I am naive. I thought there were limits... places folks wouldn't go.

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Fri Mar 28, 2014, 02:59 AM - Edit history (1)

I watched Obama's Brussels speech live yesterday. Having taken a great interest in what I consider a serious Russian aggression in annexing a portion of another country under military threat, I wanted to hear what he said.

It was mostly a boring speech full of eye-rolling moments, but when the President is acting as diplomat-in-chief it is hard to keep things real. Fair enough.

The section referring to Iraq was really... bad. I cringed to think what would happen on DU. I had opinions about it but did not feel like posting about it yesterday.

Then today it really started up. And joined in.

I expected a lot of hate from some usual suspects, and a lot of parsing and whistling past the graveyard and double-talk from others.

And saying Obama was in a difficult position and trying to put the best face on things is fine. I am down with that. I do not seek opportunities to criticize the man. And since I seriously have issues with the folks pumping Russian propaganda about Ukraine, and am on Obama's side on this issue, and I didn't feel like being associated with anyone being triumphant about the whole "because Iraq" Putin apologia thing.

Yes, there would be some defense, deflection and even (in extreme cases) staunch refusal to acknowledge the meaning of basic words in a transcript. But several thoughtful sympathetic worth-reading things were written about why Obama said what he said Good posts, even if I disagreed in places.

But I honestly did not expect anyone to treat the matter like just one more incident to be white-washed and shouted down... for anyone to minimize Iraq, to put it in "perspective," to dismiss it, to treat the Iraq War like just another issue to be spun. I didn't expect to see a tone of poor babies didn't get their peace pony because only a sniveling troll could plausibly be upset about Obama pointing out some of the not-so-bad parts of a huge moral crime.

And Isurely did not expect to see anyone actually defending the diplomacy (sic) involved in the run-up to the war, or the aims or conduct of the war itself, merely in order to maintain a position that everything Obama has ever said is RIGHT, or to contend against the other "side."

But there were. And I want to note the irony. The reason Obama is in the White House today is that the Iraq War was utterly wrong. Pillar to post. Every jot and tittle. Wrong. Monstrous. Horrific. Stupid. Tragic. Insane. Crooked.

To see Obama defended by revising the history of the Iraq War, by soft-pedaling its seriousness, by slurring people who object... that is in some dark place well beyond mere irony.

And this isn't some "Only Nixon could go to China thing." It isn't that Obama, as someone who opposed the war, is better positioned to say it wasn't 100% bad. He is horribly positioned to say that because his whole credibility is tied up with knowing that even if he didn't say it, that surely Obama knows that what we did was not just a "stupid war," but was an immense moral crime.

So it is alarming and disillusioning even outside the sphere of perma-bashers. It isn't just another football to kick around.

It is the Iraq F'ing War. And for Americans it should be "never again." And that means not letting it drift into some historical grab-ass zone.

It is Iraq. It is more important than "sides." And we have not, in fact, always been at war with EastAsia. And there is nothing good, double-plus or otherwise, about pretending that Obama did not defend elements of the US conduct of the taking of Iraq that really ought not be defended.

It does not make him a bad man.

But it is dangerous, morally dangerous, to be blasse about that speech. Yes, there are solid reasons for it, but not sufficient reasons. And yes, some folks have been hyperbolic in their criticism of it.

But it is IRAQ, dammit. It is beyond mere politics and games and sides.

[Squinch]

1. Kick.

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. Links please

But I did not expect that there would be, could be anyone willing to actually defend the diplomacy (sic) involved in the run-up to the war, or the aims or conduct of the war itself, merely in order to maintain a position that everything Obama has ever said is RIGHT, or to contend against the other "side."

This is the nub of the issue. I don't know if you're wrong or right about it. I'd like to find out. If you're not just writing clever essays, but actually making a point about the board, this particular claim - the central claim of your post - should be supported with evidence. Perhaps it's there. Like I said, I don't know. Is it there? Let's see it.

[2banon]

8. The nub of the issue is evidenced in numerous threads on this site in the past 12 hours.

it really shouldn't be hard for you to find them. posting links to each one would be extremely time and labor intensive, and it would be against the rules for "calling out".

If you haven't seen them, be thankful and move on.

