered invading Iraq, without explicitly calling for an invasion.

A second resolution that explicitly authorized invasion probably would not have passed. So we did not seek it. We invaded under the first resolution.

[cthulu2016]

25. Oh my... were you saying that in 2003?

I do not think the first resolution authorized the war, and any ambiguity as to whether it did was resolved by the fact that explicit authorization would have been rejected. (We all agree on that, right?)

So the argument is that the world community invited us over and was wearing a short skirt, which sent a mixed message.

We could have asked whether it meant she wanted to fuck, be we know that she would have said no if we asked explicitly.

So we just went with the ambiguous version of the world's consent.

[jeff47]

53. The first resolution authorized taking actions against Iraq.

It did not exclude invasion from those actions.

any ambiguity as to whether it did was resolved by the fact that explicit authorization would have been rejected.

Nope.

The first resolution could have excluded invasion. It didn't. That was not an oversight, the idea was to maximize the threat.

The main reason a second resolution would have failed is other countries wanted to give the inspectors more time, not an outright rejection of invasion.

So the argument is that the world community invited us over and was wearing a short skirt, which sent a mixed message.

Nope. There was consent in the form of a UN resolution that said we could do anything.

[G_j]

17. the US lied to the UN

what part of the word "lie" is so hard to grasp? You can rewrite history by cherry picking facts.

[jeff47]

20. Did the UN pass a resolution? Yes.

That's history. It passed. "But we lied to get it" does not "un-pass" the resolution.

The point was that governments should seek out international approval before launching an invasion. We did. In fact, we thought it was so important we lied to get it and destroyed our credibility on any future security council action.

[hfojvt]

10. "that much stupidity in the blogosphere"

"some random idiot with a blog" (okay that works better if the words are in random order)

I love the smell of respectful debate in the morning. It smells like, like, teen spirit.

domo arigato

[DanTex]

13. That poor blogosphere. How dare I!

[jakeXT]

15. gems like "..the belief among some that bigger nations can bully smaller ones to get their way.."

And once again, we are confronted with the belief among some that bigger nations can bully smaller ones to get their way -- that recycled maxim that might somehow makes right.

And I see he corrected Kerry with adding Europe.

that in the 21st century, the borders of Europe cannot be redrawn with force, that international law matters, that people and nations can make their own decisions about their future.

[ProSense]

19. This is going to cost us the Senate

allegedly.

[Marrah_G]

21. I protested against the wars

Not going to be a hypocrite and act like it was all good now. The Bush Administration members behind the wars should be in jail. But they aren't. They have never even been scolded, let alone a slap on the wrist. Sort of like the Bankers.

We have become a nation of some people are more equal then others and our government both Republican and Democrat have been not only allowing it, but encouraging it.

[DanTex]

23. I was and still am against them. I don't agree with what he said.

But I'm not the President. He can't just candidly speak is mind on the international stage. This is geopolitics, and Putin is really a problem. What would you have him say in response to Putin using Iraq as justification for Crimea?

[Marrah_G]

28. Personally, I would love to see some honesty in the world.

All he would have to say is that we haven't made Iraq the 51st state or even a territory.

I think the President is vastly better then say a McCain presidency, but he (and congress) are far from any sort of ideal leadership in my opinion. I still see a government entangled with big corporations and behaving as their servants. I see a government where someone is arrested for stealing a package of hot dogs, but those who steal billions or kill millions are never even spoken harshly to.

I want to make one other point to you Dan:

We need to make big changes in this country. Big changes in how governments do things are never accomplished when citizens sit back and politely nod and clap. Changes are made when people stand up and yell when they see something is being done wrong.

The Democratic party and the government in general will only move to the left if we pull them there. Part of pushing them is telling them very loudly when we think they are fucking up. Part of it is also speaking loudly and consistently on issues no matter which party is in charge.

Getting out the vote is alot easier when you have clear an consistent issues for people to get behind. People will rally behind those who are not afraid to speak truth to power.

