The reality of President Obama's Iraq claims

[TroglodyteScholar]

1) Nowhere does he excuse or justify, much less express support for, the Iraq war.

2) He was clearly trying to deflect Putin's criticisms with regard to Iraq by drawing a contrast.

3) Since the situations are indeed so different, this should have been simple.

4) To illustrate this contrast, President Obama portrayed the US as having made made a good faith effort with respect to the international community, something Russia has not even attempted.

5) Unfortunately, the specific claim made by President Obama is demonstrably false in so many nontrivial ways that the mind boggles. Everyone but everyone knows that any lipservice paid to the UN by the Bush administration was in the very poorest of faith, and corrupted by dismissiveness and outright deceit on their part.

6) Consulting the world and then going to war over their objections looks an awful lot like just going to war, which is Putin's crime.

7) The fact that President Obama chose to run with this position, and did so with a straight face, is remarkable.

8) There are any number of ways that President Obama could have destroyed the Iraq comparison without explicitly toeing the Bush administration's line. This was just plain sloppy.

9) Hence the widespread outrage. Even if all of us aren't able to put our finger on exactly how President Obama's words offended us so much--e.g. "why is Obama supporting the Iraq war?" etc--I think the above pretty much explains it.

10) While some are definitely too sympathetic to Putin's Russia, being offended at President Obama's remarks does not translate to support for Putin. Efforts to conflate the two on this message board are intellectually dishonest and necessarily disruptive.

We should all be offended, and the shame belongs on those who aren't.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Good analysis. nt

[TroglodyteScholar]

3. Thanks, Manny

When the post sank so fast I wondered if I got some bad mushrooms on my pizza this afternoon.

Maybe it's just a combination of Friday + fatigue on the topic....

[MannyGoldstein]

6. It's the headline

Too reasonable.

An effective headline forces the reader to dive in. WTF?, outrage, sex... Something like that.

[TroglodyteScholar]

7. Ah yea, not pot-stirry enough?

"A simple, 10-point illustration of why Obama hates America and you're an asshole" would have done it.

Maybe I'll repost with that title and see...

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Well, *I* wouldn't use that phrase, but...

yeah, basically.

[TroglodyteScholar]

13. Maybe I should have used some kind of tag for the benefit of other readers.

hm

[GeorgeGist]

2. 1000 words ...

[1000words]

17. Just one:

Crime.

[TheKentuckian]

4. Yup, yup

[ProSense]

5. Disagree

4) To illustrate this contrast, President Obama portrayed the US as having made made a good faith effort with respect to the international community, something Russia has not even attempted.

5) Unfortunately, the specific claim made by President Obama is demonstrably false in so many nontrivial ways that the mind boggles. Everyone but everyone knows that any lipservice paid to the UN by the Bush administration was in the very poorest of faith, and corrupted by dismissiveness and outright deceit on their part.

6) Consulting the world and then going to war over their objections looks an awful lot like just going to war, which is Putin's crime.

I agree with point 4, but Obama did not imply "good faith." He skipped over a lot, but nothing in his statement implies that. He simply stated that there was a process in place to work through the international community. Given that you acknowledge the purpose of his point, why should he have said Bush tried to game the system? His focus was on highlighting the need to work through the international community, not give Putin justification to avoid it.

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

I mean, even Colin Powell's performance was done through the system. The fact is that there was a process to work with the international community...right up until Bush violated all agreements. On that score, Bush's and Putin's invasions are illegal.

[joshcryer]

9. Objectively wrong, as Obama never claimed a "good faith effort."

In fact, Obama did the exact opposite, by using the word "sought." You see. Bush did "seek" to get international support. Bush did, in fact, not get it. Obama is quite literally saying that Bush sought but failed to get international support, unlike Libya, where the Responsibility to Protect was invoked for the first time ever.

The funny part of your post is that you spend literally half of it denigrating Obama's intelligence and orator ability. No, in fact, Obama completely demolished the argument that Russia could invade Crimea because Bush invaded Iraq.