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. I reject that wholly...the claim is specific and the evidence for it should be as well

It's not a "general sense" that people are objecting to a certain poster's post, or that posters are generally defending Obama's statement. One can defend Obama's statement without defending the diplomacy or conduct of the Iraq War, both of which, I might add, were a horror of first magnitude. No, this is a specific statement: POSTERS are DOING X. It is certainly not to much to ask to show just that. it is the central claim of the OP's post. Is it even true? Is it even TRUE? I don't know. Maybe it is, maybe the poster is talking shit. I don't know. I'm asking for evidence for somebody's central claim in an argument. That's basic reasoning in a civil society.

[CJCRANE]

12. Good point. It turns it from a thoughtful OP

to one with a contrived, unnecessary and untrue call out of other DUers.

[2banon]

14. It's quite true, and too numerous to count.

I don't personally feel inclined to indulge any provocation to call out du'ers that the OP is speaking to. Again, given that you and I and the OP are in agreement on the Iraq War question as regards illegality and morality, among other things.. be happy you have been spared reading comments/opinions from the defenders of the Iraq War..

[CJCRANE]

16. I agree with the previous poster. I haven't seen the type of comments

that are referenced in the OP.

[2banon]

17. Be thankful you've been spared... n/t

[CJCRANE]

20. I doubt I've been spared. I've read all of the OPs about this issue

that I can find and not seen a single comment like that.

[2banon]

23. hmm. interesting.

[CJCRANE]

24. It's not that interesting. I read DU for a hobby and I haven't seen

any of the numerous examples that you mention.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. The OP made a claim...if posts proving it are "numerous," then supporting it shouldn't too hard

Whether we agree on the Iraq War is immaterial. We don't agree that the OP's claim is true and supported with clear evidence. You seem to believe that based on general atmosphere. My standard is higher: I'd like to see actual evidence supporting the claim.

I'm not denying that the claim is accurate. Maybe it is true (in which case, it would be shameful, to be sure), maybe it is the OP talking a lot of shit and writing clever essays. I don't know. I'd like to see these posts that the OP is complaining about and judge for myself.

[cthulu2016]

21. You are very concerned with defending non-existent people

If these people do not exist then nobody is called out, so you are defending what? The honor of DU? Or the honor of your "side"?

Either way, it's of evident concern to you but not to me.

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. I'm not defending anything: I'm asking you to substantiate your argument

I like to see evidence and judge if an argument is accurate, plausible, etc. You made a claim and appear unwilling to support it. Maybe you're right. Maybe there are people doing what you say. Maybe there aren't, and you're just talking shit for some reason. Don't know at this point.

My request that you actually provide evidence for the major claim in your essay has been up there for awhile now, and now you're responding directly. Fine, fair enough. You don't want to support your claim. Great . But people should certainly read your little essay in that context: the essay in which the OP is unconcerned about actually proving his point.

You say "People are Doing X, and I'm Really Surprised and Disappointed at That."

Somebody shows up and says "Really? Show me people doing that."

You're unable or unwilling to do so. Fine with me, but it makes your point seem pretty piddling if you can't (sorry, "won't&quot support it.

[jeff47]

37. Then you'd have no problems supplying links. (nt)

[cthulu2016]

59. Links to YOUR posts claiming the 2002 resolution authorized the war?

[jeff47]

70. Nope, links to the ones defending the Iraq war.

You are claiming they're all over the place, so surely you can find one.

Though it's rather odd you're desperately changing the subject instead. Almost like you're shoveling bullshit.

[sabrina 1]

43. I have just experienced what the OP is talking about. I was just told here on DU that Bush/Cheney

went to war legally. Totally ignored, or not known, or conveniently forgotten is that Bush/Cheney could claim that EXISTING RESOLUTIONS were enough to allow them to invade Iraq. And also forgotten was the fact that Bush/Cheney, unwilling to wait for a new resolution, which would have made it legal, knowing they might not get it, took to threatening the UN and then went off to invade, illegally, a sovereign nation all based on LIES.

By 18 March 2003, the US was making clear to UN member states that, "Given the current highly charged atmosphere, the United States would regard a General Assembly session on Iraq as unhelpful and as directed against the United States". UN members were also warned that: "the staging of such a divisive session could do additional harm to the UN".[50]

Bullies, liars, criminals, torturers which not a single person on this site doubted back then.

To find myself re-arguing this horror on DU against the very arguments I got from right wingers back then, is something I never thought I would see.

The OP is correct, something very wrong is going on here when Bush/Cheney are being defended for that horrible crime which as the OP stated was one of the main reasons Obama won the 2008 election. Because he was the only candidate left who had opposed it.