[DanTex]

38. I agree about the big changes. And about the corporations and the stealing and killing.

I agree with all that. I just don't think that attacking the president for things like walking a fine diplomatic line in dealing with a potential geopolitical disaster is useful.

I would like the Democratic party to move to the left. I would like for them to fight harder for liberal positions. I think single payer should have been part of the healthcare discussion. I think the stimulus should have been bigger. I think Obama generally gives up far too much in negotiations to the GOP. I disagree with his proposal to downwardly revise social security cost-of-living adjustments.

I also disagree with the political strategy of trying not to offend the Republican base. I feel that Dems should voice support for more liberal policies, even policies that most Americans currently disagree with, because the only way to get people thinking more liberally is if liberal ideas are circulating through the airwaves. I mean talking about "far out" things, like single payer, or banning handguns, or free college and pre-K, or Western Europe levels of expenditure on social programs, or taxing all capital gains at the same rate as income, or taxing financial transactions. None of these ideas are anywhere in the minds of voters because they aren't being discussed anywhere.

But, I don't believe in opposing Obama so much that it clouds reason. This one paragraph in a speech in Brussels is pretty much a non-event. It is not something that should be exploding heads. I'd love to see more honesty in the world, but we're dealing with Putin who is both dishonest and cunning, and the Iraq War puts Obama in a very awkward diplomatic position as he tries to prevent a second cold war from breaking out. This is the wrong place for candor.

How about we pull the party to the left without being fools.

[Marrah_G]

40. Just remember one thing Dan

You might not like those yelling too loudly. You might disagree with their way of making a point. But please remember that they are on the same side, they just have different ideas on how to get there.

If it upsets you too much, just put those people on ignore. That's what I do and it make DU much less frustrating for me. There are people here that I cannot stomach, but I realize that they are on the same side, so rather then fight with them constantly, I just ignore them. They get to voice their thoughts and I get to not see them

[DanTex]

45. Which goes doubly for "them" with respect to the so-called Obamabots.

I don't use ignore, I like to read everything, and then voice my opinion.

[Marrah_G]

47. A long time ago I stopped engaging those who I thought were cheerleaders

There used to be a rule against it on DU2 relating to both sides stemming from the primary wars. I just decided to continue doing that here. I wish everyone on both sides would stop with the name calling of other DUers.

[DanTex]

52. BTW, "cheerleaders" is name-calling.

I used to be neutral in the "Obama wars" and I still kinda am. My old belief was that most people here felt pretty similarly to me, in that we wish Obama would go further left, while at the same time understanding that the real impediment isn't Obama but congress. That both sides were reasonable and it was a glass half full thing. But actually reading some of the anti-Obama stuff here, and the enthusiasm with which it is greeted, has caused me to question that.

[Marrah_G]

54. Yes, so I don't call anyone that or groups of people that anymore.

I stopped years ago after the primary war. There is a difference between thinking something and saying it to someone. I think many things about many different people here, but to say it out loud is impolite and rude. I wish we still had that rule in place.

And please note that how you feel about those you call anti-obama some of us feel the same way about the pro-obama people. You think that the other side thinks he can do no right and I think that the other side thinks he can do no wrong. There are probably a few people on both sides that fit that description, but the truth is that most are somewhere in the middle ground with varies views on issues and on how they they react to things as they come up.

[cthulu2016]

22. I do not like the phrase "Obama is defending the Iraq War" because it is too simple

I said so yesterday, and say so again. It is not a fair summary, and Obama deserves fairness on the point, not just a bumper-sticker level phrase.

On the other hand, I am mystified that anyone is making a point of defending Obama's not-quite-defense of the Iraq war.

What Obama said was really, really gross.

I am one of the more vociferous voices here against what went down in Crimea. It is a very serious and very bad thing that portends worse.

But is wrong to say that Russia's annexation of Crimea is a greater offense to world order or any conceivable morality than Iraq, and Obama was very wrong to talk about Iraq in that context.

