General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat Obama ACTUALLY said about Iraq
"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."
Fact: He is Not Defending the Iraq War. In fact he is saying it was WRONG.
Evidence: "Iraq War was a subject of vigorous debate"
The Iraq War was not supported by even the people of the U.S. and the President calls that out.
Evidence: "But even in Iraq"
When you are defending a wrong doing, you don't say, "but even in this situation"... that is total admission it was wrong. Even though it was wrong, America still tried to follow some international laws. Note that he didn't say we did, he said we sought to, and everyone here knows that seeking International support wasn't a high priority of the Bush Administration, but it was of Democrats in Congress.
Evidence: "I opposed our military intervention there."
He didn't agree with the war. Even someone who didn't agree an action will avoid making a statement like this if they felt they were wrong about it. But he still feels as if the war was wrong, so he says this.
These statements are not defending the war, but actually saying that it was wrong.
W.r.t. to Annexation, some here say we installed the government there. While that was originally true, much has changed in Iraq since then. No one can reasonably argue that what we did was the same Russia annexing Crimea.
W.r.t. the resource grab, it is true we went to war in Iraq because of Oil. The highly respected Rachel Maddow did a great documentary on this and the facts she uncovered there, I think we can safely say are widely accepted here and even known before she did her documentary. But if you watched her documentary, you will learn that we actually did not take the oil for ourselves. It was kept under the management of the Iraqi government's state-run oil industry, not handed over to privatization by oil companies, and the oil was delivered to the global market. This is not my fact finding, this is Rachel Maddow's fact-finding.
So to say Obama is defending the Iraq war is being as dishonest as a piece of shit used car salesmen.
To say Obama is saying Iraq is better than Russia's aggressive actions in Crimea is also inaccurate.
Obama is saying simply that these two things cannot be legitimately compared. And he is directing that statement at Putin.
It is not a validation of the war. It is not rewriting history. It is not a reason for many people here to disrespectfully attack the President.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
lamp_shade
(14,820 posts)
Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)Obama quote -- "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."
Reality -- No vigorous debate, Bush said he makes history and others watch.
Reality -- America told the UN that they are irrelevant.
Reality -- As U.S. appointed head of state, Paul Bremer put into place 100 orders grabbing all of Iraq's resources.
Reality -- We left Iraq's people a civil war guaranteeing death for years to come.
Here's 1 of Bremer's occupation orders, you should read it and learn something:
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/06/24
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)you;. That is just pathetic.
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)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
FSogol
(45,464 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)that shouldn't be necessary.
tiny elvis
(979 posts)
riqster
(13,986 posts)I would never buy a used car from some of the Freeperesque DUers we have been putting up with.
Thank you for a calm, fact-based OP.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and *ahem, (clears throat), others, have to take a refresher in Comprehensive Reading 101.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)It sad that some on the DU hate everything about the President.
Richardo
(38,391 posts)
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)How this whole business devolves into who's pro-Obama and who's anti-Obama.
I think the facts here are pretty clear:
1. Obama made some statements about the build-up to the Iraq war that are, if not COMPLETE bullshit, very heavily tainted with bullshit.
2. Obama HAD to make SOME kind of statement about the build-up to the Iraq war, because he was directly called out on the US's apparent hypocrisy. Yes, it was Bush the Lesser who got us into that particular mess, and yes, Obama rightly opposed it from the start. But as President, it's his JOB to respond to that kind of question in the way he finds to be most appropriate--not in terms of his own stance, but in terms of the US as a political actor in the world, past and present.
3. Obama was in the position of having to make said statement because he was taking a stand on Russia-Ukraine and Crimea. He was doing his JOB, and for my money, on the right side of this issue, but got backed into a rather obvious corner, and used bullshit to get out of it in the hope that it wouldn't distract from the larger point he was trying to make.
The upshot is that he was trying to do the right thing, but this was not his finest moment. Now, if he's neither the Messiah nor the Antichrist--and I like to believe that no one on here believes he's either--then he's human, and not every moment is GOING to be his finest. That's just the way it is.
My visceral response to the President's statement was very much like Will's. But I have to admit that I don't know that I would have handled it any better in a similar situation--especially since he didn't prosecute the previous administration as the war criminals they are. The statement was based on the reality of where we are today, like it or not, and given that reality, it's hard for me, at least, to even conceive of a "right answer" to the question posed.
So how about if we just cut the pro/anti shit on this "issue"? Clearly, some of us are pissed, while others think it was just hunky dory. But what we're NOT talking about here is any major policy change, or even any news about how Obama has handled or will handle the Iraq situation. All that we're talking about here is words--words which, while perhaps ill-advised, were intended to advance a positive goal.