Obama's choice to run with the position of "we must act within the confines of the international community" quite fucking literally is the best position a President has ever taken with regards to foreign policy. Quite literally Obama has changed the roadmap. No more Monroe Doctrine, no more Unitary Executive. If future President's follow his lead, the entire country will be changed for the better. (Since Clinton is likely to be the next President that remains to be seen.)

[eridani]

10. So Responsibilty to Protect means you get a shithole with sharia law? n/t

[joshcryer]

11. No. Libya is not a shithole.

It in fact voted against the Muslim Brotherhood, unlike Egypt, which has had a coup to oust the Muslim Brotherhood.

Yes there are militant elements, but they are not supported by the majority of Libyans, therefore they will be marginalized over time.

Wait and see. People can shit on Libya all they want, it's going to be a beacon of light in the Arab and North African world.

[eridani]

14. With no black Africans

Everyone knows that ethnic cleansing is the way to become a "beacon of light."

[TroglodyteScholar]

12. I didn't say he "claimed" a good faith effort.

Look at my words:

- portrayed the US as having made made a good faith effort

He was clearly on shaky ground and "using his words" with regard to Iraq. I very much liked other things that he said.

P.S. It was kind of hard to acknowledge your post considering the fact that I didn't say anything at all about President Obama's speaking ability, nor his intellect. And then you went and accused me of supporting Putin's actions, which I DO NOT (and, hilariously, something I addressed in the OP). I was simply commenting on this one point that has got people at each others throats, and you act as though I've insulted the man. Perhaps you should reread the OP, because I think you're getting way more out of it than is there.

And then we can talk about what is "objectively" what.

P.P.S. I'll admit I used the phrase "specific claim," and I was wrong in that regard. You're correct that he said we "sought." My point still works with "sought," though... still trying to paint a contrast. WHICH it would have been, had we "sought" and then accepted the rejection of the international community. This is very crafty wordsmanship on President Obama's part, truly, and I understand and appreciate the delicate situation he's in. He is defending and not defending the actions of the US government as though he is answerable for all if it, Bush's years and beyond. It's honorable. But sometimes if you overexamine something you end up saying words that come across as outrageous, even if your intention wasn't.

[bemildred]

15. +1. nt

[TroglodyteScholar]

16. Thx

I don't have a problem with President Obama. Quite to the contrary--I think he's capable of way better than what he's been showing us in the past few weeks...

[bemildred]

18. I remain ambivalent about Obama. He is very interesting.

Easily the most interesting pol of my lifetime, any race, any color, any country. I like others better, but he is the least predictable US pol in ages.

He plays his cards very close to his chest. Not like Bubba at all, for example. And clever, not pejoratively clever, but outside-the-box clever. He makes them eat their own shit, he drives them nuts, and they look the worse for it. His enemies are frothing at the mouth, and he still drones on is his professorial way. "Please proceed, Governor." I so understand that sentiment.

Sometimes, like with cannabis or LGBT, it's more like he lets things happen, rather than makes them happen. Having watched either of those two issues get stuffed time and again, it's striking to see them now just happen all of a sudden in the midst of our supposed conservative hell here, and he just sits there in the way of any attempts to stuff them again, just chips in a few more positive bromides now and then.

But you never know whether it's dumb luck or "chess". I do know it looks nothing like Bush-Cheney, and Bush-Cheney is what dumb luck looks like.

But I'm not willing to let him off the hook either. He said make him do it, and I intend to do my part.

I think somebody else dumped a mess in his lap in Ukraine, and no, it's not been pretty.

[99Forever]

19. Nicely stated.

DURec.

[madokie]

20. There are a lot of people on this board

who are not true democrats in the sense of what DU is.
I've learned to use the hide thread feature when warranted and not feel bad about doing it. Some posters aren't worth reading and we have an option for those too.
If I want to read puke talking points, hate on the President etc I'd go find another board to populate

Life's too short too play cutesie with anyone about anything.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it