Iraq was a crime of great proportion.

What Obama should have said on the particular topic, in that context, was nothing.

Or, perhaps...

"And to all who opposed the US action in Iraq, you can condemn what you see as hypocrisy, but what you cannot do is to take a view of the world that two wrongs make a right. You should, for the sake of consistency if for no other reason, be as strong in your opposition to this Russian annexation of Crimea. I opposed our action in Iraq in 2003. I oppose the Russian action in Crimea in 2014."

[DanTex]

26. I don't think saying nothing is an option.

I'd like to live in a world where "two wrongs don't make a right" would work out, but I really don't think we do. First off, he'd get severely scolded domestically by everyone except for the left. Also, I think Putin would eat his lunch after that. We did it, but we're sorry, and we won't do it again, is really not a strong negotiating position. Particularly when the whole world knows that if a Republican wins the White House again, they'd have no problem doing the same thing.

And also, I do think that there are pretty serious differences between Iraq and Crimea. I don't say this to lessen the severity of Iraq. But I think the most important thing now is dealing with Putin.

[frazzled]

31. Only he never said Russia's annexation of Crimea was a greater offense than Iraq

He was saying that all the comparisons being made by Russia to defend the swift, unilateral annexation are inapt. Whether Iraq or Kosovo or any other NATO or US action, Russia's actions are its own to own, and they cannot be justified by pointing to these other world events, which were qualitatively and quantitatively different. Not better, not worse: he is saying to Russia that the case of Crimea, a regional event, needs to be discussed on its own terms, not by pointing fingers back at anything else.

I listened to the speech, and that is what I took away from those statements. It was a response to the defense that Russia (and those who might defend it) is making of its actions: other countries have done worse. It's like when Mommy catches little Bobby stealing cookies from the cookie jar, and Bobby responds by ratting his brother: but Johnny hit the dog!

I also saw this response as the G-7 putting the onus on the US to protest Russia's annexation, because Europe is too timid. They need their Russian oil, and while they are appalled, they're too weak. Obama, as a NATO ally, was willing to take the hit for them.

[mike_c]

24. all this spinning makes me dizzy....

The war against Iraq should never be help up as an example of anything except crimes against humanity. Obama's use of it as the GOOD side of a contrast is awful. It utterly alienates people who, like me, find no silver lining of any sort in wars of geopolitical aggression against people who are no threat to the U.S.

[Arkana]

34. Where does he do that?

He doesn't say it was good--he specifically says he opposed the Iraq intervention. But he also says that we did not attempt to annex Iraq, as Putin is doing with Russia.

[mike_c]

37. let's talk about how righteously we treated Iraq after Putin kills a million civilians...

...for no good reason at all.

[DanTex]

39. How about we try to stop Putin from killing a million civilians in the first place?

[mike_c]

42. how about we keep our hypocritical mouths shut...

...and deal with our own war crimes before we invest more wasted lives pointing fingers at Putin or anyone else?

[DanTex]

43. So you are opposed to economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure on Putin?

Because this was a speech -- i.e. diplomatic pressure -- it wasn't an invasion. I don't see how not calling out illegal invasions of other countries is a good idea.

[mike_c]

46. by the U.S., yes....

The U.S. certainly has no moral authority to act against anyone for "invading" other countries (not withstanding there being clear support for Putin's actions within the "invaded" Crimea itself). Using the war against Iraq to imply moral authority of ANY sort is utterly obscene. Shaking the big stick at Putin is exceptionalist hypocrisy.

[DanTex]

48. Aha. Just so we're clear, the Iraq War implies that from here on forward,

the US should no longer try to uphold international law. Because the hypocrisy involved is such a great moral crime, it even outweighs actual crimes by Putin and others. Sorry, I disagree with that.

[mike_c]

55. classic straw man....

Straw man: extend an argument to an illogical conclusion, so that the illogic of the straw man can be fallaciously used to undermine the actual argument.