[malokvale77]

90. Same as it ever was?

It is hard to see this being defended here on DU. Strange times we live in.

[pnwmom]

22. If it's too time and labor sensitive for you, it's even more so for those of us who don't believe

there have been posts like that.

I'm not going on a wild goose chase on your say so.

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. These posts are EVERYWHERE

So it's too hard to find any right now.

[jeff47]

36. Then you'd have no problem supplying links. (nt)

[sabrina 1]

44. There you are, right on time. Would you care to provide some links to the conversation

we just had where you argued Bush/Cheney's justification for that massive crime?

By 18 March 2003, the US was making clear to UN member states that, "Given the current highly charged atmosphere, the United States would regard a General Assembly session on Iraq as unhelpful and as directed against the United States". UN members were also warned that: "the staging of such a divisive session could do additional harm to the UN".[50]

Where they threatened the UN that if they dared to hold a session to decide whether or not a new resolution could be passed, 'harm would be done to the UN'. From the link I provided you with. Proving they refused to wait, as I stated, to 'try to make it legal'.

[questionseverything]

76. according to him it was "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.
///////////////////////////////////////

history being rewritten before our eyes

[sabrina 1]

101. Amazing, isn't it? Even Colin Powell doubted the legality they were claiming.

But here we are now arguing against the Republican talking points defending that massive crime once again. But this is what happens when no clear message has ever been sent, that the US will not tolerate crimes committed by even its top elected officials.

That abandonment of the rule of law opened the door for everyone to attack the US any time, as it has regarding Russia, it points fingers at any one else, claiming that the 'US will not tolerate invasions of small nations by other powerful nations'. To think they did not expect to hear about our own invasions after making such a statement, makes you wonder 'whose ideas are these, who is advising this president'?

It also opened the door to try to DEFEND that crime and continue to try to argue the same old Republican talking points whereas prosecutions and investigations would have closed both those doors and some of our Moral Authority would have been restored.

[Kali]

3. damn

Last edited Thu Mar 27, 2014, 09:26 PM - Edit history (1)

well it is mostly a good post, too bad you made that specific claim and won't back it up

sigh. the rest was good though.

[Autumn]

4. It is Iraq. It is more important than "sides."

Who takes the side of the innocents? Dead and living. Bush didn't, he caused it. Obama didn't, he justified it.


Recommended.

[ProSense]

5. The President

To see Obama defended by revising the history of the Iraq War, by soft-pedaling its seriousness... that is in some dark place well beyond mere irony.

It is the Iraq F'ing War. And for Americans it should be "never again." And that means not letting it drift into some historical grab-ass zone.

...did not revise history. At this point it's simply piling onto a flawed spin. I mean, you posted this yesterday:

It is spin to say Obama defended the Iraq War and it is spin to say he did not. "The Iraq War" is a broad rhetorical category.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024734885

[cthulu2016]

7. If by "yesterday" you mean today, yes.

And that is consistent with what I said in this OP.

Obama did not "defend the Iraq War."

That would have been utterly unimaginable.

But he dragged some elements of the Iraq War into the bullshit zone... he laid a little nuance on the thing, around the edges. He defended elements of it in relative terms as flawed but better than what Russia does...

And he really shouldn't have.

IMO.

[ProSense]

11. Your

But he dragged some elements of the Iraq War into the bullshit zone... he laid a little nuance on the thing, around the edges. He defended elements of it in relative terms as flawed but better than what Russia does...

And he really shouldn't have.

...comment is simply not supported by the President's statement.

[cthulu2016]

13. As you wish.

[truebrit71]

19. Shouldn't you be accusing random people of racism right now?

Especially if they disagree with the Bullshit Artist In Chief...?

[sabrina 1]

45. He stated that the Bush/Cheney gang at least 'tried to make it legal'.

No, they did not. They bullied the UN into not holding a session that could have made it legal, and claimed, wrongly, that existing resolutions covered them. A claim that has been slammed by almost every International Legal Authority on the resolutions they used to create the appearance that their massive crime was legal. And how anyone could forget this is beyond belief.

[ProSense]

74. No, he did not. n/t

[Scuba]

6. Kick.

[2banon]

9. Happy to see this. We've disagreed on another geopolitical matter, but in complete agreement with

you here.. Thanks for addressing this issue in a very cogent, and responsible manner.

