You have to understand the President has an extremely fine line to walk regarding Russia.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

On the one hand, knowing the nuclear armament of his adversary, he cannot use language that is too militaristic or hawkish unless he actually wants to back up his words with actions. Which could very well be catastrophic.

On the other hand, he knows he cannot appear to be too weak in the face of clear aggression and blatant violation of neighboring countries' sovereignty, actions which knowingly violate prior treaties to which both the US and Russia are a party.

Of course in the latter argument, it ultimately begs the whole "But....Iraq!" argument. Which appears to be a logical question on its face but puts the President in one hell of a conundrum given the fine line he has to walk. And you do have to understand while we here stateside are able to differentiate between the United States under Bush and the United States under Obama, that nuance loses a bit of its luster beyond our borders. So we will forever be stuck with the albatross of the prior administration's misdeeds around our neck, no matter how much we wish to shake it loose.

And so, yes, like that embarrassing family member for which we feel obligated to make excuses strictly out of a shared last name, our President is forced into the unenviable position of picking out the ever-so-slight silver linings of US debacles past just so he can remain balanced on the dental floss thin tightrope he needs to walk when it comes to Russia's actions towards Ukraine.

As many of you might be aware, over the past couple of weeks I have been very vocal and outspoken as it relates to what has been going on in Ukraine and Russia's actions towards that country (admittedly in part due to my own Ukrainian heritage). I also understand fully that in terms of a US response, military intervention simply is not an option but a forceful non-military approach is essential.

The President has had to walk that tightrope between aggression and complacency and my personal opinion is that he has done so remarkably well. I am not going to rake him over the coals making minor distinctions between our own prior misdeeds (to which he had no control over) and Russia's current misdeeds.

Nor am I going to claim he lacks the moral authority to hold Moscow to task. To the contrary, it is most imperative that the entire world hold Russia to task, no matter our sordid pasts.

[Blue_Tires]

1. Thanks for this

there's a lot more nuance in this situation than many realize...

[JoePhilly]

2. Shush ... you are ruining perfectly good manufactured outrage.

With reality and context.

Its now clear that President Obama thought the Iraq war was a great idea, that we had to do it, and that we should still be there to this very day.

Or something like that.

[mike_c]

5. that's a beautiful straw man you made there....

[JoePhilly]

6. I collected the straw from all of the angry anti-Obama OPs on this topic.

[riqster]

13. Holy gee, that much straw?

Damn thing would be a hundred feet high by now, with all the material that's available.

Just be sure to wear gloves: some of that straw is contaminated with bullshit.

[JoePhilly]

15. There's so much, they could build a strawman army, and retake the Crimea.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Because all the world is Meta and every thread is about other DUers.

nt

[JoePhilly]

39. For some on DU, the world is absolutely meta.

And yes, they do think it's about them.

[cthulu2016]

3. I agree that he's in a tough spot, but he did not advance his own cause very well

I think it should have been handled differently or not at all.

But to defend against a charge of hypocrisy buy saying things that are stunningly, coffee-spitting hypocritical is a poor defense against hypocrisy.

He should have not gone there... he should not have taken the bait to compare and contrast the two actions.

He should have finessed based on the world's perception that though US foreign policy is "continuous" it is also non-continuous in practice because Obama is not the same person as Bush.

[treestar]

36. It may not have been the smartest way to put it

and even have been a mistake, but that does not justify exaggerating to claim he was justifying the war itself.

[morningfog]

40. Exactly. There was no reason for HIM to own or

Defend the Iraq invasion. Simply say, Iraq was wrong and illegal even. I was against it. Hundreds of thousands died. We can't keep repeating these mistakes.

[go west young man]

42. Apparently even the Europeans didn't buy it.

Like a bad movie...only one person clapped at the end.

[mike_c]

4. you presuppose that it's our job to respond or play some role in events....

It isn't. There's no tightrope if we take away the supposition that we have to "do something about it." We don't.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

7. When the US, Russia and Ukraine are signators to a treaty....

...wherein Russia says it will respect Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukrainian nuclear disarmament and the continued use of a naval base at the tip of Crimea, and Russia flagrantly breaks that treaty without any apparent hesitation, then it does become something of our matter.