Yes, from this time forward the U.S. should not try to uphold international law.

[DanTex]

57. Fair enough, I got it wrong. So help me understand.

Why you think we shouldn't try to uphold international law in this particular instance? Is there maybe some period of time we're supposed to wait after Iraq, and that time hasn't expired yet? Like we can start upholding international law in 2015, maybe? Or maybe every country gets a certain number of free passes, and Russia hasn't used all theirs up yet?

[mike_c]

61. in the interests of being a polite and civil DUer and not contributing to making DU suck...

...let me respectfully point out that you are still engaging in construction of straw men in every single one of your sentences. To wit:

Why you think we shouldn't try to uphold international law in this particular instance?

I did not say we should not uphold international law. I've said many times that we should arrest and prosecute Americans who commit international crimes, including those who committed and abetted crimes against humanity in Iraq. I think that's of far greater importance than further meddling in the affairs of other countries. We are signatories of the U.N. Charter and permanent members of the U.N. security council. That body is the appropriate arbiter of what's necessary to uphold international law. Take it to the U.N. and abide by their collective decision, for a start.

Is there maybe some period of time we're supposed to wait after Iraq, and that time hasn't expired yet? Like we can start upholding international law in 2015, maybe?

This is also an argument by absurdity, so double marks. I've never mentioned any such "time period." I've said let's deal with our own war crimes before we go back to casting stones at others, particularly when there is considerable support among Crimeans for Russian annexation. THEY have to work that out first, don't you think? And in any event, see the paragraph above. "We" should not be "upholding international law" at all except in the context of our own obedience to it. We are not the world's cop. That's the U.N.'s job. Nor should we unilaterally push forward if we don't like the U.N.'s actions, unless we're prepared to sever our membership and acknowledge rogue nation status.

Or maybe every country gets a certain number of free passes, and Russia hasn't used all theirs up yet?

Two excellent examples of argument by absurdity in the same paragraph! See paragraphs one and two, above.

[DanTex]

64. Not straw men, I'm honestly just trying to figure out what you are actually saying.

As I pointed out, Obama didn't actually invade anyone, he simply criticized Putin for annexing Crimea. And he's led international calls for economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure. This all seems like a good idea to me. Putin annexing former SSRs is bad, and also illegal. This isn't "meddling in the affairs of other nations", it's upholding international law. And as our role as the leading economic and military power, we don't really have the choice to sit back and watch idly.

Also, when you say "deal with our own war crimes before we go back to casting stones at others", clearly this implies some kind of timeline -- first we have to deal with our own war crimes, and then we can go back to upholding international law. I guess it's not a strict timeline, but there's some kind of sequencing there, like we first have to do some penance, and until then we are in some kind of penalty box. Personally, I don't think we should let something bad the Bush administration did prevent us from upholding international law going forward, and calling out those who violate it. But that's just me.

[mike_c]

66. we will just have to agree to disagree....

And as our role as the leading economic and military power, we don't really have the choice to sit back and watch idly.

That necessity was once described as "the white man's burden" in colonialism. It's just as arrogant today as it was then.

[DanTex]

69. Umm, no, this has nothing to do with the white man's burden. Sorry.

For example, either we trade with countries that violate human rights and international law, or we don't. We can't just "not decide". And if we were, say, Guatemala, then it wouldn't matter what we decide, but we're not. So we're stuck with having to make decisions.

[stevenleser]

63. Yeah, Obama's critics here have no answer for that because their position isn't based on principle.

It's based on negative nationalism with the US as their antagonist. Orwell describes negative nationalism along with all the other kinds of nationalism here:

http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html

[mike_c]

68. repeat a lie often enough and pretty soon it sounds believable....

Read back through just my responses in this single sub-thread (or add others if you like), and then repeat the assertion that I have no principles other than negative nationalism. Please.