[rhett o rick]

15. President Obama is in a tough position, but that's no excuse. Russia is taking advantage of

the fact that we lost any claim to moral high ground after the Iraq debacle. We cant get away with pretending it didnt happen. Can you imagine if at the Nuremberg Trials if someone suggested that they should just move forward and put the past behind them? And before I am pilloried, I am not comparing Pres Obama to Nazi's, I am using the horror of the Germans war crimes as an example that we cant put war crimes behind us. After the war ended we tried the war criminals. After the end of the Bush horror we need to see that the war criminals get tried. Just because we are the biggest dog on the block, doesnt mean we are immune to justice. I understand why Pres Obama doesnt want to get into the war crimes, but IMO we can not heal until we do.

[cui bono]

34. Too bad he didn't prosecute the war criminals.

Then he could say we had a transgression and we dealt with it by prosecuting war criminals. Same thing will happen to you Putin. So there.

[jeff47]

38. Yes, clearly Russia should be allowed to invade anywhere until Bush is tried.

[rhett o rick]

40. No one is saying that. How dishonest of you to even suggest such.

Apparently you cant deal with the discussion so you have to attempt to put words into the mouths of others.

By the way, what do you suggest we should do about Russia?

[jeff47]

41. Well, you are.

Russia is taking advantage of the fact that we lost any claim to moral high ground after the Iraq debacle. We cant get away with pretending it didnt happen. (...) After the end of the Bush horror we need to see that the war criminals get tried.

Why would the lack of moral high ground mean Russia can "take advantage" and invade?

If they can't "take advantage", then why would the moral high ground be relevant when Obama says "you have to go to the UN first, and you can't annex"?

Yes, people should be going to the Hague over the Iraq war. Doesn't mean we can't object to the invasion of Crimea.

[sabrina 1]

46. It kind of puts us in the same position we are claiming Russia is in, doesn't it?

And what country has Russia 'invaded' again? Crimeans chose to annex themselves to Russia. That is their right as a people. Who are WE to tell others what is good for them or not?

Did the Iraqis get to vote for the invasion that destroyed their country? Airc, bombs were dropped on them without anyone asking them if that is what they wanted.

How many Crimeans have been bombed so far? Even the most anti Russian observers have acknowledged that the Crimeans chose to be annexed to Russia. And now we are presuming to tell them they cannot decide their own futures?

This is not going to work out well for the US.

Btw, I thought we were not involved in that whole affair at all? Now I see Congress taking more tax dollars to 'invest' in yet another nation? Did we the people have any say in this? And who gets to profit from this latest 'investment' of billions? I thought we had NO MONEY even for school lunches?

Who benefited from the Iraq 'investment' of our tax dollars?

[rhett o rick]

58. We can and should object. We certainly should advocate doing the right thing.

But we should not use ourselves as an example of a nation that has done the right thing. Iraq was wrong and it shouldnt be portrayed as less than a horrific blunder.

[G_j]

25. it was a moral crime

exactly right!
And in the opinion of many, an international crime against peace.

[unblock]

27. iraq is the *only* reason obama is president?

i think that's quite a stretch.

[tkmorris]

29. Only? Probably not

But a damned good (if entirely theoretical and impossible to prove) argument could be made that without it he does not win.

[unblock]

30. well that's a rather different question.

in any event i would argue that shrub's lame economy had a larger effect.

all in all, shrub was such a horrendous president on so many levels that republicans stood no chance.

[dawg]

39. Yes, but without Iraq, does he beat Hillary in the primaries. That's the question.

Lot's of folks held her IWR vote against her.

[sabrina 1]

47. One of the main reasons, certainly one of my main reasons for supporting him.

[cthulu2016]

53. Do you believe that Obama would have beaten Hillary if

he had voted for the IWR? (He wasn't in congress at the time, but substitute whatever would be equivalent.)

In Democratic party in 2008 Iraq was big, and Obama was the only plausible candidate running (sorry Kucinich and gravel and whoever) who had not supported the war in some notable way.

In fact, it was so big that my argument throughout the winter of 2007-2008 that Iraq would not be the biggest factor in the general election was considered craziness. (I said that by Novemeber 2008 the economy would be the only issue. Sorry to have been right about that one!)

I believe that Obama or Hillary would have beaten McCain, which takes nothing away from Obama. Both his campaigns have been truly excellent. Best I've seen.