Not to mention that one country's bullying of its smaller neighbor is something that should be condemned universally.

[Harmony Blue]

9. Instability in Ukraine gives the Russians

a lot of leeweay. Whether this was planned or convenient that is how it played out.

Imagine if Pakistan became unstable...do you believe the Americans, Chinese, or Russians would not act?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

11. The fact Russia has long felt a need for leeway in Ukraine....

....is the main reason why what happened in Ukraine actually happened.

At some point, enough has to be enough.

[freshwest]

49. I was unaware of that treaty, thanks for enlightening me. n/t

[Tommy_Carcetti]

51. You're very welcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

[freshwest]

52. It's unfortunate we have been reinventing the wheel here on this matter. That clears the air. n/t

[freshwest]

53. And I thank you for telling your interest in this issue and giving good information. n/t

[Harmony Blue]

8. This is a dangerous mindset and a wrong

one for any Democracy. If you can't see it we will have to agree to disagree.

It is a losing proposing to try to defend a raging dumpster fire.

Just don't do it.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

10. See, I don't see what the President doing as "defending" Iraq.

All I see it as him saying our turd smells slightly less than Russia's turd.

[Harmony Blue]

17. I don't see how that is a winning argument

Putin stole more cookies than GWB isn't making people feel good.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

21. But the only remaining choice is to acquiese to the "But....Iraq!" argument.

And not only does it specifically make the President look weak (and embolden his critics, who will look for any reason to pounce on him no matter how ridiculous it might be), but it also pretty much means that no country has the authority to speak up against the aggressive actions of any other country because of whatever events past. And out the window goes the notion of international consensus building.

[JoePhilly]

26. +1

[JoePhilly]

25. Just take out the part where he says he opposed the Iraq war ...

... or that we left Iraq after he became President allowing the Iraqis to figure out what to do next.

Just remove those parts, and again, its clear ... he thought that the Iraq war was an awesome idea.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

30. Pretty much. nt

[DanTex]

12. Well said. And just to add...

Even people who do appreciate the difference between Obama and Bush internationally, whom there are many, also understand that if another GOP president is elected, we could switch right back. Which means that conceding an equivalence between Iraq and Crimea is in effect conceding that the US in the future may also decide to violate international law again, just not for at least two more years.

[KoKo]

14. You do understand that his speech is filled with Hypocrisy in eyes of

those in countries we've invaded, bombed, droned and the insurgents/private contractors we support with our tax money to destabilize countries whose dictators we installed by CIA Actions in South America (in our past) and the Middle East in our past and continuing?

This is not the time of the Cold War and before when there was no internet or global/international news available. We have Social Networks, Twitter and news sources at our fingertips with a click.

People are better informed globally. He should have more diplomatically worded that whole speech rather than trying to get into a schoolyard fight with Putin about who is tougher.

The hypocrisy of the speech when the whole world knows that our bases are everywhere and that we are invading sovereign countries and their air space (buying off the puppets to get an okay) while killing without trial or jury people who are "suspect" (wedding parties, goat herders...anyone within a few steps of a gamer's mark for the hit).

Why did he have to do this? Because he was defending ALL our war actions and those in which he is now participating. We didn't vote for Bush/Cheney. We voted for a change and this is not change. This is more of the same. He is a personally likeable figurehead but seems to do the bidding of those who came before. We are five years into his Presidency. And, this is the time for the really tough questions.

[JoePhilly]

16. So when he said he opposed the Iraq war, he actually meant he supported it, right?

Or are these "better informed" folks around the world, only reading the snippets being quoted on DU?

[Autumn]

20. Sometimes the truth can be very healing. I think a dose of truth here

may have done more good.

[nilesobek]

27. That is the best contrary argument I've heard so far.

The President is extremely likable and has done many great things. I just think he's overwhelmed by the MIC. You can say things you really believe in a campaign but when the rubber meets the road after the inauguration, things changed. He's still the best President in my lifetime (50).

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. Even if the President was arguing that though he disagreed with invading Iraq

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?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

22. In that case, Germany would have no ability to speak out about anything.

Japan, Great Britain, name your country. (Well, maybe not Canada....)

Just about every country on earth has dirty skeletons in its closet. I don't see how continuing to self-flagellate one's self when looking forward serves the interest of protecting against unchecked aggression.