To the "anti" crowd: Be pissed, but get over it. There's nothing new to see here, the President just picked at a scab, and it kind of hurts. Save your real ire for the next time he actually DOES something awful.
To the "pro" crowd: Quit wasting your energy trying to rationalize this statement. There's plenty to be offended by, no matter how you parse it, and I'm sure you can see that. (We didn't seize Iraq's resources? Puh-leez.) Stick to the fact that he was right on the substance of the entire statement, regardless of this piece of it, and don't pretend that those offended by the Iraq bit are tea-baggers in disguise. They're not.
Seriously, the idea this is a litmus test for who's the "better" Democrat is absurd.
Efilroft Sul
(3,578 posts)Your post should be an OP and required reading for both factions.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)
Skittles
(153,138 posts)the attempt at rationalizing the indefensible is truly sickening but I have to take you to task for referring to this incident as a scab - that war based on lies deserves full hearings and accountability, not excuses from Obama
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)Apologies if the "scab" analogy was imperfect. The point I was trying to make is that he was poking at an existing wound, not inflicting a new one.
Blaukraut
(5,693 posts)
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)America deliberately lied to distort and corrupt the international system.
"We did not grab its resources for our own gain."
This is patently false.
I understand the position Obama is in, and I understand what he was trying to accomplish, but he did engage in revisionism.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)She clearly pointed out in her documentary that the resources remained under the Iraqi state run oil industry and that the oil was brought to Market under Iraqi control.
I agree that the Bush Administration lied about the facts and the reason to go to war. There is no doubt that was a lie. But saying America sought to work with the world on this is not incongruent. The fact that they lied to everyone is independent of seeking approval. No one believed them, so they didn't get the approval, but that is the point you are making. Still what Obama said isn't patently false, nor is it revisionism. Too many people want that to be the case here. That doesn't make it so.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)I watched the documentary, too.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Because, I'm wondering, was he supposed to cover every aspect of what was wrong with the war in Iraq in order to not be revising it? That's what it's sounding like. The standard that this man must meet is far beyond what would be expected of any other. On all sides.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"The ones you just mentioned."
Could be one of the funniest replies on du. Just having fun. Gave me a good laugh.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)We all know why we went into Iraq. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld wanted the oil and did not care about international law. So why is Obama saying that?
Rex
(65,616 posts)Invading Iraq was NOT open to vigorous debate...the BFEE had us already in Shock and Awe, before the UN weapons inspectors had time to flee for their lives!
All he had to do was say that Iraq was WRONG and Russia too is WRONG. He did not start Iraq, so there is no reason for him to take any blame for it imo.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Gothmog
(145,046 posts)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.
GeorgeGist
(25,315 posts)Iraq was much worse. Russia didn't Shock and awe the Crimeans before invading.
Gothmog
(145,046 posts)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.
Cha
(297,025 posts)muckity muck has to twist the President's words .. and gets it wrong once AGAIN.
Cha
(297,025 posts)berni~
Cha
(297,025 posts)
sendero
(28,552 posts).... Obama's characterization of our invasion of Iraq and the hustling that led up to it, he is simply doing what he has to do.
This is a situation he inherited and he has to make the best of it. He has to compare and contrast Iraq and Crimea to justify our stance on Crimea. I don't think he is at all correct, our invasion of Iraq was much worse than what Russia has done so far, but it is his job to make a diplomatic case and he did it as well as anyone could.
I have plenty of issues with Obama's decisions, but he has no choice in this matter other than to work with what he's got.
GoCubsGo
(32,078 posts)Exactly right. And, that's the case for pretty much everything he's had to deal with, whether it's the banking mess, war crimes, environmental regulations (or lack thereof), you name it. He has to act within the law, and many things that should be law no longer are. How soon people forget...
I don't completely agree with his characterization of the invasion, either. But, I think his audience in Europe is fully aware of the circumstances that led up to the war, and that Obama was not the culprit. I haven't read or heard any criticism from them over the speech, and I suspect it would be all over our right-wing corporate news by now if they were upset by it. I think the president did the best one could do under the circumstances.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Someone who isn't putting their own interpretations and biases into play while completely distorting what the President ACTUALLY said. Bravo.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,157 posts)Gothmog
(145,046 posts)The purpose of this speech was not to make people who hate the Iraq war happy but to refute Putin's arguments concerning the annexation of Crimea and to hopefully build support among our European allies to deter Putin from invading and taking the eastern portion of Ukraine.
President Obama refuted Putin's arguments and our European allies seem to be united. Hopefully, Putin will not use his 50,000 to 100,000 troops to take the eastern portion of Ukraine.