[unblock]

57. i think people make far too much of the difference there.

hillary's iwr vote was widely seen as a calculated political move to avoid alienating the "independents" and to remain viable in the general. it seemed to be the politically safest move at the time, especially given her strategy of mounting a primary campaign of inevitability. she didn't expect a strong primary challenge given her crazy fundraising so she was always playing to the general.

i don't think many people honestly believe that hillary would have sought war in iraq had she been president at the time, so her "support" for the iraq war was cynical at worst.

i appreciate the symbolism of supporting the candidate without dirty hands in this regard, but i don't think this was as big a factor as you claim. certainly not so big as to exclude all others.

[Maedhros]

85. "hillary's iwr vote was widely seen as a calculated political move"

Precisely why I don't like Hillary. If there was ever an issue that should have risen above "calculated political moves", it was Bush's initiation of a nakedly illegal and immoral war.

Those who would lead need to make courageous stands in these instances, not political calculations.

[malokvale77]

92. ^^this^^

¨Those who would lead need to make courageous stands in these instances, not political calculations.¨

I´m thinking of LBJ on the civil rights act. That was courageous.

When one´s own political future seems to trump that which is best for the general welfare of the nation, the nation and the world will suffer.

[Maedhros]

103. If there is one thing the Democratic Party is missing, it's political courage.

Always "keeping their powder dry", but never using it.

[mike_c]

31. hear, hear!

Very well said.

[GeorgeGist]

32. Shock and Awe ...

[840high]

33. k/r

[cui bono]

35. Well said. Anyone who defends the lead up to the Iraq War should be embarrassed

and has no business posting anything about politics.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

42. That's right! No less than 100% pure anti-Americanism should be allowed!

Saying "the US invasion was a mistake, but it wasn't... the holocaust!" or "the US invasion was a mistake, but it wasn't... decades of slavery!", or basically anything where the US isn't considered the worst of all possible countries in all possible times, so morally degraded that it can't point out any other action and call it wrong, well those people shouldn't be posting anything about politics.

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

[sabrina 1]

48. So you supported Bush/Cheney's invasion of Iraq?

[TroglodyteScholar]

50. Did President Obama declare the Iraq war a mistake in this speech?

Did I miss something?

[cthulu2016]

51. What could possibly move you to say such horrible things?

This is was the OP is about... that there are people here trying to reconsider Iraq as somehow not that big a deal. Mistakes were made. Not like it was the holocaust or anything.

Why would you ever feel called upon to talk like that?

Yes, Iraq is not the holocaust, but neither is Rwanda.

Do you have this thing where you run into people who think Rawanda was really bad and they are getting on your last nerve because your tired of people whining and moaning about Rwanda so you just have to set them straight and say it isn't like it was the holocaust or something?

This is your deal? Speaking truth to powerlessness?

Iraq was much more than a "mistake."

[ConservativeDemocrat]

62. Because I live in the real world

The real world, unlike the imaginations of extremist ideologues, is not black and white. It is a million shades of grey. While I was against the Iraq war from the start, it was for a purely nationalistic reason: there was no benefit to the U.S. from it, it clearly cost us all the good will built up from the Clinton administration, and the idea of a no-cost war was straight out of the fever-dreams of Rove's "making our own reality" based community. Yet even still, anyone who is even remotely rational about this issue needs to acknowledge that there are Kurds named "George Bush" because their parents named them such after the invasion, Iraq's child-mortality has plummeted since when the Ba'athists were stealing nearly all its resources, and, plagued as it is by both crime and terrorism, Iraq's population is up, and the number of deaths from political and economic violence are down from where it was before the invasion.

Yes, grownups do measure horrible events against each other, and make judgements about which is worse. This is especially true in the matter of international politics. Every single modern U.S. president has to receive visitors from various overseas conflicts, listen carefully as ongoing oppression and atrocities by some tyrant are listed, and then look the representatives straight in the eye and say "I'm sorry, but the U.S. military is not going to get involved saving you from this". North Korea is but only one example.

It's interesting that you bring up Rwanda, as one of President Clinton's greatest regrets is that he didn't use force there earlier. That was a mistake too. Just in the other direction.

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

[Maedhros]

86. You only oppose wars because of "purely nationalistic" reasons?

No concern at all for the human suffering they cause?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

88. Before you send some farm kid off to die, make sure he's protecting the U.S.

We can't solve everyone's problem for them.

And "Internet Hard Man"?!? What kind of lame attack is that? Go home troll, you're drunk.

Here's a poster far more in tune with the facts(*):


(*) Mostly. Communism was such a bad idea, it largely collapsed by itself.