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. I do not object to the President speaking against the invasion of Crimea - I don't think many people

here do. In fact I suspect most people here including myself think he should. But claiming in effect that invading Iraq was not as bad or implying there is no moral equivalency - just isn't a very convincing argument and frankly invites ridicule.

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. Exactly this. n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

28. It's a big old Catch 22

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

29. True true. nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

31. Bump. nt

[JaneyVee]

32. These lone voices of sanity are truly the only

Thing that even keeps me coming back to this nihilistic hell hole. Thanks.

[freshwest]

50. Tell me about it. This is a gem. And honestly, I've been all over the map on this. n/t

[HereSince1628]

34. Yes, unfortunately for many the obvious must be restated

but the retellings of history, the underscorings of the national positions, also tell us a lot.

And the message seem too often to be that we aren't recognized shareholders.

We certainly aren't the elite leaders, we aren't the angry adults of the Cheney years, we aren't "in sync" with the Third Way t ideology that sells the commons to get campaign support of Randian capitalists .

[Marr]

35. I completely understand where the statement is coming from, diplomatically.

And for the moment we find ourselves in, it was deftly done.

But I'm not a diplomat. For me, as a citizen, I can't listen to such comments without considering how different this moment would be if we had not invaded Iraq or, at the very least, if the Obama Administration had pursued investigations of the Bush Administration officials who defrauded the nation into it.

Obama's remarks were, again for me as a citizen, just another payment on a criminal invasion, and we will continue making these little payments until it's either out living memory, or the people responsible are actually held to account.

[steve2470]

37. here's my take on the President's speech

1- It's a speech to Russia, Ukraine, Europe, the rest of the world, and to we Americans. He's not going to abandon Ukraine in any way, shape or form. He's not going to imply that the annexation of Crimea was acceptable. He also can't be so harsh as to provoke Putin into irrational behavior.

2- There are harsh political realities surrounding it. He can't, in a diplomatic speech, throw red meat to the base, which we at DU would completely love. He's representing the entire country, which ranges from batshit insane warmonger teabaggers to pacifists. I'd say 99.9999% of we at DU are pacifists and 100% of us (except the occasional troll) think Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have been mistakes.

2- Does anyone expect complete openness and candor in public remarks from President Obama ? Was FDR completely open and candid in his public remarks ?

3- Putin has taken us to task about Iraq, so it's pretty hard for the President to completely sidestep that issue. How does a POTUS make a stinking pile of shit smell better ? One can't. One day a POTUS may denounce that complete clusterfuck and not get impeached (not convicted) for it. I think the Republicans would drum up some BS impeachment attempt against him.

4- I agree with your point about the fine line between belligerence and "appearing weak".

Look, would I love for him to say, "Yeah Iraq was a horrible mistake. People need to go to the Hague for that" ? Of course. I just don't expect to see that from a POTUS in my lifetime. If a POTUS ever says that, I'll be shocked.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

46. Well said. nt

[steve2470]

47. thanks ! nt

[GeorgeGist]

38. So much better than Crimea ...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

45. There are different kinds of bad in this world. nt

[The Magistrate]

55. I Suspect, Sir, He Just Loves The Pretty Pretty Flames....

He has been posting that up all over, with the energy of a discount Viagra spam-bot, and evidently no more reflection than one, either.

[R B Garr]

41. Great post and very informative thread responses. You have nailed the realistic tack

that Obama has had to take. Iraq is an albatross that was hung around Obama's neck. No sense in trying to make it seem like he's now a sell-out because he's had to use diplomacy to find his way around the mess that the rootin'-tootin' cowboy left behind for him. And that's why it's called diplomacy.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

43. You're right--we are paying the price of refusing to prosecute war criminals.

Sweeping war crimes under the rug comes at a cost, and a part of that cost came due in Brussels.

[Cha]

44. Many are able to distinquish the US under Pres Obama from

when bush held his reign of terror.. but too many are not.

[Fumesucker]

48. "Reign of terror" = terrorism

Obama drone strikes terrorists when they are beyond apprehension and prosecution.

[reformist2]

54. He only has to be careful, because he's not allowed to tell us that we instigated the coup in Ukrain