[stevenleser]

70. I had read them prior to the post. I think it's spot on. You attack a guy who was against

the Iraq war for being against what the Russians did ... because of the Iraq war.

That you cannot see the problem with that as you trip over yourself to attack Obama and the US is pretty good evidence of the kinds of self deception Orwell talks about in his notes on nationalism.

[Rex]

60. LOL!

[Supersedeas]

65. revising history is for those who have the power to manipulate the future

[Whisp]

32. ''Yes, there really is this much stupidity in the blogosphere.''

Great post, that line in subject about sums a lot of things up.

K&R

[Arkana]

33. Wow, that is literally the exact opposite of the HuffPo headline.

At no point does he argue FOR the Iraq intervention, he's just saying that it's not correct for Putin to use it as a precedent.

People REALLY need to develop critical reading skills.

[polichick]

35. "Anti-Obama crusaders?" Those must be the people who worked his campaigns...

and still expect Dems to fight for Democratic policies.

[Marrah_G]

41. yup

[Rex]

49. Good thing you don't see any Obamabots here on DU.

Nice talking points!

[Douglas Carpenter]

50. Even if the President's point was that the invasion of Iraq was not the moral equivalency to the

invasion of Crimea - Before one insists that the invasion of Crimea was worse - one does have to consider which invasion opened with such a massive bombing campaign that its planners proudly named it "shock and awe?" - Which invasion included blasting their way into the capital city - pretty much shooting and blasting away almost everything that was even suspected of being in their way? Which invasion ended with hundreds of thousands of civilian death?

[LanternWaste]

56. I don't think he defended it at all; he certainly rationalized it though...

I don't think he defended it at all; he certainly rationalized it though... which may or may not hold enough degrees of distinction to sooth the disgruntled souls of the overly melodramatic.

[phleshdef]

58. Anyone who says he is defending the Iraq war is a LIAR.

I'm sick of it. I'm gonna call them what they are. If I get banned from DU for it, so be it. These fucking LIARS have trolled and bloviated and insulted and twisted shit enough.

[Maedhros]

59. Hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye,

and then thou shalt see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

-- Matthew 7:5

[stevenleser]

62. I think this shows how reality challenged many of Obama's critics are

It's really not that hard.

"I disagreed with the Iraq war, but it was not as bad as Russia's grab of Crimea because..."

That, is Obama's statement broken down into its simplest form.

That is not a defense of the Iraq war. It's a contrast of two events, both of which he doesn't like but indicating which is worse.

If one fails to get that, it explains a lot of other logical fails.

[Fumesucker]

67. "It's not as bad as Russia's grab of Crimea because there was no shock and awe involved in Crimea"

[Gothmog]

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

Remember that President Obama is a lawyer and a law professor. What President Obama did in his speech was to distinguish the Iraq war from the situation in Crimea. Here is a simplified explanation of this concept. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/distinguish

Distinguish
To set apart as being separate or different; to point out an essential disparity.

To distinguish one case from another case means to show the dissimilarities between the two. It means to prove a case that is cited as applicable to the case currently in dispute is really inapplicable because the two cases are different.

The Iraq war is a very different situation compared to the conduct of Russia in annexing Crimea. In his speech, President Obama did not defend the Iraq war but merely explained why the Iraq war was not relevant to the conduct of Russia in annexing Crimea.

As a lawyer, there is a huge difference here.

[Cha]

73. Thank you for that, Goth.. it goes way over some heads.

[Gothmog]

74. 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.

I admit that I am a law nerd and was an editor on my law review. I really did not hear a defense of the Iraq war in President Obama's comments.

[Cha]

75. There's an agenda by more than a few to say it's so and therefore

IT IS SO.

It's sickening but there're plenty more who are into the reality of what PBO actually says. Thank you.

[Gothmog]

76. Look I hate the Iraq war also and have strong feelings about bush, cheney, rice and rumsfeld

There is a time and place for certain issues to be discussed.

[Cha]

77. Agreed.