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

[Maedhros]

89. Nah, I'll just put you on ignore.

If I want to read Conservative bullshit, I'll go to some other site.

[malokvale77]

93. Yah...

we seem to have a lot of that conservative bullshit here lately.

It is very difficult to convince people to vote for Democrats when this kind of crap is embraced.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

98. You have it exactly reversed

It's very difficult to convince people to vote for Democrats when people who claim to be Democrats embrace anti-Americanism.

Yes, the United States indeed makes mistakes. Bad ones. And Bush clearly was one. But blame-America-first blame-America-always negative nationalism doesn't sell anywhere except the fringe left.

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

[malokvale77]

99. Well have it your way

If you think Americanism = Conservatism as your moniker implies.

We will soon see how upcoming generations feel.

By the way, Democrats are not conservative by definition.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

100. There are more Conservative Democrats than Very Liberal Democrats in the party

And I don't expect you to believe that, so I'll go ahead and post a poll which proves it:



There are 16% Conservative Democrats. The kind of people who post in the D.U. are typically "Very Liberal". They represent only 10% of the party. So your definition is flat out wrong.

Neither do I think "Americanism = Conservatism". That's a strawman you've invented. There are plenty of pro-American liberals. Hell, I think it should be patently obvious that Nanci Pelosi is one as is President Obama. They both hold positions more liberal than I have, but I support them anyway. Always have. I'm a hell of a lot more flexible than most of the kook Naderite posters here.

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

[cui bono]

52. Wow. So you think our illegal invasion of Iraq was fine then?

You have no problem with the US killing 100,000 innocent Iraqis? Sending our troops on a mission for oil and money and getting thousands of them killed for that, for profits?

Do you think that anyone who thinks the Iraq War was legitimate is paying attention to politics? The only people I know who think it was legitimate and think they pay attention to politics and current events are Faux News viewers.

Just where did you get that I said "No less than 100% pure anti-Americanism should be allowed!"? Hm? Please provide some citation that I said that.

[cthulu2016]

55. Amazing, right? Like only anti-American types could make such a big deal out of the Iraq War.

[TroglodyteScholar]

49. Thank you for the thoughtful post n/t

[Skittles]

54. we should have done to the Iraq war what repukes did with Benghazi

instead, we did nothing, and NOW get excuses for it - fucking pathetic

[BeyondGeography]

56. Iraq led to Speaker Pelosi and President Obama

Benghazi will lead the GOP nowhere.

But don't let me get in the way of a good pity party.

[Skittles]

63. OMG

LOLOL - are you fucking kidding me??? THAT has got to be the worse meme YET!

The GOP got nowhere BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING THERE......you would say THAT about the Iraq war? Actually, you just might.

[BeyondGeography]

64. Says the poster who admires the GOP for its Benghazi strategy

Oh. I'm wounded.

[cui bono]

67. Not the strategy, but the action of investigations.

I think you missed the point.

[BeyondGeography]

68. There is no constructive point to anything related to Benghazi, it's a full-on loser

"Investigations" that are perceived as nothing more than political stunts are losers. Most investigations, for that matter, are perceived as political stunts.

Moreover, Democrats did much better with Iraq to beat Bush and the Republicans at the polls than to try to impeach Bush and imprison Cheney. Which they did.

[Skittles]

75. you COMPLETELY missed the point

it sailed right over your head

[BeyondGeography]

78. Haha, yeah

Airball, Skittles. Just stop already.

[malokvale77]

95. It usually does (nt)

[Skittles]

71. LOL

using your reasoning skills, war is good because it produces politicians! Done here.....NOT worth my time!

[cui bono]

66. I just had someone saying we shouldn't prosecute war criminals because impeaching Clinton

ended up being bad for the GOP! As if they are even close to being the same thing. They said prosecuting war criminals was just revenge and was futile.

[BeyondGeography]

69. Maybe first you could identify where any U.S. Administration has been tried for war crimes

And then tell us how that worked out.

[cui bono]

77. Why are you limiting it to US Administrations?

[BeyondGeography]

81. The correct answer is it has never happened

And the perpetually malcontented here consider Obama to be some sort of sellout because he didn't do what has never been done.

Yes, in the bowels of a near Depression, he was supposed to make prosecuting his predecessor for war crimes a priority.

It's just one political death wish after another in this little convo, isn't it?

[cui bono]

82. Why has it never been done?

Was there ever a clear cut case such as this?

And how do you think letting Nixon slide worked out? That pardon is a big reason those war criminals were in and around the White House during BushCo.

But I guess we should just get rid of our entire judicial system then, since the rule of law means absolutely nothing.

[BeyondGeography]

83. Don't forget, Nixon let LBJ slide, if you want to play the war crimes game

Not that he was so inclined but the first time it is done, it will always be done. Think of it as a path of mutually assured destruction that no one dares take. For a reason; every President has to exercise military power at some point and there's always someone on the other side who will take extreme exception:

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/01/21/republican-house-candidate-calls-president-obama-executed-war-crimes.html

[cui bono]

84. The Iraq War was not merely exercising military power. You're missing the entire reason it was a war

crime. We invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. BushCo lied about that. They fabricated evidence. They used torture. And much more...

And if the R's think they can call any military action at all a war crime then they will be hurt by their foolish ventures. But the constitution should be worth prosecuting over even if some people are afraid that someone later down the line will attempt to abuse it.

Not prosecuting is being an enabler and minimizing and distorting it in a speech as was done is bringing it closer to becoming accepted as no big deal.

[Skittles]

72. I refuse to engage these folk past a couple of posts

it's just not worth it - the critical thinking skills simply are not there

[malokvale77]

96. Critical thinking doesn´t seem to be one of their better skills

It may not be worth it, as far as educating goes, but it is as cheap as entertainment gets.

[bigwillq]

73. Check yourself: Speaker "Impeachment is Off the Table" Pelosi

What great leaders we have.

edited

[BeyondGeography]

79. I love you kids, envying failed Republican tactics

Political geniuses all.

[malokvale77]

94. Those that have spoken out...

have been told to stfu and been thrown under the bus.

I agree, it is absolutely worthy.

[NuttyFluffers]

60. blasé. and welcome to sobering disillusionment.

its clarity is very useful, i might add.

[L0oniX]

61. The Iraq war was mass murder IMO.

[malokvale77]

97. Yes it was IMO.

[pscot]

65. Now you know.

[Gothmog]

80. 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. President Obama did mention in his speech that he opposed the war but it would have hurt the legal argument he was making to go into why he opposed and such opposition would not have been relevant to the legal argument that President Obama was making about the Russian annexation of Crimea.

I personally hate bush, cheney, rice and rumsfeld for lying to the US about the reasons for Iraq. I was opposed to the invasion at the time and was monitoring this board for those discussions.

However in his speech in Brussels, President Obama did not defend the war in Iraq but was refuting the argument made by Putin. President Obama did a good job of distinguishing the Iraq war from Russia's actions in annexing Crimea. As a lawyer, there is a huge difference between making a legal argument and defending the Iraq invasion.

[Fairgo]

87. Losing the true base

Thank you for this thoughtful post. It reflects my position on issues and concern with the discourse. I recently joined to begin exercising my place in a community that I have been observing for years. I am decidedly left of left, but have always believed that the political soul of democracy, writ large and small, is in respectful but hard fisted debate. The inevitable cliquing has led to some colorful skirmishes of late, and the tiresome, predictable spiral of every thread into the black hole of STFU. But that's tolerable, part of the scenery. What is troubling is the ahistorical, postmodern, personal constructions of truth based on nothing more than a momentary need to be right...at least in one's own mind. It loses the connection to that fundamental democratic epistemology, based in values. If being right is the only value, might is the final response. We must have a safe place to spar with each other, made safe by a shared platform, and an allegiance to critical thinking, logic, and debate.

[WilliamPitt]

91. Very, very well said.

The period at the end of the sentence.

*sigh*

[Rex]

102. Well we see who is sincere and who is playing a stupid game.

nt.

[DirkGently]

104. We're supposed to be the ones who DON'T rationalize evil.

I don't know how people keep their personal "we are the good guys" framework intact, while simultaneously making the argument that partisan loyalty supersedes honesty.

There's nothing okay about Iraq. There's no logistical or strategic reason that validates pretending it was okay. Pointing that out isn't Obama bashing, or vote suppression, or helping the Ruskies.

That's how idiots end up supporting things like Iraq and the annexation of the Crimea.

We are supposed to be the ones who are better than that. That's who "we" are. If we're not, we have no better claim to setting policy or being in charge than the monsters who invaded Iraq based on mountains of lies, or Putin and his megalomaniacal dreams of expansion.